Judging by today’s crazy standards on ‘gender’ issues, just about every actor, artist, director, and etc. in the not-too-distant past was a ‘homophobe’ and definitely a ‘transphobe’. Or, more accurately, 'homo-disdainer' and 'trans-ridiculer'. Even 90% of Liberals in the 60s thought homosexuality was deeply problematic. Even most Liberal publications dared not to broach the subject. Psychology department was convinced homosexuality is a mental disorder. Susan Sontag's piece on Camp was controversial(even in an ultra-liberal magazine like PARTISAN REVIEW) because it discussed homosexuality. So, there was nothing strange about what John Wayne said on that issue.
As for Wayne’s ‘white supremacist’ view that blacks need to undergo further civilizational process before fully partaking of democracy, is it really all that outrageous? After all, how is it all that different from Samuel Huntington's theory that Third World nations would do better to undergo process of modernization under iron-fisted Enlightened Autocrats before gradually transforming into functional democracies? If anything, even many Liberal political scholars came to the same conclusion. Many social scientists and political scholars came to believe that sudden democratization can actually do more harm than good among peoples who are as yet culturally and economically unprepared to take on burdens of electoral politics(that can only work with rule of law and civic responsibility). Such dictator-supremacist theory became quite vogue in political science departments. That is why many came to appreciate Deng over Gorbachev following the implosion of the Soviet Union. Deng maintained Party supremacy and worked on economic development, whereas Gorbachev favored political reforms. Russia did even worse in the 90s when it fully went ‘liberal democratic’ without the institutions and attitudes necessary for a functional liberal democracy. And after the Rwandan disaster, the West enthusiastically supported the iron-fisted autocrat that kept tight order in that troubled nation.
Denial of democracy in such nations doesn’t seem to bother Westerners. Indeed, Obama aided Egyptian military against democracy headed by Muslim Brotherhood. The idea was that Military supremacism was better than democracy in a nation that was, as yet, not ready for democracy and freedom. Also, after the debacles of Iraq and Libya, many(on both left and right) came to the conclusion that some nations are better off under the supremacism of an Iron-fisted leader than with experiments in ‘liberal democracy’. While democracy may be ideal for modern nations, not all nations and peoples have the values, habits, knowledge, and developmental levels to make democracy work. They just aren't cut out for it. In such cases, iron rule is often preferable to democracy. Indeed, that was precisely why Fidel Castro’s Cuba got favorable press from American Progressives during the Cold War. They admitted he was a dictator and that Cuban politics was about One-Party Supremacy, but they also emphasized that Cubans were better off under a tough ruler than many people in willy-nilly Latin American democracies where ‘leaders’ are are little more than shills of transnational corporations and organized crime. It’s oft-been duly noted that blacks in Cuba lived healthier lives than blacks in freer Latin American nations(and even in the US).
So, John Wayne’s views were along similar lines. There was not ONE America but TWO Americas. White America was sufficiently advanced for full democracy, but blacks had yet to attain full civilizational outlook to function properly in a free and democratic society. They had to undergo a process of modernization, not unlike peoples in pre-democratic developing nations, before they could take part in democracy.
Granted, this line of argument was somewhat disingenuous because whites had had lots of time to civilize blacks since the end of the Civil War but mainly used political muscle to keep blacks down and marginalized. But then, as we’ve witnessed since the 1960s, even with best intentions of progressive whites, liberated blacks tend to use their freedom to act wild and destructive than sound and constructive. With blacks, you can’t win. If you keep them in line with an iron hand, you are the oppressor. But if you give them freedom, they run wild and degrade society.
Indeed, even Wayne’s civilize-the-blacks idea wouldn’t have worked in the long run because black problems are less cultural than biological. Blacks evolved in Africa over 100,000s of years to be warriors, hunters, and jivers. With freedom, even civilized blacks eventually revert to their ugabugery.
Now, there may have been another reason why Wayne argued for denying blacks full freedom. Though he didn’t say it, he surely noticed that blacks are more muscular, more macho, and got bigger dongs. As a famous tough guy, he couldn’t honestly say, “We white guys will lose our manhood and our white women to the muscular and bigger-donged Negroes if we give them full freedom.” He had too much pride. But in fact, his ‘white supremacism’ was really a crutch against the threat of black supremacism. The 1970s movie MANDINGO with Ken Norton shows that black men are tougher than white guys, and white women get jungle fever the moment their eyes set upon some big Negro with more muscle and bigger dong. So, biology is black supremacist when it comes to raw manhood. Nature favors black manhood over white manhood in the thumping-and-humping department. But Wayne, like most white men of his period, had too much pride to speak honestly and say, “What I’m really freaked out is about black supremacism over us white guys. Did you see Woody Strode? I’m a big strong guy, but he’s twice as muscled and probably has a dong twice the size as mine. And that’s why we need segregation cuz integration will mean black supremacist manhood turning us white guys into a bunch of wussy white boy cucks.”
But it would have been better for the white race and the truth if he had said as much. All stable and lasting orders are based on truth, not fantasy.
Israel has approved some 4,000 new settlement units as part of a massive settlement project spanning across occupied East Jerusalem and into West Jerusalem, Israeli media reported.
Zionist imperialism demonstrates that Immigration = 'Genocide'. Mass Immigration-invasion led to wipe-out of the American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries. Mass-immigration-invasion by Conquistadors & other Old World peoples led to permanent defeat of native browns in what is now called 'Latin America'(even though it has much deeper Mayan, Inca, and Aztec roots). Mass immigration-invasion led to the natives of Hawaii losing their homeland to whites and Asians. And of course, it is leading to total eclipse of the Palestinians in West Bank by the way of demographic imperialism perpetrated by Zionist Jews with the full backing of World Jewry. The only kind of Immigration that is safe and beneficial for native or dominant folks of a nation is Replenishment Immigration whereby the newcomers are the same or very similar to the existing population(therefore, easy to assimilate). Otherwise, the grim fate is Replacement Immigration that replaces one people with another.
It seems the Fatah Party in West Bank is as useless as GOP in Congress. It is essentially controlled opposition that talks the talk but never walks the walk. Utterly corrupt and compliant with the Power behind the scenes. It made peace with Jewish Imperialists like Sal cut a deal with Barzini in THE GODFATHER.
People like Ann Coulter wonder why America can't be like Israel in controlling its own borders and immigration-policy. They fail to realize(or refuse to admit) that white Americans have more in common with Palestinians in West Bank. Both white Americans and Palestinians are now under Zionist-imperialist occupation. As the result, Jewish Caravans can stream into West Bank and take over yet more land, and endless tides of brown Caravandals can barge into the US under the political, legal, economic, and 'moral' protection of Jewish American Power. Jews want more Jews in West Bank to create Greater Israel, and Jews want more non-whites in the US to play divide-and-rule among goyim.
It's about time people like Ann Coulter stop asking, "How come we can't have a wall like Israel?" and start asking, "How come we are just like Palestinians in having no effective wall against invasion(and no effective say in immigration policy)?" Walls between Israel and West Bank only protects Israel from Palestinians; they do NOT protect West Bank from caravans of Jewish 'settlers'.
Do people like Coulter understand that the US has had only two elites? Wasps and then Jews, with most of Diversity serving Wasps in the past and Jews in the present.
It makes NO sense to bitch and complain about how current US immigration policy goes against the spirit of what the Founders wanted or how things used to be. The fate of a nation is decided by those with Power Now or Pow-Now. History matters less than Who-has-power-now.
When Muslims took over Egypt, its pagan past was swept aside despite its thousands of years of glory. When Constantinople fell to the Turks, its great churches were converted into mosques. When Japan lost WWII, its culture and customs were irrelevant in the new 'liberal democratic' order conceived and implemented to serve as the puppet of US. And, it didn't matter that Palestinians had been in the Holy Land for 2,000 yrs. When Jews took over, they instantly turned it into a Jewish state. As Jews have Pow-Now, they get to decide on policy over there in West Bank and over here in The West. Jews also get to rewrite history so that the US was always a Proposition nation. And Jewish-controlled BBC rewrites European history so that European historical figures are now presented as blacks.
Whatever the people in the past believed or wanted, they are dead and no more. The Present is controlled by We-The-Living. Sure, people draw inspiration and meaning from the past, but power is about what people do NOW. For example, there is NOTHING in Christian history or theology that blesses homosexuality, but a lot of churches in the NOW(as the result of Jewish intellectual and cultural influence) have decided to worship the holy homo, and that's that. The dead-and-buried cannot return from the graves and save us from the current power. We-the-Living must do it for ourselves in the Now. The Living will always decide. When they die, the next generation of Living will decide. It's like a rich person may leave a will and instructions to his children, but his children will ultimately decide what is to be done with the wealth and privilege. And even if there are legal clauses that bind the children, they can always find top-notch lawyers to re-interpret the will.
After Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar made an obvious point about Jewish power influencing American foreign policies, she was forced, by that same Jewish power, to recant, thus confirming, to all those who can still think, the awful influence of Jewish power.
ROTFL. Same happened with Chuck Hagel hearing. It was as hilarious as it was humiliating.
Maybe Jewish Power figures, paradoxically enough, that it will be ‘noticed’ LESS if it is brazenly out in the open. After awhile, people may just get ‘used to it’, even endeared to it as the New Normal. Imagine you have a spacious room, but suppose a bomb drops from the sky, falls through the roof, and sits in the room without exploding. You are told there is nothing that can be done about it. Indeed, trying to remove the bomb may set it off and then kaboom! So, you must accept its presence and work around it. Day in and day out, you grow accustomed to it, and it becomes regarded as part of the room. You hardly notice it because it’s always there. After awhile, you get so used to it that you can’t imagine your room without it. Eventually, if someone says there is a nasty bomb in your room, you get all triggered and denounce him for casting negative aspersions toward something that is so essential to what makes the room so special.
Maybe when something is made so ubiquitous, people not only get used to it but inured and 'habitualized' to it, indeed to the point where the they cannot conceive of normality without it. It’s like the changes in a society's response to the building of a dam that profoundly transforms the environment. There is the initial shock and disgust, the sense that it is a crime against nature, what with the flooding destroying so many plants and animals. But over time, a new flora and fauna grow around the water, and people become accustomed to the new reality. The dam, which had been denounced, has become essential to the new reality. People now defend it and oppose destroying the dam to restore the original landscape.
Or consider the pre-modern Chinese who were forced to wear queues(aka pigtails) as a sign of submission to the Manchu invaders. The draconian policy was to humiliate and subjugate the Chinese. But over time, Chinese got so used to the queues as a part of their image and style that, when the moment finally arrived to cut them off in defiance to the waning Manchus, many Chinese felt hesitant. As queues had become a part of Chinese culture for generations, many felt trepidation about discarding the 'tradition'.
Well, it now seems like all these White Cucks of Zion in the US have become accustomed to wearing their Jew-queues or Jueues.
There are no scientific or even documentary proofs of the Holocaust, so the six million figure is just as much nonsense as the human skin lampshades and human fat soap.
There are lots of lies and fabrications and tall tales about the Holocaust. And 6 million figure is almost certainly false. But there are mountains of evidence that Germans committed mass killings, esp in the Eastern Front, and many victims were Jews(though most were killed by bullets than gas). David Cole is probably right that around 3 million Jews were killed. So, while Jewish Power has grown corrupt and crazy of late, there is no sense denying the reality. It’s like Chinese may yet grow arrogant and dangerous, but there is no sense belittling Japanese atrocities in China that were all-too-real(though often exaggerated in sensationalist accounts of the Nanking Massacre).
Linh Dinh should be careful about pushing in the other direction too far. After all, he’s Vietnamese, member of the Tribe that was butchered in millions by US war machine. If the US, which stood for democracy and freedom, could commit industrial slaughter on such a massive scale, imagine what the Nazi War Machine would have been capable of in the East. Nazis were brazenly ethno-supremacist and felt justified in expending countless Slavic and Jewish lives to fulfill their dream of empire. So, the mass killings of Jews and Slavs were no myth. If Holocaust is a total myth, then Slavocaust must be too. In fact, Nazis committed both on a massive scale in the East.
The great irony is that Jewish globalist imperialists have become a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Their attitude is hardly distinguishable from that of historical Nazis. They believe any number of Arab, Muslim, Iranian, and white Christian lives should be sacrificed to actualize the dream of the 1000 yr Judeo-Reich. Just look at the state of Ukraine and Middle East because of the influence of Judeo-Nazism. Entire areas look like Poland during WWII. Or consider the white death by Opioids(peddled by the sinister Sackler Family), which is reminiscent of the impact of the Jewish monopoly of opium trade in China.
For several years, I’ve posted reports from a German friend, describing his country in crisis, so below is his latest. Burdened by Holocaust guilts, Germans are shamed into accepting millions of refugees, many of whom are Muslims fleeing from wars triggered by Jewish power.
Germany was reasonably sane until the end of the Cold War. For example, it still had blood-based citizenship. And there was moderate pride in having overcome its dark past. Also, West Germany was much praised as a model for all of Europe, not least for East Germany that lagged under Soviet rule.
As long as the Soviet Union remained a threat, there was a limit to guilt-baiting Germany and spreading the ‘poz’ to weaken Europe in general. Europe had to remain moderately stable and secure to keep the Soviets at bay. But once the Soviet Empire collapsed, a new set of priorities came into play(as devised by New World Order).
At the same time, a most profound shift in the reins-of-power was finalized in the US, the boss over Europe. The US went from Anglo-elite rule to Jewish-elite rule. Why was this significant? Even though Anglo-America and Germany had fought bitterly in World War II, white Christian-Americans and white Christian-Germans were willing to bury the hatchet and work together for a better future for both sides. A movie like ENEMY BELOW(where Germans are portrayed as men than monsters) would be unthinkable today(when hysterical Jews label ANYTHING as 'nazi' or 'far right').
Vengeful Jews resented the rapprochement between White America and Germany following the war, but they couldn’t do anything about it because the top power back then was with the Wasps. In those days, even Liberal Wasps were more conservative than Conservatives today(who embrace ‘gay marriage’ and all forms of sappy cuckery). Indeed, nationalism was seen generally as a good thing during most of the Cold War. Both the new right and new left defended nationalism against imperialism. Soviets and the Left supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against the US empire, and in turn the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Empire. And both the US and USSR sought to win hearts and minds in the Third World by supporting nationalism against fading European imperialism. Also, following WWII, much of Europe, both West and East, was reordered along nationalist lines, sometimes involving mass relocation of peoples, such as expulsion of Ost-Germans from Poland and other places. Such policies led to greater homogeneity and national consciousness. As for Imperial European nations like France, Great Britain, and Netherlands, the loss of empire left them with nothing but nationalism.
Even if there developed a school of thought that saw nationalism as deeply problematic, the fact is both US and USSR were fine with moderate nationalism around the world. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the triumph of the US as the sole superpower, mindsets began to change. The change owed especially to the Jewish takeover of the US. Perhaps if Wasps had retained power and kept Jews at bay, the US would have been more accommodating of other nations and systems. But with Jews at the helm, the lone superpower went into hyperdrive against all nationalisms(except that of Israel of course). Granted, Jewish-ruled US cynically supported particular nationalisms for political opportunism: Stoking ethnic hatreds in Yugoslavia, inciting anti-Russian animus in Georgia and Ukraine.
The reason for Jewish eagerness to weaken goy nationalism had to do with the nature of Jewish Power. Jews have very little national power. Their power is essentially globo-hegemonic: More about Jewish networking around the world than about unity of national elites and national masses. People say Israel is so powerful, but its influence depends utterly on the far greater power and wealth of Jews in US, EU, Russia, Latin America, and etc. It is globo-Jewish networking and coordination of power that favors Israel for special treatment.
Now, if Jews had a gigantic nation of their own, they might be more tolerant of nationalism as a general principle. Suppose Israel or some Jewish-majority nation were the size of Russia, China, or India. Or even Iran. Jews might feel secure in their impressive national power of great land mass, abundant natural resources, and large population. But the only national power that Jews have is Israel. Israel is an advanced affluent nation but ain’t much on its own. It’s like Britain as a GREAT POWER depended on its imperial expanse. Without the empire, Great Britain could be well-off and a nice nation but NOT a great WORLD power. In contrast, the US, China, or Russia can be great powers even without control of foreign territory. They have land, population, and resources all on their own. Because Jewish World Power depends on networking and maintaining control of key goy-majority nations and peoples, it must declaw and neuter them of nationalism(that may well awaken goy identity and interests against those of Jews). Now, Jews, as a Normal People, could have it pretty good without imperialist hegemony over other nations, BUT Jews are now addicted to supremacism(just like Brits got and Japanese were once addicted to empire). It’s like the ring in LORD OF THE RINGS. Once one tastes power, it’s hard to let go. Just like Germany-as-normal-nation was too humdrum for the Nazis, Jews-as-normal-people is too boring for Jewish globo-supremacists who must have it all.
The triumph of Jewish Supremacist power is why the world really began to change after the Cold War. With control of media, finance, academia, law, and deep state, Jews pushed the New Globalist Narrative on all the world. (Globalism differed from internationalism, which was about sovereign nations respecting and cooperating with one another. Globalism demanded the surrender of national sovereignty for all nations except Israel.)
We know about the fall of the Soviet Union but no less monumental was the fall of Wasp rule in the US around the same time. Ethic Coups took place in both US and Russia in the 90s. Because of the Rule of Law in the more stable US, Jews were able to manage the takeover more smoothly and efficiently over here. In contrast, the relative lack of Rule of Law in Russia was both a great boon and bane for Jews. It made for a great opportunity to steal and rob over thereas fast as possible in the decade of Shock Doctrine or Shylock Doctrine. Jews could steal more and faster in Russia of 90s than anywhere else in the world. But precisely because Russia was without Rule of Law, Vladimir Putin and FSB national-gangsters could move against Jewish globo-gangsters in the style of THE GODFATHER. Just like Adolf Hitler chewed more than he could swallow in the invasion of Russia, overeager Jews tried to swallow all of Russia in one big gulp but ended up puking all over(just like Cronus in his plan to devour his children).
Still, Jews checkmated for total power in the US and its puppet EU. As most white people lack prophetic will, they rely on the Official Power for permission on what is what. Jews are like adults and big-thinkers. Whites are like children and students. (Whites are to Jews what Asians are to whites. Mental Dogs.) Also, because the West had elevated Shoah into a secular faith, white people came to look upon Jews as sages, saints, and wisemen. For most of post-war period, such philosemitic sentimentality was less harmful because Jews didn’t have dominance over US and EU. It’s like we can be sentimental about American Indians as ‘noble savages’ without negative consequences because Indians do not and will never have control over us. But by the time the Cold War ended, Jews had amassed immense power and grown arrogant & megalomaniacal. They were the new supremacist-imperialists. But because whites had been indoctrinated with Holocaust Cult for couple of decades, they absorbed every Jewish word as the holiest wisdom or most brilliant insight. Of course, devious Jews were only too happy to oblige goy expectations(though originally concocted by the Jew-run media) and role-play as wisemen and sages and tragic victims. But in fact, George Soros and others of his kind weren’t trying to spread human rights and progress. They were trying to mentally, politically, and financially enslave goyim so that the globo-homo supremacists could rule over them-as-sheeple. But because whites had become enamored of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, they earnestly lent their ear to every Jewish advice, no matter how ridiculous.
And Jews didn’t just direct agenda this at Germany but at ALL goy nations. Consider how the UK(the proud victor in WWII) is just as far gone as Germany and for similar reasons. London is now majority non-white, and its upcoming ‘conservative’ candidate for mayor is a black guy running against the current Muslim, the Pakistani Sadiq Khan. There is no greater sin in the UK than 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. Sweden and Norway had NOTHING to do with WWII -- if anything, Norway was occupied by Germany -- , but they are just as far as suicidal and self-loathing as Germany. Or, if there is pride, it is about demonstrating virtue via national/racial suicide. Indeed, Jews rigged the Narrative so that all of Europe is deemed more-or-less equally responsible of WWII and Shoah. If Germans must lose their nation to atone for WWII, others must lose their nations to demonstrate they are morally superior to Germans. In any case, both Germans and other Europeans must prove that they are oh-so-good in the eyes of Jews. Moral logic and values flow from the main premise, and the current premise is, "Holocaust is the greatest crime of all time, Holocaust = 'racism', and 'racism' = 'xenophobia'. So, if you oppose mass migration-invasion, you are 'xenophobic' = 'racist' = Nazi = pro-Holocaust." Unless Europeans reject this insane premise, they are a cooked goose in the Jewish pot.
Because smaller powers usually follow the lead of bigger ones, what happens in US and UK & Germany shapes what happens in smaller European nations as well. In some ways, Sweden is even more far gone than Germany.
The fact that Jews target all goy nations — victim nations along with villain nations of WWII — goes to show that the real Jewish motive is not about War Guilt or the Holocaust. It is about Jewish Supremacist takeover and control. Poland was invaded in WWII, and its resistance heroes were nationalist. So, one might think its national consciousness would be praised and be associated with anti-Nazism. But nope, Jews say even moderate nationalism in Poland and its desire to remain Polish are ‘neo-nazi’ and ‘far right’.
Also, Jewish globo-homo pressures on Japan and South Korea are the same even though Japan was aggressor nation and Korea was ‘aggressed’ nation. The same Globo-Homo propaganda is pushed on both nations, and the result is young peoples there now consider nationalism and homogeneity to be vile notions, which is one reason why Japan and South Korea are going the way of suicidal Ireland. When the US was Anglo-Christian-ruled, moderate nationalist feelings in Europe and Asia were tolerated and even encouraged. White American Christian elites thought, “We have America, Russians have Russia, Germans have Germany, Japanese have Japan, etc.” Each people have a base nation of their own. Such formula was deemed ideal for most of the world. But Jews think differently. Even though Jews rule the US, they don’t feel, “We have America” because, after all, 98% of Americans are goyim. Jews can’t really own America because they feel no connection to goyim. Jews can only rule as elites. In contrast, when the white elites ruled, they felt a bond with the white masses. So, the unity of white elites and white masses led to a sense of national ownership, and whites respected similar sentiments in other nations. But Jews in the US only see themselves as ruling over the filthy goyim. Jewish elites feel connection not with goy masses but with fellow Jewish elites around the world. Jews fear goy nationalism because it might reignite the idea that the goy elites of a nation are supposed to represent, defend, and serve their own people… like what the Jewish elites do in Israel and what Viktor Orban is calling for in Hungary. Now, Jews are totally on-board with such arrangement in Israel but revile it in Hungary. Why? Because if national goy elites primarily connect with national goy masses, they won’t serve the super-globo-elites(the Jews). It’s like the political dynamics of Vietnam under French rule. French imperialists suppressed the idea of Vietnamese elites bonding with Vietnamese masses. They demanded that the comprador Vietnamese serve the Franco-super-elites of the great French Empire. To drive a wedge between goy elites and goy masses, Jews push for Diversity. As the US and Germany turn more diverse, the white elites are pressured to care about ALL peoples than about white people. Thus, the bond between white elites and white masses is severed. (And since it is impossible for white elites to bond with ALL the masses, they just choose to serve the Jewish elites above them.)
With Jewish rule over the US, the New Message is all goy nations must forsake nationalism, promote diversity, welcome mass immigration, and etc, the kind of crazy stuff rejected by Israel. Look how globo-homo corporate Japan is celebrating its mulatto athletes born of black men and Japanese women. Japan is total Cuckpan now. Globo-Japan is a mere puppet of the US as puppet of the Empire of Judea or EOJ.
In the end, it’s not about the Holocaust because Jewish demands on all goy nations are the same regardless of whether the nations were villains or victims in WWII. Germans were villains and Poles were victims, but notice Jews pressure both peoples to comply to globo-homo national suicide. As for the Palestinians, they had NOTHING to do with World War II in any shape or form, but notice Jewish policy on them has been no better than on Germans; if anything, it's been worse. What does that tell you? Jewish Supremacist Power will destroy and sacrifice ANY people and nation to serve Jewish supremacist interests. It’s like how the Spanish behaved in the Americas. Or how Germans and Japanese acted during WWII. The radical supremacist sickness has now passed to Jews, and it has to be stopped.
At the same moment the ADL began, a number of Jewish businessmen from the Boston area were plotting to finance the most degrading and hateful blackface movie ever made—The Birth of a Nation. The silent movie epic released in 1915 was the first movie blockbuster, smashing all box office records.
I can understand why black people would be offended by D.W Griffith's movie, but it's one of the most prophetic movies ever in American History. It is less a historical summary than a future warning. And its warnings have been validated by history. Indeed, the reason why that movie is now so denigrated and suppressed(despite Griffith's reputation as the first great movie-maker) is not because its contentions are false but because they ring truer than ever. But PC neo-victorianism vilifies and represses all-too-obvious truths, leading its minions to be triggered into hysterical fits of panic by any utterance that deviates from the Iron Bubble Narrative.
So, what does the movie tell us?
1. Naive white do-gooder elites have no idea what's really in store for them. Complacent with inherited power(that was originally hard-fought and won by years of war and conflict) or shoe-horned into privilege(by having the right connections and/or fashionable opinions) and imbued with Christian notion that all souls are goody-goody alike around the world, they believe that black is white and white is black, and all will get along if whites only try harder. In truth, blacks have different temperaments & souls and regard white good-will as a weakness to flatter and manipulate. The woman's father in the movie is a do-gooder white guy who trusts the mulatto... who later tries to rape his daughter.
2. Rise of mulatto as conduit between whites and blacks. As even well-meaning whites find total blackness a bit intimidating, they rely on the semi-white-ish mulatto as bridge. Back in the days, most mulattoes were products of white men and black women: symbols of white sexual advantage. Today, most are products of black men and white women with jungle fever: symbols of black sexual advantage. These mulattoes are Loki-like characters who have black aggression but white calculation. They use their white intellect to serve the black soul. We saw this with Barack Obama and now see other mulattoes taking over the Democratic Party(though, to be sure, mainly as shills of Zionist Supremacists). Notice that even proggy Democrats prefer mulattoes to outright blacks: Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Mulatto serves as the butter to soften the white bread before it is devoured by the Negro. Whites are more likely to fall for mulattoes because there is something white-like about the latter, making them appear 'less threatening', as with Colin Powell and Barack Obama. Blacks rely on mulattoes as cross-over figures... though mulattoes also fool and cheat blacks as well whites. And mulattoes manipulate both sides, white and black, to accrue more advantage for themselves. In some ways, mulattoes feel as the superior race because they got white intellect(superior to black intellect) and black soul(stronger than white soul).
3. Black political corruption. While corruption is endemic all around the world, black corruption really takes the cake(and the cornbread, grits, chitlins, black-eyed peas, fried chicken, an entire bucketful). Just look what Negro politicians have done to Detroit, Baltimore, black parts of St. Louis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Oakland. Because blacks tend to be more impulsive, more egocentric, more uninhibited, and more psychopathic, they are more shameless and unrestrained in their corruption. Furthermore, because they can get off the hook so easily by screaming 'it be racist!', they know they can get away with so much. Even though the depiction of corrupt black politicians in BOAN is cartoonish and over-the-top, the state of black politics in the US(and other black run places like South Africa) isn't much different from the movie.
4. Blacks are naturally wild and savage, and if unrestrained, will revert to their jungle nature. Anti-'racists' have been attacking such 'negative' racial stereotype forever, but then, even they have been at odds with their own narrative. On the one hand, goody-good 'anti-racist' Libs say it's wrong to say stereotype blacks and say they are wilder and more prone to ugabuga. But then, they praise blacks for having natural rhythm, dancing better, singing louder, coming up with new forms of hyper-sexual music & dance, and spreading trends like bumping-and-grinding and 'twerking'. Libs get triggered when someone says blacks are more into 'let the good times roll', but they say blacks be so fuzzy-wuzzy-funky and hot-cool-badass sassy and indeed thawed and liberated lame white people from ice-cold puritanical repression.
BOAN says blacks are naturally wilder, and it has been condemned for racial stereotyping. But how do the Jewish-Liberal-controlled media depict blackness? As thug athletes, thug rappers, sex-crazed studs whose only idea is 'muh dic*', black 'biatches' who be 'twerking' and yapping about her booty(and even be named Bootisha or Assnique). Also, ever since blacks obtained total freedom to express their true nature, their culture has turned more savage and crazy. If anything, depiction of black savagery in BOAN is mild compared to what rappers and other black thugs do in culture.
5. Black men despise white males as wussy and want to hump white women. This was one of the core message of BOAN. If left unchecked, black male lust will stalk white females. We've been told that this is just racial fear and paranoia with no basis in reality. But in SOUL ON ICE, Eldridge Cleaver wrote his own Portnegro's Complaint. Just like Philip Roth the Jew said he had endless 'boings' thinking of Aryan-blonde Shikses(and Norman Mailer wrote a very porny-horny book on Marilyn Monroe as his sex goddess... who married Jewish Arthur Miller btw), Cleaver said he not only fantasized raping white women but really did it(though he didn't serve many yrs in prison even in those days). Look at FBI rape statistics, and most interracial rape in the US is almost entirely black-on-white and black-on-non-black. And much of Rap culture is about black guys and white girls with jungle fever dumping on dorky white guys. Also, Jews control pornography and promote interracial black-man-and-white-woman as the thing. From pop culture to porn culture(though two have merged considerably under Jewish cultural hegemony), the message is black guys are the real men and want white women, and white women should go with superior Negroes. So, BOAN was proved right on that account.
Where it was wrong(hopefully naive) perhaps was that white women in the movie are shown to rebuff the advances by black men at every turn. But Griffith should have known better because Jack Johnson became champion before the movie came out. Because blacks are racially-athletically superior to whites, he easily destroyed and humiliated so many white men, but what did a lot of white women do? Stick with their fallen men out of racial solidarity? No, just like French women who ran into arms of victorious Germans in WWII and Japanese women who ran into arms of US GI's after Japan's defeat, white women ran into the arms of Jack Johnson. Since then, the sports culture has been one of black guys dominating the field, white cuck athletes serving as bench-warmers, and countless white women getting knocked up by Negro athletes and thugs. The biggest name in the movies of the 90s and 2000s, Quentin Tarantino, was raised by such a mudshark. And in the 90s, madonna or mudonna's second act was that she was passed around as an inflatable sex doll by blacks in the NBA.
So, if anything, BOAN was mostly right about the sexual dynamics of black and white but didn't go far enough. If white men lose power, not only will black guys come after white women but white women will go with Negroes. It's like Poland is turning into Simon Moland. One African goes to Poland and gets to hump over 300 jungle-feverish women.
--------------------
Today, Jews denounce BOAN and speak about those 'bad old days', but have things really changed? No. Though depictions of blacks today are 'positive', the underlying assumptions about race are much the same as in BOAN. Hollywood doesn't show that all races are equal. After all, why does it promote black male and white female pairing more than white male and black female pairing? It is on the assumption of racial differences, i.e. black men are more masculine and white women are more feminine, thus implying that white women should go with superior black men. Likewise, most white/Asian pairing is white male and yellow female, suggesting that white men are manlier than yellow men, therefore yellow women should go with white men. So, interracism is just another form of 'racism'. It is not about racial equality but racial superiority. And given that most depictions of blackness in the media & entertainment are hyper-sexual, people 100 yrs after BOAN still believe that blacks have that surplus ugabuga sexual mojo. In BOAN, it as presented negatively whereas now it is presented positively, but the underlying assumptions are identical: Blacks be wild and crazy as the People of Sex. And look at sports culture. Who watches sports such as NBA, NFL, and Track & Field and comes off thinking, "Gee, race is just a social construct." No, any honest person notices BAMMAMA, or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Now, if that is true, what is its social implications? It means tougher blacks will intimidate, threaten, beat up, and humiliate whites in schools, streets, public places, and even home invasions. It means white men will lose pride of manhood and lose their women to black men. So, if we connect the dots, the fact that blacks dominate sports should wake white people up to the black threat. But because white people are such idolatrous dolts(or idolts), they worship black athletes as 'heroes' and 'demigods'. They worship the athletic victory of the very power(black muscle advantage) that is beating up white guys and castrating them of manhood.
Furthermore, let's not forget that racial stereotypes have always been with us. Hollywood won't make stuff like BOAN anymore because blacks are now 'sacred cows' in the West. But Jewish Hollywood made so many movies about evil 'terrorist' Muslims in the 90s and 2000s(with hardly any protest from progs and Jews who, btw, funded most of them). If anything, these movie stereotypes about Muslims were far more over-the-top than anything in BOAN. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT goes so far as to suggest that no Muslim, man-woman-or-child, is trustworthy, and when push comes to shove, they must all be mowed down to the last man-woman-and-child. No wonder then that most Americans didn't care about Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright starving 100,000s of Iraqi children to death in the 1990s. (Israel has been condemned by the world community for its imperialism and tyranny, but can anyone imagine US politicians calling for sanctions on Israel to kill 100,000s of Jewish kids? Democrats and Republicans agree that Jewish lives are more precious than Muslim lives.) Jewish Hollywood remade RED DAWN as a yellow peril fantasy of North Korea(a nation with 1/40th the economy of South Korea) invading the US. And even though Jews are among the biggest sex-slavers in the world, it made movies like TAKEN where Muslims are the main sex traffickers. Yes, Muslims have been involved in sex-grooming, but who enslaved all those Slavic women in Israel to be used a sex slaves? Jews. Hollywood won't be making a movie or TV show about that anytime soon. And consider all the delirious anti-Russia movies being cranked out by Hollywood.
Also, even though BOAN was wrong about certain facts of history, globo-homo depiction of current reality is even more surreal. According to the recent Gillette ad, it is white guys who are sexually harassing 'women of color', and it is the noble black guy who comes to the rescue of the damsels. Anyone who knows real reality that black guys are the kings of 'toxic masculinity'. Rap is black. Black men are top rapists and attackers of women. Also, given that women are into 'muh pussy' and slut pride culture, it's amusing they are ones to bitch about 'toxic' anything. We live in a world where the Jew-run media would have us believe in the Russia Collusion fantasy. That's what passes for Real News. These people who can't even get current reality right dare to condemn BOAN for not getting history correct. As the recent Covington Highschool Kids incident and Jussie Smollett 'hate hoax' anti-white defamation stunt have well-illustrated, the Jew-run media have no interest in the truth. Only in their procrustean Narrative to sustain 'white guilt' and white cuckery so that whites will go on bowing down before Jews and doing their bidding.
Interestingly enough, even though Jewish Hollywood has been peddling anti-Muslim 'terrorist' tropes forever, if you go searching for "hollywood anti-muslim propaganda", the result is usually videos about 'Trump is anti-Muslim'. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hollywood+anti-muslim+propaganda In fact, it's difficult to find any video on Youtube that details the history of Jewish Hollywood's negative depictions of Arabs and Muslims. Jews spread anti-Muslim hatred and steered US foreign policy to destroy Muslim nations, but they are now pretending to be champion-defenders of Muslims against 'American racism and Islamophobia'. These are the very same Jews who use whore-politicians to push through anti-BDS laws that rob us of our freedom of speech and conscience. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-hollywood-s-muslim-portrayals-1483650479-htmlstory.html
Not sure Stalinism offers the best understanding of what is going on.
Communism had to be simple because it was about the pride of work, dignity of labor, simple virtues of proles. Back then, the bourgeoisie had all the privilege. Workers were barely literate or semi-literate. More literate in places like Germany but still less educated than the bourgeoisie with fancy taste and refinement. In the story of the princess and the pea, the girl notices the pea because she is really of royal background. If she were a true prole, she would have been content with a hard wooden bed with a bunch of peas. Just any place to sleep.
Especially because communism came to power in backward Russia(and later even more backward China), the themes had to be simplified even further. In USSR, communism was less about the workers inheriting wealth and property from the bourgeoisie(that had been hoarding it all) than about turning peasants into proles to build a modern economy. According to classic Marxism, the contradictions within capitalism would lead to revolution. But because capitalism would have already built a modern and wealthy economy, revolution would be about taking the loot of the rich and sharing them equally among the workers. Also, the workers would have collective ownership of factories, land, and resources. And with more leisure and less work, workers could lead moderate ‘bourgeois’-like lifestyles. They would work about 4 hrs and devote other time of the day to art, culture, ideas, and etc. The bourgeoisie would lose out as a class, but bourgeois-ness would remain as lifestyle. In habit, culture, and attitude, Marx was even more bourgeois than Adolf Hitler who was half-bourgeois and half-bohemian. He didn’t so much want to destroy everything bourgeois as elevate workers to a point where they too could partake of the good stuff enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.
No such luck for Russia and later China. When the Revolution happened, the majority were still dirt-poor peasants. Because there wasn’t much wealth to take from capitalists, a whole new economy had to be built. That meant the workers had to be driven to work even harder. They had to be tough. There was no time for nonsense. It was work, work, and build, build. So, naturally, the ideology had to be simplified for the masses. Trotsky scoffed at Stalin’s ‘second-rate’ intellect. Lenin and Trotsky were hyper-intellectuals. Marxist ‘Greeks'(as Nassim Taleb might describe them). Stalin was a Marxist ‘Roman’. He was about getting things done, and the fact was communism would have to build a modern economy from ground up as there wasn’t one to take and inherit from the bourgeoisie(that was much smaller in Russia). And then, later Mao made Marxism even simpler because China was even more backward than Russia. In the Soviet Union(at least until the 60s when there were some burgeoning signs of a consumer economy), the main theme was about the basic needs of survival. It wasn’t about choosing which pastry and wine but having enough bread and water.
US was much better off than the USSR, but then, universal prosperity didn’t arrive until about after two decades after WWII. At the turn of 20th century, majority of Americans were still on the farm. Great Depression and WWII led to hardships and shortages. After WWII, 50% didn’t have indoor plumbing. So, even though there was certainly more choice than in the USSR, most people had to do with basic stuff.
But from end of WWII to the present, US and Western Europe have continued without a great depression. There were some recessions(some serious) along the way, but life got easier for more people. With everyone taking substance for granted in a world where even poor people grow fat, style took precedence. And this goes for ideology as well. When a lot of people were hungry, the ideology was about bread. And when wars destroyed so many lives of common folk, the ideology was about peace. But there’s no shortage of bread. And recent wars have killed just a fraction of lives lost in WWI and WWII. And there’s no draft. So, ideology has turned into a game of personal choice. It’s like shopping for various kinds of cheese, wine, candy, chocolate, and etc.
Oddly enough, consumerist mentality went better with leftist ideology. This seems counter-intuitive because capitalism was on the ‘right’ and socialism was on the ‘left’ during the Cold War. But if leftists are more likely to complain, nitpick, bitch, and fuss about social problems, it means their mentality is more like that of the finicky consumer with ‘customer is king’ mentality. Jews are known for haggling and negotiating things down to the last penny. Homos are known for being fussy and bitchy about everything. They are less likely to be content with any product. So, the consumer who is never content with any product and the progressive who is never content with society share the same kind of mentality. In a society where consumerism is king, leftism was bound to take on features of consumerism.
So, today’s ‘progressivism’ is different from yesterday’s when the theme was Bread for Every Man. Same bread for every man? How boring. Just like consumers want lots of choice among various breads, cookies, and pastries, the new ‘progressivism’ is like 31 flavors of Ice Cream. Even within homo ideology, there is ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bi’, ‘trans’, ‘queer’, and many more. And people can mix and match their grievance products. So, a New Muslim can intersect his identity with ‘gay’ identity, feminism(which also comes in many flavors such as slut pride, vagina mania, corporate feminism, etc), and immigrant-identity(legal, illegal, undocumented, New American, New Jews, etc). Just like there are many kinds of Comfort Food, there are now many kinds of Grievance Products.
And capitalists appreciate this PC branding. As rich folks and big corporations are always worried about being called out for being greedy and profit-obsessed, how convenient for them to market grievance-approved products… like Gillette that is against ‘sexual harassment'(all by white men) and Nike that features Kaepernick. That way, they can rake in the dough while posing as ‘caring’. And the fussy consumer mentality and griping ‘progressive’ mentality fuse into one. Some snotty consumer who wants to buy the very best is also glad to know that the product is buying is also ‘woke’. It flatters both his status and standing. In a way, corporations appreciate micro-complaining and micro-bitching. Such gives them more of a rationale to crank out new and improved products. Sometimes, the new stuff is indeed better. Other times, like so many variations of smart-phones, it’s mostly hype to rake in more bucks.
Your average conservative is more likely to be ‘socialist’ in his tastes and outlook. He is more likely to focus on basic needs and basic values. Less likely to be fussy wussy about the very best. Less likely to complain that not everything is as he wants it. But people who are content with basic bread and stuff make less demanding consumers who want more and better. Can anyone imagine John Wayne character complaining that his coffee ain’t the fancy kind? In contrast, homos are always bitching about everything, and they can be a real pain in the ass. But you have to give credit where it’s due, and so much of improvement in consumer goods was driven by people who always found faults in something. Germans were hardy but also extremely thorough, which made them obsessed about creating the ever-more-perfect machine or system. It’s no wonder they built a greater economy than Russia with all its resources. Culture of Complaint can do some good… in the right measure.
Even as Jews increasingly vilify white conservatives(scapegoats for all problems) as the unifying theme for Jews and People of Color, they also increasingly draw on white conservatives to support Jews and Israel, because, after all, Grievance Politics among the POC often turns against Jewish privilege and Zionist tyranny. Jews depend more and more on the water from the well they are poisoning. With decreasing support for Israel and growing criticism of white-Jewish privilege among the expanding non-white and radical-white base among Democrats, Jews have to depend more and more on white conservatives for unconditional support for Jews and Israel. The vile Anti-BDS law passed with near-total support from Republicans while only 40% support from Democrats. Jews will increasingly have to rely on the very people they denigrate most in media, academia, law, state, entertainment, advertising, and corporacracy. But can Jews be assured of continued support among white conservatives when the latter is beginning to awaken to the fact that it's the Jews who are leading the anti-white derangement syndrome among the POC? But then, Jews must shame and blame whites in order to make them serve Jews. After all, the default position of any people is to feel good about their own kind and serve their own interests. Naturally, white Christians and conservatives should serve white/Christian/conservative interests. To make them do otherwise, they must be made to feel that the Other is somehow superior, morally or spiritually, to themselves. And Jews have done this by implanting 'white guilt' into the souls of whites, both liberals and conservatives. Thus, whites feel morally tainted by history and seek redemption by serving the Holy Other. As far as white conservatives are concerned, serving Jews(and maybe blacks and homos) should be good enough, and so, they go out on a limb to appear as 'good for Jews'. But for Jews, this isn't enough because there is still the possibility that whites may change their minds one day... and then what? So, the ONLY way to ensure permanent Jewish domination is via Diversity. That way, with whites relegated to minority status in the US, they won't be able to use electoral-demographic majority power to topple Jewish supremacy. Jews want more Diversity because, deep down inside, they know Intersectionality is really about Gridlock among Goyim. Even within the Proglob camp, so-called intersectionality has led to Demolition Derby or Roller Derby among blacks, homos, women, white working class, browns, yellows, and etc. It's turning into Road Rage politics... like the movie CRASH that won Best Pic.
Anyway, it seems more and more whites are waking up to the fact of Jewish hostility towards them. An obvious case has been Ann Coulter who, in 2016, mocked GOP candidates for droning on and on about the 'fuc*king Jews'. For such awakened whites, we need to end mass immigration as soon as possible because loss of white majority will mean end of GOP, and then whites are lost for good.
But whites should take cues from the Jews on the Art of Power. If a people need majority power to rule, how does one account for the fact that Jews, who are only 2% of the nation, totally rules the US?
So, how can whites threaten Jewish power even if they lose majority status in the US? They can make Jews have a taste of their own medicine. Jewish 'progressive' line has been 'diversity and equality are good, while privilege is bad'. Okay, then whites should take the Jews at their word and side with the POC against the most privileged people in the US, the Jews. Jeremy Corbyn is doing this in the UK with hilarious reactions from the Jewish community. Jews in UK have been dumping on white Britons as 'racists' and demanding that whites welcome and embrace non-whites. Well, that is exactly what Corbyn's Labour did, and guess how the Jews are reacting? They are flipping out because most non-whites don't give a rat's ass about super-rich Jewish bankers, Israel, Zionist imperialism, and Holocaust-Cult-Forever. This is why the US would do best to get rid of the GOP, have all whites join the Democrats, and then have whites side with POC against the Deep State dominated by Jews, homos, and cucks. Then, the current elites can be brought down, and then, the ensuing chaos will bring back the Restart of History from the terrible 'End of History' of Fukuyama's naive idealization.
I suppose Jews still got the homo card. Homo Power is mostly white-male, and it is reliably on the side of Jews because vain homos love power and privilege. It's no wonder that 10% of DC is now homo. Homos go there to seek power, and Jews have elevated them(along with cuck-dog Mormons) to serve as the missionary arm of globo-homo hegemony. Thus, homos, along with Mormons, have played a big role in Wars for Israel and new 'cold war' with Russia. Homos + Mormons = Homormons. Homos not only love to serve the Power(that is mostly Jewish) but appreciate the fact that Jews have decided to make Homomania the substitute for Christianity, indeed the Cult of the New World Order. As for Mormons, most of them are just status-strivers and moral-materialists, i.e. their moralism is all about making money, and money is the highest good. Also, ashamed of their history as an odd cult and ever so eager to appear respectable to the current globo-homo ruling elites, Mormons will go out of their way to cuck hard. Salt Lake City Mormons are the favorite dogs of Goldman Sachs and dutifully voted for Obama and Hillary. Mormons are the Sheep State within the Deep State.
