Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Commentary on "Plastic Recycling and Jousting Jews"(by Linh Dinh)


https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:
Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.
Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.
So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.
I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.
And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.
The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.
The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.
Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Commentary on "Cambridge gives role to academic accused of racist stereotyping"(by the Guardian)

Noah Carl รข€“ Medium
Noah Carl, Social Scientist hounded by PC
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/07/cambridge-gives-role-to-academic-accused-of-racist-stereotyping

It seems the department of Social Sciences now works backwards.

Instead of gathering and analyzing facts & data to reach conclusions, it already has a mandatory set of correct conclusions that must be confirmed by all new research.

Should science work like this? “We have the Correct Answers already, and your job is merely to validate them(even if it takes tortured Procrustean logic.” What’s the point of science on such terms? It’s like saying “We know the sun revolves around the earth, so you better use your calculations to prove what we know already.”

Such wouldn't be matter of scientific invalidation but ethical disapproval based on ideological dogma or bias.

Apparently, according to the current PC system, certain observations are wrong no matter what the factual data-driven evidence says simply because they seem ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, and ‘xenophobic’, none of which are scientific terms, by the way.

It’d be like saying it’s been ‘discredited’ that men are stronger and more aggressive than women because such a statement would be ‘sexist’ and at odds with the dogma that 'gender is just a social construct'. Discredited by science or by ideology?

In reality, Objective Race-ism or Racial Objectivism prevails over Subjective ‘Anti-racism’(or Subjective ‘Racism’ for that matter). By 'race-ism', I mean the belief that races are real and racial differences are the real product of evolutionary divergences among the various races. After all, -Ism means belief, and Race-ism should properly be defined as BELIEF in Race and possibility of racial differences. Reality is what it is regardless of subjective dogmas or prevailing orthodoxies of coerced consensus. Ideologies, unlike true science, are subjective. They compel us to view and determine everything about the world through a single lens.

The fact that 700 academics signed the petition against a scientist who revealed 'uncomfortable' truths suggests that Social Science should now be called Social Silence, a kind of cult that demands ideological conformity and complacency(so easily 'triggered' and outraged into Justice-Hysteria or 'Justyeria' by the slightest whiff of wrong-think). And, it seems most of these preening and snot-nosed academics are mostly about status and peer-approval than courage and integrity.

Furthermore, even if a scientist is a ‘bigot’, it doesn't disprove his findings if they're factual and demonstrable. If a Jewish scientist arrogantly looks down on Gypsies as dumber than Jews, he may be a Jewish supremacist, but it still doesn’t invalidate his factually true observation of higher IQ among Ashkenazi Jews.
Or suppose a black scientist happens to be a black supremacist who says blacks can run faster. He may be an arrogant jerk, but it still doesn’t disprove his case that blacks are generally more muscular and superior in speed, coordination, and jumping ability. Or imagine there's a male 'misogynist' who looks down on women as weaker in body and emotions. Suppose he mocks women for their athletic inferiority and for being quicker to cry. We might agree that he's some kind of an ass, but his statement about sexual differences would still remain true.

Science that rejects what we can obviously SENSE in service of SENSITIVITIES is no science at all.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

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.

Monday, April 30, 2018

Reponse to "Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr-Cult of Stephen Lawrence" by Tobias Langdon

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/04/30/black-saints-white-demons-the-martyr-cult-of-stephen-lawrence/

Would there be such fuss if it were a dead Muslim or Hindu?

Negrolatry(or Negro Idolatry) has power because of combination of white cuckery and white guilt. White guilt alone doesn’t go very far. Spanish killed tons of natives in South America, but most people don’t care because the short brown indigenos are seen as lame.

It’s because Anglos are so taken with black music, black jive, black rhythm, black booty, black dong, black muscle, black sports, and etc. that they go for Negrolatry. In other words, it would exist even without white guilt about blacks though, to be sure, the ‘white guilt’ element gives it a certain glow.
Suppose there never was slave trade or imperialism. Suppose some blacks came to the UK and made funky music, won in sports, acted wild and fun, shook their booties, and swung their dongs. In a libertine hedonistic society, they’d get much attention bordering on mammonic love.

The Brits look back on their history and see repression, rigidity, inhibition, coldness, and etc.
So, Brit history is seen as ice, fog, and overcast skies. But the Negro comes along with the heat, friction, and warmth. It’s like the sun finally broke through, and there is heat generated within the body with all that grinding, bumping, and humping. It was the great liberation from frigidity of cold damp Britain. It’s like how the nuns in LILIES OF THE FIELD turn into Lilies of the Field Negro.

So, why does this Negro kid matter so much? Because of the Negro-as-metaphor of warmth, soulfulness, heat, and radiance brought to Brits. Modern Britain may have been saved militarily by Winston Churchill, but the Narrative is it was finally liberated from its own shackles by the Magic Negro. The subconscious narrative goes… If Anglos ended the slave trade and freed blacks from physical bondage, the Negro soul and rhythm liberated Anglos from the chains of repression, manners, and politesse. And this is why the Beatles and Stones were so significant. Britain, though highly accomplished in literature, had lagged in musical achievements compared to Italians, Germans, French, Russians, etc. Brits were too orderly and ‘bourgeois’ to have the passion.

But in pop music inspired by black music, the Brits once exploded all over and dominated the world for a couple of decades. So, in the British Mind, the Negro is holy. Negro is the booty-and-dong-messiah that thawed the white body from repression and made it boogie woogie like a Negro. And one must say it is true enough that black influence did wonders for Brit pop music. Consider Bee Gees ‘stayin alive’, a great song. And Clash and Sting took a lot from reggae.

So, to better understand Negrolatry, one has to look to Pop Culture and Sex.

Because of the role of the Negro in modern British cultural imagination, black are now seen as the natural royalty. Afro-royalty or Afroyalty is becoming the new trope in not only UK but in EU. Listen to Macron speak of Eurafrica. It will lead to the Othelloing of Europe without even an Iago to mess things up. If anything, the neo-Iago is there to help the Negro go around yelling ‘where da white women at?’

For most people, culture is about fun, thrills, and excitement. They love blockbuster movies, dumb TV shows, music videos. rap music, pornification of mainstream culture, pulp fiction, trash comedy, (look at the success of Stephen King novels and 50 SHADES OF GREY), etc.

So, for most people, blacks are the natural royalty because black women shake their booties so lasciviously. And there is the song-and-dong factor with black men. They sing rap about ‘muh dic*’, and most women think about sex than ideas at most times.

Chelsea Handler is a Jewish comedienne. She may be higher IQ and grew up with privilege, but she’s a song-and-dong girl.

https://zhiphopcleveland.com/3358992/wow-chelsea-handler-talks-about-sex-with-50-cent-why-ciara-broke-them-up/

Anglo-Saxons are turning into Junglo-Saxons because of these factors.
It could well be that Jewish power will be destroyed by black dongs. If Chelsea Handler is sign of future Jewishness pooterin passion, it will be junglowizc fever. It’s no wonder so many Jewish guys feel dejected and go with Asian girls. But that will lead to Jewish dissipation because of yellow mellow factor. Jewish power grew from high IQ, tribalism, and chutzpah. But if future Jewish kids are yellow-mellowed, they will be obedient than pushy. Look at Sean Lennon. John Lennon had a kid with Yoko, and the result is some dork-ass kibbler. (Incidentally, Cynthia Lennon, who was dumped by John, went off with a Negro).

Most people prefer to watch TV, movies, and listen to pop music than do heady stuff involving intelligence and ideas. More women talk about inches on puds than calculus of the universe just like most men are more interested in boob measurements than latest physics formulas about black holes.

This is why there is a real chance of the world turning black. Blacks got all of Sub-Saharan Africa. They will take over Brazil which is already 60% black. They are the majority of Cuba. Blacks are the main idols of US and UK and France. Canada worships Negroes. Jungle Fever is promoted all over EU. Japan promotes half-black kids of black fathers. They will take over sports and will become the ‘national heroes’ as athletes are the biggest heroes of any nation. Then, Japanese will cheer for black heroes, and more Africans will come and have kids with Japanese women, and Japanese women will be cuck-roaches. Few yrs back, Miss Japan was black child of a black father, and she attacked Japan of being ‘racist’ and called for open borders. She is now the new voice of Japanese national conscience.

In France, tons of black babies are being born, and lots from white wombs. And Macron the cuck is calling for 200 million blacks in EU to colonize white wombs.

Now, this could be stopped with race-ism. It’s obvious that nothing more destructive of civilization than black DNA. Too Many Blacks always means social breakdown: Africa, Brazil, Detroit, Baltimore, parts of London, parts of Paris, and etc.
But, all this Afroyalty mindset has white folks worshiping blacks like the animals worship the lions as natural royalty in THE LION BLING.
Also, white guilt about blacks have become so sacralized that it’s gone universal. So, not only must the West open up to more and more Negroes but Japan too is attacked as ‘racist’ if it has doubts about the blessing of having too many Negroes.

Homos and Negroes. There is a universalist cult around those two groups. All societies are expected to ‘welcome’, ‘include’, and celebrate them as special. And of course, the two groups have bee promoted mostly by Jews who seek to weaken and break down gentile(especially white and Christian) pride and defenses against globalism.

The Western elites like reggae, and ‘white trash’ are into rap.

In a poll, elites chose reggae as their favorite music.
They like chillbilly calypso music for some reason.

John Boehner’s daughter married a reggae guy. Song and dong factor.