What Anne Frank and Leo Frank teach us about Jewish Mendacity - Where both Germans and White Americans failed with the Jewish Question — Why Jews cannot tolerate Free Speech and Facts & Reason of a Truly Secular Society

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/09/26/jasenovac-the-latest-holocaust-embarrassment/

The days of the “6 million” are numbered, and I suspect that Goldman, Goldstein, and friends know it. When that crumbles, so too collapses what little remains of Jewish credibility. When the orthodox Holocaust story goes down, the dominoes may well begin to fall. And when that happens, all bets are off.

I'm not too sure about that. Much of history has less to do with facts than the power of who gets to control the discourse. So, even if it's proven beyond a doubt that 6 million didn't die, the myth can go on as long as the Power decides if it must. The Power controls the knob and can amplify or mute whatever it wants — consider George Floyd, who died of overdose, has been canonized while Derek Chauvin will rot in prison for 22 yrs for merely having done his job of protecting blue city yuppie elites from black thugs. Most people don't do independent research and, as normies, just go with the Official Narrative. Now, there are surely historians and the like who know the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration, but they fear being ostracized and/or blacklisted. Being labeled a 'denier' is tantamount to heresy in our so-called secular order with new gods, namely the Tri-Idolatry or Tridolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Power will denounce you, and the normies will reject you as a 'neo-nazi', 'white supremacist', 'anti-semite', or some nutjob crank because they almost never look or think beyond what they got from public education and Jewish-run 'mainstream media'.

This is why honest people fear telling the truth. They are caught between the Power and the People. The Power is mainly concerned with control and will spin any narrative, push any lie, and suppress any truth to maintain its grip(and the Power operates likewise all over the world, no less so in China, Iran, and Russia with their own sacraments and taboos). The People, most of whom are 'normies', are easily manipulated by the Power. In some ways, they are more easily manipulated in so-called 'liberal democracies' due to the conviction-bordering-on-faith that the People are free. In truth, people in so-called 'democracies' get to vote for whore-pawns vetted and bought/sold by the oligarchs who also own nearly all the media that hire mostly flunkies, careerists, propagandists, and activists(in line with oligarchic agendas). Under communism, people were more skeptical because they knew everything was propaganda.

To be sure, in the so-called 'liberal' West, there was certainly lot more freedom than under Stalinism or Maoism, but the danger lay in the fallacy that better is best. If Bob the gangster is a better person than Tom the gangster, a real psychopath, it still doesn't mean Bob is a good person. Though not as terrible as Tom, he too is a criminal, a thug, and even a killer. The so-called 'liberal West' was undoubtedly freer than communist systems(or other hardline forms of autocracy) and more kinds of speech were allowed, but that doesn't mean it was the bastion of truth. But the cult of 'muh democracy' and 'muh free speech' fooled a lot of people that they are getting the truth from the media(because it's part of the 'free press') in a society committed to free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. But like the hare that took for granted its lead over the tortoise, people in the West have been complacent in the assumption that they are living in the best of all possible worlds in terms of freedom and truth(and prosperity). This has resulted in 'insouciance', as Paul Craig Roberts calls it, that has led to so much erosion of liberties and rights before our eyes. Even as people in the West keep losing more liberties and rights, they always assure themselves, "I'm living in a liberal democracy, therefore I'm free... unlike those living in autocratic Russia or China."

Of course, the West was always under some kind of oligarchic power, but it's getting worse because it's ruled by Jews who refuse to even acknowledge their dominant position(fueled by a tribal sense of supremacism & contempt), lack any sense of magnanimity, have intoxicated themselves on moral narcissism, and are caught in the web of their own paranoia. In the West, never has so much power been concentrated in the hands of so few who are so hostile toward and derisive of those they rule over. Why else would they push for the Great Replacement or White Nakba? It's because Jews don't regard white folks as their own people but as the Goy Other that must be kept in their place, and what better and more permanent way to destroy white power than by demographically eclipsing whites with non-white goyim. Jews say O Vey, whites better Obey. The current West is something like an 'oligomocracy', i.e. it's totally controlled by the oligarchy but within the framework of what appears to be a democracy.

Honest people find themselves caught between the Power that prioritizes control and the People who gobble up whatever slop they're fed. It's the Glob and the Mob. Consider how the Twitter Mob works. Them 'woke'(or Jewoke) idiots swallow all the crap fed them by the Jewish-controlled media and academia. They think they are more 'sophisticated', 'evolved', and 'hip' because they get their ideas and views from supposed 'progressives' with elevated elite credentials. Not that American 'conservatives' are much better as they wolf down all the crap fed them on Talk Radio which is mostly controlled by Neocon monopolists. (And even alternative voices like Alex Jones would have us believe Arabs own Hollywood and China has something to do with diminishing freedom in the West.) These proggies feel smarter because they hang around tonier parts of the city, attended fancier colleges, watch Young Turks, listen to NPR, and maybe have a subscription to the New Yorker. Now, one can get lots of valuable news and information from such sources — they sure beat the 700 Club and much of Talk Radio — , but all said and done, they dare not venture outside the boundaries of discourse as insisted by Jewish Power. Indeed, the sudden war on Free Speech by so-called 'progressives' has been instigated from above by Jewish supremacist opinion-makers.

They are not about free-ranging intelligence in search of truth but corralled and tamed 'intelligentry' in service to Jewish Power and the gods it controls. Jews fear true secularism where people are free to use reason and facts in pursuit of worldview that comports with reality. Such secularism favors no side as plenty of dirt can be dug up about any group. It could dig up lots of dirt on Anglos, Germanics, and Slavs but also plenty on Jews, blacks, homos, and etc. Mao Zedong soon realized his system couldn't be sustained by the principles of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. For a season or two, something like a real liberal spirit prevailed in China as people were allowed to say anything, even against the party. Few drips turned into a torrent that then threatened to break the dam of party authority. Likewise, the liberal experiments in Czechoslovakia in the mid 60s eventually led to Prague Spring that challenged the very authority of the Communist Party. Soviet tanks had to roll in to turn the tide. Mikhail Gorbachev had his own Hundred Flowers Campaign called Glasnost and, unlike Mao who soon reversed course, he allowed it to take root and grow. Result was a million complaints from the people and the utter demoralization of party members. It wasn't long before the whole edifice of Soviet authority crumbled. (Of course, by then, all of Eastern Europe had given up on communism and looked to the West for aid, guidance, and investment.)
In order for communism or at least communist party authority to remain, the Marxist brand of secularism had to enforce its sacraments and taboos. While lots of things could be questioned, certain things could not be. Marx and Lenin were gods, and communism was 'scientific materialism', and only a mentally ill person would dare question it.
Truth and facts are neutral. So, the Power wants truth and facts to shed light on the bad of the enemies and rivals but not of itself. The Power encourages the educated class to dig up all manner of dirt about the other side(s), even rewarding those who manufacture falsehoods(as with the Russia Collusion Hoax, Assad Gas Attack Hoax, and Jussie Smollett Hoax). The Power seeks flaws in the arguments and ideologies of competing powers but not in its own. Thus, secularism can never be totally rational or factual because the Power favors its own control than the general truth.
In a genuine liberal-secular democracy/republic, free speech and free discourse can boomerang on the Power as the educated class(often filled with resentment against the rich and privileged) may well critique the Power itself. Indeed, this is exactly what happened with the Anglo elites in US and UK. Even though they had plenty of educated men on their side, they also had to contend with the increasing chorus of criticism coming from within and without their own ranks, not least from Jews.
In regards to the Power, there are two natural tendencies among the People: Submission and Rebellion, and the two tendencies often co-exist. As often as not, rebellion is borne of resentment of not having been favored and/or approved by the Power than based on any real principle, though all rebels pretend they are motivated by higher values, and the same goes for submission, i.e. people join the Power and collaborate for personal gain, careerism, and peace of mind(as dissent can lead to harassment, purging, and even death) than out of any deep conviction. Most people are benders than standers.

At any rate, the Power is likely to attract as much criticism and pushback as cooperation and support in a free society. The opposition could be a matter of partisanship or personal conscience, as is true of compliance. When Anglo-Americans ruled the US, they had both lots of supporters and lots of critics. Of course, the influence of criticism altered the character of the ruling elites, in which case the once-supporters could become the new critics and once-critics the new supporters. Or, the change came about because the character of the support was altered by the influence of media and academia. After all, even the supporters of the Anglo-American Christian Order were bombarded by the Jewish-controlled media, and their children(groomed to work for the Power) were shaped by the increasingly Jewish-dominated academia. Consider the fate of the GOP. At times, the leadership came under Jewish influence and mandated a new set of 'values' for American Conservatives to follow, but at other times, the rank-and-file were altered by Jewish Influence and exerted pressure on the leadership to change course; or else, they threatened to leave the Party for the Democrats or the Independents.

No doubt, Jews understood this aspect of the secular-liberal dynamics of Power. Free Society meant free speech, and free speech meant the freedom of conscience and the free play of ideology to critique and challenge power and authority. Indeed, no group than the Jews did more to involve itself in taking apart, deconstructing, exposing, and invalidating the existing concentrations of Power, indeed so much so that, Jewish influence was seen almost as synonymous with social critique, dissent, ideological radicalism, and other modes of rebellion/dissidence, so much so that even anti-Jewish groups and those at odds with Jewish agendas developed grudging respect for Jews as standard-bearers of civil liberties. Now, we know it was either just a ploy or something Jews came to regret.

Secular freedoms can support and protect any side but also subvert and tear it down. One can use free speech to spread and defend Christianity or to mock and expose it as a delusion or hypocrisy. One can use free speech for or against Marxism. Secularism, in and of itself, doesn't have sacred cows, and that means ANYTHING can be critiqued, appraised, questioned, attacked, mocked, impugned, and etc.
Marxists understood this very well, which is why they made Marx and Lenin the new sacred cows. You could question, criticize, and condemn religions, capitalism, feudalism, traditionalism, liberalism, and etc. in a Marxist state but one could not question the 'scientific' and 'materialist' truth of Marx and Engel's ideas. After all, if secularism in a communist state could critique and diagnose Marxism like any other ideology or worldview, it could be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, not least because so many Marxist policies weren't working according to plan.

Jews are no different than Marxists in their grip on power. Though Jews today are super-capitalists and the LAST THING they want is communism, they know that the current Power Arrangement cannot allow total free speech founded on absolute commitment to secularism. They prefer a sacral-secularism, or 'securalism' whereby Jews get to pick and choose what is holy and unholy. Jews know that official religions aren't possible in a secular order, and so, they use media and academia to generate sacral-emotions on certain topics. That way, Jews can have the cake and eat it too: Jews can maintain what is ostensibly a secular order without official religions but also have a population that feels, thinks, and behaves as virtual spiritualists on certain matters.
Under this order, there are three kinds of qualities: Holy, Material, and Unholy. 'Holy' are those subjects that command reverence & piety and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; one must idolize, mourn, and/or celebrate them. As the Michael Jackson and Oprah cults have shown, people can be made to feel 'holy-schmoly' about anyone or anything. 'Material' are those subjects that are unrelated to the Holy and, therefore, can be discussed freely: Like the science of dairy products or the migratory behavior of birds. 'Unholy' are those matters that pose a danger to the Holy and, therefore, cannot be discussed freely; they must be condemned outright and, in the absence of legal protection of free speech, banned, as is already the case in UK, Canada, and EU.

MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, Globo-Homo, and Jews are holy. All Good People must gush about them. Covid-19 and 'vaccines' have also entered the realm of the Holy; the 'jabs' and the never-ending boosts are the new communion rituals. If you dare to discuss Covid-19 freely and speculate as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, you are a heretic and must be mocked as a 'horse-dewormer' taking devil-worshiper. Most diseases and treatments are in the 'Material' realm, or open to free scientific discourse, but Covid-19 and the 'vaccines' are not; the only allowable 'science' is the one pushed by the Jewish Globalist World order that controls the Deep State, Big Pharma, and Big Media. Indeed, notice how the nay-sayers of the 'vaccines' are effectively 'excommunicated' from the church of 'trust-the-science'(or schwience). And of course, anyone who dares to freely discuss the problems of racial differences, black crime, Jewish perfidy, homosexual decadence, tranny nuttery, and etc. are immediately deemed 'Unholy'; everything is done to ban such voices from media, academia, and even internet platforms that once used to be bastions of free speech. Like the Marxists in communist nations, Jewish Supremacists realized their grip on supremacy isn't tenable in a world of free flowing opinions and ideas where anyone and everything can come under scrutiny, criticism, and reappraisal. 'Unholy' views are immediately and roundly attacked as 'far right', 'hateful', and etc., funny coming from a people who've committed the most violence and mass killings since the end of the Cold War. Just ask the Arabs and Muslims whose policies led to the destruction of millions of them. They were victims of Jewish-Supremacist policies that animate the cuckish aggressions of the Anglo-managed US and UK.

American Pravda: the ADL in American Society - From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day - by Ron Unz

Something of the Jewish character can be glimpsed from a consideration of Anne Frank and Leo Frank. The comparison may seem perverse as one was an innocent victim of Nazi inhumanity whereas the latter was a pervert-murderer. But, not if the comparison focuses on the Jewish Reaction to the two individuals(or the two events they're associated with), and it has to do with Denial, a term usually associated with the Holocaust but which applies so often to Jewish reactions to events. Even to this day, Jews are in USS Liberty Denial mode. While Nazi horrors were many times more murderous and destructive than Israel's attack on the US ship, the nature of the lie is the same: A pathological inability to face up to the truth for purpose of ethnocentrism. (Ironically, Holocaust Denialists and Holocaust Dogmatists have more in common than they realize. Both are invested in History as Faith, either in the total innocence or absolute guilt of the Germans. This false dichotomy has made it virtually impossible to have a true historical discussion on the subject as anyone suspected of 'revisionism' is thrown into the Denial Camp.) What matters is the attack on USS Liberty was clearly a hostile act by Israel, but to this day, Jews refuse to own up to what happened. And not just the Israeli government, which would at least be understandable, but Jews all around the world. What does this say about Jewish Power and the general character of Jewishness when most Jews aren't willing to face up to the most obvious facts?

And if Jews aren't willing to face up to what happened to USS Liberty, why would they be any more honest or principled on far graver matters? And if most Jews, 'conservative' and 'liberal', so readily circle the wagons on something so obvious and undeniable, the only logical conclusion is that, for most Jews, ethnic unity and power take precedence uber alles. Besides, it's not as if Jewish criminality has been limited to isolated incidents like the USS Liberty attack. Jewish finance played a significant role in the expansion of European Imperialism, not least the Anglo kind. Jews had a key role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(at least in South America) and the forced sale of opium to China. Jewish merchants played a role in the Westward expansion and the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and Jewish radicalism played a key, even decisive, role, in the spread of communism and its horrors that led to the deaths of millions. And since the end of the Cold War, World Jewry have been the main butchers of the world as overlords of the lone superpower, the US, the foreign policy priority of which has been appeasing Zion by serving as its murderous attack dog. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others.
Furthermore, Jews have been the main concocters of this 'wokeness'(or Jewokeness) that plants poison seeds in the souls of whites(mainly via Afromania and Globo-Homo degeneracy) and prepares the West for White Nakba.

But, because Jewish Power has been dispersed among various nations in which goy 'buffers' were often employed to do the bidding of Zion, much of Jewish Evil has been attributed to anyone but Jews. So, Iraq War is blamed on George W. Bush and 'Neocons'(with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the most prominent faces), and most of the current lunatic policies are blamed on Joe Biden even though he's just a puppet of his Jewish Handlers. Even when Jews were considerably less powerful in the past, they had sway over key members of the goy elites via the control of money.
What all this means is that, while Jews have much to accuse the goy world of, they also have much to be accused of and much to answer for. Also, apart from the policies of National Socialist Germany that sought to be Jew-Free, thereby making its crimes its own, it's not so easy to differentiate the Jewish Role from the Goy Role in much of the Modern West. Jews, like the Irish, collaborated in much of British Imperialism. If most Irish did it as foot-soldiers, Jews did it as financiers. So, ironically, National Socialism rendered Jews the most innocent of German crimes during the Nazi Era, whereas the Western Powers that allowed Jewish participation made Jews accomplices in their 'racist' domination of the world. Not that any of this matters in the current Jewish-controlled Historiography whereby we are to believe Jews were always pure-as-snow innocents who were totally blameless of Western Imperialism and, if anything, the main poor hapless victims of Western 'antisemitism'.

Though Anne Frank and Leo Frank are two very different individuals, both have been shrouded by Jewish Lies. Thus, what unites them is the culture of Jewish Mendacity. Never mind the stuff about Anne Frank story being partly created by her father. Never mind the rather ludicrous canonization of some Jewish Girl into the new madonna. We can accept that she was a nice girl and met a sad fate(though she died of disease than gassing or a bullet to her head). The LIE is in propping her cult as the main face of Jewishness, thereby creating a false impression as to why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred and why the Germans were driven to such extremes. It'd be like using some Japanese girl who died in Hiroshima as the main face of Japan's place in World War II.
Now, clearly many innocent children of all nationalities perished in the war, and there's no problem in remembering and mourning Jewish children who died in the Shoah. And Japanese children who died in the war should be remembered as well. But the war against Japan wasn't about some crazed desire to kill innocent Japanese girls. Rather, Japanese children were the unfortunate and tragic casualties of a war in which Japanese adults in powerful positions decided to play with fire. To understand Japan's role in WWII, one needs to focus on the politicians, industrialists, military men, ideologues, and the Emperor. Likewise, even though many innocent Jews, even children, were persecuted and killed in WWII, no real understanding of the Jewish Role in the war can be understood without taking into account the dangerous and even reckless roles played by Jewish radicals, bankers, gangsters, fraudsters, corrupters, and perverts. Remembering Anne Frank as a sad child victim of History is a decent thing to do, but using her as the Face of Jewishness in the Modern Era is utterly bogus.
After all, Germans could do the same. Consider all the innocent German children who were killed by bullets or bombs, or who were raped(most likely by Soviet troops), or perished from starvation and disease. All such lives should be remembered, but it'd be foolish to use her story as exemplary of Germany's role in World War II. No, Germany got embroiled in the horrors because of Adolf Hitler and his reckless worldview(though it certainly wasn't helped by Josef Stalin, FDR, Winston Churchill, and others itching for some kind of major conflagration). Anne Frank Cult as the face of the Holocaust Narrative overlooks the role of Jewish Power that led to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists. Germans went to the dark side not because they wanted to hurt innocent Jewish children but had-it-up-to-here with the crimes and corruption of Jewish Power. However, in handing power to a bunch of radical Anti-Semites, there was the danger of innocent Jews getting it in the neck as well. But innocent Japanese also got burned for the crimes of their rulers.
Granted, it's never quite simple to draw a clear line between guilt and innocence. After all, many Japanese supported the policies of their rulers. But then, their minds were largely manipulated by the rulers who controlled the media, so there was a kind of circular logic to the mania. Likewise, many Jews did nothing to restrain the vileness of their tribal elites(and little has changed over the years as Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal are exceptions than the rule) and a good number of them participated, though not as key players, in the vile machinations of their tribal leaders. So, absolute guilt and absolute innocence are virtually non-existent. One could say children are innocent, which is true enough, but it's only a matter of time before children are indoctrinated into soldiers of the regime, much like it's only a matter of time before tiger cubs grow into predators. Children are innocent in the moment but not in their destinies, most of which are controlled by external forces; besides, even the internal drives of human nature leads one to aggression, competition, domination, or service to dominant forces.

If Jews used an innocent girl, Anne Frank, as the face of all Jews threatened or killed in the World War II period, Jews denied the guilt of Leo Frank altogether even though he was most certainly guilty of the rape-murder. A case of rape-murder denial. Though only one girl was raped and killed by Leo Frank, the Jewish pathology behind the denial isn't much different in kind from the denial of those who naysay all documented details of the Shoah. In some ways, it's worse among Jews because, whereas Holocaust Denial is a fringe phenom among goyim, Leo-Frank's Rape-Murder Denial has been the mainstay of Jewish Power and Jewish Majority, much like USS Liberty Attack Denial. Add to this the Jewish Virtual-or-Emotional Denial of the Rosenbergs' guilt in slippling atomic secrets to Stalin. While most Jews came to admit Rosenbergs were guilty of the act, they melodramatized the Narrative to make the Rosenbergs and other communists the 'victims' of 'red-baiting' and 'paranoid' anti-communists. So, even when Jews admit a good number of Jews were involved in treason and treachery, they canonize the guilty as 'victims' while reviling the prosecutors as subhuman persecutors of all things decent and humane.

Leo Frank was eventually lynched by a mob that just about had enough. He was only one person, indeed the only Jew ever lynched on American Soil. Therefore, it may seem ridiculous and perverse to compare his case with the Holocaust where, purportedly, 6 million Jews perished(though the real number is probably half that), Anne Frank included. US was good to Jews, Germany of the Nazi period was horrible for Jews. And yet, history and truth aren't merely about numbers. One Jew or Six Million Jews, the motivations of goy hatred could be the same. Thus, what the Leo Frank Case(the death of one Jew) and the Anne Frank Case(the death of millions of Jews) have in common is the Jewish tendency to commit horrific crimes and use the tribal network to circle the wagons.
Lucky for Jews, such Jewish behavior led to minimum anti-Jewish violence in the US(relatively speaking), but consider the goy rage in both US and Germany. In the US, southern white goyim were more than willing to give Leo Frank the benefit of doubt and his day in court. Frank wasn't treated like some Negro but had all the legal defense one could hope for. And yet, facts proved his guilt beyond a doubt, and the proper thing for Jews would have been to make him face justice. But, what did the Jewish community do? They circled the wagons. They chose tribal ethnocentrism over justice for the dead goy girl. Apparently, the life of a Jewish rapist-murderer was more precious than the life of a goy girl seen as little more than a shikse whore(later to replayed by Roman Polanski's case). Jews not only refused to face up to facts but tried to frame a Negro. And then, the Jewish Press slandered southern whites(who'd been kindly to Jews) as a bunch of raving 'anti-semites' when they'd offered Leo Frank every opportunity to prove his innocence. The real issue isn't that Leo Frank was a creep. All groups have their rapist-murderer creeps; John Gacy was no Jew. The issue was the Jewish Community went out on a limb to protect a fellow Jew despite his obvious guilt(and things are even worse today, with Jonathan Pollard giving the US a middle finger as he swaggers around Israel as a 'hero').

The Southern White Goy community just about had enough and took matters into its own hands. They grabbed Leo Frank from the jail cell and lynched him. The goy rage wasn't much different from what would happen among Germans during the Weimar Period, in which many German Jews, backed by World Jewry, did horrible things to the German economy, culture, and political process, which they would repeat all over again in Russia of the 1990s. But, the difference is German Rage put radical Anti-Semites in power, and the Nazis had a worldview not so different from that of Jews: supremacism. Just like so many Jews felt Jews could never do wrong and should always circle the wagons to protect other Jews, guilty or innocent, the National Socialist direction for Germany was Aryans Uber Alles.
Still, the rage that many German citizens felt that drove them to support the National Socialists wasn't much different from the rage felt by the Southern White mob that finally had had enough of Leo Frank and had him lynched. In both cases, goyim were driven to the limit by Jewish vileness. Historically, Germany had been less anti-Jewish than most European nations, but Germans came to believe that their relative niceness toward Jews only emboldened Jews to act more shitty. Likewise, historically the American South had been kinder to Jews, but how did Jews pay back this favoritism? They circled the wagons to defend the loathsome Leo Frank, the rapist-murderer of a white Christian girl.

Most crucially, both the US and Germany failed to do the right thing. In the case of Germany, the new regime went after ALL Jews. Even if many Jews had acted badly, there was no reason to target all Jews as the majority of Jews hadn't been gangsters, communist radicals, or financial thieves. And some were patriots who had fought in World War I and respected German culture. In going after all Jews, National Socialism disgraced itself and finally blackened German reputation with war and genocide.
One would like to believe the American Example was infinitely better. After all, Americans didn't go after all Jews but targeted one Jew, the guilty Leo Frank. Not that Jews ever appreciated this as they lionized Leo Frank as a saint, and the organization that grew out of the incident, ADL, now serves as the 'moral' muscle of Jewish Power and twists arms everywhere to push for Censchwarzship.
Still, it's surely far more sensible to go after the one guilty Jew than go after an entire community. Better to kill one bad person than kill 'six million', among whom the good are mixed with the bad. And yet, Americans also made a fatal mistake in the Leo Frank case. While only Leo Frank was responsible for the rape and murder of the white girl, much of the Jewish Community had been downright vile and verminous in trying to exonerate him out of tribal solidarity that smacked of racial supremacism: "We Jews are above the law when it comes to harming lowly goyim." (What's truly disgusting is that, even after all these years, Jews have doubled-down on the rape-murder denial and pretend as if Leo Frank is their own 'Emmett Till', all the funnier when even the real Emmett Till wasn't the 'Emmett Till' of myth, though St. George Floyd takes the cake when it comes to perfidious Jewish-manufactured idolatry. Even though the white mob was pushed to extreme measures against Leo Frank because of the dirty Arnold-Rothstein machinations of the Jewish Community, Jews have blame only the whites, never themselves.)

The real shame of the Leo Frank case isn't that some lowlife Jew was lynched. It's that White Americans didn't go far enough and do more. While it's a good thing that White Americans never became radically deranged like the Germans under National Socialism, they failed to realize that the main villain of the Leo Frank case wasn't Leo Frank himself but the Jewish Power Network defined by Jewish Tribal Supremacism. Indeed, Leo Frank would have been summarily tried and sentenced, and that would have been that had it not been for obnoxious Jewish meddling. The case was prolonged and perverted because Jews pulled every string in the book to prevent justice for the rape-murder victim. So, while Leo Frank was guilty of his crime, the Jewish Power Network was guilty of something far more egregious and consequential: Corruption of the justice system, and for what? Jewish supremacism that holds in contempt the humanity of white girls regarded as 'shikse' whores. So, White Americans shouldn't have stopped with Leo Frank. They should have started a movement to root out the networks of Jewish corruption and villainy. This doesn't mean they should have become like raving Nazis and gone after innocent Jews or done what they did to the Japanese-American population during World War II. Rather, at the very least, they should have done everything to root out the widespread elements in the Jewish Community that form networks and work together in favor of Jewish lives and interests regardless of truth and/or justice. The failure to do that has led to the rise of Jewish Networks that now rob the world through Wall Street and Big Pharma, that perverts the law to let Antifa thugs and BLM lunatics to run free and get a slap on the wrist if arrested... while January 6 protesters are denied the most basic of legal rights and parents who protest anti-white CRT agenda are labeled as 'domestic terrorists' by vile Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland(who almost became Supreme Court justice).

So, if Germans went too far in their reaction to Jewish Evil by going after ALL Jews, even good ones, White Americans didn't go far enough by fixating on the individual Jew while overlooking the power of the Jewish Network. After all, it makes no sense to see Jonathan Pollard as merely a bad individual Jew. He did what he did as part of a Jewish Network, and this network, with tentacles in academia-media-government-banking-etc., eventually pulled all stops to spring that lowlife scum from prison. Germans under National Socialism, in going after bad Jews, even went after innocent Jews, destroying the lives of girls like Anne Frank as well. White Americans thought the problem would be solved by taking out Leo Frank the bad Jewish individual while overlooking the fact that Leo Frank managed to elude justice for so long because of the Jewish Power Network operating on the premise of Jewish Supremacism and total contempt for 'filthy goyim'.

The Ideal Way for Americans would have been to Name the Jewish Power, to expose the Jewish Network. Jewish Evil isn't a simple matter of bad individuals doing their own thing but, more often than not, a matter of a bunch of Jews acting in concert within a network. It's like the Mafia, which is why RICO laws were necessary to bring down the underworld empire. Just going after individual mafia hoodlums(as if they're lone wolf street thugs) hardly made an impact on the mafia network; it was like cutting off one tentacle off an octopus that merely grew new ones. To take out the Mafia, the individual crooks had to be linked to the network and its bosses.
Likewise, Leo Frank was protected by the Jewish Network, which later canonized him as a saint, much like Tony Kushner did for the Rosenbergs in ANGELS IN AMERICA. To prevent further such abuse, White America should have at least gone after the Jewish Network and exposed it for what it is. Granted, it would have been more difficult with Jews than with the Italian-Americans whose criminality was far more specific to a social milieu. Indeed, Italian-Americans who broke from the Criminal Community tended to assimilate into Anglo-Americanism or Generic Americanism. In contrast, even Jews who operated above ground retained a powerful sense of tribal identity and loyalty, rendering mafia-like much of the Jewish networks in academia, media, government, and etc. Rudy Giuliani became just a New York mayor and did little for the Italian-American community. The idiot Cuomo Brothers are mainly careerists and have nothing to do with Italian-ness. But look at Jews like Victoria Nuland, Wendy Sherman, Merrick Garland, Stinkin' Blinken, and the rest of them, and they are NOTHING without Jewish Tribalism. Indeed, the demands of Jewish Tribalism are so strong that even goyim in politics cower before its will. Even Donald Trump who, in 2016 boasted that Jews don't own him because he's so rich, did little in office but take it up his ass from the Jewish Lobby and beg, "Can I suck your dic*?"

What the West needs is a RICO-ist approrach against Jewish Power Network. The evil didn't end with Leo Frank. He almost got away with rape/murder because of the Network, the same reason Roman Polanski has been able to sit nice and pretty all these years without facing justice. Indeed, can anyone explain the silence about USS Liberty without taking the Jewish Power Network into account? Or what really happened on 9/11 and how lies were spread in the media(essentially a Jewish Power Network) to rouse public support for Iraq War? Or how Jews managed to rape the Russian economy in the 1990s? Did just a handful of Jews, as mere individuals, manage to pull off the heist of the century all on their own? Or, were they enabled by the Worldwide Jewish Network? And consider the Russian Collusion Hoax. The Covid Hysteria and the rigging of the 2020 election. These were not done by isolated individuals but by the Network with links in government, media, academia, courts, finance, etc.

So, the lesson of the 20th century in regard to Jewish Perfidy is that the Germans went too far and the Americans didn't go far enough. Germans, in going after Jewish Evil, went after the entire population. Americans, in contrast, targeted only the individual while ignoring the power of the Jewish Network. Indeed, it is precisely because the Network was left alone in the US that Jews even managed to push the narrative that Leo Frank was some innocent saint lynched by a crazed 'anti-semitic' mob that, I supposed, one day just got off their ass to kill a totally innocent Jew for the hell of it.
IAIN DAVIS DISSECTS THE PSEUDOPANDEMIC

Beware of Nominalism — Why Russian & Chinese National Fascisms are Necessary Bulwarks against Jewish-Gangster-Globalist-Fascism — Paradox of How the US destroys true democracy around the world by promoting its parasitic brand of deep state Imperial Democracy

Michael Lind: "Another answer is that members of the establishment are almost all nominalists. That is to say, if they give something a name, it takes on real existence in their minds. The Afghan National Army offers a perfect example. Because we called it an army, gave it lots of American money, equipment and training, and knew its order of battle, it was an army. But it wasn't."

'Democracy' is a word game in our political culture of nominalism, or judging things by name or brand than what it really is.

Fascist Theory of Power is true. All things of power turn 'fascist'. Ideology gives into the true dynamics of power, and the winners(or at least survivors) subscribe to all or most of the pillars of power-essentialism.

Jews used to be socialist, anarchist, communist, liberal, libertarian, or etc. Today, Jews are overwhelmingly tribal. They are now focused on power, not principles. Of course, they tirelessly invoke principles but only to twist and bend them to the needs of power, not the other way around. Fascist theorists understood this nature of power and human nature. In time, all things, at least those with the will and wherewithal to survive and gain in strength, turn fascist. A movement can start from the right or the left, but the end result for survivors and winners is the intersection where fascist truths converge. It's been said fascism was defeated in WWII, but only a kind of fascism met such fate. What we've seen since is the rise of new fascisms but guised as something other. Indeed, all post-WWII fascisms have postured as 'anti-fascist'. Even fascists hate the label because it's too candid and forthright about the nature of power. Just like people wear clothes to conceal their nakedness, most forms of power cloak themselves with rhetoric about 'higher principles', 'freedom', 'social justice', or 'the people'. Indeed, even Italian Fascists and National Socialists did this with their overripe reliance on myths and cult of personality. It was to hide the essentially gangster nature of those in power who, far from embodying the noblest qualities of their civilizations, gained position by a good measure of cunning opportunism and backroom compromises.

Supposedly, the end of the Cold War was also the End of History, with liberal democratism and free markets triumphant all over the world. But Francis Fukyomama got it all wrong. The passing of the Ideological Age didn't lead to the rise of the Individual Age but to the Globo-Tribal Age, one where a group(Jews) that refused to abandon its tribal identity &power urged upon all others to do just that. Following WWII, the ideal had been universal nationalism or universal tribalism: Each nation would embrace nationalism but against imperialism as a violator of national independence. Indeed, both the US empire and Soviet empire during the Cold War justified their hegemony as the guarantor of nationalism against the imperialism of the other side, e.g. USSR supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against American Imperialism, and the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Imperialism.

But following the end of the Cold War, the new mantra wasn't nationalism-for-all but one-world globalism, or the (not-so)gradual erasure of all nationalism to bring about a New World Order with US as the lone superpower guaranteeing freedom of individuals and markets all over the world. According to Fukuyama, the future was about universal individualism for all nations under the protective power of the US as the great post-national empire, one that used its might not to dominate and exploit others but to emancipate them and open them to opportunities.
Whatever one thinks of this idea, pro or con, the people who gained dominance in the West had other ideas. While Jews pushed deracinated globalist individualism to everyone around the world, they themselves stuck to Jewish supremacist tribal-nationalist-imperialism. Thus, the New World Order was really Jew World Order, with one set of rules for most of the world and another set of rules for the Jews. This contradiction has perhaps been best exemplified by the diabolical figure of George Soros.
Jewish aim wasn't to simply join the global humanity but to rule as the master race over the rest. Notice Jewish Power has been about mass migration for all nations but NOT for Israel. Jews insist on white deracination but demand that whites praise and champion Jewish Power and Zionism. As such, the agenda of universal individualist-globalism was deeply marred(and even doomed) because its most fervent proponents, the Jews, refused to apply it to themselves. It's like the Sacklers pushing opioid junk on goyim. As far as Jews were concerned, globo-individualism was for goy suckers, not for themselves. It was to weaken goyim and bring about their dissipation into atomized individuals, all the while Jews would empower their networks and embolden their identity. (True, many Jews intermarry with goyim, but the children are raised as Jews, just like black-white pairings lead to 'black' kids. In any race-mixing, one race gains dominance over the other. It's like all those mestizos are labeled as Latino, a European-derived identity.)

So, the New World Order after the Cold War was a two-faced beast. On the one hand, as Fukuyama pontificated, it was about the spread of post-ideological and post-national global-universalism of individualism, free trade, and rule of law. (Rule of Law is problematic in a world where a tiny cabal uses its legal and financial dominance to rewrite any set of laws. While goyim are expected to obey the laws, Jews get to rewrite them as they please. Rule of Law used to mean defense of free speech as a Western principle, but with Jewish rewriting of laws, it now means the police can arrest you for speaking truth to Jewish power, Homo idolatry, or Black thuggery. Worse, Rule of Law is useless when Jewish-controlled US, as the lone superpower, does as it pleases around the world. US is illegally occupying the oil-rich parts of Syria but gets away with it. So much for Rule of Law.)

Now, post-national globo-individualism is anathema to many on the Right(and some on the Left who oppose capitalism), but it was doomed to create havoc because of Jewish supremacist hypocrisy. Perhaps, the globalist agenda would have panned out better in Russia had Jewish advisers been more principled and dedicated to fairness and justice. Instead, Jews exploited the opportunity to rape Russia... which turned most Russians against globalism. And in the US, Jewish Power grew ever greedier. Via ethically dubious machinations of finance and big tech, Jews got richer and richer. By suppressing BDS, Jews created a system where Jews can call for boycott of any political group or any Muslim nation but no one can call for boycotts against Jews and Zionism. Jews in power get to decide what is 'terrorism'. When Israel does it or supports it, it's never called 'terrorism', but false-flag events in Syria, of which Assad isn't guilty, are labeled as such. Even non-existent crimes of Assad are deemed 'terrorist' by US State Department and Jewish-controlled mass media, whereas Israel's endless terror-bombings of Syria and its support of ISIS goons never are.

What Jews did to Muslims, they've also done to whites who are now being denied platforms, free speech, and financial services. Samuel Huntington wrote about the Clash of Civilizations, but the most important one was not between the West and the Muslim World. It was between the West and the Jews, but people failed to see this because (1) there were too afraid to speak truth to Jewish Power (2) they were too philosemitically beholden to Jewish Power (3) Jews are regarded as part of the West because of assimilation.
Huntington spoke of Western Values vs Muslim Values, but the main threat to Western Values came from Jews who'd penetrated deep into Western institutions. While tolerance for homos can be said to be a part of Western Value, since when was Celebration of Sodomy a Western Value? Since when was Western Values about fifty genders and the fantasy that a fat guy with penis and balls is a 'woman'? Since when was the deification of black thuggery and Afro-savagery as neo-sainthood a Western Value? Since when was Jungle Fever and White Male cuck-maggotry a Western Value? No, all these sicknesses had no roots in Western Civilization but were planted as poison seeds by Jews. But Huntington focused on Muslims. Sure, Muslim values are at odds with Western values, but why were there so many Muslims in the West in the first place? Why did Europeans become so accepting of the Great Replacement and Diversity? (For most of European History, the West was about defense of the race, preservation of Classical Civilization, faith in Christianity, and/or Rationalism & Enlightenment. What passes for 'western values' in the Age of Globalism is anything but.)
And why did the West stir up the hornet's nest in the Middle East with interventions, wars, and support of terrorists(usually against Arab secular regimes war with Islamic fanatics who were mainly funded by Saudis, key allies of the West)? Granted, Huntington expounded his views before the West went fully 'woke' with globo-homo and BLM nonsense. Still, the main flaw of his thesis resulted from fixating on Muslims than on Jews. Even 9/11 wouldn't have averted if the US, under Jewish pressure, hadn't gotten so mired the Middle East, especially beginning with the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush. 9/11 was essentially blowback with the winds fanned by the hidden hand of Zionist gangsterism. Idiot Muslim terrorists were the sailboat, and Jewish Power was the gods blowing the winds in certain directions. Just like how the gods guide men vs men in THE ILIAD.

The Jewish refusal to surrender to globo-individualism(that was really meant for goyim) doomed the principled foundations of globalism. Whether one supports or opposes globalism, one could at least acknowledge its principled universalism had it demanded the same of ALL peoples. But for Jews, it was a case of 'you goyim take the medicine while we Jews play doctor'. Russians woke up to this, and globalism failed in Russia. But there was another factor. China, like the Jews, took part in the business-aspect of globalism but clung to its nationalism under the leadership of CCP, the only Asian government, apart from that of Vietnam, that wasn't created more-or-less under US neo-imperialist domination.

So, while white cucks in the West became totally spellbound by Jewish Power, Chinese(and Russians and of course Iranians) kept their independence. In a way, this explains why white cucks(libby-dib or conzo-wonzo) are so angry with Russia and China. Why should Russian and Chinese goyim remain independent of Jewish Power when whites in the West have totally groveled and cucked to it? The anger is partly based on ideology and partly on envy. Many white cucks sincerely believe they are the 'most evolved' people on the planet because they are into self-debasement, Negro Worship, cuckery to Jews, and globo-homo mania. They really believe this. But, on the subconscious level, they feel envious of Russians and Chinese who say NO to Jewish globalist authority. White cucks can't help sensing that Russians and Chinese are more like defiant wolves while they themselves are totally obedient dogs. John McCain barking at Putin was so much like a dog barking at a wolf. It was in total servility to the Jewish Master but also in envy of Putin's relative independence from him.

White cucks will say they hate Russia and China because those two states reject 'liberal democratic' values, but if that's the case, why are white cucks so supportive of Jewish supremacism, Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, and Black megalomania? It seems white cucks also have their tribal favoritism: Blacks over non-blacks and Jews over Palestinians & Iranians. And it seems white cucks believe that Muslims, such as Afghanis, have human value ONLY WHEN they adopt 'gender studies' and globo-homo. Are white cucks even aware of their hypocrisy? Cold Hypocrisy of cynical politicians is bearable because so many people say one thing while doing another. But, white cucks are into Hot Hypocrisy, the kind where passions are at odds with principles. If we tend to despise religious hypocrites more than political ones, it's because politics is about cold hypocrisy of saying whatever to get elected. In contrast, when religious types invoke God and morality but then act like louts, thieves, and perverts, it comes across as far worse. Because 'woke' craziness has all the fervor of a religious movement, the hypocrisy is hot and beneath contempt. And of course, Jews are among the hottest hypocrites, always sermonizing about 'hate', Holocaust, 'racism', and 'white supremacism', all the while acting like Zio-Nazis or Jewzis. Just ask the Palestinians. Also, Jews who, for so long, never tired of denouncing 'McCarthyism' as the darkest period in US history are now 100x worse than the anti-communists. The former bitchers about 'red-baiting' and 'anti-communist hysteria' are into white-baiting, Christian-bashing, Constitution-smashing, and free-speech-attacking. Jews also warned people of how the Nazis used medicine as cultural metaphor and political tool, but now Jews use medical tyranny to lend the impression that those who say NO to the 'vaccine' are germs that must be stamped out.

21st century has been about the resurgence of fascism even though all these new forms of fascism hides behind the nominalism of 'liberal world order', 'democracy', 'socialism', or what have you. While some governments admit to being nationalist, a term less toxic in the globalist-controlled discourse, none dares to admit it has anything to do with fascism. It goes to show that World War II still casts a long shadow on the future. Because the peak of Soviet/Russian prestige came with the defeat of National Socialist Germany and full independence for China followed the total defeat of Japan(an ally of Germany), both the Russians and Chinese carry on the charade that they've been the main victims of and victors over fascism. And because Jews met their greatest enemy in the German fascism of National Socialism, Jews have since postured as the biggest anti-fascists in the world(though it hasn't restrained them from supporting quasi-nazi elements in Ukraine).
Of course, the main reason Jews denounce fascism is they want to keep its magic formula for themselves. After all, fascism fuses rightist and leftist elements, whereas other ideologies pit right against left, thus creating division, distrust, and general havoc among a people — indeed, whites are so divided because they reject fascism and opt for ideological partisanship(or even purism) as a 'blue-stater' or 'red-stater', whereas Jewish neo-cons and neo-libs work together to make both rightism and leftism serve the Jews. It's why the secret to power for whites isn't found in the new right or the dissident right but in the left-right, which was the source of success for Adolf Hitler and FDR — Hitler adopted leftist elements into German rightism, and FDR adopted rightist elements into American leftism; and if communism had a saving grace, it fused socialism with nationalism.

Now, there is no guarantee that a nation will be good and decent because it is fascist. Fascism, like any ideology, can be used in bad ways — democracy too can be a disaster, like Russia of the 1990s, South Africa under black majority rule, and all Anglosphere 'liberal democracies' today that have facilitated the rise of Zio-globo-oligarcho-gangsterism. Fascism can lead to brazen rule by gangsters, a case of Machiavellianism. While fascism as theory of power brings us closest to the true nature of power, the moral worth of fascist rule depends on how those lessons are reflected upon and practiced. After all, the truth can be used for good or ill, just like a gun can be used to protect or rob people or chemistry can be used to create medicine or poison. Just because fascism makes us better understand the nature of power doesn't mean we will be better people with power.

Despite the problems of corruption and general abuse of power in China and Russia, it's fair to say their use of fascism is preferable to that of Jews. Besides, paradoxically enough, the biggest enemy of democracy around the world is the Jewish-controlled US as the most fervent promoter of 'democracy'. True democracy must organically grow from the soil of any nation. American democracy worked relatively well because it developed independently of foreign meddling. It was democracy by Americans for Americans. In contrast, whenever some nation around the world tries to open up and liberalize, the US takes advantage of the freedom to infiltrate its institutions & networks and subvert its sovereignty & integrity as a unique homeland of a people and culture. It was Yanqui meddling that undermined attempts at democracy in Latin America, especially in Guatemala. Whether democracy succeeds or fails in some Latin American country, it should be up to the people there, not for Americans to interfere and decide what's what. If anything, things have gotten worse ever since Jews took over the US. In the past, white Americans, being the national majority and imbued with sound values, had no problem with majority rule and true morality. If anything, the core values of White Christian America weren't all that different from those of the Non-West; the only major difference was more tolerance of deviance and more individual liberty in the West. In contrast, Jewish-Americans seek to undermine majority authority and moral sanity in every country by spreading globo-homo and Afromania, the idea being that all European and Asian nations should elevate homo minority over the majority and care more for black thugs than their own peoples. Of course, such minority-privilege and moral inversion is means by which Jewish Power gets to sink its hooks into other nations. Jews think any nation that elevates homos and blacks over their own majority population no longer has a strong sense of national identity & security and is therefore ripe for Jewish globalist picking. Because of Jewish-controlled US meddling, democratic experiments have failed everywhere. The only kind of 'democracy' that the US and its EU satellite will tolerate is one that bends over to the Jewish-controlled afro-globo-homo-schlomo agenda. Whenever freedom and democracy lead to a system that has other ideas and says NO to the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda, the US does everything to undermine that country. It's like the US was for the Arab Spring until free elections brought Muslim Brotherhood into power. Then, the US backed the Egyptian military in the coup against the rightfully elected government. And Jewish-controlled US recruited thugs and stirred up mob violence to unseat the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. In other words, US support of democracy is really a kind of 'demockery'. It's not about the freedom of peoples around the world to choose their own values and destinies but about the US exploiting freedoms in other countries to infiltrate, subvert, corrupt, and prop up puppet regimes onboard with the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda. In other words, it's not about spreading true democracy or freedom but propping up puppetocracies. It's a form of Imperial Democracy, the cloning of 'new democracies' around the world to serve as shills of Jewish-controlled US as the Imperium. If all the houses in the neighborhood agree to keep their doors unlocked, such openness can work ONLY IF everyone agrees not to trespass onto other people's homes and steal stuff. Whenever a nation around the world unlocks its door, the US trespasses and rearranges everything in the house and even steals stuff. Naturally, the doors must be locked again to keep out the Americans(who now do the stealing for the Jews). So, even though freedom is preferable to autocracy, some measure of the latter is necessary to maintain national sovereignty in a world where the US, as the tool of Jews, promotes freedom not to bolster but to destroy national independence. It's like Jews promote youth culture not to make young people more free and independent but more dependent and addicted to junk culture and dumb fads pushed by Jews. 'Liberal Democracy' has come to mean conformity to the demands of Jewish Globalists. Of course, any honest person would notice that what Jews demand of goy nations, they never demand of Israel. What is good for Israel is not good for Hungary. What Jews demand of Hungary, they never ask of Israel. This is why the national fascisms of China and Russia are, at least at this moment in history, laudable as bulwarks against Jewish Supremacist gangster-fascist-terrorism.

21st century is turning out to be about three dominant fascisms, those of China, Russia, and the Jews. Chinese rule China, Russians rule Russia, and Jews rule US, EU, Anglosphere, and its cuck satellites(like Japan). China has arrived at a fascist equilibrium. Confronting Western Imperialist aggression in the 19th century, China was like a turtle that hid deeper into its shell of ultra-conservatism and reaction. It only kept China weak when faced with the challenges of modernity. Then, as if to compensate for its long decay under rigid traditionalism, China embarked on radicalism under Mao, but this war of culture and ideology led to great havoc and destruction. Then, China embarked on what seemed like a pro-market-oriented neo-liberal path, but the fates of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan under US ideological and idolatrous hegemony have proven to be culturally hollow, dissipating, and suicidal. Therefore, China seeks a balance of tradition and change, of international relations and national sovereignty. Same could be said of Russia. If rule under the Tsars was too reactionary, the rule by Bolsheviks was too radical and traumatizing. Also, mere communism held back initiative, enterprise, and economic growth, and then, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surrender to unfettered globo-capitalism led to Jewish economic rape, which dwarfed even the horrors of the Weimar Period in Germany. Vladimir Putin, for all his faults and limitations, have tried to steer Russia toward a balance of tradition and modernity, of markets and socialism. His method too is essentially fascist though he would be loathe to admit it in public.

At any rate, what Russian and Chinese neo-fascisms have in common is the conviction that power must be consolidated and constructed toward nationalist goals. Power must ultimately be about what is good for the nation and the people, not only for here and now but into the future. Therefore, even though Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin can act like gangsters at times, they do have some qualities of statesmen and genuine national leaders with a sense of patriotism and common good. Putinism is about what-is-good-for-Russia in Russia that is overwhelmingly Russian, and Xi-ism is about what-is-good-for-China in China that is overwhelmingly Chinese. Those are national-humanist fascisms. In contrast, Jewish supremacist fascism is purely tribal-gangsterist, indeed even worse than British and French rule over their colonies.

Nominalism(useful term invoked by Michael Lind) explains why so many people are fooled about the true nature of what's really happening. They are fooled by labels. Take 'gay rights'. It gives the impression that the globo-homo agenda is about allowing homos the right to be 'gay' and do their 'gay' thing. But that is not what the Agenda is about. It's about forcing everyone to celebrate and revere homos and even trannies. It's about official promotion of Anno Sodomini as the new faith for the educated elites, the 'more evolved'. Nominalism is used alongside symbolism, e.g. the 'rainbow' homo flag. So, even though homosexuality is about gross bung-donging inside the dark and dank anus, many people associate it with bright colors.

So, all this talk of 'democracy' vs 'autocracy' is BS. The current world is really about autocracy vs autocracy, except that Jewish Power hides behind labels of 'democracy', 'liberalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'equity', and 'inclusion'. Right, Jews are so into diversity that New York Times is full of Palestinian-American writers - not. Jews are so into equity that.... now, that is too funny. Jews, the richest and most privileged people into equity, ROTFL. As for 'diversity', what is it really about? It's about White Preferism, Capitalist Greed, Jewish Supremacism, and White Cuck Saviorism.
It's White Preferist in that non-whites prefer to move to white nations and live with white majorities than with their own kind. If Diversity is so great, why don't browns stay put as all of Latin America is pretty diverse? India is said to be very diverse along cultural, ethnic, and linguistic lines, but all these Hindus wanna move to white nations. Diversity is White Preferism.
As for businessmen, they just want cheap docile workers who complain less than native folks. We can understand why they'd rather hire newcomers than blacks, but it goes much further. Big Business would rather hire cheaper inferior foreign workers to superior American ones just to cut costs.
There is also a Jewish Supremacist angle: Increase non-white numbers and use them against whites. Also, more diversity among goyim means more division among them... which ensures Jewish Power.
As for white cuck savior complex, so many whites are not only stupid enough to fall for Jewish Diversity BS but subconsciously hanker for a kind of white supremacism. They feel that nonwhites are too dumb to take care of themselves and must live under paternal white guidance to see the light and enjoy the fruits.

So, beware of nominalism.

After all, what is 'racism' really about. It's not about treating all races equally and rejecting racial favoritism. No, it means the 'moral' necessity and even sanctity of treating blacks as our superiors in every way. In reality, blacks are the biggest thugs and pose the gravest threat to white people, but in stupid Hollywood horror movies, whites are hunted down by space monsters or flesh-eating goblins(or Evil White Males) and must rely on heroic and/or saintly blacks as their protectors or saviors. ROTFL. When Paul McCartney was accused of possible 'racism' for having badmouthed Pakistanis in the UK, his defense was he can't be 'racist' because his favorite people are blacks. If 'racism' is racial favoritism, isn't it 'racist' to favor blacks over others? But then, the agenda around 'racism' is to favor blacks for sympathy and consideration, even admiration and reverence. It's not about racial equality but superiority of blacks.

And what is politics around 'antisemitism' about. It's not about treating Jews the same way as the rest of humanity. No, it's about the obligation that Jews be treated better, always be favored, always be forgiven, always preferred. It's not about treating Jews and whites the same way. No, it's about Jews dictating to whites as to what's what, what is right or wrong; and whites must nod along without debate. It's not about treating Jews and Palestinians the same way. No, it's about letting Jews act as they wish with Palestinians. Even when Jews are clearly in the wrong, we must support them over Palestinians, and to say otherwise is to be an 'anti-semite'. So, the politics of 'antisemitism' is really about Jewish Supremacism, not about the need to treat Jews like everyone else, i.e. neither more deserving nor less deserving of justice and fairness.

But people are blind to this because of nominalism. 'Racism' gives the impression that it's opposed to ALL forms of racial hatred. But if so, why is there total silence about non-black victims of black mayhem and violence? 'Antisemitism' gives the impression that Jews are especially targeted by irrational haters and that we need to treat Jews as human beings deserving of equal justice. But 'antisemitism', as framed by ADL, SPLC, and Jewish-run media & deep state, really boils down to Jews having the divine right to control everything and do as they please as the 'made men' who cannot be questioned. In other words, its actual practice is Jewish Supremacism. The hell with nominalism and say yes to ACTUALISM.

We need to reject nominalism and accurately describe and name what is really what and what is really happening. The problem isn't 'racism' but black-thug-supremacism. The problem isn't 'antisemitism' but Jewish supremacism and Zionist gangsterism. The problem isn't that homos are denied 'gay rights' but that Gay Rites are pushed as the new mandatory cult in the West and that anyone who won't bend over to this devil-god and take it up the ass is blacklisted and destroyed by the Power.

CHINA'S WAR AGAINST "SISSY-MEN," GAMERS & WESTERN HYPOCRISY

Why is Homo-Farcia — a Farcical View of Homosexuality — regarded as 'Homophobia', something that does NOT even exist?

One of the most bogus terms and tools of social and political control is the term 'homophobia'. It means just about anything or anyone hated or feared by homos. It's rather like how 'antisemitism' has some to mean 'anyone or anything hated by Jews' than the other way around. But 'homophobia' is worse than 'antisemitism', which carried genuine meaning in certain times in history when anti-Jewish hatreds were especially strong and even virulent. In contrast, 'homophobia' is utterly misconceived as I doubt if anyone has really been diagnosed with phobia of homos or trannies. Now, what does 'phobia'? It doesn't merely mean fear, anxiety, dislike, hostility, or hatred. Those emotions could be involved but aren't essential to what makes a phobia. Phobia is a medical or clinical term of Extreme Panicked Fear, Fright, or Dread of Something Harmless or Innocuous. In other words, the fear must be extreme & panic-inducing(or close to it), and it must be in irrational reaction to something that causes no direct harm. So, if a tiger leaps out of the bush and scares the living daylights out of you, that's not a phobia. It's rational to fear an ambushing tiger. But if you run around screaming and climb a tree to get away from a mouse, that is a phobia. If you freeze in fear upon seeing a cobra, that's not a phobia. But if you see a garter snake and know it's utterly harmless but still react with utter disgust, dread, and panic, that's a phobia. If you fear being stung by a hornet, that's not a phobia as the sting is extremely painful and can even lead to death in rare cases. But if you freak out upon seeing a cricket or a non-venomous spider, you have a phobia about such a thing. For this reason, phobia is above all 'irrational'. It's a gut feeling you have about certain things that fill you extreme fear, dread, and disgust, usually accompanied with panic or fright. Arachnophobes, for instance, aren't only afraid of poisonous spiders like the black widow but of all spiders, even ones that they know are totally harmless to humans. Something about the spider's features sends chills down their spines or makes them sick in the stomach. They feel frozen in fear or want to take flight. If someone is placed in a coffin and buried, his fright would be most understandable. But a claustrophobe is someone who feels severe anxiety coming over him inside an elevator.

Now, we can trace the roots of the word and find it to simply mean 'fear', but in the modern lexicon it has come to be used as a medical/clinical term. Thus, it would be irresponsible to politicize it unless one is using it merely as a metaphor. For instance, 'cancer' is often used as a metaphor to describe certain dire social or political phenomenon that has grown out of control. Or 'earthquake' is used outside geology to describe massive social events that realign the way we see the world or how people live. But 'phobia' is not used that way by the media and academia. It has been politicized and weaponized to rob the other side of any claim to sanity, rationality, and/or mental health. It's all the more disturbing because the ones accusing the other side of being 'sick' are the truly sick ones. When you or your side is called 'phobic', it means there is no point to any argument, conversation, or discussion because you or your side are beyond the pale, lacking mental balance, utterly irrational, and hopeless sick of mind. It is the secular version of calling someone 'demon-possessed'. Among the religious, it makes no sense to have a moral or spiritual discussion with those whose souls have been take over by the Devil. The only way is to exorcize the evil spirit from the soul. Among secular PC types, those with a phobia are simply incapable of rational understanding and discussion because their minds are so infected or twisted with emotions and passions that make no sense to sane people with healthy minds. The ideological use of the term 'phobia' is a sign of scientism, an unscientific or even anti-scientific turn of the mind that is, however, cloaked in scientific language. It was scientism that allowed the quackery of Freudianism to exert such tremendous influence on society in the 20th century. Scientism was also behind Marxism, supposed a wholly scientific dialectical materialist understanding of history, humanity, and society. So much of modern belief isn't so scientific — as few people are trained in science and, furthermore, scientists have their own ideological biases — as it is quasi-spiritualist draped in scientific lab coat. Notice that so many people who are into global warming believe in it so passionately without knowing the science behind it. How can they be so passionate about something they understand so little about(apart from what they've been told by mass media in the hands of Jewish oligarchs)? Now, there may be much that is true about Global Warming, and maybe something should be done about it, but the level of cult-like lunacy one sees among the True Believers is closer to the dynamics of Faith than of facts. It's something that so many secular folks have latched onto in their subconscious need for new gods(and devils). Same thing goes for all the brouhaha about race. While it's true that the Nazis abused racial, genetic, and biological sciences to cook up their ridiculous theories about 'Aryans' and the like, the so-called 'anti-racist' school is just as irrational and bogus. Instead of regarding blacks as they really are, they've concocted the cult of the Magic Negro. Instead of countering cartoonish Nazi views of the Jews, they've promoted the sacred image of Jews as a race of neo-christs who died for the Sins of Western Man. And of course, the obnoxious elevation of homos as something akin to latter-day angels goes to show that rationality isn't always a strong suit among the secularists. What does a rational understanding of homos have to do with hysterical celebrations of homosexuality and tranny-business decked out in 'rainbow' colors? And if the homo cause is secular, why has the near-reverence of homos become bigger than Easter and Christmas in the West? And why are there bigger taboos and heresies about what we can say about homos(and Jews and blacks) than about God and Jesus(and Muhammad)? If you criticize Muhammad, you might still have a job in elite or upper circles... like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. But try putting down the likes of Harvey Milk, and you're in big trouble. For a secular cause, it's rather odd that the 'gay' lobby and its enablers(with Jews at the top) are so adamant about Christian Churches bending over to the holy homo cult. It seems these alleged secularists aren't so anti-spiritual as hellbent on bending all forms of spirituality to the will of the new faith, that of holy homo worship(which is really a proxy-pseudo-spiritual tool of the Jews).

At any rate, it's important for us to know why they use the term 'homophobia' and why they use it so casually, indeed promiscuously, to invalidate whom they disagree with. Indeed, it is rather odd how such a powerfully damning term has been used so widely and loosely to denounce so many people. People say Joe McCarthy got into the habit of arbitrarily accusing 'everyone' of being a communist, but he was an amateur compared to the Jew-run media/academia/state complex. Under Jewish control, not only has just about everyone been accused of 'racism' but 'antisemitism'. If you dare say anything to displease blacks, you're a 'racist'. You might be a 'racist', a subconscious one, even if you're a dye-in-the-wool Liberal. And today, 'anti-Semite' can even be someone who notices that Jews got a lot of power or that Zionism has been abusive toward Palestinians. Indeed, therein lies the power of weaponized terminology: On the one hand, the term defines something extreme, thereby implying something rare, unholy, or monstrous, and yet, on the other hand, it can easily apply to you as well. It's rather like the use of 'devil-worshiper' in the Christian lexicon. At once, it denotes something very dark — who but the most demented would worship the Devil? — and connotes it can apply to just about anyone. YOU could be the next one who is demon-possessed, and therefore you must join forces with all the GOOD people in impassioned & forceful denunciation of the Devil and his demon-possessed minions. The pop culture variant of this is the flesh-eating zombie movie. On the one hand, what can be more extreme and incredible than a dead person who walks again to feed on human flesh? And yet, the greater fear is that YOU could become a zombie too and all too easily with one bite. We see something similar now with the Covid-19 Virus scare. It's been depicted as a terrible disease of singular monstrosity, but guess what? You, your family, your relatives, your friends, your community, your city, your nation, and everyone on the planet could be next and indeed will be next unless there is a massive lock-down where we hand over all our keys to the government. In most horror movies, the monstrous is barely human and certainly not ordinary. Michael in HALLOWEEN is a rare breed indeed. He may stalk you and try to kill you, but he's not spreading Michaelism throughout the community. But in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, the unspeakable isn't only happening but can spread and take over the world. As such, they are even more horrifying than something like HALLOWEEN where, as long as Michael isn't in your town, you're safe.

And so, it is in the interest of the Power to (1) concoct something that sounds horrible and (2) make it seem rabid, infectious, and/or already widespread. It is thus pan-damning. Naturally, upon being told that there is something awful and that this awful thing is potentially everywhere, you want to take precautions against it to prove that YOU are clean of the disease or contamination. You either want the afflicted to be quarantined from the rest of society or even to quarantine all of society in fear that the sickness will spread to them as well. If the disease is mental, as in the case with the 'phobia' or some other scientifically(or more accurately scientistically) formulated sickness such as 'racism' or 'antisemitism', then it's deemed necessary for the media and academia to constantly fumigate the airwaves with ideological disinfectants and mass-vaccinate us with proper world-views and approved idols & icons.
While only homosexuals can be homosexual — as the current science says virtually all homos were born that way — , anyone can be afflicted with 'homophobia', and therefore all precautions and measures must be taken to limit the spread of this sickness. And just as anyone can be a sickly 'homophobe', anyone can be a healthy or cured 'homophile' who has gladly learned to love the Big Gay Brother. In a world where everyone fears being demon-possessed, there is a widespread desire to prove that one's with God against the Devil. Likewise, in a world where everyone has been informed that he or she could also be one of those dreaded 'homophobes', there is tendency, even mania, to prove that one is groovy with the homos(and trannies) against all those seemingly incorrigible and incurable cases of 'homophobes', the mental lepers of our age.

Now, it is necessary for people to take a time out and think for awhile. Of course, this is more difficult with the so-called millennials as PC-ideologizing-and-idolatizing from virtually the cradle began with that generation in full force. If they get you when you sleep in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the Power figures that the trick is to get them when they're young as children are without critical faculty and most vulnerable to emotional manipulations of faith and guilt. Then, it is no wonder that the Power(mostly Jewish) is so eager to push globo-homo PC at the youngest age possible in schools(and even kindergartens). It is a way for Jews to push elite-minority-supremacism as the New Normal to children of all races. As the Power now practices mind-snatching at the youngest possible age, it is getting ever more difficult to sustain a culture of thought. After all, emotions and sensations oftentimes override thought, however factual and honest it may be. Reason tends to weaken in relation to beauty & bliss and ugliness & blight. It's been said the IQ goes down around 20 points in the presence of a pretty/handsome person. It's no wonder that so many people make poor decisions when they're in love and eventually end up in divorce court. People are also less likely to think clearly in presence of the sacrosanct. Their reverent, even rapturous, state of mind favors faith while fearing anything that might undermine one's blissful unity with the holy. Such spiritual inclinations are the most potent when instilled at a young age when the mind is most malleable and without critical/skeptical barriers, and this explains why some highly intelligent adults who are rational about most things go into Manchurian-Candidate gear when it comes to spiritually-charged topics, such as evolution. Thought is also weakened in relation to strongly negative responses. No matter how decent a person may be, he will elicit negative feelings if he's ugly and gross. No matter how nutritious(and tasty) insects-as-food may be — as well as more moral as it's better to kill insects than fellow mammals — , many people feel disgust at the mere sight of them. A man may go with a bad woman with good looks than good woman with bad looks, and both responses fail in reason and basic judgement. The good looks blind the man to one woman's badness while the bad looks blind the man to the other woman's goodness. One reason why many people cannot rationally fathom something like pedophilia has to do with extreme disgust and animus they feel about the subject. They see it as so beyond the pale that they want to regard it as pure evil than the possibility that some people are born with the sickness, i.e they chose to be evil than were born with a sickness. Likewise, many people cannot think objectively about National Socialism because of all the radioactive toxicity surrounding the subject. Of course, being rational or objective on the subject doesn't mean endorsement or lack of judgement. Rather, it means a cool-headed understanding as to why it came to power and what positive things it may have achieved. For many people, even that much thought on the matter is near-impossible as they've been led to see Nazism as pure evil, a form of diabolism.

So, the power of reason wilts under extreme-gloss and extreme-gross. Certain irresistible flavors make people ignore the nutritional downside of certain foods. No wonder so many people are obese, have diabetes, and/or suffer from tooth decay. But then, many nutritious foods are avoided by people who'd do better to eat them because the flavors are bland or off-putting. It takes strong mental constitution to resist the temptations of gloss and overcome the repulsions toward grossness. And most people don't have strong mental constitutions, and therefore, their power of reason operates within the space between 'gloss' and 'gross'. And the Power knows this, which is why it's so involved in moving the goal-posts of what is glossy and what is gross.
Now, some things are naturally full of gloss while others are naturally gross, at least to most humans. Most people have a natural like for lakes, sunshine, and beautiful forests, and most people dislike darkness, dung & rot, and fetid swamps. Most men like pretty women and dislike ugly women, and most women like handsome men and dislike ugly men. Most people like the taste of honey, and most people would surely prefer not to eat monkey brains or goat testicles. Among the spiritual, most love God or gods and hate Satan, the devil, and demons. Still, the natural likes and dislikes can be overridden with artificial manipulation, especially when imprinted on young ones. Consider how traditional Chinese culture had men thinking that mangled feet(via foot-binding) were a thing of beauty. Consider how Ancient Egyptians developed a method of flattening the heads of elites, a kind of mind-binding. And so many primitive cultures have developed rites of passage involving horrific scarring. While those outside the culture can readily see the sickness of the ways, those within the culture have been rendered blind to the ugliness because they grew up with it as a defining, even sacrosanct, element of what they're all about. This is why some cultures not only practice something as vile as human sacrifice but regard it as what makes them whole and holy. As they've grown up in a culture with a cosmology requires blood sacrifice to maintain the balance and harmony of all things, they cannot conceive of an order without the rites. Thus, even the ugly can be made to feel beautiful, even the diabolical can be made to seem holy. For sure, homosexuality that had once been reviled is now revered as the greatest thing since baked buns. And gambling has gone from a vice to even something like 'family values' virtue — Las Vegas is for the entire family, and besides, legal gambling in Indian Reservations have associated the once-vice with 'historical justice'.

But it can also go the other way. The beautiful can be made to seem unholy, or ugly in some deeper way. Jews have done this with 'Aryan beauty', not least because they are envious of it, have been driven mad by it, and were mass-killed by an ideology, Nazism, premised on defending and revering it. So, even as Jews have been unable to convince people that 'Aryan Beauty' is ugly per se, they've made it seem evil, diabolical, and vile as a thing unto itself. So, if beautiful 'Aryans' want a community of their own to preserve and admire their own beauty, that is so 'racist' and 'Nazi-like'. According to Jews, 'Aryan Beauty' is acceptable and redeemable ONLY IF it puts out to other races and mixes with others. In other words, its beauty must serve other races than serve itself. It must serve the lusts of Jewish and black men. Also, by race-mixing, the advantages of 'Aryan Beauty' must be appropriated by Jews, blacks, and other races. The 'Aryans' aren't supposed to have an identity or agency of their own. Any hint of autonomy for 'Aryan Beauty' is anathema. Thus, even if Jews can't convince you that beauty is ugly, they can convince you that beauty is evil UNLESS it is reduced to interchangeable commodity for Jews and others. Of course, Jews do the same thing to entire territories. So, if Hungarians say Hungary is their own beautiful nation, Jews may not convince you that Hungary is ugly but can convince you that Hungarian land, however beautiful it may be, is EVIL unless it loses its national autonomy and becomes global commodity for Jewish hegemonists. In other words, even if Jews can't convince you that the gold you possess is worthless, they can convince you that is EVIL for you to have possession of it. The Jewish message to goyim is that goy property has MORAL value, as opposed to merely material ones, ONLY IF it is made available for Jews to take and place in their pawnshop. Jews want all the goyim to pawn their entire nations and treasures to the Jews, the arch-financiers of the world.
Now, one might argue that it makes little sense for vilifying 'Aryan Beauty' for wanting autonomy. After all, the crimes of Nazism had to do with Germans invading other nations, not maintaining Germany for Germans. But that is from a goy perspective. As far as Poles, Greeks, and Russians were concerned, German nationalism would have been just fine AS LONG AS Germans didn't invade their territory. Their beef was with German Imperialism, not German Nationalism. Likewise, the Vietnamese and Algerians had no beef with French Nationalism AS LONG AS French Imperialists didn't rule over them. Then, why is German nationalism itself a problem? It is because, even without Nazi imperialist aggression, Jews in Germany suffered under German nationalism that led to the unity of German elites and German masses against semi-alien Jews. So, no matter where Jews live, even in non-imperialist or anti-imperialist nations, they fear goy nationalism as the binding force that allows the goy majority to work together against Jewish interests. What if goy nationalism is moderate and not particularly anti-Jewish or is even protective of Jews without totally putting out to them? Even such moderation is unacceptable to the Jewish Ego in the long run because the ultimate aim of Jews is not tolerance or co-existence with goyim but supremacist rule over them. Jewish vision of the world is one of Jewish Masters and Goy Cattle.

The term 'phobia' as currently used by PC doesn't just mean fear, dread, dislike, or even hatred. It really means you have NO VALID OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for your antipathy. After all, if 'phobia' were to be used merely as a generic term for dislike or hostility, then we could call Jews 'Nazi-phobes', we could call capitalists 'communist-phobes', we could call Christians 'Satan-phobes', and so on. But we don't do that because the prevailing orthodoxy is Jews have good reason to hate Nazis, capitalists have good reason to oppose communism, and Christians have the duty to denounce the Devil. And 'phobia' doesn't mean just any fear, no matter how powerful it is. No one calls a man who fears tigers in the jungle a 'tiger-phobe'. No one calls a swimmer who fears being eaten by a shark a 'sharkaphobe'. A man wandering in a jungle filled with tigers better fear tigers, and a swimmer in a shark-infested sea better be wary of big jaws.
If 'phobia' in current discourse simply meant hatred, fear, or opposition, then we might as well call Democrats 'Republicanophobes' and call Republicans 'Democratophobes'. And if straight people who have issues with homos are 'homophobes', then homos with issues with straight society should be called 'normophobes' or 'straightophobes'. At the very least, such use of the term would be fair-minded. But of course, 'phobia' isn't used that way. The Power that controls the academia and media — and dictates what is to be allowed as approved definitions on Wikipedia and as acceptable discourse on social platforms — uses the term 'phobia' in the most selective manner to push its own agenda. The Power meant 'phobia' in ideological discourse to be a loaded term. It doesn't mean just any kind of fear, antipathy, or hatred but the kind that is disapproved or denounced by the Power. So, homos shitting on straight society is not a problem, just like it's okay for Jews to shit on goyim, especially whites. Such is never designated as 'phobic' but, if anything, as provocative and interesting. Despite the 'scientific'-sounding term borrowed from clinical psychology, it is used ONLY against those targeted by the Power. It's like Jews used the term 'paranoia' during the Cold War mainly against the anti-communist Political Right. Apparently, those who feared communist infiltration or propaganda were overcome with mass paranoia, whereas Jews who see 'anti-Semites' everywhere and another 'Holocaust' just around the corner are to be treated with the utmost courtesy, sympathy, and respect. Of course, in reality, the far-left came closer to taking over the US government in the 20th century than elements of the far-right did. But as Jews, many of whom were on the left and even far-left, had more sway in media and academia, especially in alliance with Anglo-American reformers who weren't sufficiently 'paranoid' of Jewish intentions, they got to portray the communist-sympathizers and even outright communists as sane & rational All-American patriots standing by the U.S. Constitution while those who sensed radicalism afoot in key institutions and industries were not only smeared as fear-mongers but mass-clinically-diagnosed as 'authoritarian personalities' overcome with mass delusions. Just think. Many Jewish-Americans spied for the USSR and plotted with Soviet agents to undermine American Security. Some of them went as far as sending atomic secrets to mass-killer Stalin who'd just swallowed up all of Eastern Europe. And yet, the Narrative on the Cold War has been mostly about HUAC and Joe McCarthy plotting against innocent patriots whose Constitutional Rights were trampled upon. And even though it was the Jews who plotted against America, Jewish authors and media moguls push narratives of how the plot against America was hatched by the American Right. But then, Jews pulled the same trick with the Palestinians. Even though Jewish imperialist-immigrants invaded and took over Palestine, dehumanized the native population, and denied them the right of nation-hood, the dominant 'American' narrative on the Zionist-Palestinian issue has been, "When will Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist?" Never mind that Israel was founded on denying the right of Palestine to exist. Jews plotted against Palestine, but Jews have so many people duped that Palestinians plotted against Israel. Palestinians did no such thing. They merely tried to defend and preserve Palestine from Jewish invaders. It was the Jews who plotted to take over Palestinians, first by posing as New Palestinians who just wanted to get along with Arabs as Fellow Palestinians. But it was all just a ruse as the ultimate Zionist Plot was to wipe Palestine off the map and replace it with Israel. Likewise, Jewish immigrant-infiltrators in the US initially acted like they just wanted to be a part of the great country founded and built by Anglo-Americans, but their ultimate aim to replace the Original America with the New America of Jewish Supremacism, Diversity-Imperialism, Eternal White Guilt, and Globo-Homo-Worship(as Jewish-controlled Queertianity). Jews are not to be trusted as they regard goyim not as fellow adults but as children who cannot be trusted with the truth and must be lied to.

Not only is the term 'phobia' used selectively by the Power to designate certain groups, positions, and attitudes as irrational, pathological, sic, or diseased but it is then used casually and loosely to besmirch anyone within that group or with that position. It's like, not only can whites be accused of being 'Anti-Semites' while Jews cannot be accused of being 'Anti-Whites' or 'Anti-Whitites' BUT just about ANY white person can be called an 'Anti-Semite' for whatever reason. While Jews, being mostly on the 'Liberal' spectrum of the political divide, usually use the term against those on the American Right, they also encourage American Conservatives to denounce American Liberals as 'Anti-Semites' for being insufficiently servile to Israel or expressing sympathy, however slight, for the Palestinians. Though 'antisemitism' gained moral currency as a term describing oppressive attitude toward Jews, it now means not being with the Jewish program of oppressing non-Jews, especially Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians(and white middle and working class Americans). 'Anti-Semite' went from a man who wants to oppress or kill Jews to a man who opposes Jews' exploiting, oppressing, and/or killing such peoples as Palestinians(who suffered Nakba and live under Zionist apartheid), Russians(who underwent the Jewish Rape of Russia), Iranians & other Muslims(who've suffered semi-genocidal sanctions), and white folks of the West(who now face White Nakba, aka the Great Replacement). Even though Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis, the term 'Anti-Semite' is affixed to Jewish victimhood of bygone history.
Jews are cunning and play it both ways, which is why so much of accusation of 'antisemitism' comes as much from goyim as from Jews. When Jews are not accusing goyim, mostly white conservatives and Iranians, of 'antisemitism', it's the goyim who denounce one another as 'antisemitic' as so many of them are such craven toadies to Jewish Power or brainwashed dolts who look upon Jews as the holy race who are beyond reproach. Many Jews say Donald Trump is 'literally Hitler', so how does Trump respond? He accuses the goyim in the Democratic Party of being the Real 'Anti-Semites' by supporting Israel only 200% than 300%... or 6,000,000%. Jews have long accused the GOP as the party of bigotry, so how did the likes of Mitt Romney respond to the charge? They've accused the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being 'antisemitic' by not giving Israel 1,000% of what it requested(or demanded). That's about half of all US political discourse. Jews say, "GOP, you're the party of Hitler", and GOP cucks say to the Democratic Party, "Democrats, you are a bunch of 'Anti-Semites' for not supporting the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians 300% instead of just 200%." Behind closed doors, Jews must be laughing at the idiot goyim caught up in this clown show.

In the current discourse, the term 'phobia' is used almost entirely against those who refuse to bend over to the globo-homo agenda. There is no need for 'Judeophobia' or 'Afrophobia' because Jews and blacks already have potent terms as shields and battering rams: 'Antisemitism' and 'racism'(that only carries weight in relation to blacks and maybe Jews, as its permissible to badmouth Iranians, Chinese, Muslims, Palestinians, and even Mexicans). Homos, the favored of Jews, also got a special word as their terminological weapon, and it is 'homophobia' that has been adopted and used uncritically and aggressively by the entire media-academia-government apparatus. There have been attempts to widen the use of 'phobia' — 'Islamophobia', 'Russophobia', 'Sinophobia', and etc. — , but no term gains traction and currency UNLESS it is adopted and disseminated by the big media-academia-state complex. In the end, it is not so much the idea or term that matters but the manner and range of its promotion and marketing. Other than 'homophobia', the only potent politicized term with -phobia as suffix is 'xenophobia', but then it has a longer pedigree than 'homophobia', a bogus concept cooked up by Jews. (It is bogus because no one has demonstrated that anyone has an intense panicked fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Plenty of people are put-off by homosexuals, the way they look and talk, but such disdain hardly fits the profile of phobia. And people who find sodomy or homo-fecal penetration to be gross are only feeling a natural reaction to a filthy and foul act that serves no biological function but is a prime way to spread disease. It's like being disgusted by the idea of licking toilet seats or eating-shit is not a phobia. It is healthy and normal to feel grossed out by gross behavior. Some might say homos who were brought up to despise homosexuality are filled with self-loathing, and that constitutes a kind of phobia, but that is false. A homo who wants to do homo things but feels ashamed for feeling that way is suffering from a complex, or homo-complex, not a phobia. A phobia is where a person truly and intensely feels dread and antipathy for something that is harmless. In contrast, a self-loathing homo truly and intensely would love to do homo things but feels shame for feeling that way. He feels loathing for what he truly desires. Phobia, unlike a complex, is not the product of repression. Phobia is someone truly being scared of a little white mouse that can do him no harm. A complex is someone truly loving white mice but having been made to feel shame for such affection. What about people who feel hatred or animus toward homosexuals as freaks, degenerates, or sinners? Their hostility may be pretty strong, but it's not a phobia without panicked fear/fright of something harmless. After all, many people have strong hatred for rapists, pedophiles, bigots, and the like — and plenty of homos virulently hate those who condemn the very idea of 'gay marriage' or refuse to bake 'gay wedding cakes', but their hatred, even if unhinged, doesn't necessarily amount to a phobia. A person with a phobia of rats freak out at the mere sight of a rat, even if it is outside and poses no harm to him or his property. In contrast, someone may hate rats because of they've done his house considerable damage. Such hatred is a reaction to what rats have done, not a mindless fear of rats per se. Likewise, this thing called 'xenophobia' is mostly bogus because, at least in current usage, it is rarely about mindless, irrational, and extreme fear of foreigners but totally warranted concern over what mass demographic migration and replacement may do to one's own nation. Isn't it odd that Jews, who love to demean others as 'xenophobes' for saying NO to mass immigration-invasion, are the first ones to say Israel must remain Jewish by an ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION policy. One thing for sure, Jews seem to be truthophobes who have no use for consistency.

Because 'homophobia' is a weaponized term to demean, dehumanize, and destroy modern heretics who refuse to kneel at the altar of globo-homomania, it is used rather liberally against ALL who are deemed threatening to the agenda. The term is targeted not only at those who resolutely stand against the homo agenda but those who dare to mock anything homo or tranny. In other words, the 'gay' agenda not only demands total acceptance but total reverence. It's not enough to target and destroy sincere opponents of the agenda but even those who joke about homosexuality must also be destroyed. It's akin to the domain of religion where not only the heretics must be burned at the sake but those who seem uncaring, irreverent, and mocking of the sacred dogma. Not only those accused of being devil-worshipers and idolaters must be destroyed but those who've failed to show due diligence in holy observance and due reverence to proper authorities. The same logic operated in the secular theocracy or ideocracy of communism. Not only were capitalists and anti-communists purged but even communists who dared to crack jokes about the Party and its leadership also had to be punished.
In a similar vein, it's not enough for the 'gay' lobby to call for the heads of sincere and dogged opponents of the Agenda. They are not the only 'homophobes' who must be burnt at the stake or forced to take it up the bung. According to the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, even those people who don't necessarily oppose the Agenda but love to make jokes about homosexuals, trannies, and their ways are also branded with the Mark of Cain of 'homophobia'. So, even though all they did was observe the silly, funny, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and outlandish ways of many homos and trannies, they are deemed to be 'phobic'. You see, if you're insufficiently reverent toward homos and trannies, you are sick in the head or afflicted with some pathological malaise... because after all, there is nothing more naturally wondrous than homo fecal-penetration and tranny peniscutting. This is all the nuttier when we consider how homos love to mock each other and actually revel in being 'different' and 'faggy'. After all, the camp sensibility arose largely from the 'gay' community with their fruity ways. But when homos rib and mock each other, that's oh-so-wonderful and charming. But if straight people notice the same things about homos and trannies, why that is 'phobic'. It's also like how blacks love to act the wild-ass jigglins, throw apelike antics, and act plenty crazy(and even take pride in it) but scream 'racism' when white people notice this very facet of Negro-hood. And notice how Jews love to incessantly talk, write, and discuss about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish influence, and Jewish everything, BUT they are the first ones to condemn goyim of being 'obsessive Anti-Semites' who go on and on about Jews who are just ho-hum minding their business.

Anyway, no straight person has a panicked fright of homos or homosexuality. They don't break out in sweat or wet their pants in abject terror at the first sight of homo or tranny. Many straight people feel uneasy about homosexuality or being around homosexuals, but mere discomfort doesn't make a phobia. After all, many people are put off by the sight of grossly fat people, but that doesn't amount to 'fatophobia', 'lardophobia', 'blubbophobia', or 'buffalobuttophobia'. They are people who feel strong animus, hatred, or contempt for homosexuals for whatever reasons. For the religious, homosexuals could be deemed as wallowing in sin and going against the way of God. For certain macho types, the mere sight of homo girly-boys fills them with contempt. They have certain ideals of manhood and are put off by men dressing, acting, and/or talking like pansies. But then, some people who prize intelligence and/or wisdom feel great contempt and derision — indeed very strong emotions — for the dumb, stupid, or imbecile. It's obvious that Richard Dawkins virulently looks down on people he considers to be idiotic. He believes humans have intelligence and the power of reason, and therefore those humans who've failed to live up to his ideal of the thinking person is deserving of his arrogance and tongue-lashing. Now, this self-righteous and self-aggrandizing side of Dawkins' character may be off-putting, but it wouldn't be a phobia. Whatever Dawkins is, he is not a dumbophobe who cowers in frightful fear in the presence of someone who strikes him as hopeless dumb, stupid, or ignorant. If anything, Dawkins, who is as witty as he is arrogant, loves to poke fun at people he deems to be too dumb to be human. Indeed, such derisive use of wit is very much a part of British culture. And Jews have their own way of mocking and deriding whatever and whomever they disagree with, look down upon, and hold in contempt. Jews surely love to mock Christianity, indeed a national pastime in Israel and even among American Jews who no longer fear the much-cucked Christian community, much of which is now more taboo-riddled with sanctities surrounding globo-homomania than about God, Jesus, and the long line of martyrs and saints. And yet, when Jews like Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Larry David, and others mock and joke about Christians and Christianity, are they denounced as 'Christophobes'? Indeed, is the term 'Christophobe' regularly used whenever some non-Christian mocks or makes fun of Christians, the Church, Jesus, and etc? No.

But even a farcical attitude about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies is deemed 'homophobic'(though 'transphobic' is also now being disseminated far and wide by the Jew-run media). If 'phobia' means an extreme, irrational, and panicked fear or fright attack over something harmless, how is it 'phobic' to joke about homosexuals? Granted, some might argue that people seek to relieve tension by joking about something that truly terrifies them. After all, some Jews have made jokes about Adolf Hitler and the Shoah to come to terms with them. And Woody Allen certainly told many jokes about things that make him feel uneasy, even queasy. But jokes about homosexuality, homosexuals, and trannies are not therapeutic efforts to ease one's extreme fear of 'gay' stuff. Rather, they are akin to fat jokes or jokes about especially ugly or dumb people. Generally, people find odd, weird, or extreme stuff to be funny. Even extreme qualities deemed to be positive come under mockery because they seem so different from the normality of most people. So, people with extremely high IQ are often mocked as 'geeks'. And women who are 'too beautiful' are caricatured as bimbos, stuck-up princesses, or vain-shallow dolts. Men who are overly powerful are lampooned as 'moose' or 'dumb jock'. The popular assumption is that if someone is over-abundant in one area, he or she must be lacking in most other areas. So, the stereotype of the absent-minded professor who is good with book-knowledge but lacking in common sense skills and general sociableness. True or not, none of these qualify as 'phobic'. Why have homosexuals and trannies often served as targets for comedy? In most cases, it's not even about hatred or contempt. The material made for easy laughs because most people are not homo or 'gay' in style, and therefore, homos, trannies, and their ways seem weird, goofy, nutty, ridiculous, and/or outrageous to most people. Thus, it's really a matter of Homo-Farcia and has NOTHING to do with any kind of phobia. But once homos got powerful, their vanity got the better of them and, with the backing of super-powerful Jews, they decided to use the media, academia, law firms, the courts, and the state to spread the message far and wide that any insufficiently reverent and celebratory attitude or expression regarding homosexuality and tranny-stuff is to be designated and derided as 'homophobic', in other words, pathological, demented, mentally sick, irrational, immoral, and even unholy as 'gay' vanity has deigned to be the new spiritual essence of the Modern World. So, what should properly be called Homofarcia is called 'homophobia'. Imagine if fat people — people with a natural impulse to eat compulsively to the point of becoming excessively overweight — had the power of homos and pushed the idea that fat jokes are 'fatophobic', i.e. the product of pathologically unhinged minds than natural expression of merriment among people who find gross obesity to be abnormal and extreme to the point of ridiculousness. Such a world would be plenty retarded. Well, we are living in such a world, except that it's not the fatsos but the fruitkins who have waged war on 'gay joke' comedy as a heresy that cannot be tolerated.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lmNEiSUWWZOF/