Jesse Owens' Medals in the 1936 Olympics validated Race Differences, not Race Equality — Fallacy of 'Anti-Racism', one of the most pernicious ideas of the 20th Century

Jesse Owens(who won four golds in track & field in the 1936 Olympics) as an example of racial equality is laughable. He was idolized as a model of 'anti-racism' for having destroyed the myth of Aryan Supremacy. But, the Narrative would hold water ONLY IF he'd tied with the German/white runners. Then, he would have proven, black or white, it doesn’t matter, because races are equal in abilities and differ only in skin color, hair texture, and appearances. But did Owens' feat prove that races are equal in track and field?
No, Owens ran markedly faster and, if anything, proved black racial superiority in the sprint and jump. Even if Owens destroyed one racial myth, that of 'Aryan superiority' in athletics, he established another, that of black African superiority in the sprint and jump. (Incidentally, even though Adolf Hitler and National Socialists rooted for their own race/team, they didn't necessarily believe that the 'Aryans' were superior in sports. Indeed, Hitler didn't like to attend track & field events because he knew blacks would likely win.) Joe Louis proved much the same as Owens. In beating all those white boxers(and especially demolishing Max Schmeling in their second encounter), his victories didn’t prove racial equality but black advantage in fighting ability.

But PC logic dictates that ‘racism’ be pegged to supremacism or superiority only when pertaining to whites. So, anything that suggests or indicates white edge, advantage, or superiority in any field is deemed ‘racist’, a terrible myth that is ripe for busting. In contrast, any evidence of white inferiority(and especially black superiority) is lauded as ‘anti-racist’. But, if a black guy is deemed better than whites at sports, isn't that a clear sign of black superiority? As it points to racial differences, isn't it 'racist' or race-ist? Apparently, the same rules don't apply to blacks. In other words, any evidence of black lording over whites in certain fields is wonderfully 'anti-racist', whereas any evidence of whites lording over blacks in other areas is terribly 'racist'.
Some may believe that apparent white advantages deserve more criticism and skepticism(as well as condemnation) because such could be the legacy of past discrimination and bigotry, i.e. as whites were traditionally on top and socially favored, they inherited positions and privileges, whereas blacks had to climb up from the bottom against race-based obstacles. So, even if black advantages really do exist, they must be the truth for having been demonstrated against the odds.
In contrast, how can we be sure that whites are really better than other races in anything when they'd been favored in the West for as far as anyone can remember? And yet, such line of thinking is not only fallacious but disingenuous. It's a fallacy because white social advantage in the past doesn't disprove white genetic advantages in certain fields and, furthermore, white superiority in IQ over blacks has been carefully researched and documented in countless studies and data over decades and across continents. For example, if blacks were historically favored over whites and enjoyed certain privileges over whites, it still doesn't mean that blacks aren't naturally better at running and jumping. Men were certainly socially advantaged over women through most of history, but only an idiot would argue that past inequality accounts as to why men are bigger and stronger than women. Also, regardless of how blacks demonstrated their superiority, the evidence still has to be regarded as race-ist for having disproven the 'anti-racist' myth of racial equality, one of the most pernicious ideas to come out of the 20th century. But in our Politically Correct times, any sign of black racial superiority is celebrated as 'anti-racist' and 'progress' whereas any evidence of white superiority is condemned as lingering legacy of 'racism' and 'so much still to be done'.

Similar dynamics exists between Jews and whites. It’s perfectly fine for Jews to wail about white privilege and white over-representation, especially compared to blacks(and browns). Too-Many-Whites in any given field is proof of ‘racism’. But whites better not notice Too-Many-Jews in elite institutions and prized industries even though Jews, at only 2% of the US population, are the most disproportionately powerful and privileged people in the country. Even though whites have lost so much ground vis-a-vis other races due to meritocracy and/or 'affirmative action', any sign of white success or wealth is evidence of how so much more has to be done about 'white privilege'. In contrast, no matter how richer, more privileged, and more powerful Jews become, that is just awesome and Jews can never be too rich, too powerful, or too privileged. Of course, Jews control the academia & media and rigged the game so that blacks and Jews can never have enough whereas whites always have 'too much'. Whites may be smarter than blacks, but they are dumber than Jews; and this has resulted in white awe of Jewish Genius(supposedly suffused with tragic wisdom of the Holocaust) and earnest reverence for Jewish admonishment and advice. There was a time when whites knew intelligence isn't synonymous with honesty & truth and were rather skeptical of Jewish claims and tactics, but the Jewish control of media + cult of the Holocaust led to what amounts to White Worship of supposed Jewish Wisdom, indeed to the point where to be a Doubting Thomas of the Jewish Agenda is to be reviled as an 'Anti-Semite', 'hater', 'Neo-Nazi', 'white supremacist', or 'extremist'.

At any rate, it’s stupid to blame ‘white supremacism’ for white superiority in modern history. It’s like putting the cart in front of the horse. More likely, whites developed supremacist attitudes because they gained superiority first. And the superiority came about by a complex set of factors that were cultural, historical, geographic, and genetic. (Besides, it was only a handful of white groups that came to world dominance whereas most did not and some, like the Byzantine Greeks, experienced steep decline and even total defeat.)

Supremacism per se doesn’t guarantee supremacy or superiority. Chinese had supremacist attitude about being part of the Middle Kingdom, but if anything, their arrogance ran up and crashed against the reality of European Superiority in science, technology, and organization. Muslims thought they were supreme as the favored of Allah, but their faith didn't do any good against the objective superiority attained by the West in production and military domination. Great White Hopers had supremacist delusions that white guys would beat black guys like Jack Johnson. But wish didn’t come true, and white boxer after white boxer got crushed by Johnson. Supremacism sometimes arises from but isn't the guarantor of superiority. Muhammad Ali was great not because he said so, as any boxer could boast he's the 'greatest', but because he had the natural advantage to take his words to the bank.

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

How "What we ought to have said but haven't said" came to Determine so much of History. A History made more by What-couldn't-be-said than by What-should-have-been-said.

History is made by people with ideas, will, drive, and/or dreams. People use the power of words, images, and symbolism to put forth and push through their visions. History is obviously molded by what people say and do, but then, how much of history is shaped by what people don't say and don't do? Now, if people really didn't know of or failed to realize certain truths, it couldn't have been helped. But what about cases where enough people knew or should have known but didn't come forward with their knowledge or inhibited their intuitions of the Obvious? Much that seems so obvious later(or from another perspective) was muted or blind to all(those who mattered) In-the-Moment in a particular time and place in History.

For example, take France and North America. The French could have been the dominant force in the Americas, and then, maybe, 20th century would have been the Franco-American Century. What made the difference and prevented such outcome? The distinct settlement polices of Anglo-American colonies and Franco-American/Canadian colonies. There was more freedom, opportunities, and incentives for ordinary people of Britain to try their luck in the New Land. It was easier for men and women to make the journey together, to own land, and have property rights. The English Monarch had less control over what happened in the colonies. In contrast, the Absolute Monarch of France oversaw the New World policy. So, by the time of the French and Indian War, Anglo-Colonies had 18x the population as the French colonies. But imagine if the French had sent just as many people. The French and Indian War was mostly decided by French troops vs British troops, but the British had more support in man and material from the colonists. The French not so much, which is why they had to rely so much on unreliable Indians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by American Indian allies. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies.[4] The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians.

Just think. Despite being outnumbered by such a huge margin, the French almost won. The war dragged on for 9 yrs. It is a war the French could have won if they had more settlers. Also, consider that France didn't just claim Canada but the Louisiana Territory. America could have been mostly a French Colony, with Anglos limited to East Coast of America.
Now, I'm thinking that some French elites noticed the problem, i.e. that the Anglo colonies were filling up much faster than the French ones. I'm sure they foresaw doom unless the French could send more people to fill up Canada and the Louisiana Territory. Demography is Destiny. Yet, why did they fail to make the case? Why did most elites not raise the issue with the French Monarch? Because the socio-political implications of such shift in settlement policy were huge. It would have undermined Absolutism that came to define the French Monarchy(and which ironically passed onto even the Revolutionaries and Napoleon). Most people are so deathly afraid of 'triggering' the power. It's like everyone in Akira Kurosawa's RAN knows the lord made a rash decision in suddenly handing power to the not-too-bright first son, but most just bow their heads and obey. Only the youngest son and an adviser dissent, but they are soon banished for daring to speak the truth. EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES pretty much sums up the psychology of power. Of course, the Iron Consensus could involve the masses as well as most people are so easy to manipulate. Mark Anthony turns the masses from denouncing Caesar to avenging him with a single speech. Americans went from strongly anti-'gay marriage' to strongly pro-'gay marriage' in a generation due to Media Barrage. Toohey understood in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. While those on top concoct the 'truth', it becomes even 'truer' if the unthinking masses are made to feel passionate about it through emotional and moralistic manipulation.

But if the French had opted for a revised strategy, they could have taken most of North America. Its vast riches could have favored France over Britain. Also, the great prestige of having prevailed over the Brits in the New World would have been a great boost to the French Monarchy, and there may never have been a French Revolution.
Looking back, it was so obvious what prevented the French from dominating the New World. But, for the most part, the issue went unmentioned within the French Court because the Monarch was the sun and the French people were his subjects, not individuals with rights.
The power of consensus and fear of taboo determine so much of history. It is only much later, among people unhampered by the same consensus and taboos, that the truth becomes so obvious and can be discussed freely. Of course, people of the future will be hampered by their own forms of unanimity and heresy.

Now, consider the famous case of Japan in its buildup to the Pacific War. Looking back, it was so obvious what would happen if Japan provoked the US. In his book MODERN TIMES, Paul Johnson wrote of how so many Japanese KNEW but marched to sure doom due to the power of consensus, fear of taboo, and the cult of purity & honor. The militarist mindset carried over from samurai times disdained any show of weakness, which increasingly became a taboo. Japanese prefer unity over dissension. Also, there was the purity cult that held that it was more honorable to fight and die with pride than concede and lose face. If Germany's madness was driven by Hitler at the top, Japan's madness was driven, at least in part, by pressure from below. Unlike American, European, or Soviet officers whose duty was to obey orders from above, many junior officers in Japan felt they had a higher loyalty to the Emperor or what he 'really' stood for. So, unlike Western officers, these junior officers were willing to assassinate higher officers who seemed weak and face execution in the name of honor. Much like the 47 Ronin Legend. Noble self-sacrifice. Rebelling in the name of higher loyalty to Emperor and nation. This had a terrifying effect on the elites whose conception of Modern Japan rested so much on themes of pride and honor. In the West, junior officers could be controlled with threat of court martial or execution. Also, popular opinion would not have been on the side of rogue officers. But the fanatical junior officers of Japan were willing to commit acts of terror and face death in the name of honor. And there was something in Japanese popular sentiment that appreciated such acts based on purity of devotion. (Ian Buruma wrote of how even Leftist Japanese media were disappointed with students who pledged to give their lives for the cause but then surrendered to the police. They were lacking in pure spirit. Seijun Suzuki's FIGHTING ELEGY offered a glimpse into the mindset where even hooliganism can be redemptive if done with true spirit.)
Looking back, it seems so obvious what Japan should have done. It would have done better to take the US offer of keeping Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan in exchange for ending the embargo. But the psycho-political climate was such that few dared to even make such suggestion.

Another famous case is, of course, Soviet Union on the eve of German invasion. For so many in Soviet intelligence, it was becoming obvious that the Germans were planning something big. Some dissident historians argue that FDR knew Japan was going to attack and eagerly anticipated it. But Stalin certainly didn't want an attack and refused to believe it. But the evidence was mounting, and some in Soviet intelligence informed Stalin. But what happened to them? They got sent to the Gulag or executed as saboteurs or spies. But then, the Soviet system had already created a climate of fear where it was dangerous to tell Stalin anything he didn't want to hear. It was Purge Nation. Looking back, it's obvious what the Soviets should have done, but so much went undone simply because of power of consensus(emanating from Stalin) and fear of taboo.
And the horrors of the Great Leap Forward could have been lessened if Mao had been informed of its early setbacks. But he was only fed false news because of the climate of Mao adulation and fear of displeasing him. Things began to change only when conditions got so bad that real reports trickled into Mao's office. Then, he had to plead with his subordinates to tell him the truth because they were so fearful of 'triggering' him. But by then, millions upon millions had already died.

Or consider the American Civil War. It could have been avoided if the South had seen eye to eye with Abraham Lincoln who was so right about slavery and the black problem. Given America's founding principles of freedom and liberty, slavery could only be a stain on America. Also, due to racial differences, the future of whites could be deeply compromised if the races didn't separate. If the South had understood this and came to terms with Lincoln with some agreement to phase out slavery and work towards real racial separation, the horrible war and all its dark racial consequences could have been avoided. But the South seceded to maintain an immoral institution. It was also blinded by its neo-aristocratic romanticism of warrior spirit. Looking back, it seems so obvious what should have been said and done. But people back then were intoxicated with their own sense of honor, pride, and glory.
Whites had another chance in the Age of Jack Johnson. Here was a black guy whupping all the white guys in three continents -- US, Europe, Australia -- and sexually conquering white women. It was obvious that blacks posed an 'idolic' threat to white males, and its implications on everything from sports to sex to school thuggery to street violence were so obvious. Based on racial facts of the case, white males could have made a moral argument for separation, i.e. blacks pose a real threat to whites. But white males had too much pride and honor riding on the issue. They sought the Great White Hope and when Jess Willard finally defeated the washed-out Jack Johnson(in what was still a grueling fight), white guys just assured themselves that they are on top again. This fact of black-white racial differences should be obvious by now, but it STILL cannot be honestly discussed(due to new set of taboos centered around 'white guilt'). Because America wasn't PC in the period of Jack Johnson, a time when talk of race was fair game, an honest debate on the Black Threat could have made honestly, compellingly, and morally back then. Whites missed their chance. Now, what with the neo-spiritual power of PC and Negro-Worship, it is more difficult than ever. Currently, only one side of the Jack Johnson narrative is allowed: He triumphed over white bigotry and contempt. That's true enough as he had to prove his mettle in a culture that looked down on his kind. But there is another side to the story that has far greater repercussions for whites in both America and Europe, but no one dares mention it. Black manhood destroys and cucks white manhood, and no race can survive for long as a free people without pride of manhood. Look at browns in Latin America. Permanently conquered and denied pride of manhood, they are a defeated and browbeaten people.

And of course, so much of the madness since the End of the Cold War could have been avoided IF people admitted that Jews are the new ruling elites of America. Maybe they earned the right to rule with smarts and hard work. Still, power is easily corrupted and abused, and its true character must be called out. The fact is top power in the US is very Jewish and very much geared to Jewish and Zionist interest. Jews being for Jews or Israel is not a problem per se, but it is a problem when Jews use the manpower and resources of a nation that is 98% goyim to push forth policies that narrowly favor what amounts to Jewish supremacism: Russia in 90s, Middle East conflicts, Israel-Palestine policy, rules on free speech(such as anti-BDS laws), promotion of Homomania(which is really proxy of Jewish minority elite privilege), and Victim Supremacism(that becomes a new nihilism as Jews, as the People of Holocaust, the biggest victims of all history, justify everything they do in terms of destroying New Nazis who are apparently everywhere: Putin, Assad, Iranian rulers, Trump, MAGA hat kid, etc.)
Maybe one day, when the American system has collapsed, another civilization will study American History without its particular pressures of consensus & taboo and expound on the Obvious and what should have been done to prevent disaster upon disaster. But we are living In-the-Moment in American History when the power of consensus and fear of taboo make it nearly impossible to speak the obvious. It is a Moment when not only James D. Watson but even officially sanctioned figures like David Reich come under threat by either fanatics of PC(the teachers pets or the system's attack dogs) or cynics of supremacism(usually elites who know the truth among themselves but figure it's too 'dangerous' for the people and common discourse). Because most of the elites are players than leaders and because they were allowed into upper ranks for holding certain 'correct' views, they just parrot the party line to keep their prized position and privilege.

There's a scene in 13th WARRIOR where the guy quotes the Koran: "For all we ought to have thought but have not thought, for all we ought to have said but have not said, all we ought to have done but have not done..." That sums up so much about why history ended up the way it did and why it will never be what it should be.

Did Victimology associated with ‘White Guilt’ Bring Down the Power & Prestige of White Folks? Or was it the Combination of Victimology and Victorology?

Australian Aborigine, All Victimology and no Victorology

It’s been a truism in the pro-white movement that white identity, white interests, white pride, white prestige, and white power were eroded and brought low by the Victim Politics that instilled white folks with ‘white guilt’. But was that the main reason? Or was it victimology in combination with something else? Oftentimes, it is the combination that make something potent and dangerous, even deadly. It’s like certain chemical agents, though not particularly good for you, won’t cause you much harm UNLESS it is imbibed or injected along with something else. A flint stone thrown into a pile of wood won’t start a fire. A gun on its own or bullets on their own can’t do any harm. An empty gun just goes click-click. Bullets without a gun are about as deadly as rabbit’s foot. What makes a fire isn't just a flint stone on top of wood but two flint stones struck to create sparks that ignite dry leaves/grass around the wood pile. And what makes a gun deadly is when the bullets are loaded into the barrel.
In a similar vein, something like ‘guilt’ can’t do much damage unless there is something with the means(and meanness) to attack and harm those who feel the guilt.

No amount of guilt can do any harm to the guilt-feeler unless the object-of-guilt has the means to attack, harm, and ultimately even overpower him(and kill him). Suppose there’s a hunter who’s killed a lot of sparrows and squirrels. Suppose he took a BB gun and shot down hundreds, even thousands, of them. Then, one day, he wakes up and realizes that he’s acted like a real a**hole. He shot all those poor little animals just for the hell of it, for fun and sport. So, he feels guilty and decides never to harm sparrows and squirrels again. Indeed, he even goes to the trouble of offering breadcrumbs to sparrows and nuts to squirrels on occasion. Now, this man is clearly paralyzed by guilt from ever again using violence against sparrows and squirrels. But has his existence and well-being been seriously compromised or weakened? No. Even if he no longer kills sparrows and squirrels, they won’t do him any harm. After all, sparrows feed on insects and seeds, not on humans. And squirrels scurry around trees and look for nuts and other things to eat. They leave humans alone. Neither sparrows nor squirrels regard humans as prey or enemies. They are content to co-exist with humans. Their natural ideal, if such could be articulated, is, "You humans do your own thing, we little creatures do our own thing."

But suppose a certain hunter went around killing a different kind of animal. Suppose he hunted grizzly bears, wild hogs, lions, hyenas, or some such dangerous beasts. Suppose he killed a whole bunch of them, but one day, he feels bad about having done so. He looks back on his life and is overcome with grief over having killed a whole bunch of big wild animals. He suddenly feels guilt about what he’d done to those animals. He feels sorry and wants to atone for what he did. He swears to never kill those kinds of animals again. He decides to love, honor, and offer special friendship to them. He feels paralyzed in the use of any violence against such animals.
On one level, he is just like the killer of sparrows and squirrels. He’s filled with guilt for having used violence against animals. And like the former sparrow-squirrel killer, he forswears violence against certain animals and decides to be nice to the species of animals he’d harmed. So, will his fate be just like that of the former sparrow-squirrel killer? Or will he end up much worse? We know he will end up much worse.

After all, whatever one feels about sparrows and squirrels, they aren’t naturally aggressive toward humans. When did you hear of a sparrow swooping down to snatch someone’s child away? When did a squirrel ambush a person and jump on his head to tear it to shreds? So, if they are left alone by humans, they will just do their own thing. Whether man feels guilty or not about sparrows and squirrels, they pose no threat or harm to mankind.
In contrast, animals such as lions, hyenas, grizzly bears, or wild hogs are naturally threatening to man. Lions may attack humans for food or sport. Hyenas are powerful and aggressive animals that will attack and eat anything. Grizzly bears are naturally ill-tempered and often charge at people. There have even been cases of bears eating humans. Or they will enter into human habitats and mess things up. Wild hogs destroy entire properties, attack & devour house-pets, and sometimes charge at humans despite lack of provocation. All such animals are either big predators or invasive/destructive beasts. And they are bigger and more powerful than humans in physical terms. So, a man without a gun(or with a gun but without the will to use it) faced with a lion, hyena, wild hog, or grizzly bear is in serious trouble. Those animals have a Power-Advantage over humans, and some of them even regard humans as food. So, being paralyzed with guilt about those animals can be dangerous to humans UNLESS humans maintain a clear boundary between the animal realm and the human realm. If people come to feel bad/guilty about all the bears or lions they killed and create natural areas where lions or bears can thrive without human interference, that'd be one thing. But if this guilt means humans allowing bears and lions to enter into the human realm and do as they please, it means serious trouble for humankind. So, in the end, guilt in-and-of-itself hardly poses a threat to a person or people. What really matters is the nature of what you you feel guilty about. Is the object-of-guilt powerless or powerful? If treated nicely, will the object-of-guilt remain on the bottom or in the middle OR will it shoot to the top and take over? That is the crucial question.

And this question must be applied to human-to-human affairs. Looking back on the West since the end of WWII and especially beginning with May 68 Madness, the fatal danger of white folks wasn’t necessarily ‘white guilt’. It was ‘white guilt’ applied to two dangerous and aggressive groups of innately powerful and threatening peoples: Jews and Blacks. After all, there are so many cases where ‘white guilt’ hardly caused any harm to white folks. Take Australia. The so-called Aboriginal peoples were gunned down like animals by the British colonizers. They weren’t even valued as worthy of slave labor, not least because Australia could rely on steady flow of convict labor from the Mother Country.

So, it’s understandable that present-day white Australians feel historical ‘guilt’ about the Aborigines. And yet, it doesn’t matter because these people have no means of Victorhood to take advantage of the Victimology. Even though they remain poor and cause a host of social problems(related to drunkenness, disorder, or petty crime), they don’t create the kind of havoc that blacks have brought to Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, Newark, Oakland, Gary, and etc. They are more comparable to Eskimos and American Indians, socio-economic ‘losers’ beset with a host of pathologies that remain mostly within their own communities. So, it doesn’t matter if white Australians are beset with and paralyzed by ‘white guilt’. Aborigines have no natural talent that can exploit white guilt-paralysis to their own great advantage. Whites feeling sorry about Aborigines is like a former-hunter who feels sorry about sparrows and squirrels. At most, Aborigines may be pests now and then, but they will not constitute a pestilence. So, whites can sing all the songs about ‘white guilt’ in regard to Aborigines. It will be inconsequential to the power dynamic of Australia. Aborigines will never amount to anymore than objects-of-pity.

The only way White Guilt in Australia can lead to dire consequences is IF it is divorced from the particular history of Australia and ‘universalized’ so that white Australians are made to atone for their ‘historical sins’ by taking in peoples such as black Africans, Arab Muslims, Chinese, and Hindus. Now, this would make no sense. Why would Anglo-Australians owe anything to Africans, Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus when the ‘historical wrong’ they committed was against the indigenous folks of Australia. If whites took land from the Australian Aborigines and even hunted them down, then the morally right thing would be to provide special treatment to that specific people. Why would whites in Australia owe anything to peoples in OTHER nations? Also, how does it help Australian Aborigines to have their homeland colonized not only by whites but by the world? It’d make no moral sense. But suppose white Australians decide to ‘universalize’ their sense of ‘white guilt’ and seek atonement via more ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, sacred mantras in our PC age.
Now, why would this kind of ‘white guilt’ pose serious dangers to whites? Because, unlike Aboriginal folks who never amounted to anything but clobbering kangaroos and wombats with boomerangs, the Other non-whites can exploit White Guilt to gain a huge foothold in Australia and/or terrorize whites. Indeed, consider how recently arrived black Africans have caused more mayhem and terror in Australia in a few years than Aboriginals ever did. Why is this the case? Because Australian Aborigines are not particularly a powerfully-built people. They don’t dominate sports, don’t come up with stuff like gangster rap, and don’t have the Thug Gene. And even if they were to act nasty, a white guy can give an Australian aborigine a good fight. In contrast, black Africans who recently arrived from Sudan are big and powerful. They are muscled, fast, aggressive, savage, wild, and thuggish. Even though black Africans have been mostly backward and weak economically and technologically, they have a decisive power-advantage over whites in one-on-one physical confrontations. Indeed, black men see white males as ‘faggoty-ass white boys’, as easy prey. Black thug-mentality believes white males should cuck out and kiss black ass while black guys go, "Where da white women at?" and colonize white wombs. So, when White Guilt paralyzes whites into being unconditionally nice and kindly to blacks, it can be fatally dangerous. It’s like disarming yourself against wild hogs, Grizzly bears, lions, or hyenas. Indeed, consider the explosion of black African violence all over Australia. Though a small percentage of the population, blacks immediately turned to thuggery and violence because they sensed white wussy-weakness just like sharks pick up scent of blood and go into a frenzy. They act like hyenas at the sight of a wounded zebra or wildebeest.

While ‘white guilt’ about Aborigines in Australia has been of little social significance or political consequence, once it was ‘universalized’(partly due to Jewish globalist influence that controls much of Australian media, academia, and banking) into Australian whites sharing in Global White Guilt toward People-of-Color, White Australia was threatened by various peoples who can wield real power. While Chinese and Hindus don’t have the thug gene and muscle power to beat up and terrorize white people, there are billions of them, and both nations are eyeing to take over Australia demographically. Thus, White Guilt paralysis vis-a-via Chinese and India could lead to defenselessness against endless tides of yellow/brown mass invasions, in which case historic Anglo-Australia will be lost forever. All the hard work and heavy-lifting done by Anglo-convicts to build the new nation will ultimately serve the regional ambitions of treacherous Chinese and hideous Hindus. There is also the Arab-Muslim threat. Though the Arab-Muslim world is smaller in population than China and India, Muslims are an aggressive people who are nasty and opportunistic in taking advantage of generosity toward them. Just look how Muslim communities have shamelessly exploited the hospitality of Western European nations. Indeed, Arabs/Muslims regard generosity-toward-strangers as naivete, foolishness and weakness. Thus, they feel contempt for white 'suckers' who feed and house them. Also, even as they take from whites, they feel the enraged shame of having to depend on the infidel. Also, Muslims are often unpleasant because of their grandiose sense of themselves. They believe the one and only Allah is on their side and that Muhammad, their Prophets, is the final messenger of God. Thus, Muslims supposedly hold the ultimate truth. And yet, the Muslim world has lagged behind the West and East. This fills Muslims with rage and anger, and their resentment aims to ultimately destroy or take over more advanced Infidel nations that make Muslims look bad. Therefore, when White Australian Guilt is applied to black Africans, Chinese, Asian-Indians, and Muslims, the result can be devastating. It’d be like a guilt-ridden human deciding to be defenseless against and even supportive of Grizzly bears, lions, hyenas, and wild hogs.
And the same logic affects so much of what is happening in France. The French aren’t exactly proud of their history in Vietnam. They invaded and colonized Indochina, and then they fought a bitter war to keep the territory before they finally lost the war to the Viet Minh. Today, there is a sizable though not huge Vietnamese minority community in France. But even if the French were to feel most sorry and guilt about the Vietnamese, it would be of no significance. Even though Viets proved that they could be fierce warriors on their home turf, as minorities in other nations they are just a bunch of nobodies. Physically they are scrawny like chipmunks. They are even small by East Asian standards. Also, even though decent in IQ, they’ve never exhibited the talent or knack to take over other nations culturally, intellectually, or economically. So, the French Guilt about the Vietnamese has no meaningful consequence. It’d be like apologizing to sparrows and squirrels. But matters are different with French Guilt over Jews, Black Africans, and Muslims. Jews are smart, aggressive, and part of the network of EOJ or Empire of Judea. So, French Jews not only wield disproportionate share of power, wealth, and influence but work with World Jewry to influence French national policy. Because Jews are so powerful, influential, and nasty, French Guilt about Jews can be fatal. No matter how horribly Jews act, Frenchmen better shut up or they will be called ‘Nazi’. This is why the ONLY permissible criticism of Jewish power pertains to the Zionist-Palestinian issue, a matter that unfolds OUTSIDE and far away from France itself. France now has lots of blacks, and BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — is a huge factor in French social reality. Black guys push around white Frenchmen as a bunch of ‘faggotois-asseux-cuckoisie’. But French people are defenseless because any push-back against black thuggery and African mass invasion is deemed ‘racist’. Also, as French women have long been a bunch of slutty harlots, they have fewer inhibitions and easily transfer their sexual loyalty to whichever men who seem to have the Power. French girls, now Americanized and Afro-junglized like Anglo youths of late, are now rejecting white Frenchmen in record numbers and adopting for Junglois Feverois and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) or CADWB(Colonisation Africaine des Wombs Blancs). As if Jews and Africans are not bad enough, France is now over 10% Muslim, and these Muslims are even nastier, more hostile, and more unpleasant than Muslims in Australia. At the very least, Australians have no record of violence and colonization against the Muslim World. In contrast, France used to rule large swaths of the Muslim World and even fought a bloody war in Algeria. To prove that they are now good people committed to atoning for their sins as former imperialists, the French have been very generous to Muslim ‘immigration’(mass invasion) and Muslim culture & values in France. But Muslims, given their outlook, never see niceness and generosity as goodness but as contemptible weakness and wussiness that should be exploited. (French-Muslim relations have been made especially problematic by France’s obeisance to both Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the fact that the French elites are more servile to Jews/Zionists than to Muslims have made the latter spitting mad. After all, there are taboos on Shoah but one can still mock Islam and Muhammad in France in the name of Free Speech. Also, despite much greater Muslim numbers, French Jews are so much more successful than Muslims in France whose main talent is imitating blacks and singing rap in Arabic.) There was a time when French Guilt seemed like it could only do good and not much harm. After all, the France in the 1960s was overwhelmingly French. Most Frenchmen regarded black Africans as poor dummies in need of aid. They regarded Jews as a people deserving of sympathy given the horrors of WWII. And they thought Muslims would just come to France, do menial jobs, and shut up. So, French Guilt was really a Pride of French Generosity toward the less fortunate. But as time passed, blacks began to kick French ass in sports, schools, and streets. And Muslims began to take over entire cities and create social turmoil. No matter how nicely the French treated them, their attitude was hostile and ‘gimme more’. As for Jews, they went from a Holocaust People to an Assholocaust People. Worse, when the elite power in the US and UK went from Anglos to Jews, the French found it far more difficult to stand up to US-UK power. When the power was Anglo-held, the French could snub their noses at it as it was fair game to talk shit about Yanks and Brits. But once the top power in the Anglo-World became Jewish, the French became increasingly afraid of being labeled as ‘antisemitic’ if they were to say NO to the demands of the Jew-run US. Thus, French Guilt became fatal because it paralyze the French from calling out and criticizing the harm and threat posed by Peoples of Power. Muslims got the power of numbers and collective-rage. Blacks got muscle, dong, and fist power. And Jews got brain-and-balls power and great reach around the world.

Now, let’s look at the US. It’s been said whites began to lose power and prestige because of the rise of Politics of Victimhood and White Guilt consciousness. But, let’s suppose the only minorities in the US are American Indians, Eskimos, and people of Chinese & Japanese ancestry. There was once a time when the white man fought the fierce Indians, but the Indians lost out, and that was that. Once American Indians lost their territories and warrior pride, they were finished as a people. As for Eskimos, the only thing they were ever good for was making igloos and lifting stuff with their ears. Chinese suffered in the building of railroads, and the Japanese were sent to internment camps during WWII, but they aren't peoples with innate power that could harm whites. East Asians may have IQs comparable to that of whites, but they have passive and/or conformist personalities. They are followers than leaders.
So, if those groups were the only minorities in the US, no amount of White Guilt could have real negative consequence on White Pride, White Prestige, and White Power. White people might go, "boo hoo hoo, we feel so sorry for what we did to you Indians, Inuits, Chinese, and Japanese", but what would this amount to? None of those groups would ever be able to exploit and use White Guilt Paralysis to their advantage. Indians will just say, "Come to our casinos and roll more dice." Eskimos will say, "Buy more beaver pelts." Now, Chinese and Japanese may earn some slots in elite colleges and get good jobs, but they would lack the fire to lead a minority movement to take over America. So, under those conditions, White Guilt would hardly be a threat to the White Race. It’d be like feeling sorry for sparrows and squirrels.

So, why did White Guilt become so fatal in the US? It was because certain Victim Groups have the innate power to become Victors and gain supremacy over whites in certain key areas. Now, if not for White Guilt Paralysis, whites might have come together and pushed against the New Victorology of the Victim Groups, but White Guilt became law-of-the-land, and whites became helpless to do anything about it. Suppose most blacks in the US were like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman. Suppose they are midgets, dwarfs, or cuddly munchkins. Then, it wouldn’t matter how much whites feel White Guilt about blacks because blacks would have no innate advantage or superiority over whites. Even if whites were filled with White Guilt Paralysis and pledge to be extra nice to blacks, what could a race of Emmanuel Lewises and Gary Colemans do to White America?

Jews cunningly promoted Afro-Munchkins to ease white fears about Black Thuggery. So, even as Jews were trying to infect white women with Jungle Fever for Mandingo-Shaft-Mofo, they were featuring Afro-Munchkins like Emmanuel Lewis and Gary Coleman to make white folks feel all warm and cuddly toward the Negro. (Jews promoted Oprah as Neo-Mammy for the same reason: A Negress who hugs you than talks shit like an Angry Black Biatch.) So, even though Gorillian blacks were kicking white butt in sports and schools, countless white folks gave their hearts to Negrolings as baby-chimp-chillun on TV. Anyway, imagine if black folks in the US were more like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis than Jack Johnson or Charles Barkley. Would White Guilt have been equally problematic under those circumstances? How much harm could a bunch of Lewises or Colemans do? Even when real-lifeColeman turned bad, he was a dwarf who hardly posed a threat to anyone but himself.

Recently, Donald Trump pardoned Jack Johnson in yet another display of White Guilt signaling, and it’s worth asking why this is so damaging to the White Race. What did Jack Johnson become famous for? He was the toughest boxer of his time who beat up tons of white guys and humped tons of white women. He destroyed white manhood that was beaten and humiliated before the eyes of lots of white women who then caught jungle-fever because women are sexually wired to give their bodies to physically dominant men. Given the racial reality of the times, Johnson’s story has been spun as one of racial justice and dignity, i.e. in a world of blatant white ‘racism’, Johnson stood up and defeated the symbols of white supremacism and earned respect for the black race. But here’s the problem with such a Narrative: Even if America back then had been totally friendly and welcome toward blacks in all walks of life, Johnson still would have beaten up all those white guys, robbed the white race of manhood, and conquered & colonized tons of white vaginas and wombs. As Jim Jeffries said after he got man-raped by Jack Johnson in the ring, he couldn’t have defeated Johnson in a million-billion years. Thus, Johnson’s black destruction of white manhood wasn’t limited to a historical period but established a fundamental biological truth about the races, i.e. when whites integrate with blacks, white manhood goes extinct. (It's like Charles Barkley telling Richard Spencer that the latter's daughters and grand-daughters will have their wombs colonized by tougher black men who kick white male butt.) And when the men of a race lose prestige-of-manhood in the eyes of their women, they turn cucky-wuck and wussy. And then, their women turn into whores and go with men of the stronger race. Jordan Peterson has spoken about how lobster males fight for dominance and how the loser-male-lobster loses confidence and effectively shrivels into a lobcuckster or incel-lobster. Just like Japanese men have turned into a bunch of wussies after losing WWII and having their nation occupied by Americans, the main reason why white males have grown so wussy and weak is due to the Negro Factor.
We are told that it’s mainly due to feminism, but why does the castrating effects of feminism have a greater impact on white males than on black males? Besides, despite all this talk of feminist power, there is no shortage of macho entertainment, macho fantasies, and women-as-whore fantasies in culture. If anything, so-called ‘toxic masculinity’ can be found everywhere: Sports, martial arts, video-games, music videos, pornography, action movies, superhero fantasies, and etc. So-called MMA fighters are more aggressive and nasty than fighters of old. Video-games have gotten more violent and bloody. Pro-Wrestling is going strong. Every summer has tons of movies about tough guys blowing up the world. Not only is pornography ubiquitous but even mass entertainment has been largely pornified down to stuff made for children. What is called ‘wholesome’ today would have been for Adults Only in the 1970s or even 1980s. If anything, feminism has largely been ineffective in stopping the sexualization of culture(that turns women into 'sex objects'). Kim Kardashian has been the most followed-celebrity. If anything, much of feminism turned skanky and slutty, embracing the inner whore than the Iron-Spinster-Sister.
Therefore, the recent decrease in overall white male confidence has little to do with war on ‘toxic masculinity’ & sexual expression than with their near-total triumph. After all, most kids grow up to rap songs where thugs sing about ‘muh dick’ and about fighting and humping whores. And ‘twerking’ is the biggest dance among young females. Thus, our culture is saturated with ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘toxic femininity’(or femininity that is as brazen, aggressive, and shameless in its horniness as the male kind). And this was bound to favor black manhood over white manhood because blacks have a decisive advantage in sports, can holler louder, are naturally more aggressive, and have bigger dongs. It wasn’t the feminist suppression of sexuality that led to wussiness and cuckery among white men. It was the triumph of Black ‘toxic masculinity’ or Jack-Johnsonism.

And the main reason why so many white males found refuge in beta-male wussiness and cuckery was because they lost out to black manhood. When whites were secure in their own domain, white manhood need not compete with black manhood. Thus, whites could have a Hercules, Achilles, or Lancelot who was white. When Ancient Greeks had their Olympic games, it was for Greeks only. They didn’t invite Negroes from Africa to kick Greek male ass and have Greek women run off with Negroes. But once Manhood Competition was globalized, especially by having millions of Africans settle in white nations, white guys were going to lose out to the Jack Johnsons and Usain Bolts of the world. So, if white guys cannot be the representatives of Iconic Manhood in their own societies, what is left for them? If they can’t be alpha, they turn beta and turn wussy and cuckish and 'gender-fluid'.
This is also why Japanese and Korean males are turning into soyboy wussies. Their nations having been globalized, yellow males are beginning to realize they have no value in the Manhood department vis-a-vis the men of other races. So, what is left for them but to take on eunuch-mentalities, put makeup on their faces, and act like gayish flower-girly-boys? It’s estimated that 50% of Japanese men are unmarried virgin incel losers who have lost all pride of manhood, and 80% of Japanese women, having been globalized in taste and preference, say they are dissatisfied with their own men. So, the future of Globo-Japan will be Cuckpan where Japanese women go with non-Japanese men and have mixed-raced kids who take over the icons of Japanese manhood. Look how Japanese women are having kids with black men who are now taking over Japanese sports. Stuff like sports and pop culture matter because most people think in terms of idols than individuals. So, even if Japan is filled mostly with Japanese individuals, most of them are faceless nobodies. For the representative and iconic face of Japanese manhood and womanhood, the masses look to athletes, celebrities, and stars. So, if Japanese men are dethroned from the altar of manhood in sports and pop culture in their own nation, it will have a huge psychological effect EVEN IF Japan remains majority Japanese. It’s like, if the other side takes the battle flag of your side, it has a huge psychological effect on everyone. Or, if the Hero on your side loses to the Hero of the other side, it’s not just one individual losing to another but one icon losing to another. When Achilles defeated Hector, it had significance far beyond one guy beating another guy. He defeated the iconic representative of Trojan manhood. This is why black victory in sports has had HUGE ripple effect on all of white society. It wasn’t just some black guys beating some white guys. It was black manhood conquering, man-raping, and enslaving white manhood into wussy-dom. What Japan is now undergoing under globalist pressure, the UK, France, and Holland have already undergone. The idols and icons of representative manhood in those nations are increasingly black. Even though those nations still have many more whites than blacks, blackness has taken over as the iconic banner of manhood. Thus, not only are black men kicking white men’s butts in sports and conquering tons of white wombs but even white history is being rewritten to recast classic white heroes such as Hercules, Achilles, Lancelot, and many others into black heroes. The effect of idolatrous power can be seen in the not-very-good movie TROY. When Achilles defeats the goliath-sized Hero of the Rival army, all the men lose heart, turn wussy-cuck, and surrender.

Because blacks have an innate advantage and power over whites in brute strength and aggression, White Guilt Paralysis in relation to blacks was like a hunter who is overcome with guilt for grizzly bears, lions, hyenas, or wild hogs. Blacks want to kick white butt, humiliate white boy, and hump white women. They be nasty and aggressive. So, when whites fell for the BS cult of MLK about ‘peaceful resistance’ & reconciliation, they were setting themselves for racial demise. Via White Guilt, they rendered themselves defenseless against a most aggressive, nasty, and lip-smacking enemy. While it’s true that whites historically oppressed blacks, it’s no less true that blacks biologically want to beat up white boys and sexually conquer white women because blacks look upon whites like lions look upon zebras.

And then, whites totally underestimated the nature of Jews when they embraced White Gentile Guilt about Shoah/Holocaust. Jews seemed so pitiable after WWII in which Nazi Germans went crazy and carried out a horrible genocide. Besides, Jews were a small minority in the US. Even if they were disproportionately more successful than other groups, how could a tiny minority really take over the US and act like total a**holes? Would Jews really go from Holocaust people to an Assholocaust People? It seemed unlikely. And yet, whites totally underestimated the Way of Jews. Jews were not only more intelligent than whites by a standard deviation but were tribally networked all over the world, deviously cunning-conniving-and-venal, rabidly & virulently hateful, genocidally vengeful, and contemptuous & sadistic. Jews were like a monster-creature created by combining octopus, hyena, piranha, shark, weasel, cockroach, salamander, mole rat, bobcat, gopher, badger, kangaroo, buffalo, platypus, goat, seal, dolphin, lobster, crow, and bonobo. Jews were like The Thing of John Carpenter’s movie.

The real face of Jews: Exhibit A.

The real face of Jews: Exhibit B.

White folks simply had no idea of the true nature of Jews. Jews are a remarkable people, and that means they are great in wisdom and profundity but also in wickedness and megalomania. Thus, while Jews can do a lot for mankind if their talents and energies are steered and channeled properly, they can to spiral out of control and mess up the world if allowed to act like they are god himself. Jews, with their high intelligence and immense talent, are a people who must be carefully watched. Anything of great power must always come under scrutiny. (Funny that Jews say we must pay close attention to Iran, a nation without nukes, but we must turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel has 300 nukes that hardly go mentioned.) After all, why is there so much more care and caution at a nuclear reactor than around a camp fire? If something goes wrong around a camp fire, someone may burn his hand or marshmallow. But if something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor... well... the result is:

Jewish Power is nuclear, and what we are witnessing is a Jewclear Meltdown because White Guilt Paralysis about the Jew has made it nearly impossible to notice and criticize Jewish power that, unless carefully contained and inspected, has a way of going crazy. Ironically, the problem with Jews can be understood by studying the Germans. Germans were also a great people capable of so much good and so much bad. A talented, passionate, intelligent, and creative people, they could be great artists, visionaries, scientists, and thinkers. But they could also be great madmen, destroyers, and lunatics. Few peoples in modern times have done so many great things and so many evil things as the Germans have. Same goes for Jews. But after WWII, both Germans and Jews learned the wrong lessons that were then dumped on the rest of humanity. Germans were made to feel they are essentially evil at the core and must never imbibe another shot of passion and pride because it will lead to Nazism all over again. But Germans are nothing without passion and vision. Imagine Beethoven and Wagner rejecting their own passions lest they destroy the world. In contrast, Jews were made to feel they are innately holy & wonderful and nothing they do could ever be wrong. Thus, Jewish passions increasingly ran wild and crazy to the point where they befouled the world with filth of all kind.
The ONLY effective bulwark against Jewish Megalomania was responsible White Power, but White Gentile Guilt Paralysis made it nearly impossible for white power to ever notice anything dark, sick, or vile about Jewish power. Imagine if the humans in John Carpenter’s THE THING developed Human Guilt over the Thing and pledged to serve it and never use violence to fight back. What would happen?

White Guilt also muted white resistance to the Mexican Brown invasion. Though Mexicans-as-individuals lack the advantage of brawn of blacks and the advantage-of-brain of Jews, TOO MANY of them pose a real threat to White America. It’s like rabbits aren’t dangerous like lions or hyenas, but they can over-breed and take over entire areas and eat up all the plants. But the cult of White Guilt effectively silenced white resistance to Mass Invasion(aka Immigration) by the Other. Thus, the Mexican challenge also became very dangerous.
Anyway, the lesson from all this is, "Always be careful whom you feel guilty about." Certain groups that are deemed as ‘victims’ may hold certain Ace cards that can turn them into ruthless victors over your group when the tide shifts. White folks embraced White Guilt in regards to Jews and blacks on the premise that such minorities would remain noble objects-of-pity when showered with sympathy and affection. But in fact, blacks were eyeing for physical victory over the white race with their harder muscles and bigger dongs, and Jews were eyeing for political victory over the white race with their higher intelligence, pushier personalities, and more devious agendas.

The Problems of Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox

Fruitkin as Prom Queen

As many have surely observed, one of the strangest social phenomena is the level of intense enthusiasm/exhilaration over things that are odd, weird, perverse, and even obscene. Why would this be? Shouldn’t people feel a natural aversion to things that are so obviously weird, distasteful, abnormal, and/or obscene? At best, shouldn’t the reaction of most people be that of reluctant tolerance? But instead, we see people getting all nuttily enthused about stuff like ‘gay pride parade’, ‘gay marriage’, and the ‘gay male prom queen’. So, what is going on? Why is that some things that are naturally abhorrent to most people are being received and praised with so much mindless enthusiasm, exhilaration, and even worship?

Perhaps, psychology has a term for such a response, but we will call it the ‘aversion-exhilaration paradox’. It is paradoxical since some of the wildest enthusiasm seems to be reserved for something that is so obviously off-putting, weird, ridiculous, ludicrous, perverse, and/or obscene.
We know that some things are easy for people to get enthused about. Who doesn’t like ice cream? So, if you tell kids that they’re gonna get ice cream, they’re happy. They don’t have to MAKE AN EFFORT to get happy since they’re naturally happy. And since the happiness and enthusiasm for ice cream come so naturally, there may not be much in the way of intensity of enthusiasm. Okay, so they love ice cream, and they’re gonna get some. Yum, and that’s that.

Now, take something kids don’t like, such as spinach — personally, I like it or hate it depending on how it’s prepared, but that’s another matter. Kids have a natural aversion to certain foods, and spinach is one of them for many children. So, they will naturally be disappointed if their parents say they have to eat a plateful of it. But suppose kids are told that spinach is holy food — indeed food of the gods —, and that if you don’t like spinach, you’re a mentally unbalanced spinachaphobe, you are a hater, and you’re just an all-around bad, bad child. Since kids want to be liked and win approval, they will feel shame for not liking it. And yet, deep down inside, they still don’t like it. But they have to like it because they’ve been told they’re awful unless they like it. So, the enthusiasm for spinach cannot be natural. It doesn’t come easily. It requires a lot of effort. Indeed, EXTRA EFFORT is called for in order to overcome the natural aversion to spinach. And even more EXTRA EFFORT in order to repress the fact that, deep down inside, one doesn’t really like spinach. So, one goes about acting like Popeye, as if spinach is the best-tasting, most wonderful, most nutritious, and most magical food in the world. So, paradoxically, the natural aversion to spinach and one’s effort to overcome it(and repress one’s doubt about one’s strained excitement for spinach)can make one even more enthusiastic of something one doesn’t like than of something that one naturally likes.

Indeed, consider the black queer ‘prom queen’ at the high school dance. What would be the natural response of any sane and normal person to such a thing? Laughter, ridicule, and mockery. I mean it looks like parody, silliness, childishness, stupidity, retardation, a joke. But society, as governed by the Jewish elites and their mini-me allies the homos, teaches young people that it’s terribly ‘sinful’, ‘unjust’, ‘unequal’, and ‘hateful to not ‘welcome’ and ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. After all, it’s no longer enough to just tolerate homosexuals. One MUST exhibit proof of enthusiasm, exhilaration, devotion, and even worship in order to be labeled a ‘good progressive’ person who’s against ‘hate’. So, kids must repress their natural inclination to laugh and ridicule the notion of some funny-ass black jiver queer ‘prom queen’. But since such enthusiasm simply doesn’t come naturally, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to repress their doubts and to express their obligatory enthusiasm. Also, one must repress the fact that one is a wimp who is cowering to the demands of the powers-that-be that imposes such a ridiculous notion as ‘gay pride’ — pride over guys doing fecal penetration one another or men having their penises sliced off to be fitted with artificial vaginas. What is a potent way to hide one’s shame? By exhibiting extreme enthusiasm. Therefore, the aversion-exhilaration paradox.

Aversion-exhilaration paradox is more common than most people might think. So much of what we feel great enthusiasm about is actually something we feel a natural aversion to. Consider TV talk-shows where some ugly, crippled, and wretched woman is paraded onto the stage. Our natural reaction is obviously revulsion since we prefer the healthy and the normal. But since society tells us to feel compassion for the unfortunate, we repress our feelings of aversion. So far, so good, as we should feel sympathy for the unfortunate. We certainly shouldn’t harass, taunt, or torment people like, say, the famous Elephant Man. But what if that’s not enough? If society defacto forces us to praise the notion of ‘cripple pride’ — i.e. it’s not enough for us to feel sympathy for the unfortunate but we must praise, celebrate, and worship them — , then we must not only suppress our natural aversion but force ourselves to believe that we genuinely feel enthusiastic about the ‘beauty’ of crippled people. Since such feelings are not natural, we must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves of such emotions and display them, and so our show of enthusiasm for ‘cripple pride’ may actually be even more powerful than our enthusiasm for beauty. After all, it doesn’t take any effort to admire beauty. It comes naturally and easily. And we don’t have to make a collective show of it since every individual feels so naturally drawn to beauty. And it doesn’t have to be imposed with mass hysteria and punitive taboos since what is more natural than finding pleasure in admiring beauty?

If anything, we feel an aversion to anti-beauty, and this is why extreme Islamic societies suffer from aversion-enthusiasm paradox when it comes to feminine beauty. Muslim men, like most men, naturally admire beauty and wanna see more of it. But Islam says feminine beauty displayed publicly is sinful, shameful, obscene, dirty, sacrilegious, and pretty bad stuff. So, Muslim men must repress their natural love of feminine beauty, and they must embrace the naturally aversive notion that beauty-shown-publicly is vile and wicked. They must force themselves to believe that women draped and veiled in black look pretty good. But since such aversive feelings don’t come naturally, Muslim men must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be anti-beauty. In this sense, the logic behind the current Western worship of ‘gays’ — propagated by Jews — and the logic behind the Islamic suppression of feminine beauty share an element of the aversion-exhilaration/enthusiasm paradox. Both are enforcing onto the masses what is naturally aversive. Western folks have to be pressured to believe that there’s beauty and honor in men porking their penises into the fecal holes of other men, in men having their body parts mutilated and their veins pumped with massive amounts of artificial hormones, and in two guys pretending that they are ‘two daddies’ or ‘daddy and mommy’, indeed as if the anus or poo-sy is the same as pussy. The homo agenda would also have us believe that the rainbow is the symbol of male fecal penetration among homos, of two lesbians having sex by humping a hole with a hole(???), and of a black guy cutting off his penis and putting on a wig and calling himself a blonde lady.

Laverne Cox the Black Guy as Blonde Woman

This sort of thing used to be reserved for Mad Magazine and the Onion when this nation had a healthy sense of satire and irony. Today, you better accept and praise it with a straight face, or else, you will be accused and attacked as a ‘hater’ and be destroyed worse than any Stalinist, Maoist, or communist spy/subversive was blacklisted during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’. (Btw, given that so many far-right and Nazi sympathizers had their careers destroyed during the WWII era, how come that period isn’t denounced as the sinister ‘Roosevelt Blacklist Era’? Of course, Jews and Liberals control the academia and media, and they’re only offended by blacklist against the far left but never against the far right. It’s the same today in places like London where a university banned a club because it discusses the ideas of right-wing philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Welcome to the Jew World Order. Jewish defense of freedom of speech was always about opportunism, never about principles.)

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is also common among soldiers. After all, soldiers are humans, and humans naturally don’t want to get shot, torn to pieces, stabbed with bayonets, blown to bits, crippled, blinded, and etc., all of which happen all too often in wars. Also, many soldiers don’t want to kill civilians, even of the enemies. But soldiers don’t have a choice. Once drafted or volunteered into the force, they must shut up and obey orders as long as they are in uniform. Even in a volunteer army, one is free only when one volunteers. Once entered into the service, one is essentially an attack dog of the elites, and since US is run by Jews, American soldiers are nothing more than attack dogs of the likes of Victoria Nuland and other vile hideous Jews who send goy boys to do all the killing, dying, and getting maimed for Jewish supremacist interests.
Since soldiers must do as they’re told and must repress their fears, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince themselves and others of their great fighting spirit and enthusiasm for war. Prior to the Iraq Invasion, American soldiers were shown clips of APOCALYPSE NOW and encouraged to rock to songs like ‘Rock the Casbah’ by the Clash. Soldiers must hide all their fears since it might seem wussy, dishonorable, and even treasonous on the eve of war. So, the very soldiers who are naturally sick in the stomach with fear and anxiety about battles-to-be-fight can seem the most delirious and passionate in their willingness to charge into the battlefield in order to die for ‘national glory’. Consider ‘Ron Kovic’ prior to be shipped off to Vietnam in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. He tries so hard to convince himself that it’s going to be a great adventure where he gets to play the great hero. In a way, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is the basic idea behind SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The film begins in a manner that is so harrowing that we feel a natural aversion to combat. Most viewers naturally feel, "gee, I’m sure I wasn’t there and I never wanna end up in combat." But the inspirational John Williams music, the Norman Rockwellian iconography of the soldiers-transforming-into-heroes, the uh-goshy patriotism and paeans to the virtues of sacrifice, and all that stuff make the audience feel guilty about feeling any doubts about the nobility of the men’s mission to fight the war and save Ryan. So, by the movie’s end, the audience is made to feel in terms of "Have I been a GOOD man?" Since ‘goodness’ is measured by one’s willingness to fight and die in a war to rid the world of the main enemy of Jews, the audience is ‘inspired’ — and emotionally manipulated, brutalized, and coerced — to repress their natural aversion to getting blown up in war and to replace it with great enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was soon followed by TV shows like BAND OF BROTHERS that lionized the ‘greatest generation’.

Overcoming aversion is necessary in any moral order. It’s even necessary for good health. After all, who wants to undergo surgery or take bitter medicine? Who wants to eat healthy food that tastes yucky? Who wants to wake up every morning and get stuck in traffic on the way to work? Who wants to risk his life by entering a burning house to put out the fire? But people must do all that in order to maintain social order and moral values.
Even so, there are good things we don’t like and bad things we don’t like. Spinach is good for kids, but most kids don’t like it. But when it comes to eating shit, we not only have an extreme aversion to it but our aversion is good and necessary for it’s unhealthy to eat da poo poo. So, if we have a fear of being forced to eat da poo-poo, it’s not a phobia but a naturally healthy response to a disgusting act — though there are some people with natural fetishes for eating disgusting stuff, including poo-poo; and some people seem to enjoy eating human flesh. (Maybe libertarians can champion cannibalism whereby the family of a deceased member can sell his body parts to cannibals. That way, no murder is committed, and it’s all about the freedom of choice. And maybe libertarians and ‘progressives’ should unite to legalize the eating of dogs and cats. After all, if it’s okay to kill and devour animals as intelligent as pigs because eating pork is a cultural norm in the West, isn’t it a case of ‘privileging’ western cultural norms over the Asian, American Indian, Polynesian, and some African ones where dogs are regarded as food? By golly, isn’t that ‘racist’ and ‘Euro-centric’? What about ‘culinary equality’ or ‘culinary freedom-to-choose’?) But suppose society says poo-poo is a form of sacred food and that those who find the practice of eating poo-poo disgusting are ‘poophobic’ and mentally sick in the head. Suppose children are educated from a young age that eating-da-poo-poo is wonderful, and since there is a small minority of people who naturally like to eat da poo-poo, eating da poo-poo should not only be tolerated but welcomed in the name of ‘food equality’. Of course, it’s difficult for most people to swallow poo-poo, so they won’t do it. But since poo-poo has been elevated to iconic/sacred status, they must at least show great enthusiasm for the glory of eating da poo-poo. So, at poo pride or poo-ride rallies, they show up and go crazy as floats are wheeled across celebrating the greatness of poo-poo. The thing is they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be especially delirious in their support since they must repress their natural aversion to the idea of eating da poo-poo. Of course, to conceal the true nature of poo-poo-eating, the promoters of poo pride will wrap the poo culture in rainbow colors and other pleasant-looking imagery and glitz. If Wall Street could package so much worthless shitty derivatives and sell them around the world by packaging/stamping it with AAA-rated approval, then why can’t the elites sell something like the homo agenda or poo pride?

There are necessary things we must accept(even if unpleasant) and there are things we must necessarily tolerate even if they don’t hold much value for us. Because so much of life is about ‘no pain, no gain’, we must necessarily handle much pain and aggravation in all aspects of life. As for crippled people and people with low IQ, they may not be of much use to society, but as fellow humans, they have to be taken care of and/or treated with decency. But there’s a difference between making some effort to be more decent and making an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves that what we must tolerate or acknowledge is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Consider the queer black prom queen pictured above. Yes, there are such people in the world. They are ridiculous, but they are what they are, and they shouldn’t be taunted or attacked. But notice how the school went overboard and convinced itself to pretend that such ‘sexuality’ is the greatest thing since baked buns. There is element of servility, condescension, and narcissism(both vain and moral) in all this. There is the servility to political correctness. There is the condescension in trying to boost the ‘self-esteem’ of some freak-as-noble-victim. (The condescension is racial as well as ‘sexual’, a kind of double ‘affirmative action’.) And there is the narcissism on part of the Negro queer ‘prom queen’ in actually believing himself to be beautiful when any honest person will say he looks ludicrous and ‘faggoty’, and there is the preening ‘moral’ narcissism on the part of the school that thinks itself sooooooooo pwogwessive because it upholds a very ‘anti-normative’ notion of beauty that happens to be oh-so-‘inclusive’. The whole thing stinks of bullshit.
Or consider the case where a school — actually two schools — secretly plotted a sports scenario where a retarded student would be helped to score a touchdown on the football field. Of course, the problem isn’t the compassion that the students felt for the poor kid. That much is to be lauded. It’s their over-enthused fantasy that what the kid achieved is a real touchdown. Now, kids feel a natural aversion to retarded children. Kids don’t want to hang around retards, and girls surely don’t want to date them. And long ago, perhaps such kids were too neglected, mocked, and mistreated. So, one could say it’s a good thing that kids have been raised to be more sensitive today — though, to be sure, the number of retards have been reduced thanks to fetal screening and selective abortion. But, the charade that the retarded kid is a some kind of student-athlete who actually made a touchdown, that is just bogus. Worse, though it seems to be about selflessness, it’s a form of moral narcissism, as if to parade oneself to the world that you are so caring and compassionate that you went so far as to make a retard feel good about himself. But the retarded kid has been sold on a lie. And the audience has been softly bullied into going along with the charade since people don’t want to be seen as ‘mean-spirited’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘hateful’ for calling out on the bullshit. We can treat unfortunate people with caring and decency without going out of our way to pretend that their misfortune is actually some kind of great fortune. We don’t need this Forrest-Gumpity BS which is a horrible fantasy about the world. Also, notice that the ‘moral’ pressure that forces us to pretend that the retarded kid scored a ‘real touchdown’ is much like our pretension that two lesbians or two homo guys can ‘have a child together’. Melissa Ethridge didn’t have a child with her lesbian lover. She had the child with David Crosby, but as in HANDMAID’S TALE, the real biological parent has to be nixed out of the equation while we must pretend that the woman had the child with another woman. We may over-enthusiastically pat ourselves on the back for our supportive compassion and applause for lesbians(as poor noble victims), but it’s all built on a lie that no honest person can take seriously.
So, even ‘good intentions’ can mask pathological amounts of deception and self-deception. It’s like the Housing Bubble under George W. Bush had so many enthusiasts on both sides of the ideological divide since they had to swallow and suppress so much bullshit to fool themselves that everything would turn out alright in offering no-interest home loans to so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or don’t even have any kind of steady income. People have a natural aversion to total bullshit, but if the bullshit is protected and promoted in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ — and of course, Wall Street greed — , then even the experts come under pressure to swallow and peddle the BS. And since their rational minds remain skeptical, they have to compensate by expunging their natural doubts with boundless enthusiasm. There is an element of cultist devotion and religiosity in all this, and indeed, Jews understood this very well as they are the masters of psychology.

Indeed, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is intrinsic to all religions, some more than others. Religions, especially the higher ones, cannot function without pressuring and even forcing people to overcome certain natural tendencies and aversions. The positive side of this is the civilizing effect it has on people as, after all, so many natural human tendencies and drives are ‘base’ and ‘animal’. Surely, any Jewish kid through the ages would have preferred to run around and play than sit at the feet of some mean-spirited hairy Rabbi who instructed him with ‘boring’ stuff, especially as the kid had to undergo much painful effort to memorize a lot of passages of text.
Much of Buddhism is about denial of what comes naturally to us. We naturally embrace the joys & pleasures of life while fearing poverty, disease, and death. But Buddha instructed people to reject pleasure as addictive illusions that filled one with ‘desire’ and ‘attachment’ that prevented people from separating and liberating themselves from the falsehood of the world. As for poverty, disease, and death, such should not be feared or regarded with aversion since they too are mere illusions.

Some Hindu yogis go out of their way to overcome their natural aversion to pain by sitting on cactuses or doing horrible things to their bodies. Naturally, fleshly pain is something we dread and try to avoid, but Hindu yogis seek to spiritually rise above the flesh by overcoming pain and agony. They may not embark on such with enthusiasm or exhilaration but still do so with extreme commitment in order to compensate for their pain and aggravation.
In some cases, doing something one dreads and fears most may pay off in some spectacular way at the very least. Most of us would be afraid to climb a high mountain or jump out of an airplane. But those who made it to the top of Everest surely felt as masters of the world. And once one masters the practice of parachuting, it can be exhilarating to be ‘floating’ up in the sky. And maybe Hindu yogis do feel a kind of transcendence once they master the practice of making their butts impervious to cactus needles.
But what is the payoff for most people when it comes to stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and the homo agenda? Do they really feel ecstatic in the knowledge that marriage has been associated with floopy-doo homo fecal penetrators with whiny voices and fairy-like demeanor? Do they really feel better as human beings by praising and worshiping the people with the styles of Liberace? What do most people get out of this homomania? It is precisely because homomania is so unnatural that the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal must work so hard 24/7 to pump us day in and day out with the homo-cult, which comes in two flavors.
On the one hand, we are to accept homos because we are told that they’re just like us, a kind of ‘new normal’, ‘new mainstream’, and so clean-cut. They are the new ‘fathers knows best’ or ‘father blows best’. But on the other hand, we are also told that we must especially worship homos since they are so showy, so stylish, so special, so wild, so creative, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Of course, the same shtick is pulled with Jews and Negroes. So, we are told that we must regard Jews as ‘just like us’. They must not be seen as the Other, as that would be ‘antisemitic’. But we must also worship Jews because they are so special, so exceptional(in achievement and suffering), so smart, so wise, so funny, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Same with Negroes. On the one hand, we must see blacks as ‘just as normal and upstanding as respectable middle class whites.’ So, Sidney Poitier was, for a long time, the too-good-to-be-true Negro, a real credit to his race. Even in GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, he seemed to be marrying a white woman not out of any jungle fever lust but because it was all about love and progress and doing the right thing. You’d expect the union is entirely social and idealistic and hardly sexual as Negroes are too upstanding to think about actual sex. And of course, Obama has been sold as this kind of straight upright Negro. So, how dare any white person stereotype the Negro as a sex-crazed, gorilla-powered, wild-ass, and funky mofo!
But there’s the other side of Liberalism that says we must especially revere and worship the Negro and Negress because they holler like baboons, have huge dongs and big juicy butts(that be twerking like mad), run as fast and jump as high as animals, and fight like savage chimpanzees. So, you see, Liberals love racial and sexual stereotypes AS LONG AS they can be spun positively. So, if BIRTH OF A NATION says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must unite and defend themselves from the Negro, that is ‘racist’ and evil. But if, Jewish-promoted Rap culture says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must surrender and put out to the superior and more masterful black race, that is so ‘progressive’ and wonderful. Both views are predicated on racial differences, but notice that the latter is welcomed by Liberals even as they insist, officially at any rate, that there are no racial differences and that racial stereotypes are evil.

It’s truly astounding how stupid white people are in being suckered this way. But of course, many white people do sense a lot of bullshit in all this. Naturally, many whites do fear blacks. Naturally, many whites are worried about excessive Jewish power, especially since Jews are only 2% of the population, so pushy & nasty, and so unpleasant in looks and behavior. Naturally, many whites, deep down inside, find the homosexual thing to be gross. But as they’ve been inculcated in schools and by media — and even at work — that they must defer to blacks, Jews, and homos or otherwise they are ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’, white folks feel that they must repress their natural anxieties and aversions about Jews, blacks, and homos.
How else can we explain the Oprah craze? (And there’s Ellen Degeneris the degenerate who owes her success to the mere fact that she’s a lesbian as she has no discernible talent.) She may have a knack for hosting a TV show, but she is no more than a fat black entertainer. How did she become ‘the one’? Why are so many white folks crazy about her, as if she’s the daughter of MLK? Indeed, even the MLK myth is promoted excessively in part to suppress our natural aversion to his true character. The real MLK was a compulsively lying and cheating opportunistic punk who used to beat up women and laugh about it. But such truth goes against the myth of him as the prophet of peace, and so, we must shout and holler in our reverence for him in order repress our doubts about him. And same goes for the Mandela craze. In truth, whites during apartheid did great things for South Africa by building up its economy and infrastructure, none of which would have existed had blacks gained control of South Africa much earlier. Also, South Africa has been a hellhole since the black takeover. So, any rational assessment of South Africa would fill many people with aversion to and revulsion of black African rule. But we can’t have that since that would be ‘racist’. Since the myth promoted by Jews is that Mandela was the father to a rainbow society of bliss and harmony, we must go batty in our delirious over-praise of Mandela to drown out our doubts and misgivings about the experiment of black rule.
Same goes for Israel. Any rational observer would notice the fact that vicious Jews rule the US, and that they’re working in tandem with Zionist Israelis in their pitiless oppression of Palestinians. (True, Palestinians are no saints, and many of them are unpleasant people, but they’ve lost their nation with the full backing of the most powerful nations on earth.) Any honest broker should be able to tell that the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are snakes. But since Jews are cloaked with the holy Holocaust Cult and have the means to make or break anyone, all politicians go out of their way to bow down before Jews with wild enthusiasm.

Chris Christie - Fat Pig Running Dog of Jews

Surely, deep down inside, fatsos like Chris Christie know Sheldon Adelson for what he is — a vile and cretinous Jewish tycoon. But he and his ilk are goy dogs who must bow down to Jewish supremacism, and they know they will be destroyed for even the slightest criticism of Jews and Israel.
This is especially true of Republicans. As Democratic Party is so owned by Jews, one can be a Democratic and be mildly critical of Israel. But since the white right has traditionally been associated with the cardinal sin of ‘antisemitism’, they must make an extra effort to show that they’ve been healed, see the light, and are on the side of holy shmoly Jews. Since white Conservatives must repress so much of their natural aversion to Jewish foulness, they must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to be pro-Jewish and pro-Zioinst, and this explains why the GOP is so mindlessly rabid in its support of everything Jewish. Republican pansy-boys act toward their Jewish masters like Mel Brooks-as-servant acts to his ‘master’ in TWELVE CHAIRS.

It’s all very sickening but such aversion-enthusiasm paradox is all too common among white people, and indeed, it’s becoming increasingly so since America has gone from majoritarian rule to minoritarian rule mode. Clearly, when the elites are markedly different in identity from the masses, they are going to be more nervous, anxious, and fearful of mass values, mass norms, mass passions, mass biases, and mass prejudices since the natural mode of most people is to want to be ruled by their own kind. Therefore, there will be more pressure from Jews and homos on the majority gentiles and straight people to suppress their natural tendencies, feelings, and values in favor of lionizing, revering, and worshiping the glory of Jews and homos, i.e. the ‘new normal’.
Given the nature of what has happened in America and EU in recent years, ‘antisemitism’ — though unpleasant and nasty at times — was very natural and even healthy in European history. What people would want to be ruled and manipulated by an alien elite with different looks and values? Why did the Chinese eventually overthrow the Manchus? Why did the Indians eventually bid the British farewell? Indeed, suppose Turks are only 2% of the Israel population but have the kind of economic, media, and political control that Jews have over US, UK, and even Russia. Jews in Israel would flip out and call out for Jewish nation for Jewish people under Jewish rule; Jews would be totally ‘antisemitic’ against the Turks. But Jews have been working so hard to make white people see ‘antisemitism’ as some kind of irrational disease of the mind when, in fact, the true disease is the notion that gentiles in America and the West should cower before the Jewish minority elites that, despite all their power and privilege, still go around whining like they are all poor survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the differential in power between Israeli Jews — who are backed by US, EU, Russia, and developed world — and Palestinians who have nothing and no support from the world community. Yet, we are to believe that Palestinians are the new Nazis and we must do everything in our power to save Jews from kids throwing rocks in Gaza at Israeli tanks and jet fighters. Anyone who knows anything naturally feels repulsed by such bullshit. But in America and EU, you don’t get anywhere without sucking up to Jews. And it’s not enough to tolerate Jews. Indeed, it’s not enough to welcome Jews. It’s not enough to praise Jews. We must worship Jews as holy victims of all eternity. Since this is so much BS, we must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to repress all our doubts and to express our full enthusiasm for the Jews.

"Zionists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is well-illustrated by the case of Jack Johnson. In truth, Johnson was a loathsome person. But seen in historical context, we can understand why he had special meaning to black folks. In a society where blacks were, at best, second-class citizens(and often not even that), it was natural for many blacks to feel pride when Jack Johnson beat up all the whites guys and won the championship. Even ‘racist’ white people should be able to acknowledge that much, i.e. even if Johnson was lowly in character as an individual, he was a great boxer and he overcame many social obstacles at a time when there was so much white antipathy to any notion of black pride and power. To be sure, there were white progressives back then who did promote black pride, but it had to be respectable, the sort that was a ‘credit to their race’ and approved by white society. Johnson’s counter-example stood for blacks defining their own brand of racial pride(even if it meant blacks would eventually fulfill the stereotype as gorilla-like thugs with big fists, big muscles, and big dicks).

Jack Johnson the Negro Champion

Ken Burns the white dork Liberal sap

This much, all of us can agree on. But among white Liberals like Ken Burns, there’s this quasi-religious need to be redeemed of ‘white guilt’, and this means that we must all overcome the problem of Johnson’s lowly character and elevate him to something like a super-hero of noble virtues and greatness. So, with the likes of Ken Burns, it’s not enough to acknowledge the social meaning of Johnson within the context of history. We must somehow repress our natural loathing of many of his characteristics and pretend that he was a hero of the ages. But the fact is, if we remove the historical and social context, there’s only the thug. If Johnson were alive today, he’d be just another trashy black athlete, just another black thug in the streets or in jail, or just another black loudmouth who are dime-a-dozen. It was the context that gave special meaning to his life and career, but for white Liberals the CONTEXT of one’s character matters more than the CONTENT. And so, many idiot white Liberals get all gushy about Johnson as if he wasn’t just some socio-historically significant athlete but some kind of prophet-saint of the righteous fist: a kind of one-man black Boxer Rebellion. Anyway, whites today must repress so much of their doubts and revulsion about the real Jack Johnson in order to believe in the culturally sanctioned myth that he was made of heroic stuff. In truth, he was just a thug who liked to beat up people. And although harassed by white society-at-large, he was a bully in the ring since he ducked black fighters — who might have beaten him — and stuck to beating up easier white fighters. If bullying is where the stronger picks on the weaker, Johnson was a bully since he refused to fight other black fighters as tough or tougher than him. When he fought all those white guys, it was like a man deciding to fight only women, as indeed, the difference between the black male and white male in athleticism is almost comparable to that between a man and a woman.
Though we divide the sexuality into male and female, males can take on feminine attributes and females can take on male attributes depending on the set and setting. So, women prison guards come to act like men in their use of force to maintain order among women prisoners.
In contrast, even seemingly tough males will turn wussy in the presence of much tougher males. It’s like an aggressive barking male dog will suddenly droop its ears, curl its tail, and roll on its back in the presence of an bigger and tougher male dog.
White males have been totally pussifed by black males, and of course, this is very humiliating. To the natural male instinct, such a fate is disgusting and intolerable. Why would the men of any nation or race want to be pussified into quasi-womanhood by another race or people? So, the natural white male response to their fate under the lordship of smarter Jew and stronger blacks would be anger and rage, but since they’ve been brainwashed to believe that any negative feelings about Jews and blacks is ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ — ooh, so evil and wicked! — , they repress their aversion and go out of their way to show their enthusiasm for their submission to Jewish brains and black brawn. When Bill Clinton addressed a bunch of white students at a commencement ceremony and told them that their kind is fated to become a minority in America, why was he greeted with such ecstatic applause from whites? Surely, deep down inside, the white students must have felt some doubt and anxiety about the future of their own kind as a minority in the very nation founded politically, culturally, economically, and socially by their ancestors. But as they’ve been brainwashed that they can only redeem ‘white guilt’ by submission to Jews and blacks(and ‘undocumented immigrants’ of all color), they simply couldn’t admit to their aversions about the troubled future. So, they went out of their way to applaud Clinton with rapturous exhilaration to drown out their natural aversions and anxieties.
It was the same with the kids assembled at a Harry Potter convention. When the foul and disgusting J. K. Rowling said Dumbledork is supposed to be a homo, there was first a muted reaction, as if WTF. But as kids have been told that there’s no higher honor in life than worshiping homos — after Jews and MLK of course — , they drowned out their doubts with mindless non-stop applause.

This is how mindless most people are, and this is why the Enlightenment ideals centered around Reason don’t go very far. For the elites, the thing is not to educate the people to think as individuals. First, most people are incapable of individual/independent thought even with extensive education and training. But, even if it were possible to turn most people into free thinkers, why would the elites want such an outcome when it would mean free-thinking individuals thinking their own thoughts and speaking truth to elite power? Why would Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo elites want the vast majority of people who are not Jewish nor homo to think freely and speak truth to Jewish and homo power? So, the Jomo elites seek to use mass education, mass indoctrination, mass advertising, mass taboo-enforcing, mass delirium — so much the feature of ‘gay pride’ parades — , and mass ignorance to further their goals.
Also, since both the Liberal and Conservative elites have been bought, tamed, and chained to the globalist Jomo agenda, the masses have no alternative leadership that might offer alternative formulation of power. There is no Moses figure in America. Jews and Homos are the new pharaohs, and they’ve leashed and trained everyone who matters to be obedient.
The GOP establishment, totally under the thumb of Neocon Jews who are allied to Liberal Zionist Jews of the Democratic Party, have decided to surrender on ‘gay marriage’. Since the corporate class, academia, media, and finance controlled by Jews say we must have ‘gay marriage’, the GOP has decided it better go along. So, all those Americans who’d supported the GOP for socially conservative reasons have all been had. They thought they had a stake in the Republic, but their votes were merely exploited by weasel-GOP elites who are nothing but running dogs of the Jewish elites. Of course, GOP leaders don’t suddenly say that they are FOR ‘gay marriage’. They just say, oh well... um.. uh..., ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Now, Orrin Hatch is an old man who grew up in a much more conservative time and place. You’d think he’d stand up for the real values, but he’s a politician first and foremost, and politicians are prostituticians who go where the power is. It’s like Sal in THE GODFATHER shaking Barzini’s hand since, well, it appeared as though the Corleones are finished and Barzini is the inevitable winner. So, why fight it? Just ho-de-do like a ‘house nigger’. A true conservative would stick up for his principles and fight to the last even if the cause seems lost. But these GOP elite scum have no scruples. They are really out for #1, which is themselves. Of course, the Jomos are cackling with hideous glee as they take notice of how cowardly, craven, and chickenshit most American Conservatives are. And of course, deep down inside, many American Conservatives who sell out this way know they are succumbing to something they naturally feel an aversion to deep in their hearts. So, what will happen eventually? Following the logic of the Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox, it won’t be long before the GOP loudly and ‘proudly’ proclaims that ‘gay marriage’ is the ultimate in ‘family values’. Yes, the GOP has learned to love Big Buttfuc*ing Brother.

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox in Action:

Goyim repress their cravenness and shame with excessive enthusiasm for whatever Netanhayu says.



Commissars scared shitless of Stalin hide their fears by out-of-control non-stop applause.