In the Post-Ideological Age, It All Comes Down to REALITY vs IDOLOGY(idolatry-as-ideology) — American Preference of Savagery over Slavery — 'Social Justice' American Style favors the Winners over Losers — China's Fusion of Reality and Idology

What we have now is...

Idology(idolatry-as-ideology) vs Reality.

The cold truth is that blacks kill blacks, and cops have been saving black lives over the years by coming between blacks and blacks. Without presence of cops, blacks kill more blacks and nonblacks as well in the bargain. That is the Reality.

But in 2020, Jews needed extra black support to unseat Donald Trump and ran with the super-idology of noble sacred black bodies being murdered by ‘racist’ whites in Trump’s America. As with Covid-19 Hysteria, Trump was caught between a rock and a hard place, or Scylla and Charybdis. On Covid, if Trump went with the lockdown, his economy would be ruined. But if he opposed the lockdown, the Jewish media would say he’s responsible for MASS MURDER.
As for the black issue, if Trump stood with the cops, he could lose whatever gains he made among black voters. But if he praised George Floyd to high heaven, he would lose some credibility with his base, and indeed white male support for Trump’s dipped in the 2020 election. So, BLM was useful to Jews in 2020. Trump couldn't win either way, Jews couldn't lose either way, especially as Trump is so afraid of Jewish Power that he pleads to suck Jewish penis after it's been rammed up his arse.

Jews also find Negrolatry useful in perpetuating ‘white guilt’. Jews know that whites really feel guilt only for what is deemed superior and don’t feel much sympathy for ‘losers’. It’s part of American DNA. Winners over Losers, as Patton said. “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” Even American ‘social justice’ that ostensibly cares about the ‘losers’ is geared toward favoring the winners. After all, why do Americans care so much about Jews as holy holocaust people but care NOTHING about Palestinians? Jews are rich and successful, or winners. Palestinians are poor and backward, or losers.
Same logic applies to blacks. The reason why whites feel a special thing for blacks is because blacks have become so dominant in what Americans care about most: Sports, Pop Music, and with pornification of pop culture and sexting via smartphones(from a young age), sex. In other words, if Jews try to bait white guilt about most groups, whites wouldn’t much care no matter how much the said groups may have suffered. Brown natives of the Americas suffered a great deal, but the basic white attitude toward them is "mow my lawn", "pick my lettuce", and "change my kid’s diapers".

Indeed, it’s interesting that American Indians got more respect in the past despite the fresh memories of their threat to whites. Back then, blacks were slaves while Indians were savages. A white man was far more likely to get killed by a savage red man than by a slavish black man. So, even though there was much white fear and hatred in regards to Indians, there was also a good deal of grudging respect for them as warriors and hunters and badass killers. Savages could be cruel and crazy but they were also wild and free, thus acting like natural winners. In contrast, blacks-as-slaves were conditioned to act like losers. Blacks were cotton-picking shuffling toms.
But over the years, Indians went from savages to de facto ‘slaves’. Once proud warriors riding wild and free over the prairies, they eventually became ‘slaves’ in reservations, defeated and docile. Meanwhile, blacks went from slaves to ‘savages’. In time, they became wild and free, feral and aggressive, winning in sports and taking over streets and acting as they done please.

And oddly enough, white respect went from Indians(who went from savage to ‘slave’) to blacks(who went from slave to ‘savage’, or neo-savage). Especially since the 1960s, blacks have been acting like how Indians used to act: attacking whites, whooping & hollering, and taking trophies of white women. Watching all this black dominance in sports and rap music, whites have become accustomed to seeing blacks as the superior race, the natural warrior savage winners.
Thus, ‘social justice’ American style is just another form of winners uber alles. It isn’t really about favoring the underdog but honoring the new top dog. Blacks fail in many areas but succeed in what matters most to Americans. White Americans feel, “If blacks are tops in the coolest fields, it’s only right and just that they should be best in everything.” The fact that blacks aren’t good in everything seems an injustice within this context.
Especially with the rise of youth culture and black-inflected popular music, American Society has gotten more shameless and uninhibited over the years. Even as the rational fields of science/technology have continued to advance at breakneck pace, the culture has gotten more savage, often led by trends spearheaded by blacks. In a way, paradoxically enough, technological breakthroughs have made mankind even more savage or neo-savage. Electronic devices amplify and disseminate wild & orgiastic expressions of celebrities, deviants, and perverts. Geeks make the gadgets, and studs, skanks, cucks, and dorks all indulge themselves in the Age of Jeffrey Epstein.
It used to be civilization and order were valued as the means by which to rise above savagery and slavery. But many feel that civilization long enslaved the natural savage energies that make us free and liberated. Thus, Western Civilization and its creation of order were tantamount to a form of slavery of one kind or another. If blacks were slaves picking cotton, whites were slaves imprisoned by their own repressions. Thus, the only way of liberation is by unleashing the savage energies of blacks as the driving force of world liberation.
Of course, such delusions are possible only because Western Civilization created the material means by which people can have enough food and necessities, indeed in abundance. Even as the neo-savages scoff at Order, their fantasies would evaporate without it. In nature, there is sober savagery. All creatures are savage but know the savage world is filled with dangers. It is a wary kind of savagery. If a baboon chose to wiggle its ass all night long in a state of drunken savagery, a leopard would ambush it for dinner. But neo-savagery need not be sober because it can indulge itself in a world of plenty made available by order. It's like all those kids at the Woodstock Concert had enough food(produced by farmers), could go back home(thanks to the car industry and those who work to maintain roads), and receive medical attention if need be(thanks to doctors and nurses). And Negroes could riot, loot, and destroy businesses because there is enough order and supplies in the US to fill up the store again and return to business-as-usual. But those into the convulsion of neo-savagery hardly think about the conveniences made possible by an orderly system. And of course, blacks understand this least because they are most childish, least reflective, and endlessly indulged by White America stuck on 'white guilt' and 'white fever' for all things black(to the delight of fiendish Jews).

Jews know this about white psychology, and this is why Negrolatry is key to the perpetuation of ‘white guilt’, without which it’d be difficult for Jews to control whites. Stuff like BLM wouldn’t have gotten far without Jewish media and deep state pulling strings. Unlike past riots, the deep state encouraged more rioting and looting. Just when blacks were burning and rioting, the authorities were ordering city officials to paint BLM signs on streets and fly BLM banners(along with homo flags). Just like globo-homo wouldn’t have gotten so big without Jewish power and deep state, same goes for BLM. Jews lead, goyim follow, especially because white goyim have lost their cultures, customs, traditions, and values over the years. The only thing that the goyim have left is a bundle of fads and fashions, cultural or ‘intellectual’, that are controlled by Jews.

The main Jewish priority is to control whites and subdue them into obeisance, without which Jewish Supremacism cannot be maintained. Jews use blacks to do this. Jews use the black body to intimidate and subdue the white body. Jews tell white boys and girls that black bodies are more muscled, bigger-donged, and more booty-licious, and this fills white girls with jungle fever and white boys with sappy cuckery. Movies like GET OUT spread such notion. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't like blacks and want to live apart from them, you are 'racist' and have no reason to live. If you love blacks too much, you are guilty of appropriating blackness and 'racist' in your own 'liberal' way, and it'd be no loss if blacks slaughtered you. Such is the black-body-politics as used by Jews.
But Jews also use black souls to berate white souls. It goes like this: Blacks have sun-souls while whites have ice-souls, and the cold frigid evil white soul must be warmed and redeemed by the sunny black soul. George Floyd was useful as both black body and black soul. He was a big man, powerfully built. But he was also in a state of debilitation as he'd swallowed lethal dose of fentanyl. So, despite his bigness, he seemed powerless and (hep me! hep me!) helpless under the knees of four police officers. Jews spun the narrative that saint George Floyd died for the sinful souls of white folks. But it’s been in the works with movies like 12 YRS A SLAVE, THE HELP, BUTLER, DJANGO UNLEASHED, BLACK PANTHER, and etc. The very Jews who crush Palestinians and kill countless Arabs in the Middle East put on moral airs in the West by promoting Noble Negro myths.

Such is the ‘idology’ of the Negro as used by Jews to control whites. But it’s utterly at odds with Reality. So, what is the reality? What is really up and what is really happening in the West? Two key truths are as follows:

1. Jews got the power because they are smarter. Also, they abuse their power because they are supremacist and nasty, filled with vicious contempt for goyim. And they shamelessly use every dirty trick in the book to get what they want, as demonstrated by the mad events of 2020, many of which were engineered or orchestrated by Jews.

2. Blacks are that way due to evolution in hot Africa alongside crocodiles, hyenas, lions, wild dogs, leopards, hippos, buffalos, elephants, gorillas, baboons, and etc. Blacks drove the animals crazy and vice versa. Negroes chucked spears at hippos, and hippos ran after Negroes to stomp/chomp them to death. So, animals in Africa got more vicious and aggressive, and Negroes also got tougher and nastier. Blacks and animals drove each other crazy along the evolutionary chain. That’s why blacks be the way they be.
And so, blacks act like predators in the modern world alongside other races. They look upon other races(that are weaker and slower) like how hyenas or leopards eye prey animals. Such is the reality, but whites cannot face the truth for four reasons.

A. Jews control the media & academia and push the ‘white guilt’ narrative.

B. Christian tradition among whites focus on guilt & redemption and derive some kind of masochistic delight with self-flagellation and holier-than-thou virtue-signaling.

C. Jungle fever and Afrophilia due to sports, music, and sex makes whites blind to the dangers posed by Negroes. Or worse, it makes whites excited by the danger as sexy and awesome. Even with blacks burning down cities, white women go with Negroes and have Negro kids and white boys cuck to BLM signs.

D. White male pride has been loathe to admit white guys got their asses handed to them by blacks in sports, schools, and in the streets. Even HBD types prefer to discuss IQ(where whites are superior) than delve into PQ(physical quotient) where blacks have the advantage. So much could have been different after Jack Johnson beat up all the white boxers IF white men had been honest about the black threat and reacted accordingly. But nope, white male pride couldn’t face up to it.

In the war between Idology and Reality, which will win? Of course, in the long run, Reality always wins, but that doesn’t mean your side will win for having accepted reality for what it is. After all, the HBD argument won in Detroit. HBD says blacks are naturally prone to criminality and various pathologies, and the fate of Detroit is a testament to that argument. But still, even if HBD has been validated, blacks took over the city and ruined it. The most HBD types can say is, "I told you so" as consolation.
Even when Reality wins, it won’t necessarily save your side. Suppose you speak the truth, “Heroin will ruin your health and lead to early death.” Suppose the heroin user says, “Bull! Heroin is great and makes me feel good. It does me no harm.” In time, you will be proven right. In reality, the heroin user’s health goes down the tube, and he ends up dead at a young age. You were right, but he still wasn’t saved. Reality validated your view but still failed to save a life. Likewise, HBD can be right as observation but still lose out as solution IF most people decide not to heed its warnings and instead choose to go over the cliff like so many lemmings.

Of course, there are cases where both Idology and Reality can win. China is one example. In reality, Mao Zedong was a frightening figure. He not only unleashed the Great Leap Forward that took tens of millions of lives but the Cultural Revolution that ravaged the entire nation. So, despite all the official Mao-worship by the Red Guards, the Reality was Maoism Sucks!
And after Mao died, China embarked on a new path more attuned to Reality. Market-guided economics, a degree of pluralism, more rational foreign policy, pragmatism, appreciation of expertise over ideological fervor, and etc. On that score, Reality won out. And yet, the ‘idology’ of Mao remains as a unifying and justifying symbol of New China and its government. Mao is still the top icon in a nation that acts in accordance to reality.

THE FUTURE OF NATIONALISM | INTERVIEW WITH FRÓÐI MIDJORD

Commentary on “Mayor Pete Butt-Gig and the Crackup of Christianity”(by Pat Buchanan) – Religions vs Religiosity

https://buchanan.org/blog/mayor-pete-and-the-crackup-of-christianity-136855

In some ways, religiosity is stronger than ever. Indeed, paradoxically enough, the reason for the decline of traditional religions is because they no longer offer the moral high and high ground of religiosity. People are abandoning them not because they are rejecting religiosity but because they can find it or more of it in something else.

Now, religiosity is not the same thing as religion. Religiosity is the state of strong commitment, righteousness, and/or moral outrage. Religiosity can be gotten from anything, even non-religions. Marxists and Maoists were surely riding high on religiosity as they firmly believed that history, humanity, truth, and morality were on their side.

A religion has power only if it retains the element of religiosity. Consider so many religions that have fallen by the wayside. Zoroastrianism for example. Today, it is mostly a matter of scholarly, mystical, and/or theological interest. Almost no one gets worked up over it.
Some people seek out Eastern Mysticism, but it will never gain power because it lacks religiosity. Buddhism, Taoism, and such religions are about peace of mind, the search for the Way, the harmony. This was one reason why the East was less dynamic than the West, the culture of which was driven by Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. According to the Greeks, if there is A and B, the two must duke it out. Thus, the philosophical and historical pendulum swings violently back and forth, left and right. It causes a lot of friction and even trouble, but it also sets off lots of sparks. If both A and B remain viable, the dialectics continues and keeps shooting off sparks, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive. But if A or B were to overcome the other or arrive at synthesis, it goes up against a new force: C, D, E, etc. As for Judeo-Monolithics, it says the ONE idea is absolutely true and all the power must be exerted to spread that idea far and wide. This is the core of Western Messianism and puritanism. Greco-dialectics made for dynamism, and Judeo-Monolithics made for commitment, aggression, and expansion. The Crusading or Jihad Mentality.

In contrast, Taoism and Buddhism seek to rise above conflicts. Taoism seeks the Way, or the hidden harmony behind all chaos. It urges people not to involve themselves directly in world conflicts and instead to recede and contemplate with a cup of tea. Buddhism says everything is an illusion, and people should meditate to reach Nirvana and eternal extinction. With such spiritual outlooks, it's no wonder the East was less dynamic(though it allowed for longer stretches of peace and stability, albeit of the repressive kind by today's standards).

Modern religiosity thrives on psycho-cultural legacy of Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. Pat Buchanan loved politics all his life as a kind of sports. Political season is like sporting season. And so many people see the world in terms of 'we are right, and you are wrong'. Most people don't seek the middle-ground or the Way. They savor the dialectical bloodsports of politics. This owes to the pagan Greco-dialectical tradition. But Greeks and Romans, with their many gods, weren't really into the cult of self-righteousness. Through endless discourse, they believed somethings were more right than others, but they didn't believe there was anything or any people that was the holiest in the world for all eternity. They regarded everything, even the great gods, being in a state of flux.
In contrast, Jews did see the world in absolutist and monomaniacal terms. They weren't just another tribe, but the Tribe, the Chosen, and their God was the only true God, and they were blessed by the true God. So, Jews were filled with sanctimony and (self)righteousness, and this mindset flowed to the West via Christianity. If Greeks politicized conflicts, Christians spiritualized and moralized them. In the Athens vs Sparta conflict, both sides knew that it was all about power, economics, and influence. Sure, each side called on their gods for favors, but it was a conflict of 'mighteous' than righteous. It was dialectical politics. In contrast, infused with the mindset of Judeo-monolithics, Christians saw their conflicts in strongly moral and spiritual terms. So, there was a greater sense of moral outrage in conflicts involving Christians(which is why the US tries to morally justify everything it does around the world, a factor that blinds so many Americans to the true nature of what is really going on). Each side among Christians was totally holier-than-thou, even though many of the wars were triggered by political or economic factors than spiritual or moral ones.
The Thirty Years War was even more destructive and harrowing than the Peloponnesian War because of the sense of spiritual outrage. If Spartans and Athenians were merely seeking political advantage over the other, Catholics and Protestants, armed with Judeo-monolithic moral outrage, was trying to totally crush the other for all time. When Spartans finally won, they let Athens survive. But if either Catholics or Protestants had gained total victory, the losing side would have been totally crushed and rubbed out. But as it happened, the stalemate finally led to some kind of understanding, and the art of Greco-dialectics prevailed over Judeo-monolithics. Catholics and Protestants would have to co-exist in lively conflict and not try to crush the other totally in the spirit of moral/spiritual absolutism.

Why did Christian religion lose its religiosity in the 20th century?

We know the usual suspects. The rise of science undermined religion, especially among the elites. Around the time the US was founded, many of the most intelligent people in both Old World and New World still believed in God, sought meaning in God, attended religious schools, and spread the Gospel. Religion back then had spiritual and moral authority, from top to bottom.
But with the rise of modernity, most intelligent people abandoned religion, and if they did remain religious, it was on the personal level than on moral, spiritual, and social one. With best and brightest eschewing the religious life, the leadership came increasingly from the less intelligent segments of the population. Also, as religious authority lost prestige, fewer men were willing to give up worldly happiness for God. Back when the Catholic Church was like the Harvard of the West, many intelligent men were willing to sacrifice sex and good times to serve God. As priests, they had much respect in society. But when society no longer regarded priests as anything special, what was the point of giving up sex, marriage, and good times? So, an increasing number of priests came from eccentrics, derelicts, perverts, and homos. Some homos sought repentance for their sinful ways by serving God. Other homos figured they would take over the Church and make it 'gay' to serve toot-toota-loop homo vanity.

Mainline churches replaced saving souls with saving the world with good work. But what is 'good work'? As worldly matters and issues were defined by secular forces, Mainline church's idea of 'goodness' came to be defined by academia and media. Then, it's no wonder than Mainline churches now think god is all about the 'gays'. After all, Ivy League, Hollywood, and NYT said so. Evangelicals were more traditionalist and moralistic, but they were dumb, and dummies lose out to smarties. Being dumb and childlike, Evanjellies could easily be manipulated by the Power. It's no wonder so many Evanjellies are into 'muh Israel' and 'Jews are holy' even though Jews despise them and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Also, Evanjellies put emotions before dogma. It's all about the FEELS. Then, it is no wonder that homomania is making inroads even among childlike Evanjellies. Also, as most Evanjellies, like Mormons, suffer from inferiority complex of status and class, they tend to suck up to the rich and powerful. Look how Mormons are changing full-steam ahead toward homomania because the rich and powerful now worship it as their main cult. And many Evanjellies are suckers for televangelists whose shtick is 'god made me rich' and 'Jews are great cuz they are so rich'.
As for the Catholic Church, it shot itself in the foot by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. While some of the reforms were good and necessary, others presented the Church in the position of weakness, especially via Jews and modernity. The main mode was of concession and contrition, and this put the Church on the moral defensive than offensive. Instead of judging the world with the One True Faith, it sought forgiveness from the world. Thus, being a Catholic came with less religiosity and more perplexity.

While people may be drawn to religions for metaphysical or philosophical reasons, religion has power ONLY WHEN it has the element of religiosity. Religious or secular, people are more prone to organize, unite, and rally IF they the run the fever of religiosity. This is why the anti-homo voices tended to come from the religious. There are non-religious people who oppose the homo agenda, but they feel less worked up because they just believe it is wrong, not an affront to God. There are secular people who are anti-abortion, but again, they see it as ugly and wrong, whereas religious people see it as a grave sin. Because of their element of religiosity, the religious often united to push for or against certain issues.

This is what Jews hate about Christian religiosity. (They hate Islamic religiosity too, but at least in the West, they make alliances with Muslims against Christians.) Those armed with religiosity are more likely to leave the house, meet with others, gather together(esp in churches), and protest. Even when people dislike or oppose something, the chances are they are not gonna do anything about it unless they are armed with religiosity. They see it as a personal matter -- "I don't like it" -- than as a grand moral/spiritual one -- "It is an affront to God".
But Jews fear Christianity far less now because it's either been bled of religiosity or infected with neo-religiosity of PC, e.g. all those churches that are now all about Diversity, Globo-Homo, Anti-Whitey, Holy Negro Worship, and Jew-Worship. Catholic Church is no longer a force of religiosity because it's in cucky-wuck apologetic mode. "We are sorry so many of our priests buggered boys". "We are sorry for having aided and abetted imperialism, genocide, etc." "We must fill up Europe with Africans and Muslims because Christians have so much to atone for." There is no moral pride or spiritual authority. It now even has what looks like closet-homo pope, aka the Poop, who says Europe must be Afro-Islamized as fast as possible. Because the Church is still officially opposed to 'gay marriage' and abortion, progs still eye Catholicism with disgusts and trepidation. But because it is so cucked and wussy, traditional Catholics feel nauseous about sticking with the Church. There is hardly any real religiosity found in Catholicism anymore.

But people love religiosity because it's like a drug. It gives them the high of moral sanctimony, the rush of holier-than-thou rage, and a sense of unity with 'history is on our side'. The thing is religiosity can be gotten from anything: Ideology and 'Idology'(or idolatry as ideology).
Those Red Guard lunatics during the Cultural Revolution were surely filled with righteous religiosity. Incidentally, the Cultural Revolution showed that religiosity had little to do with truth and more to do with control of information and indoctrination. After all, Mao's policies had killed tens of millions in the Great Leap Forward. He should have been disgraced forever based on historical facts, but with control of propaganda and the military Mao and his gang were able to instill countless young people with fever of religiosity and set them loose to smash 'class enemies' in ruthless abandon and righteous rage.



It's like no amount of destruction done by Black Savage Reversion, Crazy Jewish Supremacism, and Nutty Homo Perversion has made any real dent in the holiness of those three groups. Given all the black crime and thuggery, one might think Americans would have wised up to the fact that blacks are the crazy savage race, but Jews control the media and they keep rerunning the Emitt Till and MLK narrative over and over. And come Superbowl season, white cucky-wucks are back to worshiping blacks as sports hero demigods. And given what Jewish Power has done to the US in terms of financial distress and foreign Wars for Israel(that created WWII situations in Middle East), you'd think people would have wised up to Jewish power by now. But every year, it's Holocaust this, Holocaust that, and "Jews are eternally holy holocaust people" and "If you notice Jewish power, you're an anti-Semite." So, even 'literally Hitler' Trump spends most of his time with his lips wrapped around Netanyahu's pud. And given the HIV mess caused by deranged homos, you'd think people would have woken up to the danger of homo influence and practice. But Jews(who run the media) 'sacralized' homos in movies, TV shows, and advertising. And Jews associated homos with the 'rainbow', and whore politicians just can't get enough of pontificating about how the New Normal of morality is all about celebrating homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting.

If Rob punched you but has the megaphone and says that you punched him while he makes himself out to be the poor poor victim, people will side with Rob and denounce you and maybe even punch you. Worse, even people who saw Rob punch you may not come to your aid because Rob's megaphone can attract many more people to his side. Or, even those who witnessed Rob punching you may believe you deserved to be punched because you're a bad person. This is what Jews are doing with 'punch a nazi' meme. They are saying that if Jews, Antifa, or blacks attack whites who happen to be 'nazi', then the righteousness belongs to the puncher because 'nazis' are evil and deserve it. This is how religiosity works. It's not so much about objective definition of right or wrong or legal or illegal. It's about holy vs unholy. It's about blessed vs the wicked. Just like Christians in their hyper-religiosity could be inspired to carry out violent acts against heathens, the PC crowd can be driven to rages of religiosity to attack any people and feel good and righteous about it.

As Jews control academia, media, entertainment, and whore-politicians, they control the levers of religiosity. Academia writes the sacred texts, the canons of officialdom. Media relay them as 'news' and sermons. Entertainment turns certain figures and narratives into idols. And whore-politicians use oratory to push the acceptable narrative.

People are leaving the church and flocking to PC, Homomania, and Afromania because most of the hottest religiosity is now to be found there. PC slogans and chants about 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' are the new mantras and catechisms. And 'gay rights' became Gay Rites, a neo-religion. There was a time when NO ONE was worked up over homo issues. At most, some supported the legalization of homosexuality because they figured homos were born that way. Also, they figured homos are deserving of individual rights too. It was a legal matter, not a moral one. No one thought there was innately holy about being a homo. No one felt he was holier or more righteous because he was pro-homo.
But Jewish media spun the HIV crisis to make homos out to be victims of something akin to a holocaust even though homos did it to themselves by acting like a bunch of butt-bang-boys in bathhouses. Movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN made homo lust the highest and most tragic kind of love. Homos were made into saintly icons. Such ploy would have been thought outrageous when the US was more religious and moral, but in Boomer-dominated America of the 1990s and 2000s, it went over with post-religious people and young people raised on degeneracy. Also, as Bush II was such an awful posterboy of the Christian Right, young people turned away from religion. Furthermore, what with religions being so cucked & apologetic while AND homomania got more judgmental & aggressive, young people realized that there was more religiosity points to be found on the holy-homo side than on the religious side. While homomaniacs are passionately and aggressively sure of their cause and position, the Religious Right seemed confused, cowardly, and castrated. As Jews came to dominate the GOP and bought off most top church leaders, NO ONE on the Right mounted any counter-attack against homomania. They kept their heads down like the worthless Rich Lowry lest they offend Jews as allies of holy homos. Also, young people, raised on celebrity culture, were addicted to the cult of the cool. So, what some pop star or famous actor said mattered more to them than what some crusty religious type said. Mormons for one are really a bunch of Mammonites who will sell their mothers down the river for thirty pieces of silver. Look at those worthless piles of shit Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

Now, it may well be that the current religiosities of PC may blow away. After all, where is Maoist religiosity today? Where is Stalinist fervor? Secular forms of religiosity have short-shelf lives because history proves them wrong. History proved communism wrong. All the icons and altars to Marx and Lenin came to mean nothing to Eastern Europeans with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Hitler, who was once the much revered icon of glory among Germans, has been disgraced. In contrast, God cannot be deposed and may yet win again in the long run. That said, in any given MOMENT in history, those with more religiosity win over those with less. And the fact is religions have lost the fire of religiosity either because people lost faith or because the religions have become cucked and apologetic. There was a time when to become a Christian was to be filled with a sense of salvation, glory, and pride. Now, joining the church means you should kneel before a homo and apologize for the church's 2000 yrs of 'homophobia' against guys like Butt-gigs who thinks dicks-up-my-ass is great because 'god made him gay'. Using such logic, a fatso should take pride in his gluttony since god made him want to pig out like a hippo. And I suppose a drunken Irish can argue that his alcoholism is a wonder to behold because god made him want to hit the bottle.

Ideologies can be full of religiosity because they offer a formula for understanding history and fixing humanity. As such, they are more than mere ideas but a worldview of 'what REALLY happened' and 'what must happen'. It has an element of prophecy, and so, ideologues are armed with religiosity. In time, ideological religiosity may fade as people get tired of the same-old-same-old and/or because the promises don't come true. This was true enough with communism.
Or, even if the ideology does succeed -- such as the Americanist individualist-capitalist ideology -- , it can lose its righteous luster if critiqued endlessly by radicals and subversives. Notice how the very founders and makers of the American nation have been so drastically 'discredited' by Jewish use of PC that now says MLK is the true 'founding father' while all those 'dead white males' were a bunch of hypocrites who owned slaves. (Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of 'white supremacist' imperialism around the world, and Jewish immigrants worked alongside whites to wipe out Indians and enslave & exploit blacks.)
In our increasingly post-literate age or what Christopher Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, the power of 'idology' or neo-iconography may now matter more than ideology. Why are so many people reverential toward rappers even though all they ever say is 'muh gun', 'muh dick', 'muh bling', 'muh ho', and etc? Because idolatry makes them look cool and badass, and that's enough for neo-worship in our deracinated and degenerate age. But then, because of the narrative and iconography of the Noble Negro as victim of 'white racism', the image of black cool is fused with image of black tragedy, and this makes them even more potent as idols for young people to worship and that means a lot of religiosity points in the 'idolic' worship of the Negro. And of course, nothing is holier to SWPL crowd than the holy holy of the 'rainbow' valley. Compared to that, what does the current Church have to offer except butt-hurt apologetics and "I'm sorry".

Commentary on "Mr MAGA and the end of Western Civilization"(by the Saker)

https://thesaker.is/mr-maga-and-the-end-of-western-civilization/

Alas, it also has a darker side: imperialism, racism, genocide, slavery, religious and political persecutions and, of course, two world wars.

Hardly different from rest of humanity.

By the way, race + ism should be defined as belief in reality of race and racial differences. ISM means belief, after all. Using 'racism' to mean 'mindless or groundless racial hatred of supremacism' is to fall into the trap of the enemy. Everyone is race-ist, explicitly or implicitly, because it's impossible not to notice racial differences.

But what the so-called “collective West” (aka the AngloZionist Empire) is showing today is the exact opposite of what the West is supposed to stand for. Here are just a few examples

When has the West, or any civilization, ever practiced what it preached?
I will grant that the hypocrisy is louder than ever under globo-homo Zionist control, but it's a matter of degree than substance.

International law: with the US/NATO aggression against the Serbian nation, a major feature of western civilization died: international law.

True to an extent. Serbia was targeted because it was the strongest state in Yugoslavia and because it was closest to Russia. Also, Jewish power, by coming to the 'rescue' of Muslim Albanians, wanted to propagandize itself as 'pro-Muslim' so as to prepare for wars against Muslim nations. Nice shtick: "Gee, how can WE AMERICANS be anti-Muslim when WE bailed out the Albanian Muslims?" Of course, Jews were being rank hypocrites. Jewish logic says the West had to help Jews take back the Holy Land BUT Serbians had no right to take back their ancient homeland from Albanians who'd come invading under Ottoman rule.

That said, US/NATO intervention in Serbia was a mixed bag. For most of the 90s, NATO had done little or nothing to stop the slaughter, just like the UN did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. There was a sense that SOMETHING had to be done to end the bloodshed and cycles of violence.
In retrospect, it was handled badly, but INTERNATIONAL LAW means that nations around the world must work together to stop excessive mayhem in a part of the world. In a more perfect world with a better superpower than the US, maybe something good have come of it. But the US had no credibility as it had used sanctions to kill 100,000s of kids in Iraq.

Law of War and Geneva Conventions: same here, the US is gleefully ignoring many of the most sacred provisions of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions

What of massive civilian bombings in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and etc. US support of right-wing death squads during the Cold War. 100,000s, possibly millions, slaughtered in Latin America.
It was always like this. Soviets backed their own bloody regimes in Asia and Latin America. Chinese backed the loathsome Khmer Rouge. The world didn't suddenly suck just now. It was always a mess.

Respect for alliances and partnerships. The AngloZionist Empire has no allies – only vassal states, puppet regimes and comprador 5th columnists.

One of the benefits of being an empire. Puppets are more reliable than allies. Allies can break off he alliance. Puppets always do as told. In that sense, we can't blame the US for preferring puppets to allies. Better off owning a trained dog than partnering with a lone wolf with a streak of independence.

When the Neocons finally came out and showed their true face, they did more than just affect the image of the US abroad, they also gave a signal to their colonial administrators that all pretense of decency could now be dropped.

Jewish tribal supremacist takeover of US empire has been most unfortunate. Though both the US and USSR got their hands dirty and bloody in the Cold War(and supported murderous proxies), there really was a clash of big ideas and visions relevant to much, even the majority, of humanity. It was a world conflict for world-ideas. Big power engaged in big action for big isms.

But, we now have the US as lone hegemon using its immense power and influence to serve the narrow interests of a single tribe(allied mainly with homo supremacists). There is so much tensions around the world to indulge the Jews, a tiny percentage of world population, and homos(the cherry-picked allies of Jews): Jewish King and Homo Queen. Since Jews know that it's too much to ask all the world to risk WWIII, IV, V, and etc. for Jewish interests, they couch their chosen conflicts in terms of 'human rights' and 'spreading democracy' and etc, but it rings so hollow. Or Jews try to spin the conflicts as holy crusades to spread homomania, which actually goes over well with many people in the West for whom queertianity is their new missionary-fairy faith.

Many Russians living in the West (such as Dmitri Orlov) have noted the numerous similarities between the late Soviet Union (especially the so-called “stagnation years”) and the modern US . I myself made such a list of similarities as far back as 2014 when I listed the following:

A bloated military budget resulting in an ineffective military

I dunno. US seems to be pretty effective in smashing nations. Just ask the Libyans, Iraqis, and Syrians. Maybe US sucks at nation-building, but it is an expert at nation-wrecking.

A huge and ineffective intelligence community

Ineffective? It seems very effective. US was able to mess up computer systems in Iran. It has hidden devices in computers all over the world. Also, Intelligence works closely with Jews and Israel, which means all the political dirt are known to Jews who can blackmail anyone.

A crumbling public infrastructure

Depends on where you look. Certain big cities are richer than ever. And even now, most roads in the US are better than roads in Russia or China.

A world record in the per-capita ratio of incarcerated people (US GULag)

Blacks. Evolution made them meaner and tougher. Have blacks, will have lots of inmates.

A propaganda machine which nobody trusts any more

I wish this were so, but plenty of morons trust every word of snakes like Rachel Maddow and S.E. Cupp. And all that anti-Russia hate news must have worked because the great majority of Americans now hate and fear Russia more than ever.

An internal dissident movement which the regime tries to keep silent

True of any society.

An industry whose main exports are weapons and energy

Isn't that Russia NOW? In contrast, the US is also a huge exporter of high-tech, medicine, media, entertainment, chemicals, foods, and etc.

A population fearful of being spied on by the internal security services

Sadly, most Americans have learned to stopped worrying and love the spying. There was some fuss from progs about the Patriot Act during the Bush II presidency, but when Edward Snowden spilled the beans, the entire elite and proggy class denounced him. Conservatism Inc, the arm of the war state, didn't defend him either. It took mavericks like Glenn Greenwald and Oliver Stone to come to his defense. Progs claim to stand for ideology, but 'idology'(idolatry as replacement for ideology) is bigger among them. One of their main 'idological' obsessions is the Magic Negro. As Obama was a Magic Negro, progs just venerated him as a 'historic president' and turned a blind eye to all his warmongering. Progs are more 'Catholicist' than 'Protestantist'. They are more dazzled by 'idolic' symbols and spectacles than true to the letter of progressive ideology.

A financially catastrophic over-reach of the empire across the planet

US is financially over-stretched, but I don't think its overseas empire is the main problem. It's bankers privatizing profits and socializing losses, and it's the masses hooked to entitlements.

An awareness that the entire planet hates you

Nothing new here, but there was always love/hate between US and the world. After all, the world still wants to come to the US and become Americans. Few Americans want to move to Russia, but plenty of Russians want to come to US and become Americans. Even Muslims whose nations have been blown up by the US want to come to US and become Americans into rap and burgers.

A young generation which believes in nothing at all

That wouldn't be so bad. It would at least mean that young people are skeptical. But in fact, too many young people truly and really really believe in globo-homo, Afromania, and Jew-Worship, or the Holy Three. Young people worship MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, 'gay' rainbow, and etc.
In this, they are different from latter-day Soviet youth who really were jaded and felt that they were being lied to about the richer and more advanced West.
In a way, the sheer superficiality of current Western ideology and 'idology' makes them more effective. One problem with Marxism-Leninism was that it just seemed boring, dull, worn, same-old-same-old, and tiresome as the years went by... like someone reading Church dogma for the umpteenth time. In contrast, even as current Western ideology and 'idology' are pretty idiotic, they are always changing color and shedding (snake) skin according to fads and fashion. The conceit of novelty, newness, and 'change' keeps young idiots excited and thrilled: 'gay pride', 'slut pride', BLM, Pussy March, MeToo, tranny-mania, Green New Deal, climate change, 'migrants welcome', 'microaggressions', etc. It's 31 flavors ideology/idology. In contrast, Soviets had only one flavor: Red. Most young people are idiots and care more for pizzazz than meaning. As idiotic as the current Western ideology/idology is, it knows how to hook people to a 'vibrant' sense of 'celebration' and 'happening'. The Revolution has been Advertised. This is why so many youths are indeed 'passionate'(or childishly excited) about whatever flavor they're obsessed with at the Moment.

An educational system in free-fall, (the Soviet one was much better, btw)

Many schools are a mess because of blacks and maybe some browns. And of course, lower-income whites do poorly. But US education is pretty solid for Jews, Asians, and white middle class. If we compare US whites with whites in Europe and Russia, they usually come off better.

A massive and prevailing amount of corruption on all levels of power

This is problematic, mainly due to blacks and Latin Americans/Muslims/Asians who bring their norms to the US. Also, diversity increases distrust.

Anyway... one big difference between US and old USSR is this: The MAIN reason why USSR collapsed was not due to all those problems listed above. It was because its elites got tired of managing the system and taking care of the 'lazy' masses. They wanted to end communism and become super-rich oligarchs. And THAT is why the system collapsed. It was blown up from the top.
In the US, the top elites are super-rich oligarchs. Why would they collapse the system when they already have it so good? During the days of USSR, the Soviet elites envied the capitalist elites of the West who were richer, freer, and had more stuff. The only way they could have it all was by ending communism, which was destroyed from the top than from the bottom.

The elites have it better than ever in the West. Why would they do anything to end the system? Trump made noise about draining the swamp, but it looks like he's been totally co-opted by now. Trump is Scump, saying nasty shit about Queen Ann(Coulter).
Also, as problematic as diversity is, it is actually to the advantage of the elites(esp minority Jewish elites) because diversity makes it impossible for the various racial/ethnic folks to unite to challenge elite power. Also, as at least 50% of whites are totally for diversity & homomania and see 'white supremacy' as the biggest threat, they work with Diversity and globo-homo elites to suppress any effective white mass challenge to elite power.

Why I’m the Only True Race-ist - How Misuse of Terminology confuses Meanings - We need to go Cold Jive Turkey on Magic Negro Myth - Why Everyone is a race-ist even if unknowingly or subconsciously

The term ‘Racism’ blurs ‘race’ and ‘ism’ and confuses people. The proper spelling should be race-ism. That way, people would be more aware of the true meaning of the word. ‘Race’ means race and ‘Ism’ means belief. So, race + ism = belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and/or necessity of racial consciousness.

So, I say I am a race-ist. Ism means belief, therefore race + ism should mean belief in race reality. Ism doesn’t mean hatred, chauvinism, or supremacy. It means belief, creed, conviction, or thought system. Now, race-ism can become radicalized into supremacism, as with Nazism or Nation of Islam or even extreme strains of Zionism, as with Meir Kahane. But rational race-ism seeks to understand race and racial differences for what they are on factual basis and for their psycho-social implications.

The big problem is ‘racism’ has been defined by the Powers-that-be to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred. But when Ism is defined in such way, it negates the possibility of formulating a useful term that simply means belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Because the neutral formula of race + ism has been defined to mean Racial Supremacist Hatred(especially among white folks), it’s difficult to conceive of an objective term about belief in race reality. I suspect the term ‘racism’ was specially designed to suck out all the air so that a neutral rational term about race would be near-impossible. If ‘racism’ means hateful racial supremacism, what would be the proper term for belief in the reality of race, racial differences, and need for racial identity and consciousness? Some defensively use ‘racialism’ and ‘race realism’, but even those terms become tainted because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been associated with the Worst Evil.

Suppose I define ‘heliocentrism’ as a hateful supremacist ideology that the sun is great and everything else sucks eggs. Such meaning should be called ‘helio-supremacism’ or ‘helio-chauvinism’. Heliocentrism should just mean the belief that planets revolve around the Sun. It’s a belief in objective fact based on science. But if ‘heliocentrism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of sun-worship, then a neutral term denoting the centrality of the Sun in the Solar system becomes difficult to conceive.

Or take the term ‘humanism’. It doesn’t mean humans are the bestest and superduperest things in the cosmos and deserve supremacy rule over everything. It means humans have worth as moral beings and that humans should be mindful of their role, responsibility, and rights as thinking-and-feeling beings on the planet.
But suppose ‘humanism’ is defined as hateful supremacy of humanity over the entire planet or a conviction that humans are the greatest things in the universe and all extraterrestrials must bow down to human earthlings.
Such an outlook should be called human-supremacism, human-chauvinism, or human-megalomania, NOT humanism. After all, Ism just means belief. So, there is no reason for human + ism to mean something extreme, maniacal, or demented. As it happens, ‘humanism’ is defined properly. It doesn’t carry supremacist baggage.

But for some reason, ‘racism’ has been defined to mean ‘my race is the best and all others better be our slaves or be exterminated’. Since when does Ism mean something that crazy?

Same goes for ‘nationalism’. It should mean belief in, loyalty to, and defense of one’s nation as historical entity and cultural homeland. Now, nationalism can turn cancerous and become imperialism or jingoism, but nationalism as national + ism simply means belief in loyalty to one’s own nation. It is belief in the right of one’s nation to survive as territory, history, and inheritance. But the PC media have defined ‘nationalism’(esp among white gentiles) to mean something extreme or ‘far right’. So, even the most basic nationalists in Europe who want self-preservation and self-determination are labeled as ‘neo-nazi’. Mere bread-and-butter nationalism is now associated with hatred and supremacism when, in fact, it is the globalists who HATE the sovereign right of nations to survive and preserve themselves.
So, if Poles and Hungarians want to preserve their nations(while respecting the rights of other nations), they are compared with ‘dark forces’ when it’s George Soros who is the real Prince of Darkness. When something as sound as basic nationalism is defined so radically, it sucks out all the air in the room for a normal and balanced definition. When mere nationalism is ‘nazism’(that actually turned imperialist and violated the nationalisms of other peoples), then it’s impossible to have a term that simply means belief of national independence and sovereignty. When a neutral or basic term is defined radically, it creates a terminological black hole. It sucks in and destroys all other possible meanings. It is because a neutral term like race-ism has been rendered extreme that there is, as yet, no effective term for Basic Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences. This is why the most important thing is to rehabilitate the term RACE-ISM to mean what it should mean: Belief in reality of race and racial differences, and/or realization that such awareness will naturally lead to racial consciousness. Thus far, I’m the only true race-ist.

As ‘racism’ and ‘antisemtism’ are used in America today, they mean the failure to show proper deference, even reverence, for blacks and Jews. America has gone way past the struggle for legal equality for minorities. The new dominant theme is about how we must all bow down before black chauvinism and Jewish supremacism. For example, when a white person is called ‘racist’, it now means ‘kiss black ass’. When he is called an ‘anti-Semite’, it means ‘kiss Jewish ass’.
Daring to say NO to blacks and Jews or daring to NOTICE negative aspects of the black experience or Jewish influence is anathema in the Current Year when ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are used as bludgeons against anyone who won’t play the game.

So, if in the past, ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant treating blacks as inferior or Jews as suspect, now it means failing to treat blacks as superiors and Jews as rightful masters. Today, ‘racism’ means the right of black superiority, and ‘antisemitism’ means the right of Jewish supremacism.
Same thing with ‘homophobia’. What used to mean an "extreme animus against homos who are only minding their own business" has come to mean the "refusal to bend over backwards to worship homos". So, if a bakery won’t bake ‘homo wedding’ cake, it is ‘homophobic’. If a politician refuses to participate in a homo ‘pride’ parade, he or she is deemed ‘homophobic’ and targeted for political extinction. Or, if a Church says NO to homo colors and banners, it must be ‘homophobic’ too. (Granted, even the original use of the term ‘homophobia’ was bogus because ‘homophobia’ doesn’t exist. Phobia is a clinical terms for extreme pathological & panicked fear of something harmless. While it’s true that many people feel revulsion about homo, it’s not an irrational fear. It is natural healthy reaction to the icky act of homo fecal penetration or tranny genital mutilation. In our demented Jew-run society, even laughing at homos or finding homo community to be ridiculously funny is ‘homophobic’.)
Those three terms now guard black, Jewish, and homo supremacism. The Holy Three, the Blacks, Jews, and homos have become arrogant and contemptuous because they’ve gotten used to their privileged status as Magic Negro demigods, Super Jewish Masters, or wonderful homo angels. Even jokes about homos and trannies will not be tolerated. You better call him ‘Caitlyn’.
In a way, Milo represents the fusion of the Holy Three, and if he weren’t so politically correct, he would be the darling of the SRS(self-righteous supremacist) circuit. He is Jewish, Homo, and accepts only Negro dong up his bung. He also looks a bit ‘Aryan’, which can’t hurt because, despite all the anti-white-bashing, the ‘Aryan’ aesthetic still has great iconic value. Jews, browns, and blacks lust after ‘Aryan’-looking women despite all their yammering about ‘diversity’.

So often, the problem of meanings derives from the willful or misguided abuse of terminology. The ‘ism’ of ‘racism’ was used to mean something extreme when Ism just means belief. The problem began with how the term originated in the first place.
From the start, blind racial animus or hostility should have been called racial bigotry, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, or etc.

Worse, the problem wasn't just the wrongful definition but the ‘idology’ and ‘iconology’ that came to be associated with the term, especially via the electronic media. While dictionaries offer verbal definitions, the political potency of certain terms derives from the term’s association with sensationalized images and sounds. This is why the term ‘racism’ has special potency in relation to blacks. Hollywood, PBS, and education have given us lots of images of saintly noble blacks martyred by KKK, rednecks, police brutality, and etc. So, images of black victimhood are baked into the minds of millions in association with ‘racism’. There used to be some degree of association between ‘racism’ and American Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but interest in Indians faded, partly because Indians have little entertainment value and also because the Indian experience invokes what happened to the Palestinians, which is inconvenient to Jewish Zionists. (It’s interesting that Tarantino’s WESTERN deals with southern slavery than with American Indians. It goes to show how much the red man has fallen off the radar, even within the domain of what had been the most popular movie genre.) When people hear ‘racism’ in relation to non-blacks, there’s a faint sense of injustice but no real outrage. After all, Hollywood, TV, and education don’t dwell much on Magic Mexican, Suffering Chinese, Traumatic Muslim, or some such. And certainly not much on Palestinians. There is little sympathy for Palestinians among Americans despite the tragedy of Nakba and the Occupation. Palestinian tragedy hasn’t been made into TV series, movies, protest songs, and popular books. While most Americans will theoretically agree that ‘racism’ against Palestinians is wrong, their hearts and minds haven’t been filled with the iconography or idolatry of Palestinian martyrdom. But suppose Hollywood, TV, and public education produced lots of sounds and images of Palestinian victimhood. Public opinion could change overnight. But when most people think of Arabs, they think of some Hollywood villain yelling “I kill for Allah” and blowing up people. (‘Iconology’ matters a tremendous deal. Consider the movie E.T. It was all just make-believe. No such creature ever existed or arrived on earth to befriend a little boy. But Spielberg’s movie made E.T. so lovable, and so many adults and children were swept up with emotions for the warm cuddly creature from heaven. So, even though there are 100s of millions of REAL PEOPLE suffering all over the world, many Americans felt more compassion for a fictional space creature than for, say, Palestinians under Zionist Occupation. No less fantastical than E.T. is the mountain-sized Negro who luvs a wittle white mouse in GREEN MILE. Negroes that big usually play NFL, beat up white boys, and hump white women. But GREEN MILE has white boys and girls weeping at the poor saintly Negro as a divine god figure.) So, what matters is not just the control of terms but control of icons and idols in relation to those terms. As a child, I saw ROOTS and there’s a scene where Chicken George bawls after his chicken-of-freedom done get killed. It is a wrenching scene, and it makes you feel esp sorry for the suffering Negro. Images like that are baked into our minds. It’s like Mel Brooks’ movie BLAZING SADDLES. Even though the white townsfolk are socially anti-black and hate the idea of a ‘nigger sheriff’, the Negro cowboy’s clever use of ‘iconology’ of the Hepless Negro just tugs at people’s heartstrings. Even though some of us eventually grow out of Magic Negro Myth, it takes some effort because we all imbibed so much of that Holy Brotha and Sista stuff on PBS, what with MLK orating about the Dream. It takes time and effort to wean ourselves from Negropiate. We gotta go Cold Jive Turkey.


What we must do is rehabilitate the term ‘racism’ as ‘race-ism’ and define it properly. Race-ism should just mean a rational and neutral belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Now, race-ism can be rational and objective, or it be a form of radical racism and be based on crazy theories, like that of Nation of Islam that says Dr. Yacub grafted the white race from the black race. Rational Race-ism about blacks would realize that blacks pose a threat to the white race because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. So, white race-ism in relation to blacks is multi-faceted. When it comes to intelligence, whites generally have the edge and advantage. But when it come to muscularity and raw power, blacks have the superiority and advantage.
So, if whites were to struggle for racial independence and liberation from black thuggery, it must be on the basis of white inferiority. Blacks are superior as thugs, and racial integration will destroy white manhood. Without manhood, white men will lose his soul, and white women will lose respect for white men and go for ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The only place for white males in a world racially integration with black is cucky-wuckery. Does any self-respecting white man want to be like CucKen Burns? This is why the white race needs SAFE SPACE from black thuggery.

Race-ism notices both advantages and disadvantages of one race vis-a-vis other races. White race cannot survive without white manhood since white women won’t respect men without manly pride. White women will go with the negro and create mulatto babies who will turn out like Colin Kaepernick the vile hateful Negro who looks down on whites as a weak and wussy race. (The fact that his mother is white doesn’t make him respect whites. After all, his white mother rejected white men and went with a Negro as the superior stud. This is why white cucks are so dumb. They think that if more white women go interracist and have kids with blacks, it will make blacks nicer to whites. No, it will make blacks feel even more contempt for whites as a race of cuck white boys and jungle beaver whores.)

Proper rational ‘race-ism’ is still a work in progress. After all, consider how many racial theories have been revised in recent yrs. Many social scientists assumed that very little evolution happened in last 10,000 yrs. Now, we know the changes were extensive. Also, it was believed that Cro-Magnons did NOT mix with Neanderthals. But recent studies have shown that Europeans are anywhere from 1 to 5% Neanderthal. By one-drop rule, one could say Europeans ARE INDEED Neanderthals. (I mean if Elizabeth Warren is an Indian and Shaun King is Negroid.) So, true race-ism is still a work in progress.

Granted, past race-ism claimed to be scientific and was twisted to justify horrible things, esp with the Nazis. But it’s a fallacy to say that because an Ism was abused in the past, it must be wrong in its entirety or will always lead to horrors. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath-water. After all, socialism also claimed to be scientific and led to communist excesses that killed millions. But the excesses and crimes of ‘scientific socialism’ doesn’t mean that socialism has NO value. Socialism has real value in right doses and with proper implementation. Even American Conservatives are part-socialist because they support things like public libraries and Social Security. All but the most extreme libertarians believe that there is a collective need for certain common needs and guarantees.

Once we properly define race-ism, we can then prove that everyone is indeed race-ist. Everyone in America DOES notice race and racial differences. Their thoughts and behaviors are affected by racial differences, and this includes everything from residence, education, entertainment, sports, sex, marriage, leadership, respect, contempt, and etc.

It is not uncommon for blacks to say they can sing louder or dance faster. And even white Liberals say as much. It’s not uncommon for Jews to say that, hmmm, maybe they are smarter, and that’s why they are so rich and influential. Things get confusing because noticing racial differences is sometimes deemed as ‘anti-racist’ and sometimes deemed as ‘racist’. How can this be? If anti-racism is the belief in the equality of races or the disbelief of race as a valid category, then how can so many people comment on racial differences and be deemed ‘anti-racist’?
It all depends on context and tenor. ‘Racism’ in current usage really means saying something that reflects negatively on blacks. So, if someone says, ‘blacks are less intelligent’, that is deemed ‘racist’. But if someone says ‘blacks are natural athletes and run faster and win medals and bring glory to America’, that is ‘anti-racist’. But both statements are predicated on racial differences.
Similar thing with Jews. A commentary on Jewish intelligence can be antisemitic or philosemitic. If someone says, “Jews are smarter and use their cunning to maximize Jewish power to exploit us”, that is ‘antisemitic’. But if someone says or implies, “Jews are smart and contribute so much to medicine and science and are the holy men of our society who should be blessed and respected”, that is anti-antisemtic or ‘philosemitic’. So, even though both views are predicated on superior Jewish smarts, one is denounced while the other is praised.

But, what about some people who are adamant about race being an invalid concept? The kind of people who ideologically believe that all races are equal, and racial differences are bogus.
But even they are race-ist on another level. Ideologically or intellectually they may be anti-race-ist and egalitarian. But ‘iconologically’ and ‘idologically’, their attitudes, choices, and behavior do reflect race-ism, i.e. on the sensual, emotional, or subconscious level, they notice and act on racial differences.
No one who has seen sports over the yrs can really believe that races are equal in athletics. Also, why do most egalitarian progs prefer to listen to black music than Mexican music or Chinese music? Because blacks got more rhythm. And if someone’s child must have emergency brain surgery, almost all progs will be more relieved if the doctor is Jewish than a Somalian or Peruvian-Indian(even if educated in America). And if a Jewish/white/Asian guy has a grade point average of 4.0 and if a black person also has the same grade point average, even most progs will sense, at least subconsciously, that the Jewish/white/Asian person got a real 4.0 whereas the black person very likely got it through grade inflation of a ‘caring’ professor. I mean how did a nonentity like Michelle Obama make it through Princeton and Harvard? Surely, if a Jewish woman and a black woman both graduated with A’s from an elite college, even most progs are going to sense on some level that the Jewish woman got a real A whereas the black woman got an ‘affirmative’ A.

Also, why do ‘anti-racist’ progs feel more compassion for certain races than for others? Why has there been far more concern for Jews than for Palestinians since WWII? Because of the iconography of Anne Frank and Shoah, and also because people associate Jews with great scientists, humorists, doctors, and thinkers. In contrast, their image of a Palestinian is some street urchin tossing rocks or some woman making funny sounds with her tongue. ?esthetics and iconology matter(and it goes way beyond ‘optics’).

And then, look at sexual behavior of Europeans. As we know, most Europeans are proggy and cosmopolitan. In Europe, there is the far left, moderate left, cuck center, and mild right. Anything right of mild right is denounced as ‘nazi’ or ‘far right’. So, most Europeans range from centrist to far left. And ideologically, they subscribe to the notion that all races are the same. But ‘idologically’ and ‘iconologically’, they behave with full awareness of racial differences. On the sensual level, black music is appealing because it is funky and sexual in the age of hedonism. Europeans generally don’t listen to Arab music even though EU is filled with so many Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, even Arabs and Afghans in Sweden are more likely to listen to rap and hip hop. So, there is a sense that blacks got natural funk and rhythm.
Also, consider sex tourism. Europeans, even on the far left, see Africa as the Penis and Asia as the vagina. This is why white women fly to Africa to have sex with Negroes with big dongs and white European men fly to Thailand and Vietnam for yellow pooters. Now, ideologically, these people may stick with PC dogma, but in terms of preference in entertainment and sex, they feel and act totally race-istically.
And this goes for business too. If Europeans have to build factories, why do they prefer Asian nations to African ones? Again, even if they ideologically believe that blacks are same as yellows, white businesses figure yellows are more diligent, industrious, obedient, cooperative, even-tempered, and earnest than blacks who tend to be jivey, yabbity-dabbity, and given to funkyass tomfoolery. So, have the Asians assemble the audio devices and let Afro-funk play on those devices.

So, if we are to be honest, we must fix the terminology, and we must demonstrate that everyone is race-ist, and that is not a bad thing. To be race-ist is neither good nor bad. It is just what it is, like breathing air or drinking water and peeing. It’s just part of reality.
Surely, if a white Prog sees a Mexican thug walking towards him, he won’t be so scared because he has a good chance of beating up Guillermo. But if a white Prog sees a Negro thug walking toward him, he will be shi**ing bricks. Why? Because from sports, crime reports, school experience, and general observation, he knows deep inside that races are NOT the same. The more muscular Negro can beat him up.

James Watson and E.O. Wilson on Charles Darwin