The Power of Jews. Their Greatness and their Evil.

traditionally, when humanity was struck by great misfortune it sought assurance by resorting to moralism. often, the calamity was beyond rational explanation or understanding. the cause was unfathomable and magnitude was beyond human scale--earthquakes, asteroids, flood, hurricanes,--or the impact was traumatic and overwhelming--invasion by a ruthless foreign hordes. the only way to make sense of such great calamity was to seek cosmological or spiritual explanations. for example, it could be explained that man displeased god or the gods. man did this by disobyeing or violating god's orders and laws. so, the only way to re-establish order and stability was by returning to the basic demands of god. this differed society to society. some peoole had moral gods, others had amoral gods. some gods had laid down and demanded obedience to moral rules/laws. some gods demanded sacrifice and satiation. gods of sacred laws were more beneficial to the people than gods of sacrificial demand. in the former case, when things got real bad, people felt a need to be moralistic again. this united and strengthened--and even stifled--society(moralism always curtails some degree of freedom, but it protects society from certain dangerous freedoms). in the case of the latter--gods of sacrificial demand--, if things remained bad for a prolonged period, then society self-destructed by making more and more sacrifices. instead of acting more moral, people acted more amoral.
the mayans and many other pre-columbian empires in central and south americas may have fallen for this very reason. when bad times arrived, they sought solution thru more bloody sacrifices. they didn't just lose their cities but their entire civilizational concept--the idea or blueprint itself which can be salvaged even thru nomadism, as was the case with the jews--because their spiritual order demanded extravagantly bloody sacrifices as the solution to 'cosmic' problems such as crop failures, pestilence, plagues, floods, etc. these societies often sacrificed their smartest, healthiest, and able members to please the gods.

same was true of many african kingdoms which dealt with catastrophes by feeding people to crocodiles. people believed that things were bad because gods were angry; the only way to stop the bad times was to make the gods happy, and that meant making sacrifices--often of the healthiest and ablest members of society. the jewish god said obey the law, and the laws were clear because there is only one god; if a child had a 100 parents--if such were possible--he could play for the affections or favors of one parent over another, and the bedtime rules set by each parent could be different. but, if the child has only one parent, the moral rules become much clearer. anyway, the jewish god's message to his followers was 'obey my laws'. also, if you gotta kill, kill other people, not your own kind. also, even if you aren't able to kill your enemies, don't worry because i'll deal with them later; vengeance is mine. meanwhile, just obey my laws and you'll survive intact as a people'. it also helped that the jewish god often revealed his moral laws thru shepherds than thru warriors or great heroes. this led to greater humility, sobriety, and caution, whereas pagan warrior-centric flamboyance led to extravangance in both victory and defeat. when pagans won, they really won; when they lost, they really lost. a boxer who loses in the ring loses more totally than a store owner facing hard times.

the gods of sacrificial demand called for satiation than obedience. the gods demanded satisfaction and, as such, demanded sacrifice and more sacrifice, especially if they were angry. these gods had to be pleased and satisfied. why did jews and peoples like mayans/africans/babylonians have such different gods? if the god or gods of a people are the projection of the character or cultural personality of that people, were jews more moralistic and legalistic as a people whereas mayans/africans/babylonians were more into might-is-right? were the jews like everyone else before they came upon a new way of thinking/worshipping?
how did they become so different from the rest? on the other hand, we may ask why the chinese, a highly legalistic people, developed a popular religion that was so nasty and awful; still, it should be stated that chinese gods--corrupt and bureaucratic--didn't demand human sacrifices; rather, they demanded food, gold, and money so that deceased ancestors wouldn't be tormented and tortured so badly. chinese popular religion didn't offer much in the way of heaven but its hell was where officials and guards could be bribed. christian religion--which grew out of jewish moral tradition--offered pure heaven or pure hell. chinese religion offered total suffering in hell or manageable suffering in hell; this was probably a reflection of the importance of family in chinese culture; those with family connections were much better off than those without in a society where the concept of individualism was non-existent. so, a chinese in prison would be better off if its family members on the outside bribed the guards and officials so that he could receive preferential treatment. same kind of mentality operated in chinese popular religion. hellish afterlife would be bad but not so bad if you had relatives who made sacrificial offerings to the gods in the form of money and food and such. this may account for the shady morality of the chinese in world affairs--the lack of conscience when it comes to supporting nations like burma, sudan, north korea, and cambodia under the khmer rouge. to be sure, christian west also indulged in practices of bribing the clergy to be put on the fast track to heaven--at least before martin luther said 'no more of that'--, but christianity, in theory and cosmology, didn't define itself that way. chinese popular religion was theoretically corrupt at its root; gods were corrupt, people were corrupt, so corruption was the natural, human, and spiritual way. the concept of Good vs Bad is weak in china. even with confucianism--which is non-spiritual--the emphasis is more on niceness than goodness. being virtuous means having good manners and deferring to one's superior and knowing one's place in society. it's about fitting in, not about individualistically exploring and expounding one's principles.

anyway, mayans and their ilk sacrificed humans--not just conquered slaves but often the best within the community--when calamities struck the community. now, if the calamity abided or was shortlived, no real harm was done. suppose floods hit the community one season. suppose the community sacrificed a 1000 people. suppose next season the weather was just fine. then, the murderous and destructive sacrifices would no longer have to continue. in order to maintain good weather, a limited amount of sacrifices would still be in order.
if good weather returned, the people would think that the sacrifices did the trick; angry gods were appeased. and, everyone might feel good about it. but, this way of thinking is bound to devastate the community when calamities are long-lasting. suppose the next calamity strikes, and the weather isn't only bad for one season but for several. this means the people will kill and kill and kill until the population becomes decimated, brutalized, insane, and nuts. in ancient times when times got bad, people left cities in droves but this didn't necessarily mean the end of 'civilization'. the IDEA of civilization can still survive. this could be said of jews who were chased out of one city-state after another; the idea of civilization lived on as long as jews carried the seed or blueprint--the torah/talmud; even if you lose your pasture, you can start a new one as long as you have the seeds of the plants; jews mastered the method of compacting civilization to a portable form. and, it could be said of christians after the fall of rome and such; even with the fall of cities, roman christianity lived on, and so the idea of christian civilization survived. yet, this cannot be said of many pre-columbian tribes in the americas. their civilization totally vanished. even the idea of civilization vanished. much the same happened with the ancient khmer kingdom which built the angkor wat. why did such civilizations utterly disappear? was it because they failed to develop the idea of the moral god demanding obedience to moral laws? did they only develop amoral gods who made sacrificial demands? when times were good, what did it matter if gods were amoral? gods didn't seem to demand much to provide fine weather and bountiful harvests. besides, might is right. but, what if things go badly? naturally, a people would invade and steal from other peoples. but, what if society can no longer ward off destruction by raiding and plundering other peoples who've also been decimated? what if the calamities--human and non-human--are of extreme scale? what do people lean on? in such conditions, jews had to leave the city but they still had a moral god and the moral laws. if anything, calamities strengthened the jewish community by making everyone re-focus on moral laws.
but, what if a people didn't have a moral god or gods? under extreme duress, what would they turn to? human sacrifices and other crazy acts on an ever increasing scale. think of the west african kingdom which kept feeding more and more people to the crocodile gods when things got worse and worse. in the past, maybe feeding a few crocodiles did coincide with better times, and so it was 'rationally' assumed that crocodiles were either gods or had godly power. but, what if things are getting worse and worse even as you feed the crocs? it would make sense to stop such practice but old habits die hard, especially if sacred or spiritual elements are involved. more likely, you keep doing more of the same. and what does that do? it only hastens the total destruction of the whole community. this danger also exists among modern folks. ultra neo-liberal economists worship 'free markets' to such extent that they prescribe more and more of it even when it's not working or even making things worse. but, same is true of welfare socialist types whose sacred religion is the Big Government Moloch. for every problem, it's raise more taxes and spend more; never mind that such often hurt economic growth and undermine moral values of people who become dependent on government handouts. in latin america in the 90s, the neo-liberals saw latin american purely in economic terms while discounting its racial, cultural, and historical realities. and in US and europe, many liberals and all leftists think we should feed more wealth to the big government crocodile.
and of course, communists in USSR, china, and cambodia were crazy about the crocodile theory of economics and history. the sacred iron law of history demanded that millions of people be sacrified to the god of progress for a better future. so, cambodia killed countless people in the name of creating a better society for all people. communism was a lot of crock.

anyway, among ancient cultures with sacrificial gods, prolonged misfortunes called for ever greater offerings--often of the healthiest and most youthful members who could have done most good for society--to the insatiable gods. or, the sacrificial victims were sought from other tribes, but the ensuing warfare, conquests, kidnappings, and uprisings were costly, exhausting, and made for only rising hostilities which were bad for everyone.

this is where jews had a great advantage. their god's demands were moralistic and based on clear laws. so, being good meant that one had to follow god's laws with seriousness and sincerity. the main emphasis was on family, marriage, fidelity, faith, legal codes, ethical conduct, etc. so, when misfortunes befell the jews, jews stuck closer to the spiritual-legal demands in the torah-talmud. they didn't go about killing one another to satisfy an amoral god or attacking other tribes to sacrifice to god. to be sure, jews without a home could be dangerous to other tribes. in search of a place to settle, jews might engage in warfare with other but, this kind of violence had a clear beginning and end with clear pragmatic objectives.
if jews had a defect in their spiritual thinking, it was two-fold; one was the idea of a ethno-religious chosen-people-ism. this meant that there would always be a limited number of jews versus larger numbers of goyim whose criteria for membership wasn't so restrictive. secondly, for a people with such limited membership it was foolish to idealize a promised land. such land could only be small and be surrounded by much larger kingdoms and states with much bigger populations. had jews defined judaism to be more inclusive and accepted more people into their camp, 'jews' could have been much stronger. and their promised land would have been much larger and much more secure. indeed, this is precisely what we saw with christianity. by allowing anyone to be a christian, it soon outnumbered other groups. also, christians in their own land were not outnumbered by others but outnumbered the dwindling number of divided pagans. and, look at what islam was able to achieve in the middle east and north africa. this is perhaps why the loss of 'palestine' for muslims is a real pisser. a people as numerous and powerful as the muslims were NOT supposed to lose to a bunch of raggedy-ass jews. still, the fate of israel still hangs in the balance. in the latter part of 20th century, jews have been able to get things their way by winning the support of big goyim nations. israel was possible and is secure not because jews did it on their own--as in ancient times--but because they won the backing of two big powers in the post-WWII era--US and USSR. though USSR soon switched its alliance with arab states, the support of both superpowers was crucial at the outset. and, it was thanks to british imperialism that so many jews were able to slip into palestine; though the brits tried to stem this tide, without the rubric of british imperialism it wouldn't have been possible for jews to get there at all. so, israel is the jews' achilles heel. it's hard to maintain a small state in an hostile environment when the population and landmass is so small. israel has a superb military and nukes and support of the US, but it's still a fishbone stuck in the throat of history.

anyway, back to the relative advantage of ancient jews vis-a-vis other peoples. suppose an epidemic was killing off 1 million out of 3 million mayans. mayans might feel compelled to sacrifice 1 million among the healthy to end this epidemic which they see as the punishment by angry gods who want be satiated with fresh blood.
now, suppose there were 3 million ancient jews and 1 million died due to some epidemic. the 2 million would be more faithful to the commandments and other laws, pray more, put greater emphasis on family life, and be fruitful and multiply. while mayans would have hurt themselves worse, jews wouldn't only have survived the plague but replaced the dead with fruitfully multiplied new kids.
this is one of the reasons why jews had an advantage in surviving thru the ages. all people suffered great calamities, but it was the jews who reacted to such in the most sober and constructive manner. when faced with tragedy, jews recoiled and sought shelter in the basic moral values and principles as laid down by a moral god. (jewish god can be murderous but even this has strong moral dimension. jewish god gets angry with jews not because they didn't kiss his ass but because they didn't respect his ass; respecting god means obeying moral laws; even before moses, jews came upon the concept of the moral god. god of noah story shows conscience and guilt over all the people he killed in blind rage. god of abraham realizes that if he makes abe go ahead and kill isaac, he can only be powerful god but not a righteous god. a powerful god can rule by fear but not by respect. so, he tells abe to let the kid go. the abe-isaac story tells us that having-the-power is not the same as having-the-respect. god has the power to make abe kill the son but not the right if he wants to be respected as a moral deity. some people put the stress on abe's obedience to god, but more important is god's psychology. it's not so much that abe is put to the test but god himself. whether abe decides on his own to kill isaac, it simply tells us something about abe. but, if god tells abe to kill isaac, it tells us something about the whole universe--that god is amoral).

in the christian outlook--outgrowth of judaism--, it is god that sacrifices himself for man for which man need be grateful and keep the faith. (while the christian god is more loving than the jewish god toward humanity all over the world, he is ultimately more punishing if we aren't grateful for his sacrifice. in this sense, jesus was hardly less jewish-motherish than the jewish god. he suffered so much for us, and we better be grateful and convert to his religion... or face eternal damnation; it's possible jews don't need jesus because they have jewish mothers).
anyway, both jewish and christian responses to great misfortunes were about returning to the basic values handed to us by god-father or god-father-and-son.

certain values and priorities in human affairs are clearly more essential, fundamental, and productive than others, just as certain nutrients in food are more valuable than others. when all fails, it may seem that only way to survive is to 'return to basics'.
so, the moral foundation of western society is morally essentialist, and it is upon this notion that the laws were based and developed.
laws and morality are about the essential, fundamental values which must be distingusished from trivial, peripheral, nonsensical, decadent, and puerile inclinations. when times are good, we can have more non-essential gravy. in today's world, as our modern economy has become so dependent on consumerism, there is almost the belief that fundamental values are at odds with progress and freedom. since ours is a society of plenty, the emphasis is on consumption and waste than on valuing something for what it is. we wanna throw out the old stuff--when it is perfectly functional--and get newer and newer stuff. people want the latest gadgets, latest fashions, latest everything. people buy food to throw out half of it.
since our economy is so over-productive, it may be true that consumption and waste are good for the economy in the sense that it leads to more spending which leads to more economic activity and more jobs. if indeed all americans were to become virtuously frugal sense as benjamin franklin advised, our economy would sink. rather, we need to consume like pigs. this is true among animals as well. during the height of salmon season, brown bears eat only choice parts of the fish while leaving the rest for scavenger birds.
but, this mindset or attitude is predicated on the notion of plentifulness as guaranteed permanence. is it? the jazz age didn't last forever and its attitudes were meaningless during the great depression. of course, scrooge-like frugality would never revive an economy which requires that people spend. still, it's true enough that fundamentals become evident and clear only when 'good times' are gone and people must look inward for deeper strenghts rooted in core principles. the danger of core values is they can become dogmatic and lead to talibanization of society. it's one thing for a turtle to withdraw into its shell when external dangers abound, but seeing the shell for the entire universe is shellfish. so, we all need some kind of balance. unfortunately, much of the world can only think in terms of extremes. the islamicists say muslims must all go back to the old medieval ways. and, many westerners measure progress in terms of how many shopping malls, starbucks cafes, and macdonalds a nation has.
there's the idea that south vietnam could have been saved had it opened more KFC or macdonald franchises. or afghanistan is stable because it now has a shopping mall with an escalator.
surely, there's more to social order than osama bin laden or paris hilton. this is where libertarians are most foolish. as radical individualists, they fail to understand to what extent western success owes to tradition, shared culture and values, and such. western triumph wasn't just about successful individuals but about individuals succeeding in a certain cultural and political environment. if talibanizers are like a turtle that crawls inside the shell and refuses to look outside, libertarians are like a turtle that crawls out of the shell and thinks it can survive freely.

there has been a reversal of essentialist thought in the modern era in the west. in today's world, the principal value of laws has been divorced from moral essentialism and has been served more to defend, protect, and even promote the peripheral, the trivial, nonsensical, decadent, and/or perverse ideas, habits, and practices.
law had once been the legal arm of moral basics. now, it is the legal tool of immoral baseness.
how did it become like this? why is it like this in our world?

1). one reason is the long-lasting stability and lack of major tragedies. we take health, abundance, and leisure for granted, and rational science/technology seems to have the REAL answers to all our problems. moralism, from this perspective, is increasingly old-fashioned, reactionary, prejudiced, and irrelevant. also, we have a natural or rational explanation for all misfortunes. if there's an epidemic, we search for medical cures than seek answer thru god or moralism. this mindset is largely sensible. however, it is dangerous to the extent that many human problems are caused by human behavior. while there's no proof that AIDS is punishment from god--or that god even exists--, it is true enough that immoral and/or irresponsible behavior leads to the spread of AIDS; to this extent, morality is just as crucial as before. while people who say AIDS is a punishment from god are looney, those who insist that the problem can and must solved primarily thru rational science and medicine are idiots too. such fundamentalist reliance on science and technology makes morality irrelevant, and while such may sound 'progressive' and 'rationalist' it is destructive and irresponsible. and, even if purely scientific/bureaucratic cures were possible would humanity be better off? is huxley's 'brave new world' where we wanna end up? a society where all problems can be solved by pills and social engineering?

2). second reason is the status of jews as powerful minorities and also as post-religious-jews. when jews maintained their religious separateness, their spiritual morality was of paramount importance. today, most jews are not religiously jewish and want to succeed in the world of goyim. their values rooted in jewish religious tradition aren't important anymore.
though originators of moral-legal essentialism, jews have been oppressed or marginalized for too long by the moral-legal majority rule of goyim society. so, it's been in the interest of jews to subvert or at least weaken moral-legal unity which they had originated long ago.
the power and intelligence of the jews must also be factored into this account. if jews were dumb and unsuccessful, they might be more like masses of dumb muslims in some european nations. unable to succeed in the world of the infidels as much as they'd like, muslims feel safer and more comfortable sticking together and holding onto traditional values. when a jew gives up his traditional worldview, he can have the whole world. when a muslim gives up his traditional worldview, he's just some cabbie. jews wanna undermine the moral-majority rule because their ambitions can go far. to jews, the moral-majority stand in their way. muslims, on the other hand, may not agree with the moral-majority views of westerners, but as their worldly ambitions or potential is far more limited they don't see the moral-majority order as a great hindrance to what they cannot attain anyway. it's like a negro would be more frustrated by racial discrimination in sports than a mexican or vietnamese. even with all the freedom, a mexican or vietnamese would have no chance of making it to the NBA or NFL; a negro, on the other hand, would have a good chance and so racial discrimination in sports would surely hold him back.
also, jewish relation to the west has been formed thru centuries of marginalization. jews always felt small and threatened vis-a-vis christians. muslims, on the other hand, are used to seeing themselves as equal rivals of christians. as such, muslim attitude toward christianity is both more angry and more friendly. a christian is seen as a worthy enemy. it's like how joe frazier may have seen ali or foreman. but, jews have seen christians as a big nasty bully. muslims wanted to fight and beat(and convert) the christians. jews wanted to destroy the christians in the way that god destroyed all enemies of jews. for traditional jews, christians were imposters corrupted by a jewish heretic(though some jews see jesus in more friendly terms).

most of jewish experience in the christian west took place before the era of secularization and modernization. to an extent, communism--a leftwing jewish ideology--was a war on christianity.
anti-christian communism tragically gave ammo and fuel to neo-pagan movements called fascism and nazism. though fascism and nazism didn't justify their ideologies mainly thru anti-communism, neither would have succeeded had it not been for the communist threat; both required the crucial backing of conservative elements, the military, and the bourgeoisie which would not have been coming had it not been for the radical-jewish-marxist threat. many people and institutions felt compelled to support fascism and nazism as lesser-of-two-evils. (of course, the support and appeal of communism has been explained the same way--as a countermeasure to fascism and nazism. but, the fact is communism succeeded first and committed the first horrendous mass crimes against entire populations and institutions. even before fascists and nazis came to power, communists had killed millions and smashed thousands of churches. it's no wonder that many catholics felt compelled to support pagan ideologies of fascism and nazism against communism because, at the very least, fascists and nazis didn't speak of razing churches and killing clergymen). anyway, jews were confronted in the 20th century with their two greatest enemies--christianity and paganism. the main weapons of jews were capitalism and communism. communism was anti-jewish as well as anti-christian, but it can be seen as the secular jews' attempt to create and establish a rival universal world order to christianity. though it was anti-religious, it not only expressed no hostility toward jews as a race or people but was led by many leaders of jewish background. capitalism was conducive to the jewish mindset because yahweh had told jews to go among goyim kind, outwit them, and make tons of money. also, yahweh told jews to gain influence thru money and use goyim against goyim. while capitalist and communist jews were ideological and political enemies, there was also a lot of understanding and sympathy between the two. consider the many rich capitalist jews who were communist sympathizers. and, consider how communist jews in the USSR were not averse to gaining special privileges and being 'more equal than others'. both kinds of jews would get along famously in the zionist project in israel, so there was as much in common between commie and capi jews as there were differences. 'nationalism' or 'tribalism' still remained strong. same turned out to be true among chinese. during the mao era, there was mainland commie chinese vs overseas capitalist chinese. since the deng era, it's been 'we are all chinese, no?' in the end, it has come down to nationalism than communism vs capitalism. and the unifying principle among russians today is russianness, not communism or capitalism.

3). another reason for the decline of the moral-majority unity is the loss of prestige due to its shortcomings, crimes, and failures. too often, the 'moral' leaders abused and exploited their advantages over the weak and less powerful. this was true of majority leaders in relation to both the majority masses and minorities. consider the loss of moral authority of white christians due to history of black slavery, centuries of beating up on jews, imperial conquest, many wars, economic exploitation via serfdom or early capitalism, and not doing shit about the holocaust.
to be sure, all peoples and groups have committed crimes and done terrible deeds. so, why should it matter more with white christians? it's partly because white christians were the first to truly create a moral world order. the likes of genghis khan just wanted to kick ass and conquer. but, christians had very lofty ideals and goals of a world of love, peace, kindness, and non-violence. but, the record of christians wasn't much better than that of other peoples. it certainly wasn't worse but those who claim the moral high ground expose themselves to hypocrisy. as gandhi said of british civililzation, 'it would be a good idea'. western christians created a moral system that could be used against them by their victims. the moral highground had given the christian west the confidence, strength, and energy to conquer--and liberate--other nations, peoples, and such. but, it exposed itself to self-examination and self-loathing. a pagan slave-trader had no moral law that said slavery was evil, but it was hard to be a christian and defend slavery.
initially, this hypocrisy was exposed and expunged by white christians themselves--as in the british abolition of the slave trade and in the american civil war--, but in time enemies and rivals of white christians would exploit them cleverly against the west. black africans, who had no qualms about slavery and imperialist conquest--as they enslaved and conquered eachother all the time--, portrayed themselves as peaceful and colorful victims of the evil west.
and jews, whose moral record is no better than that of christians, made themselves into wonderful hapless victims of christians--and pagans too.

in today's america, jews see wasps as their main rival--if not enemy. one of the most effective way to gain an advantage is to undermine the moral authority of your rival. and, jews have been portraying wasp history and order as nothing more than 'racism', 'slavery', 'imperialism', and so on. meanwhile, jews have suppressed the truth about the bigotry inherent in jewish religion, the jewish contempt and disdain for goyim, the dark side of jewish religion, the role jews played in communism, the role jews played in radicalism in the US, and the less-than-human policies of israel against the palestinians. even if israelis for the most part are not jewish supremacists, they are surely jewish chauvanists. (notice how modern jews are most vocal in attacking 'homophobia' but overlook the fact that anti-gay ideology is rooted in judaism more than in any other religious or cultural tradition. if jews take credit for all the wonderful things jewish culture has done for us, why don't they take the blame for all the supposedly evil? if 'homophobia' is evil, then judaism is evil).

anyway, the moral majority values were bound to lose it prestige and luster. once society got richer and plentiful, the masses within the majority wanted to hear less about morality and more about fun and happiness--morality became passe or an hindrance, especially to the young.
as for the minorities there was a feeling that the moral-majority is really about preserving special power and privilege to the majority group. this is how many illegal alien advocates in the US feel about conservative stance against illegal migration; they see all the moral language as just a ruse to cover up majority prejudices. and, most jews are aiding illegalist agendas to undermine white goy moral authority.


4. in our world of plenty with greater fun and pleasure, we succumb to the tantalizing temptation of hedonism, nihilism, and etc which we want to explore and enjoy more for their orgasmic or thrill content. because modern man is so secure and safe from danger, he fails to see the connection between bad ideas and bad reality. people who've never been robbed or had their houses burglarized are more likely to romantize killers. think of the popularity of Bonnie & Clyde the movie among white middle class kids in the 60s. this is true of radicalism as well. some of the most extreme advocates for the likes of mao and che guevara were affluent white leftists in the West. generally, it appears that nihilism is most appealing to extreme groups in society--the totally down & out who have no faith in the idea of civilization AND the overly educated and pampered who who live in a kind of false bubble; the lower middle class and middle class are more likely to be wary of nihilism and criminality than the very poor and the upper middle class. the very poor have surrendered to criminality, and the privileged/protected folks see criminality thru rose-tinted glasses. since nothing seems secure to the very poor, the prevailing philosophy easily become a kind of dog-eat-dog free-for-all. since everything seems secure and taken for granted by the rich, the children of the rich can fantasize that material riches and privilege don't matter. for this reason, traditional moralism exists more powerfully among people in the middle. the problem in the US is the unholy anti-moral alliance of the very poor--mostly black and hispanic--and the affluent--mostly white and jewish. those with the most advanced college degrees justify gangsta rap the most. (to be sure, affluent white radicals see themselves as progressive moralists than as nihilists. but, their mode is moralistic nihilism, a leftist form of fascism. check a movie like V for Vendetta which uses morality as a cover to glorify violence and mayhem)

why moralism is increasingly unpopular is because it puts brakes on fun. in our era of EXTREME everything, anything standing in the way of our pleasure and fulfilment is seen as an 'oppressor'. drug abusers love their drugs. porn maniacs love their porn. violent video game addicts love their violent video games. (of course, this EXTREME reality is also a boon to moralism since so many burnt out cases end up calling out to jesus; notice the number of evangelicals who started out as hedonists).
there was a time when the LAW was about preserving and protecting BASIC MORAL VALUES from trivialities which were deemed immoral or amoral. today, we expect the law to do exactly the opposite. instead of protecting moral values from trivialities, we want trivial diversions protected from moral values. today, more and more people would rather protect 'homosexual rights' from mainstream moral values than protect moral values from the gay agenda. one could say that the new mainstream is anti-mainstream. majority of young people--the mainstream--are likely to hold a negative concept of the 'mainstream' or 'social norms' since they've been told by their teachers, television, pop music, movies, and magazines that 'diversity' is the greatest value. there is a new moralism that emphasizes tolerance and inclusiveness but it has no core. everything is of equal value. there is no concept of the basic norm vs trivialities.

in the old days, some great tragedy or disaster--plague, war, slavery, invasion, exile, flood, pestilence, etc--was always around the corner, and such pushed man back to God and basic values which strenghtened the community and protected it from trivialities. as modern man has come to feel safe and secure in his environment, they've come to see moralism as an hindrance to their obsession with pleasure. obsession with pleasure is linked with growing acceptance of and demand for trivialities since pleasure is ephemeral and disposable. in a world where people can eat as much as they like, the more flavors they want. when family values break down, man wants more different pussies.

anyway, our system of laws that grew out of morality is now divorced from it and has shacked up with whory girlfriends. the law isn't so much a husband of morality but a pimp of immoralities. of course, there is a moral dimension to modern law in the sense that it champions individual freedom and rights. and, few of us would want to live in a theocratic or morally stuffy society where the LAW enforces only the most basic moral standards. morality in the modern world should be mostly a matter of individual conscience. laws should outlaw criminality which clearly harms people than proscribe how we should live. for example, no one should go to jail for being lazy or eating too much junk food. on the other hand, there is a stifling neo-moralism in the new legalism. political correctness has made it illegal for people to express 'hateful' views--as defined by the left. so, if you're some punkass kid and get some teen girl pregnant and don't take responsibility and lie and cheat thru life, that's okay with the law. but, if you say 'polack' or 'nigger', you should be locked up for a morally heinous crime.

STRIKINGLY, THE REACTION ON THE PART OF THE JEWS TO THE HOLOCAUST WAS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN THEIR REACTION TO PREVIOUS DISASTERS. jews did not return to basic moralism of god--except in the form of zionism/jewish nationalism.
thru most of jewish history, the response to great calamity was to embrace traditional morality more closely. it was as though jews had been punished for disobeying god. in the late 19th and 20th century, jews abandoned their traditional faith. some had sought assimilation, some sought secular ideologies, some embraced communism, etc. yet, when the holocaust happened, jews didn't feel that they were punished for abandoning god. partly, there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle. by mid 20th century, jews had become so modernized that they could not return to The Book.
but, more importantly, jews came to realize that old rules don't apply in the christian world. jews finally came to realize that christians had out-jewed the jew. jews came to conclude that the only way to make the world safe was to de-jewify the christians. jewish response to the holocaust was to make the goyim embrace greater decadence, nihilism, trivialism, etc.
of course, one could argue that marxism was the new judaism, and indeed, many jews continued to be very sympathetic to communism after WWII; but, we must keep in mind that many jews turned to communism BEFORE the holocaust, and that holocaust was partly a gentile response to the jewish participation in communism. the better argument is that holocaustism became the new judaism, showing that jews slyly maintained a strong tradition of moralism FOR THEMSELVES.

but, in the western world in the wake of the holocaust, jews felt that that emphasis on moralism wouldn't work since jews would be outnumbered and outlasted by christians no matter how strongly jews stuck to The Book. so, jews came to realize that the trick was not to strengthen jewish moral sense but to weaken/undermine the moralism of christians. a confused, decadent, divided, and idiotic goyim like the paganistic fools on jerry springer show would be easier to control and manipulate, and such folks would be less likely to unite to beat up on the jews.

prior to the rise of christianity, jews took assurance in the fact that pagan civilizations were trapped in cycles of rise and fall. the goyim, for all their worldly riches and power, were bound to succumb to their immorality, hubris, and lurid excess wherease jews were serious, moralistic, united, and sober. jews had been surrounded by powerful goy kingdoms but witnessed their rise and fall. the egyptians, babylonians, hittites, assyrians, greeks, and the even the mighty romans. jews had their good times and bad times, but they survived intact. jews could take satisfaction in outlasting the pagans. eventually, the power of goyim would blow away like a storm, and the sun would shine on the jews once again. but, this dymanic changed with the spread of christianity. christianity jewified the goyim. jews' greatest secret and strength--the one and only God and His moral laws--was leaked to the goyim by jesus and his disciples. it was on the scale of the rosenbergs handing over bomb secrets to stalin. to be sure, jesus and his jewish disciples were not out to harm jews. they first tried to convert jews and then convert the world. in a way, jesus was trying to turn everyone into a jew. but, jews said the hell with that. so, in perhaps the greatest irony in history, the goyim who benefitted most from jewish religious and moral concepts came to hate jews. christian goyim came to see jews as stingy christ-killers. worse, armed with christian theology and morality, the goyim gained the survival skills and strength of the jews. much the same happened with the rise of islam. with europeans being christian and arabs being muslim, jews could wait forever but the sun would never shine on them again. the cycle of rise and fall of pagan civilizations was broken. when goyim were pagan, jews were the only ones with the special religious and moral secret to eternal survival. goyim might be richer, more numerous, and more powerful in terms of towering architecture, armies, weapons, slaves, etc, but their civilization were bound to rise and fall in accordance to worldly dynamics. only the jews had the ability to maintain a cultural and moral order even when they lost everything. goyim's values were rooted in their soil which can be conquered by other people. though jews are said to be rootless, the jews were rooted to the sky. jewish roots--like einstein's hair--reached upward. so, even when jews were kicked out of certain lands, they maintained contact with god. sure, jews preferred to be in israel but their real home was heaven, the domain of the one and only god who loved his jews; of course, everywhere is under heaven.

with the rise of christianity, moralism--which had served the jews so well--became dangerous to jews cuz it now served the goy christians. so, jews eventually came to become wary of moralism. suppose some guy has a special immunity and is surrounded by big tough guys without that immunity. the guy would be pushed around the big tough guys, but eventually the big tough guys would die when a plague strikes the community--like when some plague killed whole bunch of egyptians but spared the jews. the immune guy would have the satisfaction that no matter how bad things get, he'll outlast his bullies. but, suppose his immunity is passed to all the bullies. then, the immunity, which had been to the guy's advantage, is to the bullies' advantage. in h. g. wells's War of The Worlds, the invaders are mighty but die of earthly germs. but, suppose the invaders had gained immunity to earthly bacteria? then we'd shit.
and, with the rise of christianity--which protected goyim from the trauma of rise-n-fall of civilizations--, goyim gained the immunity. so, after the holocaust, jews figured it was better to weaken this immunity of christian moralism. jews cleverly associated christianity with nazism since both were 'anti-semitic'. never mind that not all anti-semitisms are the same just like not all anti-americanisms are the same. blaming christians for nazism would be like blaming france and the germany of 9/11 since anti-americanism is rife in those countries. but, surely, franco-anti-americanism isn't of the same kind as islamicist anti-americanism in both the rationale and magnitude. also, palestinian anti-semitism must not be confused with nazi anti-semitism. palestinians are pissed at jews-as-imperialists, not jews-as-untermensch. palestinians are more likely to see jews as zio-Nazis than as a race of subhumans. palestinians hate jews in the way that americans hated japanese after Pearl Harbor. if americans reacted to pearl habor by totally destroying japan, why should palestinians roll over after being booted out of their ancient land?

anyway, christianity united the goyim and gave them the means to survive just like the jews thru the ages. worse, as christianity was a conversionary religion it had the power not only to survive but to outnumber jews by a huge margin. hittites didn't go about converting others to hittitism. greeks didn't convert others to greekism. egyptians didn't covert others to egyptianism. to be sure, there was much trade and travel among pagan folks, but they were particularists, not universalists. jewish god was universalist but jewish culture was particularist. christian god and culture were both universalist. so, with the spread of christianity and islam, jews were fated to be oppressed minorities Forever. there was no way that jews could wait for the moment when christians and muslims self-destructed like so many pagan folks in the past. indeed, christianity survived even WWII; the real casualties of that war were the pagan ideologies of nazism, fascism, and yamato-ism. in a way, one could see WWII as the triumph of christian values over the revival of pagan ideologies. america has always been a christian civilization despite its secular political system. and one could even say that soviet communism was a secular form of judeo-christian ideology. and, it's interesting that even with the fall of communism, marxism lives on as a spiritual ideology for many people in the west.

but, in the aftermath of WWII jews brilliantly associated nazism with christianity and made all christians feel guilty over the holocaust. in fact, nazism was anti-christian and neo-pagan. the nazi form of anti-semitism was more of the pre-christian tribal type than of the christian 'jew-as-christ-killer' type; nazi hatred of jews had more in common with the egyptian or roman hatred of jews. christians hated jews for the latter's tribalism while nazis hated jews as the threat to aryan tribalism. christians were universalist, nazis were particularist. christianity was moralist, nazism was aestheto-nihilist(a beauty cult). christians wanted jews to convert, nazis wanted jews to die. there was very little in common with nazism and christianity. nazism was the attempted revival of the pre-christian pagan order that had dominated europe from greece to northern europe prior to the coming of christianity which almost completely destroyed pagan cultures and traditions.

arguments linking christianity with nazism are specious. to speak of the 'hitler's pope' is outrageous since the pope was trapped in a country allied with nazism. yes, the pope didn't do much to speak out against hitler, but how many russian orthodox priests stood up against communism? they were either shot or forced to bow down to stalin. so, should slander russian orthodox priests as 'stalin's priests'. and, there are tibetan buddhist monks with no choice but to bow down to chinese communists. so, are they mao's monks?
to be sure, there were anti-semitic priests who brazenly supported nazism but this must be seen in context. communists were radical atheists and their orgy of bloodletting against christians and destruction of countless churches obviously outraged many priests. and, they associated communism with jews because the fact is many communists were jews. at the very least, fascism and nazism were more tolerant of christians than communism was, and therefore it's not hard to understand why many christians preferred the rule of fascists or nazis over that of communists. similarly, many jews supported communism because it was more favorable to jews than nazism was. to say, however, that most christians were pro-nazi or that most jews were pro-communist would be wrong. they chose to commit the 'lesser evil', which basically amounted to 'whatever does ME less harm'. when nazis invaded northern italy, many italian priets sided with communists to counter nazi rule. if that's understandable, then christian alliance with nazism is also understandable. prior to WWII and holocaust, the greatest crimes in europe had been committed by communists who'd killed millions and millions and destroyed countless churches. and, in spain, why would catholics not support franco when anarchists and communists were raping nuns and burning priests alive? seems as logical as jews in russia supporting communism because they got sick of pogroms by drunken christian cossacks. the alliance between nazism and christianity--if it could be called that--was one of convenience. in this regard, jews aint any better. israel was a close ally of south africa. due to turkey's close ties with israel, jews never pressed on turkey's denial of the armenian holocaust. so, does that make israel 'apartheid's friend' or 'supporter of armenian holocaust'? during WWII, roosevelt was allied with stalin. does that make FDR 'stalin's president'? the fact is the pope and most christian groups on continental europe during WWII didn't have much resources to combat fascism and nazism. worse, they were genuinely fearful of communism for GOOD REASON. if powerful US can be forgiven for supporting hussein against crazy iran in the 80s, surely we can understand why good number of christians preferred fascism to communism up to WWII. for starters, italian fascism was not a great evil; also, franco was no mass murderer. hitler turned out to be a mass murderer but prior to WWII, his record was still far better than that of communists. in USSR, many crazy leftwing jews killed millions and smashed 50,000 churches. is it any wonder why many christians came to hate jews? the fact is the Great Famine in the USSR was, in some ways, a radical jewish genocide of christian folks. stalin ordered the horror but many of the executioners were jewish. also, stalin got his crazy ideas from radical jewish ideology. stalinism was a combo of georgian thuggery, russian tsarism, and radical jewish extremism.

anyway, in the wake of the holocaust, jews figured it would be best to demoralize the christian commuity. jews figured goyim would be better re-paganized as long as not on the nationalist model of italian fascists or german nazis. goyim should be paganized as wanton hedonistic pigs wallowing in filth. the model for this is best represented by the jerry springer show where the clever jew jerry encourages dumb white trash to come on his show and assault one another. standing between the white trash mauling one another--like pitbulls--and jerry springer are big goys as hired bouncers to protect jerry. so, we have a new pagan order where white trash have no morals, talk trash, and fight another and where big white lugs are hired to protect jerry the jew from immoral trash even as jerry exploits all of them. jerry the jew makes his millions and stands there bemused while white goyim make total fools of themselves. super pagan white trash are onstage. the medium white trash are hired as body guards. and rest of whte trash watch this ugly spectacle and chant 'jerry, jerry' as though jerry is their fuhrer. jerry the jew has reduced white goyim to a bunch of retards, but the retards cheer jerry and make him a super millionaire. jerry pisses on white trash goyim but the latter worships jerry for the bread and circuses. what's even funnier is how the white trash onstage appeal to jerry for sympathy. jerry has invited them on his show to be humiliated; jerry manipulates them to fight and cuss as much as possible. jerry cracks jokes where people onstage are really getting hurt physically and emotionally. jerry makes his millions. yet, the fools onstage appeal to jerry for sympathy.
if jerry is the lord jew of white trash--as is howard stern--, maury povich is the lord jew of black trash. to be sure, we can't blame jerry and maury for the stupidity of so many white and black goyim. but, do jerry and maury have to mercilessly and cynically exploit these poor slobs?
at any rate, it's no wonder why many jews despise goyim in general. goyim are dumber. it's like when charlton heston and his pals in planet of the apes see a bunch of primitive men and say 'we'll be running this place in 6 weeks'. but, this sneering contempt on the part of stern, springer, and povich explains why so many goyim-who-know-the-truth cannot stand jews. yes, we are dumber, but do jews have to exploit us so viciously? jerry trashes the white trash but he can always hide behind the holocaust card. 'i'm jerry the Noble Jew, so if you hate me, you must be a rabid anti-semitic nazi'.

of course, jews also rejected moralism for themselves, and we've had many obscene jews like russ meyer, howard stern, lenny bruce, norman mailer, and others. and, think of all the jews in porn. jews have been worshipping the golden calf in capitalist america.
BUT, there are two crucial differences. first, because jews are smarter, even immoral jews have a much greater chance of worldly success than immoral goyim. it's like a lazy black would still be pretty good at basketball whereas a lazy white guy would have no chance at all. even morally worthless and undisciplined jews can rely on their wits; dimwit goyim only have strong values and discipline to rely on.
secondly, if jews sought to de-moralize christians completely, jews discarded their religious or cultural moralism but replaced it with historical moralism. holocaust became the new jewish morality or great cause.

it didn't matter if a jew was a communist, a pornographer, subversive, hedonist, radical ideologue, etc. his jewishness covered him morally because his kind was said to be the victim of the holocaust. and the holocaust was linked not only to nazism but all of christian history. so, being jewish meant being a noble sacred victim thru all of history, especially western-christian history. in the post-holocaust world, jew only need be ethnically jewish to feel morally superior and justified. he is the eternal victim of nasty christians. the holocaust, its volumnous literature, the commemorations, the museums, the monuments, etc. became the new judaism.

thru such iconography, jews were finally able to reverse the christian image of the jew as 'christ killer'. the holocaust allowed jews to denounce christians as the 'jew killer'. christians crucified the jew. this notion was perhaps best captured by 'jewish christ' by marc chagall. jews rejected religious moralism but adopted historical moralism--the jew as crucified saint of history.
christians had morally shamed the jews with religious doctrine, but now the jew could morally shame christians with historeligion--history used to sanctify certain causes or peoples.
so, gone is the religion-based moralism for both christians and jews. the difference is christians lost the moral high ground in the new order whereas jews gained the high ground--the highest of any ethnic group in history by trumping the holocaust. jews have weakened the religious moralism of goyim while propping up historical moralism for themselves. this is historeligion.

what's pathetic is christians fell for this. again, nazi anti-semitism had little to do with christian anti-semitism. if anything, nazi mentality had more in common with tribal jewish mentality than with universal christian mentality. we speak of nazi-loving christians and islamofascism, but judaism is more tribal and particularist than both christianity and islam. in this sense, judaism, more than its niversalist branch religions, has more in common with pagan fascism. as much as nazis hated the jews, they also saw themselves as the aryan version of jews. if christians had out-jewed the jew in the area of universal truth, nazis tried to out-jew the jew in the area of pure blood tribalism. in no way does this justify nazi ideology nor nazi crimes, but the association of christianity and nazism is unwarranted.

now, why did so many christians fall for the new consciousness making jews out to be perfect historical saints while christians are tainted as 'the jew-killer'. partly, it's due to the jewish dominance of media and academia. it's also due to christian and goy good will after WWII. naturally, many goyim felt great deal of sympathy for the jews when the death camps were opened for all to see. the holocaust was so horrifying that many christians, like the saints of dostoyevsky novels, took upon the guilt of the holocaust onto themselves. never mind that it was christian american and british boys who died in normandy to defeat the nazis. never mind that americans and brits had nothing to do with the holocaust. it's true that many europeans collaborated with the nazis, but these people were under nazi occupation. and, their collaboration with the nazis was no worse than jewish collaboration with communists in eastern and central europe; if anything, jewish collaboration with communism went much deeper and led to far more deaths. many eastern european nations were ruled by radical jews after WWII. when hitler and stalin first divided up poland, many polish jews happily collaborated with stalin's henchmen--many of whom were jewish--to round up 100,000s of polish catholics and military officers and have them killed right away or shipped off to near certain death in inhuman labor camps. we often hear of poles hating/killing jews but where's the truth about jews hating/killing poles?

if christians are guilty of the holocaust, then jews are guilty of communism. if christians everywhere must pay for 6 million dead jews, then jews everywhere must pay for 10 million dead ukrainians--and tens of millions more who died. (also, if jews insist that even a non-religious ethnic jews are holocaust-victim-jews, then they must accept the jewishness of non-religious communist jews as jews. also, if the crimes of fascism must be laid on christian civilization because most fascist goyim grew up christian, then the crimes of communism must be blamed on jews because the most important communists grew up jewish. if fascism is described as an outgrowth of christian sickness--though it was neopagan--, then communism must be described as an outgrowth of judaism. in truth, there was more in common between judaism and communism than between christianity and fascism whose roots are pagan).
jewish participation in and collaboration with communism was far greater in proportional terms than christian collaboration with fascism or nazism. as communism came to power before fascism and committed the first great crimes of the century, it could even be argued that the reluctant christian support for fascism and nazism were more justified than jewish support for communism.

we may well ask, why have christians or goyim been so unwilling to play the blame-the-jew-for-communism card when jews never stop playing the blame-all-christians-for-nazism card?
partly, it's because jews control and dominate the media and academia. jews control the remembrance of history and the rules of the debate. so, when jews bait christians and blame christianity as the progenitor of the holocaust, it's supposed to be historical justice. but, when goyim point to the relation between jews and communism, media tell us that such is 'rabid and virulent anti-semitism'. also, jews are an intellectual people, and therefore more likely to write magazine articles, books, etc. anne frank left a diary but how many starving ukrainian girls left diaries? and even if they did, could they have written as well as anne frank? and if they had, would the jewish dominated media in the US dare publish a diary where a ukrainian girls talks about how radical jews came and took all the food and killed her parents? no, jews would call the girl an 'rabid anti-semite'.
there are other reasons as well. nazis lost the war, and their death camps were opened up for all to see. had nazis won the war, our remembrance of history may be different.
eventually, communism fell and we learned about the millions dead but the evidence has all blown away in the wind. when we think of the holocaust, we see images of dead jews in death camps. when we think of victims of communism, we just think of numbers. 10 million, 20 million. an image of 100 dead corpses is more frightening than the figure of 100 million dead.

anyway, there is much that is noble and great about judaism and the jewish experience. and, it's true that christian attitude toward jews were unjust. but, it's also true that what's wrong with christianity is rooted in judaism. also, it was jews who spread the religion which came to hurt the jews. jesus and his disciples were all jews. just as jewish communism eventually did great harm to jews--with the rise of stalin and his goyim henchmen--, the jewish followers of jewish jesus spread jewishy ideas which came to hurt jews.

today, jews are not spreading moralisms but immoralisms, but this can come to hurt the jews as well. the insane populist neo-paganism of white trashism and black trashism which jews disseminate thru the movie-tv-music industry may come to bite the jew in the ass. it's always possible that white trash on jerry springer will come to see him as the weasel that he is and turn on his ass. it's true that jewish businessmen have cashed in big time by promoting black trash paganism of stuff like rap music and other junk. these crazy de-moralized blacks may easily fall under the sway of farrakhans of the future. thanks to the holocaust, jews have understandabley come to fear united, disciplined, militant neo-paganism of fascism. jews have bet on trashy, crazy, disunited, and divisive neo-paganism of the bread-and-circuses-welfare-state and tattoo-my-ass-and-pierce-my-penis white trash variety. jews probably think this kind of barbaric paganism will promote such social chaos, hedonism, and idiocy among goyim that goyim will never be able to march together against rich privileged jews like nazis had once done. but, crazy mobs are crazy mobs. roman empire was brought down not by a disciplined army but a rabble of barbarians. if jews keep promoting trash neo-paganism, they are only buying time. there will come a time when white trash on jerry springer show, like mel gibson, will come to blurt out, 'JEWS START ALL WARS'. gibson's not entirely wrong for, in a way, jews have been promoting social warfare in the US. popular culture industry dominated by jews pit west coast rappers vs east coast rappers, old vs young, men vs women, white trash vs white trash, etc, etc. how maury povich loves to bring black trash on his show and make them cuss one another out while he smiles his coy little smile; it's sickening. it's not the fault of jews that so many goy trash are trashy, but jews are certainly exploiting the existing trashiness to make things worse. jews are acting like fight promoters, like bob arum.

suppose some white baptist does what jerry springer and maury povich do with blacks and whites--use them as pitbulls mauling one another. i'll bet many progressives would condemn the white baptist for exploiting the social and moral problems of poor people and minorities. i'll bet jewish commentators would not only condemn the white baptist but the whole history of white christian exploitation of blacks and the poor. but, when jewish guys do the same, jewish commentators--who bitch about everything--stay mum. jews push collective burden and guilt onto other peoples but take no such burden upon themselves.

suppose some german movie producer made anti-semitic movies. jews would not only condemn him but demand that german people stand up and condemn him as well. if german pubilc didn't do as much, jews would say all germans are anti-semitic.
but, when jewish scum like jerry springer exploits the poor and blacks, jews say nothing. and, if we say that jews must collectively feel responsible and condemn guys like jerry springer or marxists like noam chomsky, jews will insist that that's 'anti-semitism' because it holds all jews responsible for the actions of individual jews. what hypocrisy.

it's the same with politics in the US. if one republican politician says something racially insensitive, the whole party is expected to condemn the offender. but, if some democratic politician says something outrageous--radical leftist or anti-white sympathies--, the party as a whole doesn't feel obligated to apologize or condemn the stupid lout. the jewish controlled media would ignore it too. and if anyone suggested that the democratic party should take a stand against a commie shitter in their party, liberal jews would scream 'red-baiting', 'witchhunt', etc. of course, liberal jews foam at the mouth in trying to purge the GOP of 'racists' and 'anti-semites'.

what's most pathetic of all is that while conservative christians go out of their way to suck up to jews and support israel, liberal jews viciously trash and mock christian conservatives. in a way, the relation between christian conservatives and liberal jews is like the relation between white trash and jerry springer. both christian conservatives and white trash have no clue that while they spill their guts out to jewry and jerry, they are getting nothing back in return.
and, why should american conservatives feel guilty over the holocaust? it didn't happen in the US. also, it was US that defeated the nazis. american boys gave their lives. americans don't feel guilty for armenians or cambodians. jews certainly don't feel guilty for asian victims of communism when in fact some jews in the US were responsible for spread of communism in asia. no ethnic group in the US wanted the communists to win as much as the jews. many liberal and leftist jews cheered when saigon fell to communists or when khmer rouge swept into phnom penh. chomsky championed pol pot and his henchmen. and, many jews were pro-soviet and sent secrets to stalin. nothing japanese-americans did during WWII or what muslim americans did recently compares the crime of many jews who were involved in sending the Bomb secret to stalin. though rosenbergs got nailed, there were many other jews who were involved and never got caught. and, there were many jews who would have done the same if they had the chance. but, just as jews tied nazism with christianity and made all christians guilty of the holocaust, jews made the commie spies and communist sympathizers--many of whom were jewish--the poor noble victims of evil christian america. jewish media and academia made us feel that being anti-communist is worse than being communist. and so many sappy liberal goyim have bought this nonsense. so, mccarthy was worse than the rosenbergs and noam chomsky.
we need a new way of thinking on these issues.

The disturbing phenomenon of Sick Chic. The habit of drug dependence.

why do medical costs keep going up? one reason is the popular demand for prescription drugs.
people like tom cruise are wrong to say all drugs are useless. but, drugs should be the last resort, not the first option. most aches or moods pass without drugs. also, it's human to feel pain and depression. if we trust our bodies, we overcome most problems.
of course, there are unbearable and prolonged aches and pains. and, some people have emotional problems which can only be controlled with drugs.
but, i'd wager that most americans who use a whole bunch of drugs don't really need them. they probably get something out of those drugs but prolly could have done without them.

are these prescription drugs cheap? no. pharmaceutical companies keep coming up with new variations promising better somatic effects. new drugs are highly expensive. and demand for drugs keep going up. some people grow dependent on drugs or, more accurately, to the HABIT of drug-taking--like couchpotatoes are addicted to the habit of pigging out even when not hungry. worse, many folks ask for drugs just to experiment or sell them to others.
it's depressing that many americans see drugs as the first resort to all their physical and emotional problems. and, there are many people who seek alternative treatments which can be just as bogus. many of those food supplements promising relief from this or that ache are useless. has the health of americans improved since alternative supplements hit the market? no. of course, some are genuinely good, like green tea and some others. but, i'd wager that most of them are utterly useless or only minimally useful and not worth the cost.
anti-pharmaceutical folks are often just as greedy and crass as pharmaceuticals coming up with their bogus--and often expensive--'cures'. alternative or holistic companies will say, 'don't use that stuff from a chemical lab; use this ORGANIC medicine from china, india, or brazil'. bogus.

the history of chinese medicine is one of the most depraved in the world. i'm sure that certain chinese medicinal concoctions have value, especially if blended with herbs like green tea. but, much of chinese medicine is based on cruelty, torture, and bad habits. the chinese confucian ideal was not involve oneself in physical or manual labor or exercise. so, the mandarins of china sat around, grew their fingernails, refined their elegant manners, grew soft and flabby, and ate white rice and greasy foods. now, what happens when you eat all that rich food and don't exercise? you get sick. the healty thing would be to eat more raw veggies, eat less fancy meals, and get some exercise. but, such were deemed too vulgar for the mandarin class. so, they sought cures by coming up with all sorts of weird cures. instead of eating better and exercising, they sought some medicine made from rhino horns or tiger penises. in their 'holistic' and 'organic' way, privileged chinese were just as drug-addicted as modern americans. even today, every chinatown has its share of chinese medicine stores where sickly and flabby chinese men and women go to buy some stupid stuff. these people don't exercise and they eat too much fatty chinese food. will they change their habits? no. instead, they stick to old habits while seeking cures from chinese medicine, most of which is crap. anyway, china became a drug-addicted society. it's no wonder that they were so vulnerable to introduction of opium.

worse, chinese medicine derived from animal products often involve unimaginable cruelty. boiling cats alive, viciously and slowly beating dogs to death, killing a bear just to cut off its paws and pull out its gall bladder, killing tigers for their penises, or killing a rhino just for the horn. needless to say, chinese medicine isn't scientific but mystical. as medicine, it's on the level of voodoo or animism. tribal people don claws and fangs of lions or bears in the belief that animal power will pass onto the human warrior. it's like sports teams naming themselves after beastly animals--a sports team is more likely to be called bears or lions than squirrels or frogs. this has nothing to do with science. but, chinese still think this way; since a tiger is a powerful beast, eating its penis must make one's sexual libido stronger. since a rhino is a big majestic beast, its horns MUST have magical powers. since turtles live for a long time, eating turtle soup must translate into longevity. this is like saying eating rabbits will make one run faster or that eating wolf balls will make one more wolfish. there is no science to any of this. we know that protein is protein. it doesn't matter if you get it from a rabbit or from a buffalo. in your body, protein is protein, vitamins are vitamins. but, chinese medicine is based on magic and mythical thinking. worse, it's very cruel. the decadent mandarin class of china grew so self-absorbed and self-interested that they didn't care how viciously an animal was tortured in order to extract its medicinal essence. in some ways, the method of torture was enjoyed and admired as an art form--anticipating marquis de sade. chinese became a narcissistic, vain, and petty people. for all their pretension of wisdom, old rich chinese farts thought it was justified to kill a majestic rhino just so they could live a few more days or have another hardon.

western folks aren't so sick and cruel. but, there is a certain similarity between chinese mandarin attitudes and western attitudes. like the mandarins, many americans are unwilling to do the most obvious things first--eat healthy and exercise. some feminist author named paula kamen wrote a book about her aches and pains, but it never occurred to her to lose weight. she is GROSSLY FAT even now. indeed, many americans who bitch about pain and depression have lousy eating and sleeping habits. many don't exercise. many smoke or drink too much. yet, instead of changing their habits, they seek 'cure' thru drugs or don't expect to be cured at all and embrace permanent drug use.
though we don't believe in cruelty toward animals, our demand for more and more drugs has turned pharmaceutical companies into torture chambers for animals. whether animals should or shouldn't be used for medical experimentation is not easy to answer. such experimentation is almost always terribly cruel. BUT, they do lead to breakthroughs which may justify the practice--which is something you cannot say about chinese boiling live cats and beating dogs to death or cooking a live bear on a pit. but, we may well ask how many animals have been sacrificed in the creation of essentially useless drugs we can do without? if animals must be used in experiments, shouldn't such experiments be for drugs or cures that we really need? but, the fact is drug companies just wanna come up with new fancy drugs with little benefit in order to make more and more money. let's face it. most new drugs on the market are scams. they have some benefits but they are not worth the cost... and have the many side effects which require other drugs. the sad fact is many drugs are vanity drugs, and so it could be said that countless animals were cruelly experimented upon and killed for the vanity of not-so-sick people. In this sense, there are some parallels with Chinese torture of animals for medicine and our experimentation with animals to create unnecessary drugs.

is there a vain drug culture? yes. many americans think it's normal and even essential to fill their medicine cabinets in the washroom with all sorts of drugs and substances. americans greet the day with some drug and end the day with some drug. behind mirror mirror on the wall are those drugs we've convinced ourselves that we can't do without. vanity and medicine go together in our culture. we see our reflections in the mirror backed with drugs.
worse, many americans don't take drugs to get better but with vain resignation of permanent dependence. so, taking drugs everyday is normal, being off drugs is abnormal. so, if you don't feel so good you must be abnormal; so, you need drugs to feel normal. but, if you feel good, you must be abnormal too; how can anyone feel sane in our 'crazy' world, right? so, you must take drugs to feel different. everyone tries drugs like mascaras or shoes or hats. it's a fashion show of the emotions. it's a substitute for thought and feelings that come with genuine experiences. our culture glorifies neurosis, and people who are considered 'normal' or straight are deemed lame, square, white bread, simple-minded, etc. so, even people who are perfectly normal feel ashamed of feeling perfectly normal. it's more fashionable to suffer from some depression, mood swings, pains and aches, etc.
at the other extreme, you have people taking drugs and various food supplements because they've been led to think people should be totally healthy. our narcisstic culture says your vison has to be perfect, your hearing must be optimal, your skin must be totally smooth, etc. every little defect is seen as deformity, every molehill is magnified as a mountain. if it's not drugs, it's surgery. this mentality is most ludicrous among those with lazy habits. a fat person who won't exercise but swallows tons of diet pills or gets a surgical tummy tuck.

also, there's a sense that it's cool, hip, sophisticated, complex, and/or serious if one is dependent on some drugs. call it sick chic. in the 50s and 60s, many europeans found a kind of sick satisfaction in feeling 'alienated' from society. supposedly, god was dead and old values were irrelevant and man was lost and so on. some people grappled with this moral malaise in post war europe but many just jumped on the bandwagon as a short cut to be an intellectual or lost/searching soul. films by antonioni were fashionable not only for their seriousness but their glamour. being alienated meant looking and dressing like jeanne moreau or marcello mastrionni. though these films of antonioni and fellini despaired of the fallen state of modern man, they peddled a fashionable sense of ennui. in this climate, being neurotic was cool. if you were content and happy, you must be a simpleton dufus.

the sick chic culture is similar; instead of relying books and films to attain ennui, there's drugs as a shortcut. it's more fashionable to come to work and say you suffer from all these ailments both physical and psychological. first, you win the sympathy vote. second, it shows that you're lost in some kafkaesque jungle and adds a tinge of philosophical dimensions to your 'sickness'. third, it shows you are up-to-date with the latest technology, rather like showing off that you have the latest cell phone; how cool and sophisticated to be using the latest drug for whatever ailment. fourth, it shows how emotionally complex you are to suffer from so many neuroses, depressions, insomnia, etc. and so on. how cooler than to just you drink your V8 and feel healthy. the healthy way carries the stigma of 50s-father-knows-best whereas the sick chic druggie way is a combo of fashionable alienation and 'sex and the city'--or at their more extreme, william burroughs and david cronenberg.

many people take drugs for the same reason they smoke and drink. it's not to get better or to return to health but to posture in the fashionable jungle of alienation. it's a shortcut to emotional complexity just like intellectuals and bohemians smoke 3 packs a day and drink alot of coffee, pretending to be creative and rebellious.

pharmaceutical companies happily encourage this drug chic or sick chic. ours is depraved culture of capitalism gone bonkers. having clothed, fed, and housed everyone, now companies make their money by feeding on our vanity. there's the vanity of health and vanity of sickness. health clubs serve the vanity of health and, as such, do more good than bad. but there is also the vanity of sickness. a lot of people think it's cool to be sick one way or another. we see this is movies. oftentimes, depressed or neurotic people are shown to be more interesting, more serious, more sympathetic, more complex. this may be the case among some creative types, but we know that the vast majority of neurotics are annoying idiots.
we must lay some of the blame on modern psychiatry which is mostly bullshi* and never helped anyone and made problems worse. but of course, the appeal of psychiatry wasn't really the promise of cure but the never ending exploration of one's troubled soul; indeed, a shrink junkie would probably really feel depressed if he no longer had a reason to see a shrink.
seeing a shrink means that you're haunted by some dark, mysterious forces; it makes you feel important and complex, like a great horror film. so, if a dumb person is depressed because he's simply dumb, he can't face this fact and goes to a shrink for some fancier excuse.

one thing has been ignored by both shrinks and their patients. complexes are not complex. they are complications of simple problems. for example, guys wanna be handsome and win the affection fo girls. but, if a guy is ugly, he gets no girls. so, he may develop a sexual complex. this is why woody allen is full of shi*. you'd think his psychological problems are about the meaning of the universe and social injustice around the world when, in fact, the the ONLY reason for his lifelong depression is he's ugly as hell. as such, he never felt very secure. you don't need a shrink to figure this out. all you need is some honesty.

similarly, a lot of people who purport to be sick would be a lot healtheir if they took simple steps but, such steps are deemed suitable only for bumpkins and simpletons. just as intellectual types seek ever weirder and more 'complex' ideas to satisfy their vanity--of being at the cutting edge--while turning their noses at moral sermons that have stood the test of time, modern people feel dependent on the latest drugs to maintain their 'troubled' sanity. concepts of good and evil are too passe for modern philosophers, and concept of health and sickness are similarly passe among modern people. there's a sense that there's no such thing called health, and that we are all sick in one way or another. so, we should all think of ourselves as outpatients.

the internet has made it worse by making everyone do his own research and come off thinking he is afflicted with a whole host of diseases for which he needs this and that drug; since normal health is a myth, we should find ever new drugs and go on taking them forever. this mindset makes the sick even sicker and even makes the healthy sick. every imaginary ache or mood is mistaken--rather proudly--as some illness. how often do conversations go among friends, male or female, 'yeah, now, i'm on this drug, and it's kinda working but it's got some side effects which i'm taking this other drug. i really need this stuff or i can't function'?
we wonder... just how did people do without all these 'necessary' drugs thru history?

and of course, celebrity culture also makes it worse. people not only imitate celebrities in what to wear, drink, and smoke but also in what drug to take. kids not only imitate the illegal drug habits of celebs but also the legal stuff. celebs have made therapy and drug dependency fashionable and glamorous. how we read and hear over and over that this or that celeb has seen a shrink for yrs and yrs or has been on this drug over many yrs.
how often we hear this celeb suffers from this malady and that one suffers from that illness. elvis obviously convinced himself into thinking he needed all those drugs.

in some ways, it's a good thing that we are more open about discussing mental and physical illnesses than in the past. however, it has now reached indecent exposure proportions. how often do we see celebs say they have this or that problem to win sympathy votes and to remain relevant? and, how often do we hear news of celebs who've been hospitalized and put on this medicine or been hospitalized for taking too many prescription drugs. in all these cases, the public comes to associate prescription drug use with fame, fortune, glamour, tragedy, scandal--not a bad word today--, and whatever. to be sure, the tabloid industry which intrudes into the lives of celebrities is more to blame; still, many celebs flaunt their problems in public.

a celeb may rely on some drug because he or she really needs it. but, whenever he or she comes on tv and talks about it, the message the public gets is that it's glamorous and cool to rely on a whole host of drugs.
of course, some celebs publicly speak of how they'd become addicted to all these prescription drugs, broke free from dependence, and caution the public to forgo that route.
still, the underlying message is that this celebrity was able to find new meaning only because he'd been mired in drug dependency. the implication is you gotta get messed up first to find redemption in life. in this sense, the i-overcame-drug-dependency message also glamourizes drug use. similarly, a rock star who advises against drug use has to have gone thru the orgy ordeal. the message is that one must go thru wild orgies and use tons of drugs BEFORE coming back down to ground and finding jesus.

and, of course, there's been a sin chic in christianity as there is a sick chic today. for every christian who truly grapples with his sinfulness, there were others who used sin chic to feel spiritually more complex and deep. confessions can be a ritualized form of spiritual drug addiction. the sinful may savor constantly committing sins and then seeking redemption over and over. the whole committing sin/seeking forgiveness becomes a kind of fetish.

Racially reverse the JENA SIX and guess what?

suppose there's some school where black kids hang around under a tree. suppose blacks keep white kids away from the tree. suppose some white kids complain, and black kids respond by playing anti-white rap music around the tree. suppose a gang of white youths corner a black kid and beat him to a pulp. suppose the black kid is knocked unconscious.

how would blacks, whites, and the national media have responded to this?

when we look at the Jena controversy, i agree that the white jury overreacted. but, does it make sense to turn those black thugs into heroes and martyrs? this is like saying that if a man beats up a woman and is excessively punished by the law, he is a hero and martyr. the man would be a victim of an over zealous prosecution, but would he be a good guy?
what is repulsive about the Jena affair is the black kids have been whitewashed into civil rights martyrs. outrageous.

would this have been the case had the 'Jena Six' been white and the assault victim black? suppose white kids attacked the black kid and were charged with attempted murder and convicted by an all black jury. would the media have cared? would white people have protested and marched? what would have been said by the likes of al sharpton and jesse jackson? they would have said the justice was served.
now, suppose the white kids had been charged fairly--for assault and battery--and been given fair punishment. how would blacks have reacted? i'll bet they would have marched on Jena complaining that the white kids were not punished enough. they would have screamed that the white kids had gotten away with attempted 'lynching'.

we can't properly understand this issue without looking at the underlying racial realities. white people are scared of black people. this is why even when blacks act crazy and beat up or kill whites with utter hatred, white people don't go marching into black neighborhoods. whites are afraid to go into a black community. but, blacks don't fear whites. and, so we have blacks marching into white communities with sharpton leading the charge.

and, there's much more to this issue than what the media give us. for instance, it's a fact that if a bunch of blacks monopolize a street, a corner, a tree, or a park, and defacto declare 'no honkeys allowed', whites will avoid it. if black students at a predominantly black school didn't allow non-blacks to come near a certain tree, no white kid would challenge this unwritten rule. also, whites generally don't wanna go where there are alot of blacks around anyway since blacks tend to be loud, rowdy, aggressive, and crazy.
so, if there's really social injustice, it's that when blacks take over a territory, they threaten and scare everyone else away.

look at howard beach and bensonhurst controversies in NY in the 1980s. though the violence was white-on-black, it was a defensive act on the part of whites when seen in the larger context. in all big cities, whites have been beaten, robbed, raped, and killed by blacks. so, whites just pick up their stuff and flee. so, whites have given up more and more territory to blacks. indeed, entire areas have been handed over completely to blacks. in many cities, there are bigger black areas than white areas. whites never venture into black neighborhoods; whites figure blacks are king there. so, in newly established white communities by white refugees from black madness, whites get awful defensive. white thinking is 'we don't go into your black neighborhood. if we do, we get beat up. but, you negroes not only come into our neighborhood but often come to make trouble'. this reality has been ignored by the national media. but, it's also been unstated by whites who don't wanna sound 'racist' and scared. it hurts white male pride to admit that they've been running from negroes. since whites cannot say they are afraid of negroes, they have no public rationale for not wanting to live with blacks. from the liberal viewpoint, whites are 'racist' for living in largely white areas whereas blacks are 'progressive' because they roam into white areas--for the sake of racial integration? but, this is to miss the point entirely. whites left integrated areas because stronger blacks have beaten up and threatened honkey. and, while many good black people wanna move into white areas for better schools and safer neighborhoods, many blacks wanna move into white areas only to make trouble. sometimes, good negroes come with bad negroes. a decent black family might move in but might invite relatives to move in who are not so nice. black parents might be nice but their kids may be into all that gangsta culture. and so on.

with the jena six issue, we saw all the arguments and initiative on the black side, and none on the white side. it was wrong for white kids to hang nooses, and it was wrong for the prosecution to be overzealous. but, there was no discussion of social or racial context--not even by whites or conservatives. just look at the stats. black on white violence is epidemic. also, no matter how you dice or slice it, a gang of black kids beat up a white kid, not vice versa. also, white kids tried to hold onto that tree because in an ever blackening and hostile environment--where most of the aggression was black--, white kids wanted a place where they can have some peace and quiet. these are poor small town whites. all they could 'afford' was a tree. meanwhile, all these sanctimonious white and jewish liberals who cry 'racism' have much better sanctuary trees--the highrise condos in the affluent parts of the cities where they never have to worry about black crime or aggression. how easy for some liberal millionaire jew living in the posh part of NY to condemn that small town white community. the liberal rich jew is in a position to talk the talk but never walk the walk. his tree is high up in the air in fancy urban area.
this doesn't mean that trees ought to be reserved to a single racial group in any school, and it certainly doesn't justify the actions of those white kids.
BUT, those white kids simply wanted a piece of turf to call their own, where they could have some peace and quiet from the hostile, nasty, and ugly behavior of blacks. these white kids don't have the money to move into nice big suburban mansions or fancy high rise condos as rich liberals do. they don't have the money to buy a second home in the hills of montana or the valleys of colorado like hollywood jews do. nor, can they fly off to the greek isles or to the bahamas where the only black folks that rich liberals encounter are those serving them. these white kids of jena have no money or privilege. the fact is more blacks are moving into town and causing more problems. the fact is in most physical altercations between black kids and white kids, white kids get whupped. this is the context in which white kids sought their own little spot. if black kids had picked their special spot, white kids would not have tried to move into it in fear of blacks. but, blacks don't fear whites. black guys see white guys as pussyass faggot-boys and see white girls as 'white pussy'. unless, we discuss these underlying issues, all this racial talk is bullshit.

by the way, wasn't there a crime case where a bunch of whites were raped, beaten, and murdered by black thugs some place in the south last year? yet, when white rights activists tried to bring attention to that, THEY were called 'racist' or 'race-baiters' by the liberal jewish run media. what white leaders ought to do is to designate the site of the crime as a holy site symbolizing black aggression and brutality against whites. and white people should make pilgrimages to that site and bring it under the media spotlight. and people should hold annual prayers there. and other gruesome sites of black-on-white violence should similarly be sanctified. black leaders have sanctified many sites where blacks were brutalized by whites in the past. since the 60s, the violence has been overwhelmingly black on white. i dare say blacks killed far more whites since the 60s than whites lynched blacks in all of the 20th century.

If Jews can accuse the GOP for pandering to the Christian Right, why can't we accuse Democrats of sucking up to Jewish Left?

Are GOP candidates the puppets of the Christian Right? Whatever the merits of this accusation, the fact is there are many christian right and evangelical people in the US. so, GOP is responding to large number of americans.
what's more alarming is the fact that Democratic candidates are puppets of the Jewish Left. Jews make up only 2% of the population, and not all Jews are leftists. Even many liberal Jews are not leftist. Yet, almost all Democratic candidates are beholden to the interests, agendas, and goals of the Jewish Left. (and, let's not forget that all republicans are beholden to neocon jewish interests).
Why is it okay to discuss Republican candidates in relation to the Christian Right power but impermissible to discuss Democratic candidates in relation to the Jewish Left? To be sure, Jewish Left doesn't portray themselves as Jewish or as being for Jewish causes or values; it can also be argued that the majority of leftists are not Jewish. But, a disproportionate percentage of leftists are Jewish. Also, the main thinkers and leaders of the Leftist movement are Jewish. And, modern leftism is rooted in Jewish culture, thoughts, and traditions. Just open up any leftist magazine, and the majority of its editors and writers are Jewish. To this extent, we must discuss Democratic politics in terms of its link with and dependence--intellectual and financial--on the Jewish Left. Also, it's wrong to think of Jewish leftists are underground radical types. They are just as likely capitalists or entrepreneurs--actually, they are better at business than most Republican Ayn Rand reading types--, and make millions or billions of dollars which they use to fund leftist or liberal agendas. If Karl Marx were alive today, he'd be a high priced university professor teaching children of the upper class or a Hollywood mogul raking in billions by selling us mindless junk and using that revenue to support leftwing causes.

Indeed, it's sad that most leftist Jews are better at business than most conservative goyim who babble on and on about free trade and so on. I take it there are more liberals than conservatives among the rich. I'd say there are more rich folks among leftist jews than among the rightwing christian types who've bought into low taxes and free trade which actually favors the economic interests of liberal jewish rich. your average liberal jew is much richer than your average conservative christian. anti-capitalist jews are better at business and earn more than pro-capitalist christians.