Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Pat Buchanan bemoans the threat of Islamic Terror. European Warriors should see it as an Inspiration.

http://buchanan.org/blog/the-forever-war-127150

See it this way. Terrorists are doing the job white patriots won’t do.

What did it take Vietnamese to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

What did it take Algerians to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

UK should be filled with Brit Cong. They should be using ‘any means necessary’ to deal with collaborators and invaders. But they are addicted to globopium of hedonism, debauchery, and mammon. They are so addicted to fun, homo-decadence, and afro-jive — the culture went from the Twist to the Twerk — that they won’t come to their senses.

So, it seems the ONLY EFFECTIVE fight against globalism is coming from the Muslims. This is ironic since it was globalism that made it possible for Muslims to end up in Europe in huge numbers. Still, Muslims are throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of globalism and messing it up. That’s something.

Just think about it. If Muslims really are globalist and want to take over the West, they should not be doing terror. They should just smile and pretend to be nice. That will have a disarming effect on cucked out Europeans who welcome their own racial and cultural demise. So, No Terrorism is actually better for globalism and non-white takeover of the West.

But these Muslims carry out acts of terror that is making native people think twice about the globalist project. Europeans are now so cucked and defenseless that they don’t mind mass invasion of their own nations by foreigners as long as foreigners take on homomania, slut culture, and jungle fever.
Indeed, you don’t see any objection to black African immigration since whites are all into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, and white men are totally cool with white wombs hatching mulattoes than white kids.

As it stands, most Europeans don’t mind the browning of Europe. They don’t mind ACOWW. They don’t mind non-whites becoming majorities. All they want is for non-whites to accept homomania. And blacks and Asians accept homomania.
The ONLY people who resist it are certain kinds of Muslims. Also, Muslims are the ONLY ones who resist and denounce Slut Culture and Filth. Yes, yes, I know there are Muslim rape gangs and such, but they aren’t acting religiously. They are just horny men of Muslim background who are just overly ‘boing’. Islam has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, White Europe now worships Diversity and wants its nations to become majority non-white. White Europe worships homomania, slut culture, feminism, and hedonism. And black Africans and Asians easily assimilate to that culture, so they are welcomed by whites. Many black Africans fail economically, but they have no problem with current ‘Western Values’ that are mostly derived from homo celebration, rap music and black sports, slut feminism, and etc.
As for Christianity, Catholic Church is led by Poop Francis who’s for open borders and is probably a closet-homo. And most European churches are empty or celebrate homos. Many have black Africans as clerics. Pop music and Hollywood movies are uppermost on the menu of European elites when it comes to culture.

The ONLY effective force that wages any kind of war on this globalism is the Muslims. Now, the Muslim agenda isn’t the same as that of white nationalists, BUT both have the common enemy of the decadent globalists.
This is why it makes no sense for white nationalists to denounce Muslim terror in their pathetic 'white-knighting' of homos, cucks, sluts, interracists, and degenerates. Those very people denounce white nationalists and call for more immigration-invasion and replacism. They call for more homomania, even the forcing of churches to bend over to homo degeneracy. They call for raising white girls to jungle fever rap and black sports and submitting to ACOWW.
These globalists are the worst enemies of white nationalists. So, if white nationalists don’t have the will to deal with that scum, they should at least enjoy the spectacle of Muslim terrorists apply the wrecking ball to globalism. I mean, who’d care if terrorists blew up Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Corbyn, May, Khan, Cold Play(they did some good songs though), U2(they had some good songs long ago), and etc?

Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. At any rate, national liberation comes only through violence. Just look at the American Revolution. And look at Algerian War of Independence. Algerians didn’t smile goofily like Nigel Farage.

Muslims, you’re doing great work. Keep it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8kiFho7DM

https://youtu.be/f_N2wyq7fCE?t=24m54s

By the way, this ‘war’ isn’t about religion. After all, Malaysians are not attacking the West. Indonesians aren’t doing it either. Even Iranians are not doing it because Iran hasn’t been invaded and torn asunder by Western Imperialism like Iraq or Libya.

This is the result of the chaos created by Wars for Israel directed by the US against the Muslim World. To be sure, it goes back to the Cold War when the West decided to arm Jihadis against communism. One thing that the US realized was that Islam is a powerful force against secular communism. After all, East Asia fell easily to communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.
Confucianism was no match. But communism was stopped cold in Indonesia, a Muslim nation. Communism also made inroads into Catholic Latin America. It came to power in Cuba and Nicaragua. It had powerful footholds in other Latin American nations even if they failed to take power. Communism also took over some African nations: Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola.

But almost no Islamic nation turned communist even though there were some Marxist-Muslim organizations. Communism was like a new religion, and it seemed to be on the move around the world. It seemed to have messianic fervor. Against it, native reactionary values and American pop culture seemed to offer nothing compelling. After all, the Spartan Marxists in Vietnam won out over Coca Cola US imperialism in Vietnam.
Even though capitalism is ultimately the more productive system, it takes time for capitalist economies to grow and come together. In contrast, communism allows for instant totalitarian unity and power. This was why North Vietnam had the advantage over South Vietnam. If South Vietnam could have been secured for several decades, it could have developed a capitalist economy that could have produced sufficient wealth and arms to defend itself from the North. But in the short term, the totalitarian north was more united and disciplined than the south. Likewise, North Korea could have defeated South Korea until 1985 even though South had double the population and more wealth. North had greater unity and discipline. Capitalism needs time to produce enough wealth and productivity so that it can afford a military that can defend itself.

Anyway, there was a time when the US really did fear the messianic power of communism. And they feared nations would fall to communism one by one all over the world. Communism offered a simple idea, something like a modern gospel.
In contrast, the US offered money, but money was without values or meaning. It was mercenary and even demoralizing. Power and loyalty based on money meant lack of true conviction and abandonment of the fight once the money stopped flowing
US stood for ‘democracy’, but in third world nations, it caused more problems of dissension, corruption, and chaos as they lacked the rule of law and trust culture. Also, democracy allowed leftist subversives to operate. So, democracy became risky, and the US ended up backing right-wing autocracies. But this was bad for America because it got associated with unsavory figures like Pinochet and Somoza.

But the US realized that Islam was one force that will NOT cower to communism. Islam was a powerful spiritual, as well as political, force. It knocked out US puppet in Iran. This alarmed the US, but it also gave the US an idea, especially as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened at the same time. If Islam is powerful enough to topple the Shah, it is powerful enough to mess up Soviet Union in Afghanistan. USSR would have its own Vietnam. And the US proved to be right.
US couldn’t do much with Bay of Pigs because the mercenary Cuban exiles were unpopular in Cuba. Also, Castro’s brand of national-Marxism had messianic power in Cuba. In contrast, the Mujahadeen, though cruel and barbaric, were also tough and heroic. They were willing to risk all and fight like hell, like Zealots against the Romans. Also, their David-vs-Goliath struggle inspired many Muslims from other nations to join the Jihad. And as USSR was then close to India, it gave Pakistan a chance to play a key role as an Islamic leader against godless communism.

So, radical Islamism all started there. But why did the Afghan War prove to be far more problematic than the Iranian one? One reason is Iran is Shia, which makes it relatively isolated as a Muslim power since most Muslim nations are Sunni. Also, the war with Iraq made Iran focus mostly on its next-door foe than anything else. Also, Iranian Revolution, despite its internationalist outreach, was essentially a domestic affair. It was Islamic Nationalism. After all, the Iranian Revolution was made entirely by Iranians themselves. Also, as Persians are an advanced people, they maintained a modern society despite some of the Islamic fervor and craziness. They were not like Taliban crazies or Wahabi extremists. Also, it had taken a short time for the Muslims in Iran to topple the Shah and take power.Victory came relatively quickly once the mass revolt took hold across cities.

In contrast, it took a long bitter war in Afghanistan, and this had a further radicalizing effect as war makes men more bitter and ruthless. Also, as Afghanis are a backward people, they had no means to create a modern society like Iran. Also, the Afghani struggle soon became an pan-Islamic struggle and attracted Jihadis from all over, not least from Saudi Arabia, the financier and sponsor of extreme Islamic ideology. So, Afghanistan proved to be the training and breeding ground for the Jihadis that would come to define so much of the Muslim world after the Cold War.

Now, if the US hadn't meddled in the Gulf War, there would be no Jihadis messing up Middle East. Sure, there would be some terrorists and extremists, but most of them would be kept under wraps by ruthless regimes of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and etc. Even though all such regimes, like US and Israel, lent a hand to terrorists, none of them tolerated terrorists within their own borders. So, things were mostly kept under check.

But the Gulf War fatally weakened Hussein in Iraq, and then sanctions weakened it further.
Still, Hussein was in power to keep things in order. So, terrorists couldn’t run freely in Iraq.
But US made a fatal mistake. After the Gulf War, it placed US troops in Saudi Arabia, and this pissed off Muslims, especially those who’d been battle-hardened and radicalized in the hell-fire of Afghanistan. So, allies turned enemies. US that had aided the Jihadis in Afghanistan found itself at war with them. Now, if Afghanis had defeated the USSR on their own, it wouldn’t have mattered. Afghanis didn’t much care if US were in Saudi Arabia or not. But because Afghanis won with the aid of foreign Jihadis, they got pulled into the global conflict. As a token of appreciation, Afghanistan opened itself to foreign Jihadis since they’d fought in the Afghan War against the USSR. Afghanis didn’t know that Osama and others of his ilk were plotting global war from the hills of Afghanistan.

9/11 happened, and the US entered Afghanistan. Even at that point, the horror could have been contained. All the US needed to do was flush out terrorists and Jihadis in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Also, Iran and other nations were willing to help. Syria helped too. Not only did they fear the ire of the US but they too had no use for extreme Sunni terrorists. During the Afghan-Soviet War, those Jihadis had their hands full fighting the Russkies.
But after the war, they still had trigger-finger and were looking to serve a cause. It’s like German military men after WWI still looking for a fight. So, when US decided to flush out Jihadis in Afghanistan, most Muslim nations were relieved. Better that than have those Jihadis come to their own nations and start trouble.

But then, the real craziness happened. Zionists figured they could use 9/11 to wage Wars for Israel and reset things in the Middle East. Maybe US could topple existing regimes, prop up puppet ‘democratic’ regimes, and make the Middle East a vassal of the US. But the Iraq War went horribly. Absent Hussein and Baath Party networks, the nation spiraled into chaos. The US invasion threw out the baby with the Baath Party. Iraq soon turned into a haven of terrorists. And contrary to US expectations, the new democratic regime in Iraq grew closer to Iran than to the US.
US had intended to take out Iraq as a first step toward taking out Iran, but it only strengthened Iran. And this pissed off Jews almighty. So, Jews had to cook up some new scheme to mess things up. Jews kept on stirring up hysteria about Iran nukes to push sanctions to cripple the Iranian economy. And then, under Obama, the US exploited Arab Spring to encourage mass revolts that led to social chaos and civil wars in Libya and Syria.
And it was then that the US and its allies aided the Jihadis to run wild.
Unlike Afghan Jihadis who were romanticized as heroes, martyrs, and freedom-fighters by the US Media in the 1980s, the new Jihadis couldn’t be openly supported. They were Alqaeda remnants, and despite American amnesia, people still remember 9/11 = Alqaeda. Also, ISIS was worse. As ISIS terror was shown all over the internet, it was impossible to spin them as good guys. So, the US couldn’t support them directly. But like the neo-Nazis in Maidan in Ukraine, these crazy Jihadis were useful in messing up Libya and Syria, especially if some of them were, time and time again, spun as 'moderate rebels'.

Though ostensibly modern, civilized, and urbane, the Jewish Supremacist elites in the US are no less radical, zealous, ruthless, and vicious in their animus, vendetta, and deviousness. As supporters of Israeli Supremacism in the Middle East and US globalist supremacy(as US power is now synonymous with Jewish power), the Jewish Supremacist elements in the US will do ANYTHING to further their interests. They may be modern but they have ancient tribal blood flowing in their veins. They are like cosmopolitan Zealots. It’s like their use of ‘gay rights’. It’s not just tolerance for homos but something to be shoved up everyone’s ass.. or you shall be stoned for ‘homophobia’!

Terrorists in the West are the result of the total mess in the Middle East stemming from Cold War against communism in which Muslims proved to be especially useful. And then, after the Cold War, Islamic radicalism that had been encouraged during the Afghan War was made even more rabid by Wars for Israel: Gulf War and Iraq War.
And it was under Obama that the Jews figured out a way to use this Jihadi terror AGAINST nations hated by Jews. Under Bush II, the plan was for the US to take out Arab tyrants under the cover of fighting terrorists and replace them with democratic puppets(brought to power by US money). But it didn’t turn out that way. US got rid of Hussein but got mobbed with Jihadi problem 100x worse than in Afghanistan. So, Jewish power got bitten by Jihadi madness.

But under Obama, Jews got clever and figured out a way to direct Jihadi violence against the Arab tyrants hated by Jews. And the opportunity came with Arab Spring. While Arab Spring unleashed genuine populist demand for reforms, things soon spiraled out of control to the point where the Arab world faced one of three options: (1) Free elections and rise of Muslim regimes, like for a time in Egypt. But did Jews want Muslim Brotherhood to take over every Arab nation? (2) Existing regimes remaining in power by crushing populist politics. But this would mean regimes hated by Jews, such as Assad in Syria, would still remain in power. (3) Total war where Jihadis would be running amok and setting back modern Arab nations 30 yrs. Jews figured #3 was the best bet, and the result is Libya and Syria.

Though terror attacks in the West are unpleasant, they are mere ripples of the true horrors that were unleashed in the Middle East by US globalist meddling.
But this sort of thing happens all over. Consider what happened to the American South when the North upended the old order. Blacks were suddenly freed, and white southerners lived in fear because more muscular and bigger-donged Negroes were acting wild like in D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION. The chaos led to the rise of KKK that committed acts of terror and counter-terror. And US and Vietnamese meddling in Cambodia led to fall of Sihanouk and rise of Khmer Rouge. And the Japanese invasion into China gave a huge opening to Mao and his radical band of brothers.

So, how about leaving nations alone?

Anyway, the West is now being invaded and taken over. If most whites are hapless cucks, Europe will turn into big Morocco and US will turn into Brazil. And Canada and Australia will turn into India-China. But if whites wake up and want to take back their nations, they must become like Viet Cong. There is no other way. There is something to learn from the terrorists. Though their ways are crude and ugly, war is cruel and ugly, and a nation in danger can only be saved through war.

Would the Irish have gained independence without terror?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1pkbe29910

Ireland is now under greater threat than ever before. Irish minds are infected with globalist virus that makes Irish want to be demographically taken over by Africans and ruled by a homo hindu.
In some ways, mental colonization under national freedom is more dangerous than foreign military occupation. When Ireland was ruled by Brits, the potatoheads knew they were under foreign British rule.
But because Ireland is now independent and free, the Irish are blind to how their minds have been colonized and infected by globalism that tricks them into believing that Ireland is a ‘nation of immigrants’ whose destiny is for Irish women to have black babies under the leadership of a hindu into homo fecal penetration. With their minds infected with PC globalism, they think they are FREELY choosing this radical transformation of their own nation when, in fact, they are acting against national interest under the program of mental virus spread by globalism.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

'Minority Rights' means Different things to Minority Elites and Minority Underclass. To Minority Elites, it means the Right to Rule. To Minority Underclass, it means struggle for equality.

There are different meanings to ‘minority rights’.
We must ask, what kind of minority are we talking about, and what is meant by ‘rights’?

After all, both British imperialist elites and the Untouchables were minorities in India.
But whereas one minority, the Brits, was at the top, the other minority, the Untouchables, was at the bottom.

For the British imperialists, ‘minority rights’ meant the right to rule over Hindu(and Muslim) masses.
For the Untouchables, ‘minority rights’ would have meant the humble hope of having the same protections under the law as other Indians.

A similar confusion of meaning troubles the Current West.

In US and UK, Jews are the ruling minority or the minority elites. (Homos also belong to this group.) But Mexicans, many blacks, and many immigrant groups are either part of the minority underclass or minority ordinary folks; they have no special power or out-sized ambitions & expectations. Asians do better academically & economically than most other immigrant groups, but their dim sense of identity and servile attitude don't translate to much power. Even in Hawaii where they are the majority, they lack political or cultural vigor.

So, ‘minority rights’ means different things to Jews and to other minorities. For Jews, it means the right to rule over US & UK and make demands & dictate policy.
Old ‘antisemitism’ use to mean denial of basic rights and liberties for Jews. New ‘antisemitism’ means any kind of challenge(no matter how justified) to the Jewish supremacist right to rule over goyim.
And something similar is operative with homo politics. ‘Gay rights’ used to mean the tolerance of allowing homos be homo and do their own thing without persecution. Now, ‘gay rights’ means we must admire, celebrate, and worship homos as angels and even change marriage laws to appease the Great Holy Homo. It means those who mock or deride the so-called LGBT community, culture, lifestyle, or agenda must be denounced as suffering from a 'phobia' and be blacklisted.
And we must even put homo stuff in churches. It’s as if homos have some divine right to be admired and adulated. In all big cities, it is the mandatory for all politicians and 'respectable' citizens to sing hosannas to homos and trannies. Indeed, people mustn’t even joke about someone as ridiculous as Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner. (In the UK, a criminal investigation is under way to hunt the man who cursed out precious Brucie.)

Now, there are other minorities that also demand special favors. Blacks demand affirmative action, and Mexicans demand affirmative immigration(amnesty). But many blacks and Mexicans are on the bottom looking up. Their hope is to reach the middle. (To be sure, too many blacks just fantasize about being sports stars or rappers, goals out of reach for most blacks, but then, blacks are stupid.) But even if blacks and browns demand special favors, they won’t amount to much and will never gain elite power in the West. Historically, all they could hope for was equality(and then some) under the law.

In contrast, equality of any kind isn’t good enough for Jews(and homos) anymore. For them, ‘rights’ means something closer to ‘divine right to rule’. Jews are now addicted to supremacism and won't settle for anything less. But this makes Jews nervous since it is natural for the masses to resent and challenge the ruling elites, especially if of another racial, ethnic, and/or religious identity. Jews are different from gentiles both ethnically and religiously. This makes Jews nervous because they make natural targets of the critics of power and populist passions. So, to morally shield their power, Jews associate themselves with minorities who are relatively powerless. Since immigrant groups are always on the bottom and just starting out(and making the social climb), they are seen as powerless and marginalized. So, Jews associate with immigrants as 'fellow minorities'. This way, Jewish minority supremacist power is morally sanctified in association with the 'huddled masses' of recent arrivals who presumably need protection from the native populist mobs and nationalist 'xenophobes'. By posturing as noble defenders and champions of newly arrived minority immigrants, Jewish minority supremacist elites pose with(and even as) the 'powerless'. It's like the desperate alliance of the minority Afrikaner minority elite and the Inkatha Freedom Party in Apartheid South Africa. Even though whites were at the top and Inkatha party members were on the bottom, they were both minorities, racial or political, faced with the challenge of the ANC party supported by the great majority of blacks.

It’d be like British Imperialist Elites in India siding with the Untouchables as ‘fellow minorities’ against the ‘bigoted’ and ‘populist’ masses of Hindus and Muslims.
Imagine if the British ruling minority elite had made overtures to the Untouchables, the underclass minority, and claimed common victim-hood as ‘fellow minorities’ regardless of the fact that Brits are the master race minority whereas Untouchables are the marginalized underclass minority. That would have been pretty amusing.
But then, there were times when the Brits did use the Minority Issue to justify their rule over India. In Richard Attenborough’s movie GANDHI, the British ruling minority presents itself as guarantors of the Muslim minority from the Hindu majority that may potentially become oppressive once India gains independence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZVsWzIb6Vk

Thankfully for India, it had a leader of Gandhi’s caliber who was witty, shrewd, and devious enough to match wits like a lawyer with the British. (He would have made Professor Kingsfield of PAPER CHASE proud.) Too bad the West lacks such leaders with just the right combination of cleverness and resolve.

Back then, the British Imperialists claimed that India was ‘British’.
Now, the bloody fools in UK say immigrant-invaders are the ‘New British’.

Gandhi urged Indians not to cooperate until the British minority elites left.
Maybe white Europeans can do something similar. The strategy of mass non-cooperation and civil disobedience.
Since overt resistance has been banned by the PC state, whites can force their will through massive non-cooperation. But then, so many whites have been led to believe that Diversity is sacrosanct and that return to nationalism is unacceptable since the truest expression of Europe is spicy exotic restaurants and jungle fever with Negroes. (Interestingly enough, Brexit won in UK because of older voters, but Macron won in France with older voters, 80% of whom chose him over Marine Le Pen.)

The future of Europe will be determined by whether it can produce leaders like Gandhi, Mao, Lenin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Castro, T. E. Lawrence, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, DeGaulle, and maybe Putin(as fate of Russia is still uncertain). While some of those men were pathological and dangerous, they could play politics on the grandest scale. When a civilization is faced with an 'existential' crisis, it calls out for visionaries and prophets, not technocrats, paper-shufflers, and wine-sippers.

Run-of-the-mill 'leaders' won’t do. The current heads of state in Europe are not leaders but spineless followers of globalist oligarchs. Just look at Justin Trudeau the Man-Child cuck of the Jewish donors. Why did the people vote for such people? Because Jews control media & academia and infected so many white minds with nothing but PC and Pop Culture. 'Celebristianity' is the neo-religion of the West.

If Europe keeps producing nonentities like Merkel, Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Blair, Cameron, May, Berlusconi, and even Farage, it’s finished. Things are getting serious, and it will take real visionaries of wit and grit who can take the shit.

As for nationalists, the likes of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and others won’t do. (The exception may be Viktor Orban.) They are too much part of the system(despite disapproval from the ruling elites) and unable or unwilling for bold action under current rules that are totally rigged by media, academia, and deep state.
Trump made it in the US, but he is not a serious man. He’s a showman and salesman, and he can’t be counted on to do much that really matters.

Also, as long as enough white people are comfortable and satiated with bread & circuses and mentally infected with PC for the time being, it's difficult to shake them out of their doldrums.

If Europe is to be saved, it will require the rise of truly remarkable individuals with the power to inspire, lead, and forever alter the trajectory of history.

------------------------

Extreme times call for powerful personalities.

The threat that Europe faces is the greatest ever. Past wars and repressions were horrible, but WWI and WWII were still about white Europe. So, even after millions died, it was the same white Europe. And as bad as communism was, it didn’t change the demographics in most commie nations.

But now, it is different. Not only is Europe being colonized physically by foreign masses but European minds have been PC-colonized to ‘welcome’ this as a good thing.

We need a new set of leaders and rulers who can eradicate the mental virus from European minds and purge them of this ‘guilt’ and ‘fever’. Indeed, the task is daunting because whites welcome mass invasion not only out of ‘white guilt’ but because of ‘afro-fever’, aka jungle fever. European women are turning into sexual deserters who are offering their wombs to millions of African men who are storming the beaches of Europe. As African birthrate is 6 or 7 children per women and since EU has a policy of ‘saving’ millions of self-stranded Negroes in the sea, the demographic and sexual math for Europe is horrible.

White minds are colonized by Jewish PC, white lands are colonized by Third World mobs, white males bodies are brutalized by stronger Negro men, and white females’ wombs are colonized by Negro seeds. It is White Nakba.

In Jewish history, there were two kinds of cleansers: prophets and warriors. Prophets cleansed Jewish minds of the virus of pagan idolatry and reminded them of the Covenant with God. And the warriors took up arms to do battle with enemies of Jews. (The third kind of Jews were diplomats who used wit and cunning to seek an understanding with rivals, enemies, or overlords of Jews.)

Anyway, unless warriors have vision and conviction, they are mere mercenaries. In order for white knights to rise, white souls must be cleansed and purged of the PC virus of guilt-and-fever.
It’s like Islam has two meanings of ‘Jihad’. One means to do physical combat against infidel, but there is another meaning that says souls must be cleansed of infidel ideas and images.

In the present, even if great white leaders were to rise, majority of white masses will curse them and denounce them since their minds have been infected with the crazy idea that ‘racism’ is the greatest sin when, in fact, race-ism is the noblest creed.