Just an old anecdote. I happened to be summoned to this week-long conference thing where we were discussing, let's say cultural health issues. And there were central presentations and breakout sessions and poorly fostered lunch groups and a nearby shitty bar that had local character identical to the local character of all local bars in America--that sort of thing.
Anyway, to practice engagement (sic) and speech-making (sic) and other such stuff, we were encouraged to pick a controversial topic and discuss it in front of a breakout session for, let's say, 5 minutes--whatever it was, it was just to practice engagement and outreach, and to promote diversity, and challenge traditional mores, and all that.
Now, my breakout session had an interesting feature, in that our overseer was this really degree- and field-distinguished black guy. And he was perfect because, in his innocent, good-faith way, he actually believed in everything they said about diversity, meaning that when people told him to respect minority opinions, unpopular perspectives, and so forth, he actually did so, bless his soul. He couldn't read between the lines, so if presented with dangerous statistics, he would've innocently, sweetly, pure-heartedly, unknowingly pissed off the People That Must Not Be Named, and he would have criticized the wrong things about western imperialism, and he would've supported the right to free speech of the wrong groups. You know the type--or maybe not, since they tend to keep those black guys out of the spotlight in favor of people who just repeat, and don't do independent thinking that might lead to dangerous conclusions--but he was a type. And he had that shield, since he was foreign-born, and had a cool accent and language skills and foreign citizenships/residencies that made him personally extra-protected from the touchy field he'd been made to serve.
He hadn't accomplished anything to become respected in his field, other than co-authoring some studies and publishing some grad-student-edited transcripts of his conversations with impoverished people of color in certain areas...he wasn't one of those dynamic public speakers who could really work an audience, so he was considered a brilliant researcher and soft-spoken field genius, and wasn't one of those tokens that they trot out at big talks just to be personable. He had some good lived experience with the stuff we were supposed to actually be talking about, which of course made him dangerous, but he was so sweet and good-natured and honest that, if told by powerful people that caring about intra-tribal prejudice inside a small village was important, he would research it for three years to the exclusion of everything else, and thereby present no systematic danger to anyone, but only help them out even though his honesty made him require careful boundaries. You know the type.
But none of that came into play. Not a Jew was mentioned the entire conference, so far as I know, except that, of course, they were in the background as funders and hosts and a third of the speakers in a town with an ultra-majority of whites, blacks, and east Asians, with a smattering of Hispanics. But they weren't subjects for discussion and no one, so far as I ever discovered, ever brought this up or discussed what it meant. So other than the omnipresence of situational establishment, this isn't about Jews at all.
So there's distinguished breakout session leader showing his thirty minutes of graphs and sharing his moderately-delivered anecdotes about hunger being one of the most basic medical issues people face in some parts of the world. And he was incredibly good-naturedly feminist, of course, so he's regularly interrupting things to re- and re-explain them for the benefit of the ladies in the room, who were sure that his anecdotes contained examples of patriarchal repression but couldn't see it, and he explained how they were missing it and how it was there.
And then it's controversy time, coupled with some stories about how great free speech is and how it's not respected like it should be and so forth, and people are supposed to come up one by one and talk for five minutes. Up they come, one by one, this room full of quietly awed rich white people, from teenagers going for credit to people in their fifties there to still be part of it. One by one, they give their little talks. And the black session leader is quiet, positive, and respectful, but even his patience has its limits, and after several of the talks, he mentions/hints, "That was very good, but, it's not exactly controversial, and we try to address controversy..." No one got the hint. And they didn't need to, because this guy was so polite he gave full consideration to their viewpoints, probably asking himself "Has this never been approached from this angle before?" even when the person was talking about the same dolphin-related tragedy that had been in the news for the past week. After one of the two people who mentioned the damned dolphins, I did a tentative "What about war, isn't that worse than dolphin fisheries?" and that was the wrong thing to say, but thankfully a woman in the room was itching to repeat some story she'd heard about sexism in India and she used me as a jumping-off point, so I didn't have to appear to defend the dolphin-killers for very long.
On it goes. Person after person keeps standing at the lectern and saying something in a paper they've all read about handwashing practices in the Sahara and how tests on bathroom door handles in subways in London and America were actually equal to or worse than in Johannesburg and rural South Africa (this was before current rapefugee news, it'll probably be a different set of commentators who trots out that data the next time it becomes pseudo major), and everyone agreed that everyone was agreeable and informed and was going to go back to work next week and help everyone understand how agreeable everyone had been that agreeing about health should be a top priority I know like seriously? Someone else talks about how mud is actually good for the skin and Americans overwash and yet again the poor elder black session leader is mildly, inoffensively distraught that this isn't a controversial subject and yes Target sells too much hand lotion and they don't do that so much in Offrick-uh and yes that is a good point thank you Miss Brown. So my turn comes and I do my little AIDS death thing and the Koch's postulates problem with HIV and the death rates matching drug rates in the west but matching lack of antibiotics in the third world. Not in a detailed way, but in the gentlest, question-asking-est way possible.
...brother, you should've seen that room full of white people react. They were offended. They were god-damned offended, you, you idiot! And they were offended on behalf of--you already know what I'm going to say, probably, but I'll say it anyway--they were offended on behalf of Africa! Would I, tell me, would I look into the faces of people whose family members had died of AIDS and tell them it was really just TB and could've been avoided by a twenty-cent vaccine, and that it wasn't really the result of a failure to properly purchase and employ western condoms? Would I? Would I dare suggest that septic blood infections in villages with no sewage plants and wells drawing from groundwater near watering holes and industrial dump sites were related to environmental contaminants and not to a slut-shaming culture that caused prostitution (sic) in West Africa? Would I?!?!?!
You know the thing. Thirty-odd white people from upper middle class backgrounds, one unlucky Chinese man who wants the hell out of that insane room, and in this commonplace circumstance, black session leader finally has controversy, so he stands up and gives everyone a lecture about diversity of viewpoints. He doesn't really get my point; he thinks it relates to African warlords who claim either that AIDS is a western biological weapon, or that AIDS drugs should be free of charge. So no, he doesn't get the point at all. But he faces down that entire room of educated rich white people whose emotions are high, and he repeats the platitudes the conference is supposedly about, and he asks me to clarify some things that I said, and even though he doesn't really understand my answers (he keeps thinking I'm advocating for some form of drug subsidy), he never gets on that bandwagon.
He can't stop the bandwagon. Those white people were mad. Mad, and shocked, and upset, and put-out; indignant, offended, and perhaps even maudlin. And when I didn't just disappear from existence, and when the black guy didn't join them and drive me from the room, but instead repeated all the epithets about openness and acceptance that only he actually believed in, those white people desperately needed each other for support. I'm sure that a couple people got offered new jobs in that room, and I'm even more sure that a marriage or maybe two was arranged, over-achieving only-children became a gleam in their parents' eyes, and several people resolved to never again question their pharmaceutical rep because there were nuts like me out there.
The end result was by no means rational. As one would expect, the mob had to pay lip service to the black man's call for compassion and acceptance. So I got to sit down and hope no one remembered my name. And the group ended up compromising with the black session leader: maybe our greedy refusal to give Pfizer more billions for a better equipped private army to more reliably ship incredibly expensive immunosuppressants to African children suffering from common infectious diseases was the cause of AIDS.
I don't mention this to talk about AIDS, or to regale blacks. Getting homosexuals to cut back on amyl nitrates, correspondingly embrace earlier incontinence, and take weaker immunosuppressants, has made "AIDS" less deadly and more consistently profitable, but that's not the point. Similarly, "Bill Gates" and his tribe are already stealing billions from working taxpayers in order to ensure Pfizer's mercenaries have free reign to inject expensive crap into a growing pool of African children, and the Africans who want to be involved in overseeing the onsite administration of those treatments are seemingly content in their lot. Like most everyone who's read about how dangerous and lifesaving butter is, viewed with concern an analysis of weapons independently developed by Arabs, or been to an AMA-approved seminary, everyday Africans seem to lack the powers of literalness to comprehend that restoring the immune system by destroying the immune system does not compute. They know something's wrong with the whole scheme--bless them, for unlike the Nu Euros, they can tell that something is wrong with the entire narrative--but they can't explain it specifically. Or maybe they can, and we're just not allowed to see it--some have tried, and they tend to be marginalized by the skewls and the media, who prefer to raise a distracting hubbub over the ones who accuse AIDS of being an actual viral condition manufactured by the African breeding program known as the U.S., or an example of Pfizer not sending them enough free supplies. And that's okay; if that's what you like, go with it.
The more important point here is not the "controversial issue," but the particular ways in which Nu Euros bandwagon-up. Their ideology is of powerful importance to them, but it's not even an honest ideology. My anecdote merely colored, for me, the way in which they have always banded up against blacks who don't conform to their notions of what blacks should be. In standard racialist or pathogen theory, the Jews have exploited whites' tendencies toward out-grouping non-contributors to cause them to harm themselves at the expense of hostile out-groups, which benefits Jews. If so, though, why is white contempt toward non-conforming blacks so strong? What's that one that they all hate...Thomas Sowell, the conservative one. And they get mad at Arab women who speak against Islam (even if they are unaware that those women often recognize problems with Judaism/Jews also). The expressions of amazement I heard after my own breakout session with the black dude session leader--that a black dude would actually believe such inhumane stuff, when formerly they had been in awe of his being-there-ness and his black-ness--were vulgar. They blurted how dumb and ignorant some people were. I don't see this need for blacks of a certain model as being something specifically instilled by blacks, by Jews, or by any other group. Capitalized upon, certainly, but not created from scratch.
What makes the Nu Euros so broken that they'll kill themselves to benefit blacks, cheer lectures where blacks tell them they suck and should die, but boo and hiss at blacks who tell them that sometimes blacks are a problem and sometimes whites are okay? Nu Euros do that toward Asians who admire their civilizations, also. The lack seems to predate Jewish influence, for without that lack, Jewish influence wouldn't have been possible. The Boomers were wretched, yes, but they were parented by people who would raise Boomers, and who would massacre Japan and Germany in order to make the world safe for the hypocritical Boomer multikult. And the people who would raise such people, who would allow them to do such things~ And so on. We've discussed this before, in Rapespawn Kult and The Forgotten Dead, how the Nu Euro's sickness ("could have") originated, and how, on a larger time scale, all of us standalones here will pass on in the creation of the terminal society (see Mass Market Evolution). A pathology requires a pathogen, and without a pathogen, it's possible Nu Euros could work this out; could, somehow, survive. The pathogen, though, waits to serve a purpose, and that purpose is ultimately ours as much as it is the pathogen's. The Balrins as they are here will not design moon-rockets, and the Barians as they are here will not suddenly become a collective immortality.