Yep. This is the word (shameless) I’ve been using myself concerning their behavior.

One basic rule I use is – No guilt, No growth.

Meaning, if you don’t have a healthy sense of guilt, or shame, when you have done something wrong, you never grow spiritually because you can never admit you are wrong. The only group of people in the history of the world even remotely interested in Spiritual Growth are Whites. Everyone else is pretty much interested in Blind Obedience to pre-established customs, beliefs, and social norms.

I’ll never forget once while working in NYC there were four of us hanging around the cafeteria, during the night shift, shootin’ the breeze. There was one Chinese, one Italian, an Irishman (me), and one Jew. The Italian and Chinese fellas got along famously and were always making jokes about each other, in a kind of boyish, but fun-natured way. It was clear that they were just two co-workers who got along really well and one of the ways they communicated was to take jabs at each other.

I never once got the impression there was ever any hard feelings.
Anyway, they were both joking about how cheap they both were and the Chinese guy just out with it tried to include the Jewish guy but was getting a cool response.

“Ah, come on! I can admit it! I’m Chinese, we’re cheap!”

The Italian guy said the same thing and soon both of them were at the guy trying to get him to admit that Jews are cheap. No go. He just said, “Ask him,” referring to me.

To which I replied, “Cheap? We’re too poor to be cheap.”

The other guys laughed but the Jewish guy looked like he was either going to burn a hole through the newspaper he was conspicuously reading or just explode. I remember him never looking at us during most of the whole exchange.

I always thought this guy was going to tell on the others, and me (for just being a non-Jewish participant, by simply being there). But I found out later that this guy even annoyed the other Jews. The other Jews, on the other hand, would often say disarming things like, “I’m a Jew, I’m a complainer.” Or, “I’m a Jew, I’m cheap.”

But I found out later that this was merely a way of appearing honest, so they could use it to be dishonest in other regards. In short, if they said it about themselves it was them being honest. If we said it about them it was us being anti-Semitic.

Fact is, both ways are dishonest, and equally shameless.

There is another category of Hitlers: those hated by non-Jews who try to use the moral standards and debate parameters established by Jews against Jews. Hence the claims that Israel and its wholly-owned assets Bush and Obama are “like Hitler” too.

For Jews, morality is simple: they are the absolute good; everything that is for them is good in a derivative sense; everything against them is evil. Hitler, their most principled and dangerous opponent (so far) is therefore the personification of absolute evil.

Jews do not, however, see an angle in proclaiming their moral outlook in full to the gentiles, because their penchant for moral universalism makes Jewish ethnocentrism and moral relativism offensive. (I am sure Jews feel somewhat threatened by the Christian Zionist kooks who openly worship Jews as Jews worship themselves.)

For the gentiles, the moral parameters are clear: moral relativism must be proclaimed to soften them up. But there has to be one absolute, namely Hitler as personification of absolute evil (chosen because he is the negative image of the Jews as the absolute good), otherwise Jews will not have a way of rallying the goyim against any real or perceived enemies of Jewish interests.

Since we are starved for moral absolutes in our culture of critique, it is not surprising that our people eagerly latch on to the one approved absolute: Hitler as embodiment of evil.

Often when a gentile says that Hitler is absolute evil, that is the only moral absolute he holds — perhaps the only one he can actually conceive. These are our liberals, who think it telling to liken Israel and its leaders to Hitler.

Others, of course, may hold a whole range of moral absolutes. These are our conservatives. But, intimidated by the general atmosphere of punitive tolerance and absolute relativism, and encouraged by the conservative movement’s pervasive ethos of cowardice, they keep their absolutes to themselves and instead think themselves terribly clever when they try to use the reductio ad Hitlerum for their own ends.

Unfortunately, those who seek to use Hitler as a stick to beat Israel and its tools don’t understand who set the rules of discourse and why. So they are probably puzzled at why their attempts gain so little traction, while those directed at the likes of Saddam and Putin resonate with the public (are allowed to resonate with the public) and may even produce actual results.

I guess the standards for becoming a Hitler are much lower if you’re white. White Hitlers get affirmative action.

In Sweden, where I’m from, the Hitleromania has gone quite extreme: in all daily newspapers there is sport, weather, TV tableaux and, of course, the natural adjunction of a little Hitler/WW2. Every single day. Usually it is not enough with just “Nazi” or “Hitler”; something extra is, more often than not, added.

Very popular is to adjoin variations of light/darkness, or in general, optics. In a way similar to the economy section, where they always use analogies from pneumatics. “Market pressure” etc. “Open” is a very popular term. For instance “openly hostile to aliens” or “open Nazis” etc. People who say something harmless such as: “it might not be good for the economy, the taxes might increase if we have unrestricted mass immigration” are regularly denounced as “filthy Nazi lice.”

“We shall drag the dark men up into the light” is a common thing for the mainstream media to say.

So it is with the trivial people. Economy: use pneumatics; tell who is politically incorrect: use optics.