Commentary on "Bolsonaro: a Monster Engineered by Our Media"(by Jonathan Cook)

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-10-30/bolsonaro-is-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/

Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.

The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.

Simon Jenkins:
When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.

Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.

Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent.
While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.

Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him.
So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.

Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.

The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.

What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union.
There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.

Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community.
But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.

The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.

The Sordid 'Untold' History of Race-Mixing.

If you got most of your news, ideas, and information from modern Western media and schools, you likely associate 'racial purity' with hate, war, genocide, slavery, imperialism, conquest, and oppression. And you likely associate 'race mixing' with love, tolerance, equality, 'diversity', and liberation. The prevailing narrative owes mainly to four factors: Anglo-imperialism, American slavery, National Socialism(or Nazism), and Jewish control of the media and elite academia.
Perhaps no people in history conquered and controlled as much as the Anglos with only limited race-mixing. Also, American slavery was very race-conscious, and most whites didn't mix with blacks. And then, there was the racial ideology of the Nazis that obsessed about 'Aryan' racial purity. Finally, Jews, having been among the main victims of Nazism and ever so paranoid and fearful of Anglo-American whites as their main rivals, developed and disseminated an ideology that came to see 'racism' as the source of all great evil. To counter and eliminate such 'evil', Jews have put forth the ideology of 'diversity' and race-mixing. Indeed, the main reason for Jewish support for Obama is he serves as the poster-boy of mulatto-ism. He's the product of a white woman sexually surrendering herself to a Negro. The fact that so many white women swoon over the punk and so many white guys get thrills from being politically cuckolded by his ilk shows how low the white race has fallen in the modern world.

But, let us look at the real history of race-mixing. Only recently has race-mixing been a matter of individual choice and personal freedom. For most of human history, race-mixing was generally the product of violence, invasion, oppression, slavery, imperialism, genocide, and what have you. If race-mixing has such a wonderful history and pedigree, I suppose we should laud the Mongol hordes who came stampeding into Eastern(and even parts of Central)Europe to rape white women. You see, the bad guys were not the interracist Mongols but the white warriors who resisted them. How dare all those 'evil racist' white males not welcome the Mongols who were only trying to spread their race-mixing love!  Following the logic of Political Correctness, any Russian or Polish guy who was enraged by Mongol abduction and/or rape of white women were 'evil racists' or proto-Nazis, just like the proud white men of THE BIRTH OF A NATION or Ethan character(played by John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS. According to Political Correctness, it is wrong for white men to feel protective of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters even against vicious raids by Indian tribes. Using this logic, I suppose Russians should forever have yielded to 'progressive' interracist Mongols who were only trying to mix the races.  But seriously, Mongols were among the most brutal conquerors in history, and they were TOTALLY into race-mixing. Mongols have often been compared with the Nazis, but if 'racial purity' is the source of all evil, how could a people as interracist as the Mongols commit such horrors? Wouldn't it have been better for Europeans--and other victims of the Golden Horde--if the Mongols had been into racial purity--like the Japanese for most of their history--and remained in their own little Mongol world? I mean the epic Mongol experiment in race-mixing wasn't exactly fun for most people--unless they happened to be Mongols thugs raping Chinese, Persian, Russian, and other women.

Ottoman Turks were also interracists, but were they peaceful? No, they used extensive violence to control vast territories. They ruled over Greece for nearly 400 yrs. During that time, many Greek women were abducted and raped by Turks. And many Christian Greek boys were conscripted and raised as Janissaries--fanatical Muslim warriors against Christendom. Just think about it. Wonderfully interracist Ottomans kidnapped and brainwashed Greek boys to wage war their own kind--Christian Europeans. Greece under Ottoman rule was not a happy place as any Greek who knows his or her history can tell you.
But then, Greeks too have their long history of interracist violence. Though Ancient Greeks were proud to be Greek and some city-states insisted on Greek purity, the fact is Greeks invaded and enslaved a lot of non-Greeks, and through rape of these conquered peoples, Greek blood got mixed with non-Greek blood. And when Greeks joined Alexander the Macedon's invasion of North Africa and the Orient, a whole bunch of them went into interracist mode, Alexander leading by example. While some Greek leaders resented Alexander's 'race-mixing', it became more and more necessary as Macedonian and Greek men became further separated from their homelands. They conquered foreign lands and took foreign women. So, all this supposedly wonderful interracism came with imperialism, conquest, slavery, and mass bloodshed.

Arabs, Moors, Muslims, Persians, Moghuls, and other great empire builders were also interracists. Arabs enslaved and raped all sorts of people. They enslaved black Africans, captured and sold white slaves. Many of them, especially among the whites, were women. Lots of interracist Arab men raped white women. Arab pirates didn't just plunder white wealth but sexually ravaged white women. Moors conquered large swaths of Southern Europe and raped a lot of white women. So much for the wonders of interracism. And of course, Jews in Europe often aided and abetted in the Muslim conquest of Europe. Jews were also involved in slave trade and sold white women to Arabs and Muslims. Do you suppose all those white women who were enslaved and raped had a good time because the 'love-making' happened to be interracist?  Today, the Jewish shmafia lures many Slavic women with false promises and turns them into sex slaves in brothels that cater to men of all races from around the world. White women are used as interracist sex slaves. Is that progress? It may be a great boon to greedy Jews who control pornography and white slavery, but what do white men and women gain from it? And who are these craven Jews to tell you or me how we should think about race and racial politics? Of course, Israel has very stringent laws and policies against non-Jews, and recently, Israel used harsh measures to round up and expel a whole lot of black African migrants and refugees. And Jews constantly talk about maintaining their genetic integrity, and even when they mix with other races, they are very selective, careful to mix with gentiles who are either very good looking or very intelligent; in other words, Jews steal beauty and IQ from other races. Jews act like this, but we don't hear any outrage from MSM because Jews control most of the media.

Though Anglo-imperialism is most often associated with the evils of white oppression, historical truth says otherwise: the most brutal form of European imperialism was perpetuated by interracist Portuguese and Spanish. Portuguese created Brazil, and the main reason for its huge number of mulattoes owes to the fact that Portuguese, far more than Anglos, created an empire of interracist rape as well as of slavery. So-called 'racist' America imported only 300,000 to 400,000 black slaves. Brazil alone is said to have imported anywhere from 3 to 5 million black African slaves, which is more than all the rest of the New World combined. So, just think about it. The most interracist colony/nation in the New World was more committed to slavery than all the others.

The rest of Latin America came under Spanish rule, and how did the 'mestizo race' come about? Free love, 'tolerance', and 'multi-culturalist' ideology?  No, it came about through imperialism, conquest, slavery, mass rape, and the like.  More often than not--at least among white Latinos--, all this politically correct 'diversity' mongering-and-promotion is essentially a justification for their sordid history than anything else. It's a very convenient way for white Latinos to convert their 'historical crimes' into 'historical virtues'. Though Hispanic and Portuguese whites created the mestizo and mulatto races in the New World by conquest, slavery, rape, plunder, and imperialism, they can make believe that it was all ultimately for the good since it led to the creation of the wonderful new race of mestizos and mulattos. That way, white Latinos can justify their own history and place all the blame on Yanquis and gringos who'd been less into race-mixing. Latin whites essentially say, "We conquered, enslaved, and exploited the non-whites, but we racially mixed with the victims and acquired some 'victim blood' ourselves--even if it's only a tiny drop--, and so that expunges whatever guilt we might have had." If 'one drop rule' in America made even very light-skinned mulattos count as 'black', the one drop rule in Latin America makes even the whitest Latin elite a member of the 'people of color'. It is no wonder that so many white Latinos in America insist on being part of the 'people of color' and bitch endlessly about being 'oppressed' and 'marginalized' by Yanqui blancos, which is rather ironic since it is the Yankee states in the North that embrace the new hysteria of 'diversity' as the solution to all problems.
Anyway, all said and done, the racial history of Latin America is many times more violent and sordid than what happened in United States and Canada--or Australia for that matter.

While it is true that the theory of racial purity and the practice of imperialism don't mix well in the long run--especially if the racial ideology is as radical as that of the Nazis--, the fact is many nations that upheld the ideal of racial purity tended to be peaceful and non-aggressive. After all, it was the racially less pure Southern Europeans who'd pioneered imperialism and world conquest. It was the Greeks, Romans, and then Spanish and Portuguese who were ahead of the curve in conquering, exploiting, and plundering the world.  The British and the Dutch were relative late-comers, and among the Northern Europeans, only the Anglos became prominent players in world conquest. Germans came to imperialism rather late. Bismarck the famous builder and modernizer of Germany hated the idea. He was for Germans focusing their energies on Germany. He fought wars but mostly against other Germans in order to create larger German state. He had no wish to grab non-German land and deal with non-German peoples. If anything, it was the relatively more interracist Russians who'd invaded and plundered whole swaths of non-Russian territories in Asia and Muslim lands.
Indeed, both among reactionaries and progressives, interracism was often used as a disingenuous justification for conquest and imperialism. French were interracists in North Africa and Southeast Asia and portrayed themselves as spreading the blood of higher civilization in both the figurative and literal sense. This accounts for the rise of the Eurasian elite under French rule in Indo-China. And why did so many Vietnamese become 'Amerasians' in the 60s and 70s? Leftists call the Vietnam War an act of American Imperialism, and if that was indeed the case, then it was American Imperialism that practiced interracism during the Vietnam War. One might even call it a form of sexual imperialism or sexual conquest since almost all Amerasian children were born of American(white or black)men and Asian women. Throughout the history of interracism, generally the males of the powerful side took the women of the oppressed, occupied, or conquered side. So, interracism was very often an act of sexual imperialism by the males of one race against the females of another race. It not only meant the sexual conquest of the women but the sexual humiliation of the defeated men who could do nothing about it. What could Trojan men do when the interracist Greeks enslaved surviving Trojan women to be used as servants and sex slaves? When Germans invaded France, French women went with German men while French men could only watch as 'limp-dick' losers. When Soviets steamrolled into Germany, they practiced 'interracism' on a large scale, raping millions of German women while all German men could do is watch. When Americans occupied Japan, whole bunch of Japanese women became interracist prostitute-stooges of American G.I.'s while Japanese men were reduced to a bunch of dorks.  In other words, so much of the history of interracism is 'unfair', unequal, violent, oppressive, and cruel. If you have a time machine, take a trip to Nanking when Japanese soldiers were rampaging through the city and raping scores of Chinese women. I'll bet those women wished Japanese hadn't been into interracism. Japanese also practiced 'interracism' with Filipino and Korean women who were lured to China with promise of jobs--just like Slavic women are lured to Israel under false pretense--but were then turned into sexual slaves who had to put out to Japanese soldiers all night and day. The history of interracism sure was bright and wonderful.

Now, I don't wish to come to the fallacious conclusion that because the history of interracism has been violent and sordid, every case of interracism is of that nature. Many individuals sincerely fell in love with members of other races/nations/religions/ethnic groups and found true love and bliss. I'm not one to tell who should marry whom--though interracism on a large scale will always compromise the racial-and-cultural integrity of a people. And even though a new social order may have been created via violent and oppressive use of interracism, the new population eventually come to some kind of accommodation. Whatever one may say about the history of Mexico--and it's very bloody one--, most Mexicans of mixed racial heritage today just go on with their lives.

But then, we must be careful not to apply the same kind of fallacy to racial purism. Just because Nazism was an especially evil case of racial purism doesn't mean that all forms of racial purism or racial consciousness are evil or 'hateful'. Just like there's free interracism(of individual freedom) as opposed to violent/forced interracism, there's racial purism or intraracism--racial sexualism within the race--that doesn't deny OTHER peoples the right to the preservation of their own cultures and nations. Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth, but it has also been one of the least aggressive. Except for Hideoyoshi's attempts in the late 16th century and modern Japan's invasion of Asia--enabled and encouraged by European powers, one might add--, the racially pure Japanese have been content to mind their own business. It was not Japan that invaded India, the New World--north or south--, Greece, Africa, and etc.  The interracist Spanish, Portuguese, Arabs, Moors, French, Turks, and Mongols did far more conquering than the Japanese ever did.

Also, intra-racism was the impetus behind many national liberation struggles. Why did the Third World rise up against Western Imperialism? Because most non-white nations wanted self-rule. Indians wanted to rule over Indians, and  Indians wanted to be ruled by Indians. They wanted the British to go back home. Vietnamese wanted to rule over Vietnamese, and Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by Vietnamese. They didn't want to be ruled by the interracist French. Algerians wanted to rule over Algerians, and Algerians wanted to be ruled by Algerians. They too didn't care for the interracist French who insisted that France and Algeria were one nation and one people. Algerians did not wanted to be ruled by foreigners even if the foreigners were willing to 'make love' to them.

Many 'progressives' criticize the Vietnamese for their discrimination against 'Amerasians', but to many Vietnamese, such children are the racial-sexual products of interracism of Western imperialism. Indeed, racial purism or intra-racism has generally been defensive than offensive. If Bolivian Indians at the time of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors had expressed a wish for racial purity and self-rule, would they have been 'evil' and 'Nazi-like'?  Only according to the logic of Political Correctness--but then PC generally only attacks the white race for harboring intra-racist feelings. This is really a Judeo-centric view for it's the Jews who have most to lose if white Europeans and white Americans were to realize the worth of preserving their own races and cultures and stood up to venality of Jewish Supremacism.

Nazi racial policies became dangerous only when they were exported outside Germany. Within German lands, Nazi ideology did much good as it encouraged a sense of national unity, national health, national purpose, and national pride. Why shouldn't Germans be into German blood and soil, German 'race', German culture? The real problem of Nazism was less the emphasis on racial purity than the ambition for grabbing more land(populated by huge numbers of civilized peoples; it's one thing to grab mostly barren lands but quite another to invade heavily populated civilizations; the Anglo conquests of Australia and North America were doable since the territories were vast and sparsely populated; Russians were able to secure control over vast Siberia because despite its great size, the entire population was less than ten million. But it was another thing when Germans tried to conquer Russia or when Japanese tried to conquer China.) German purity in Germany was not a problem. But German purity in non-German lands was a violation of the idea of nationalism. But would it have been much better if Nazi Germans had been interracists like Japanese and Spanish? The reason why Nazi soldiers generally didn't commit mass rape--like Japanese did in Nanking--was because the ideal of racial purity demanded that German soldiers not mix with non-'Aryans'. If Hitler had been more like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, he might have ordered his men to rape a whole bunch of Russian women and Polish women in the name of 'interracism'. I don't see how that would have been any more civilized. Indeed, whatever one can say about Anglo-American slavery, it led to less rape of black and brown women than in Latin America. Anglos and Anglo-Americans may have been racially more arrogant, but it also meant mostly leaving non-whites alone sexually.

There was nothing wrong with Japan's belief in their racial uniqueness as long as the Japanese minded their own business and didn't invade other nations. If intra-racism leads to 'evil conquest and oppression', how come Japanese didn't go to Africa and bring millions of black slaves to Japan? It was the interracist Portuguese who brought millions of blacks to Brazil. Should Japanese have been happily interracist and welcomed the Spanish and Portugal to do to Japan what  had been done in the New World? Rape millions of Japanese women and create a mestizo race of European and Asian blood? I guess the Japanese were too 'evil and racist' to accept such a wonderful bargain. I mean interracist Peru and Bolivia are wonderful nations whereas intra-racist Japan today is a basketcase nation of no hope & progress.

And let us condemn all those Tibetan intra-racists who want to be rid of Han Chinese interracists who want to mix the races and make every inch of Tibet into part of the Han empire. You see, the wonderfully 'progressive' Chinese wanna be one with the Tibetans, but Tibetans insist on their own blood, their own soil, their own language and culture, their own religion, and their own power. What a bunch of Nazis! We must stop Tibetan intra-racism because if we allow it to grow, it will invade Poland any time soon, and then Russia. It might even go about killing six million Jews!