When the New Narrative is made sacrosanct, the Law accommodates its implicit demands. It is widely revered as a collective dream with the blessings of officialdom, and who wants to be associated with a dream deferred?
The doomed fates of America and its satellites owe to the fundamental changes in the premise of the New Narrative that was pushed by Jews who gained total control of the media, academia, and statist apparatuses.
If whites had unyieldingly insisted that the US and Europe are white lands and belong to white people BUT just nice enough to take in some nonwhites, the new arrivals would have come with a sense of appreciation and respect. After all, they were magnanimously allowed in as guests in another people’s homeland, richer and more advanced than their own. The new arrivals would feel they owe a debt of gratitude to the native folks. They would feel that the native folks, out of kindness and generosity, did something they didn’t need to. Whites offered the nonwhites a chance of a better life. Also, in their solidarity, pride, confidence, and toughness, whites would stand tall as objects of respect and admiration to the newcomers. People look to the strong horse, not the weak ass.
Now, what would happen if the socio-political premise of a white order were changed. Suppose the new narrative is as follows: White lands have always been ‘nations of immigrants’ on the basis that there had been invasions all throughout history. Furthermore, suppose the new premise says that Diversity is magic and More Diversity is always preferable, whereas insufficient diversity is a sign of sickness and even ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ evil. And of course, ceaseless and fundamental transformations should be welcomed even or especially if what had once been is completely replaced by the new, i.e. the alien is made the ‘new native or ‘new normal’ while the once-native and once-normal have been devalued and forgotten, relegated to the dustbin of history, to be enjoyed only as exoticism(like long bygone ancient history) or to serve as reminders of how awful it had once been without diversity. (Of course, the preferred way is to pretend that the past was just as diverse by casting black and non-white actors in historically white roles.)
The corollary of Diversity-and-Change Dogma is that homogeneity and continuity are bad things. Homogeneity must be replaced with magical Diversity, and continuity must be severed by ‘reinventing’ the nation in the spirit of Change. So, the primary destiny of white nations becomes to un-whiten themselves. Imagine if someone is made to feel less worthy for having skin unblemished by tattoos. His or her skin isn’t ‘inclusive’ enough of vibrant signs and images. Under constant pressure and even with desire(as tattoos are promoted everywhere as not only fashionable and ‘cool’ but righteous and progressive), he or she is likely to mark his or her body with more and more tattoos, indeed even to the point that he or she feels something is amiss if there’s any part on his or her body that remains tattoo-free. Then, we can understand why Jewish Supremacists and their white cuck minions aren’t content with merely urban areas turning majority non-white. They must push Diversity into the suburbs, small towns, and even rural areas, into every last corner of society. It’s the same in the UK and Germany where the Jewish globalists are targeting every white small town and rural village with the wonders of ‘diversity’.
Under the reigning ‘idology'(ideology of idolatry, mainly of Jews, Homos, and Negroes) of Wokery, not only are the white natives inculcated with self-hatred but the nonwhite arrivals are urged to feel as rightful owners than as grateful newcomers. The arrogance of Jewish chutzpah against whites serves as the template for all non-white or immigrant groups. In the U.K., for example, the non-white is given the moral advantage in claiming to be ‘British’ while the patriotic white Briton is forced to be defensive, which explains why even the anti-immigrant voices usually justify their position on account of the ‘values’ that the immigrants bring, such as not being sufficiently philo-semitic or globo-homo, than on grounds that Britain, a white-European country, has the duty to preserve its people, culture, and land. After all, the New Premise says Diversity and Change must take precedence over Homogeneity and Continuity(that are deemed ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘extreme’, and ‘far right’). Therefore, foreigners who arrive in white lands feel little in the way of gratitude but come barging in with moral arrogance. And they make demands to let more of their kind in and for white-created institutions & industries to favor nonwhites in high positions because, after all, white nations no longer belong to white people but to the Whole World in the spirit of Diversity and Change. Of course, Zionist globalist-supremacists engineered all this to use Diversity against whites, but just about the only hope among white conzo-tards is that Diversity may turn out to be insufficiently deferential to Jews who, thereby, toss some more crumbs at the ever grateful and servile white dogs willing to do any bidding for their Jewish masters? What happened to white individuality and agency? It seems Jewishness is kryptonite to white independence and freedom. When faced with Jewish Power, whites grow weak, hapless, and timid, pleading to the Jewish massuh for approval and purpose in life. If you want to see a proud white man turn into a pathetic white dog in the blink of an eye, just put him next to a Jew.
Core concepts that define an order are that important, especially as so many people define their meaning and purpose not with tribal loyalty but from ideas taught at school, stories on the TV, images on advertising, and etc. Changing the idea of a society is like changing the code of a computer. If a computer code is programmed to favor red dots over blue dots, red dots will gradually but surely overwhelm the blue dots. This would be so even if, at the outset, there were 1000 blue dots and only 5 red dots. Over time, there could be 1000 red dots and only 10 blue dots remaining. But suppose the code is changed to favor blue dots over red dots. Initially, the red dots, one-thousand-strong, seem indomitable next to the puny scattering of blue dots. How much harm could 10 blue dots do to 1000 red dots? But the altered code will mean that blue dots will gain with every passing hour while the red dots no longer have any support system to maintain their dominance.
When the Western code was altered, white people didn’t react with alarm as all around them were lots of white people and lots of white power. (There were lots of Jewish Power too, but whites rationalized that it was just ‘more white power’ as Jews counted as ‘white’, ignoring the observation, “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans.”) So what if the New Laws & Values favored Diversity and Change? Why worry when whites seem so dominant for the foreseeable future in demography, wealth, political power, and etc.? Whatever the new code may be, it seemed inconceivable that whites with their awesome numbers, authority, and prestige would ever really lose out. Now, in relation to certain groups, the change in the code hardly mattered. The US and Australia came around to acknowledging the tragedies of the indigenous folks, the American Indians and the Aboriginal tribes, and ennobled the memories of those groups, but even such historical-and-moral revisionism had little chance of upending the white-ruled order. The indigenous folks were insignificant in number, hardly multiplying demographically, and lacking in innate abilities to gain power and wealth. So, ‘white guilt’ concerning those groups remained at the level of empty talk or lip-service. Not so with the blacks, 13% of the population in the US(and rapidly growing in the EU via migration from Black Africa where an average woman has 6 children), the super-smart & driven Jews, and endless tides of immigrants from all over the world. Faced with those challenges and trends, the idea of ‘white guilt’ could be fatal for the white race. It’s like you can indulge in compassion for the feline species with a housecat, but try that in a jungle in India with tigers and leopards.
Look around the big cities of Europe today. The new code led to the invasion by hordes of nonwhites; worse, they cannot be expelled because the code says those migrant-invaders represent the very best of what the West and its values are. After all, ‘diversity’ is sacrosanct, and don’t you dare deny it.
Why do these nonwhite usurpers act with such arrogance and contempt for the West, White America or White Europe? Because the new code(programmed by Jewish Power) favors them and rewards them for spitting on whitey. They no longer feel grateful and appreciative. They no longer strive for understanding and acceptance. They no longer seek to earn respect. No, they just make demands and throw their weight around as if the West is theirs to pilfer and plunder. Jewish chutzpah and rudeness toward whites is their favored template. All the great things created by Anglo whites and other whites apparently exist only to be claimed and taken by nonwhites, so the new code says. If modern medicine was created by white people, instead of appreciation, all we get is, “Why there be no diversity in the great folks of medicine? History of medicine be racis’ and shit”, and of course, ‘woke’-tard whites nod along for status-points and approval from their Jewish masters.
If you own the title to your house, it’s your house. Now, suppose you see a homeless person and let him in. It’s still your house because you hold the title, which documents the property as yours. So, your act of kindness to the homeless person is your decision. It’s up to you to let him stay or to ask him to leave. But, suppose you decide to share the title with him, a kind of joint-ownership. You tell him, “my house is your house”, and you expect the guy to be grateful and kiss your pinky. Instead, however, the guy feels that since he co-owns the title to the house, he will do as HE pleases. Besides, he regards your show of goodwill as a sign less of conscience than of weakness. He also has friends and families whom he wishes to bring over. You protest, but the law no longer favors you because the title is half his, meaning he now has just as much authority over the property as you do. You find your house, which is no longer yours alone, filling up with more ‘new owners’ invited by the homeless guy(who is now co-owner of the house). In time, the house has 100 people, and they begin to regard themselves less as guests than as co-owners. They also demand co-ownership, and you assent. In time, you go from owning the house outright to merely owning 1/100th of it. Boy, weren’t you a dumbass?
Whites in the West have only ONE way to save themselves. Take back the Title to their National Property. In Europe, this is totally justified because Europe is the ancient(indeed prehistoric) homeland of the white race. Denounce the cult of Diversity-and-Change as the products of neo-imperialism and neo-colonization spearheaded by Jewish Globalist Supremacists. Order the nonwhites to return, or else.
The change in the Western Code has proven to be fatal to Europe. Given Europe’s overall affluence and general pleasantness, the result was obvious to anyone with an honest pair of eyes. Naturally, the poor masses were gonna flock to the West for the ‘gibs’. And they were going to call on more of their kind to partake of the loot. If you disregard the warning DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS, what happens? They not only come to depend on your generosity but send signals to or attract the attention of other animals. And if they initially respond with gratitude and appreciation, they soon make angry demands for more food.
There is no hope for the West unless there is a profound change in the Code. Sure, the usual suspects will accuse the rise of nationalism as ‘racist’, but if nationalism was good enough for the Third World in driving out white/European colonists and imperialists, it’s good enough for white people to kick out Third World hordes of usurpers and to expose the Jewish-globalist-supremacists who’ve egged on the whole world against ‘whitey’. White people must reclaim the Title to their lands. And, if it means war and mayhem to topple the vile elites and kick out the foreigners, so be it. Viet Cong didn’t just hold up signs. They fought. So did the Algerians resistance fighters to drive out the French.
The re-coding of the West to favor Diversity & Change over Solidarity & Continuity has been the fatal flaw. Every society is a system, like a computer is a system. And just like a computer follows its codes, a social system functions in accordance to its legal coding and narrative drives. As long as the Code favors Diversity & Change, we can kiss the West goodbye. It may happen gradually, but it’s only a matter of time. (The crazy thing is it’s happening at break-neck speed, but most whites are either going along in blind faith in ‘wokeness’ or hunkering down out of fear of being called, boo hoo hoo, ‘racist’.)
Diversity & Change must be properly identified and diagnosed as the virus and cancer cells embedded into the Western DNA by vile globalist elites. They must be treated like diseases that must be expunged from the core DNA of the West. Diversity & Change are like a disease on the immune system. They are meant to weaken and destroy the health and viability of the West by brainwashing whites into thinking that any thought or action on their part for self-preservation is Evil. Nationalism is an immune system to defend and conserve the social system of a people. When nationalism succumbs to globalist cancer, the immune system fails because the people are fooled into believing that there is nothing more evil than their desire for solidarity and continuity as a people and culture.
White folks must rise up and attack ‘Diversity’ as a formula for Demise and ‘Change’ as a road to Extinction. (There is good, organic, and necessary change, and there is forced, artificial, and degenerative change. A boy growing into a man is organic change. A boy being genitally mutilated into a ‘girl’ and having his body covered with tattoos and piercings is demonic change, which is what the Jewish globalists fully endorse.) A proud people with a real culture don’t need to be replaced and ‘reinvented’. Diversity-and-Change is a case of fixing something that isn’t broken. The idea of ‘fixing’ the advanced and stable West with dysfunctional Third World morons who wrecked or degraded their own societies is ridiculous, indeed a laugh riot, but few get the joke because white people have been ‘guilt-baited’ with the Cult of Shoah into believing that nationalism was the root of all evil in WWI and WWII when, in fact, both wars were the result of imperialism that violated the national sovereignty of the weaker nations.
The real reason for the rapid recovery of the West and Japan owed to the restoration of nationalism. Nazi and Japanese empires were defeated, and nations could be free and sovereign again, at least relatively speaking. The new danger was that the Cold War gave rise to the Soviet and American empires. Still, given that their ideology was nominally anti-imperialist and they balanced each other out, there was some leeway for healthy nationalism around the world, especially for neutral states like Yugoslavia. For a time, with the fall of communism, it seemed as if every nation in Europe would be sovereign and free. The Soviet menace was no more, and surely, American hegemony over Europe would recede, leading to the reassertion of full European sovereignty. There would be peace and prosperity predicated on independence and mutuality among nation-states. It was possible but not in the cards as Jews took over the US as the dominant elites and were hellbent on expanding the Empire of Judea. As such, the US became a giant aircraft carrier for Zion with the white race as the cuckish brown-nosing managerial-servant-class. So, we have the mess in Ukraine and possibly worse horrors down the pipeline. The EU plan, which was originally to facilitate easier trade and communication among Europeans, turned into a ploy of packaging all of Europe into vassalage to the Empire of Judea.
It is because Zionists want to control the entire world that they push Diversity & Change on all nations(except Israel). With Diversity & Change as the elite mantra, nationalism will naturally grow weaker as the ‘leadership’ class refuses to defend their nations and instead serves the Jewish Globo-Supremacists who offer them lots of prizes and honorifics for their collaboration. And then, every nation can more easily be infiltrated and taken over by foreign capital and New Cosmopolitanism whose only truths are Globo-Homo and Negrolatry promoted by Jewish Globalism.
NICK FUENTES COMMENTS ON BILL ACKMAN’S ENDORSEMENT OF PRO-DEI CONGRESSMAN DEAN PHILLIPS
What is the most important moral question for Americans, especially in regard to the Other, given the history of America? By 'the Other', of course we mean non-whites. After all, America has essentially been a white European, especially Anglo-American(and Celtic and Germanic), creation. For most of its history, it was founded by whites as a white nation. And why not? They risked sea voyages to the other side of the world and toiled day and night to tame the land for agriculture and built towns & cities. There's a saying, "Finders, Keepers", and white people did more than find the New World. They had the means, numbers, vision, and know-how to transform the wilderness into a bedrock of a great new civilization. For all the non-whites and cucky-wuck whites who bitch and whine that American history has mostly been by whites and for whites, they need to ask why other peoples didn't bother to get up off their ass, build ships, sail across vast seas in search of new lands, and toil day-and-night to build a great nation out of the New World? As for Hispanic & Portuguese who settled what is called Latin America, why didn't they do as good a job as the Anglos of the US, Canada, and Australia?
But what is particularly bemusing is how the proggy-wogs gripe about how America was violently stolen from the native Indians(who were really Pre-Americans) by 'racist' whites but then whine about how these whites were reluctant to share the land with non-whites all around the world. But if it was wrong for whites to take the land from Indians, how would it have served the Indians any better if whites decided flood America with peoples from ALL OVER THE WORLD? Wouldn't Indians then lose their ancestral land not only to whites but to all peoples of the world? But then, proggy-wogs aren't known for logic or consistency. They are kind of duped morons or clever con-men(especially if they happen to be Jews) who say with a straight face, "I believe in free speech but not in 'hate speech'." (Of course, the Jews get to decide what 'hate speech' is. Apparently, Jews in Hollywood making all those anti-Russian and anti-Muslim movies is not 'hate'. But white people and Palestinians seeking liberation from Jewish supremacism is 'hate'.)
What we need is moral logic and consistency. Those who insist that Columbus Day should be renamed 'Indigenous Peoples Day' should acknowledge that mass-immigration has been synonymous with imperialism, conquest, ethnic cleansing, mass replacement, and 'genocide'. Also, Diversity has been the product of Imperialism. After all, as more immigrants and peoples from the Old World arrived in America, the more the Pre-American Indians lost their land and way of life. Arrival of people from the Old World led to spread of diseases to which millions of native Indians had no immunity, resulting in mass deaths. And mass-immigration meant westward movement of newly minted Americans whose proclaimed destiny was to replace the native Indians on their lands. In that context, the great tragedy of America has been immigration. Contrary to the official narrative, the 'original sin' of America was not slavery but eradication of the American Indians by conquest and mass-immigration-invasion. Some call this 'genocide', a problematic term given the different norms that motivated peoples back then. Still, what is true enough is that Indian Tribes who'd been on the land for tens of thousand of years were effectively wiped off most of the land in a century. Also, whereas blacks gained a tremendous amount as the result of the slavery experience, the American Indians lost just about everything. Consider that 300,000 to 400,000 blacks were brought to America, but their numbers exploded to over 40 million. And, having developed in proximity with whites, blacks had access to the most advanced people on Earth. Furthermore, when we consider where blacks had been and where they ended up, they are the people who gained THE MOST from coming in contact with whites. Most other groups already had advanced cultures or complex civilization prior to their contact with the West. Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Chinese, and etc. were all peoples of High Civilization. Even had they never come in contact with the Modern West, they would have inhabited impressive civilizations with complex arts, culture, religions, and philosophy. In contrast, black Africans were, by and large, the most backward peoples on Earth. They were primitive savages chucking spears at hippos and running like mothaf*****s when the mad hippo came running to stomp their jigger-jiving ass. Had black Africans not come in contact with the Modern West, most of them would still have no wheel, no written language, and no technology beyond bongo drums, spears, and primitive arrows.
Also, blacks not only gained materially but morally in more ways than one. Through the white man, Negroes got to know Christianity and Western Philosophy. Negroes learned of the principle of liberty and of the evil of slavery only under the tutelage of the White Man. And it was precisely because Anglo-Christian folks had betrayed their own moral principle by having enslaved another race that they went about elevating blacks to holy-victim status. So, not only did blacks learn higher morality and deep spirituality from whites but got to use the values inherent in them to judge whites, especially as so many whites got into the habit of showing off their superior 'virtue' by collecting 'white guilt' points. Furthermore, because the modern West was so thrilled with sports and sexualized pop culture, especially with the rise of electronica, the people who excelled most in sports prowess and sexual displays were bound to receive the most adulation. It was the blacks. So, no people gained as much from their contact with whites. Blacks went from zero to hero only on the backs of white achievements, management, and imagination.
Therefore, the notion of slavery as the 'original sin' of America is bogus. Indeed, such sentiment is only more proof that, if anything, blacks gained so much from whites. They are like the 'favorite race' in US and EU. Blacks were enslaved by whites but also liberated from their own savagery. (Furthermore, not only did blacks get to colonize the New World along with whites but they got to keep their own African lands. Today, black Africa is almost entirely black.) The fact that their suffering is held in greater esteem than the suffering of American Indians speaks volumes about how whites ultimately did so much for blacks but so little for the Indians. By all rights, the 'original sin' of America would be the 'genocide' of the Indians. Unlike blacks who thrived and multiplied under white rule and in proximity to white achievements, Americans Indians were pushed into reservations to rot as wretched huddled masses. Also, while black numbers exploded in the US, Indian numbers collapsed. In time, American Indians were able to multiply their numbers again, but today, they live in among the most depressed communities in the US. Also, whereas blacks in America & Africa(and now even in Europe) can take pride in the blackness of black Africa as the Cradle of the Niggaz, American Indians have no place to call their own. The core of their homeland has been invaded and taken over by peoples from the Old World. They are truly strangers in their own land. So, given these facts that cannot be refuted, the greatest tragedy of American History was the demise and erasure of American Indian communities and cultures.
Of course, there was triumph along with tragedy. Had the white man not arrived in the New World, North America would still be the land of savages and wild animals. Some people might argue that this would have been better, and there is something to be said for such sentiment. The loss of nature was indeed tragic wherever humanity went. Even primitive folks did plenty of damage to nature. Archaeologists now credit the extinction of countless species of animals in the Americas and Australia to the spread of primitive humans tens of thousands of years ago. But modernity accelerated the destruction and exploitation of nature exponentially, and maybe, it would have been better if the New World had only belonged to nature or only to nature and its 'indigenous' folks(who arrived from what is now Asia tens of thousands of years ago). But what is done is done, and it's true enough that America became a great modern nation due to the ability and achievements of European folks, especially the Anglos followed by Celtics and Germanics. There was triumph and tragedy in the making of America.
But given the tragic dimensions of American History, the Most Important Moral Question is "To whom do White Americans owe the most in terms of historical redress and moral consideration?" To answer this isn't difficult. We only need to consider what was the greatest tragedy of American History. There is no question that the biggest tragedy and 'crime' of American History was the 'genocide' of the Red Savages by Pale Face. Furthermore, even other whites and non-whites from the Old World collaborated with Anglo whites in the destruction of the Indians. Spanish Conquistadors invaded Indian lands from the south. Geronimo not only fought the US Cavalry but the Mexicans, a bunch of Mestizos led by white Hispanics. Upon emancipation, blacks didn't return to Africa, their homeland, but stuck around with whites, and many became cowboys and took part in shooting Indians dead. And Chinese worked on railroads that only accelerated the final stages of Manifest Destiny. American Indians were set upon by 'honkeys', 'niggers', 'spicks', 'chinks', 'kikes', and all those damned new immigrants from the Old World.
If America had been taken from the World, one could make a legitimate argument that people all around the world have a right to retake it via immigration. It'd be like the Right of Return. Indeed, suppose peoples of ALL RACES had been in the US, but White Europeans arrived and drove them to other parts of the world while hogging most of America for themselves. Then, mass-immigration of non-whites into the US could be a moral imperative based on historical wrongs. But, in fact, America was not taken by white Europeans from the world. It was taken from native folks who came to be known as the American Indians or the Red Man. Therefore, white Americans have NO moral obligation to open up America, the nation that they founded and built, to all the world. North America was not taken from Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Africans, Hindus, Turks, and etc. It wasn't taken from brown natives south of the border of what came to be USA. One could argue SW territories were taken from Mexico, but then the Mexicans themselves were laying claim to lands that were inhabited by various American Indian tribes who felt no connection or allegiance to the Mexican state and society.
America was not created by taking land and resources from all the world. It was created by white folks who arrived upon vast territories that were still overwhelmingly wild and natural(at least by Old World and Meso-American standards). And if the land was taken from anyone, it was from Red Savages. If any people were historically wronged, it was the Indians. Not because Indians were angelic saints — just like Europeans, pagan and Christians alike, fought each other countless times over 1,000s of years, so did the American Indians who also belonged to various warring tribes — but because they had a deep connection to the land. Suppose a people more powerful and numerous than the Europeans arrived in Europe 3,000 yrs ago. Suppose they found various pagan European tribes warring against each other over land, women, & stuff, and suppose they overwhelmed the relatively primitive and backward Europeans and took the land. (Btw, keep in mind that Europeans were warring against each other well into the 20th century, with World War I and World War II killing up to 65 to 70 million people.) Their conquest of Europe would have been by the general rule of history where might-is-right. Still, if the hypothetical conquerors had some moral sense and conscience, they would have, at the very least, acknowledged that the vanquished Europeans do have special connection to the land on which they'd lived and died for many eons. Likewise, even if we acknowledge that White Europeans won out over the American Indians by the general rule of history, one would have to be churlish to deny that the American Indians have the most meaningful and deepest connection and attachment to the land. And to the extent that they lost their ancestral homeland forever — something that cannot be said for Asians, Arabs, Hindus, Africans, and weaker Europeans(such as Greeks under Ottomans or Lithuanians under Russians) who eventually reclaimed their homelands from imperialist domination — , it is by no means far-fetched to argue that the American Indians are the most tragic people in the world. (Of course, given the advantages they gained by living under whites, it was far from a total loss. Surely, American Indians would be worse off if America had been conquered by another race of people.)
With that in mind, one must ask, "What is the MOST IMPORTANT Moral Question of America given the history of its founding and development?" At whose expense was the great nation of America created? The answer is beyond obvious. It was at the expense of the American Indians. And that means, if the US has any moral obligation, it is to the American Indians and their communities. Meanwhile, the US has NO moral obligation to anyone else. Was the American land taken from Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Senegalese, Hindus, Kazakhs, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Jews, etc.? Emphatically NO. Also, did all peoples play an equal role in the founding and development of America? Do a mental experiment. While there are Burmese-Americans who are probably good decent people, would America not exist if not a single Burmese set foot on the New Land? Of course not. Even if not a single Burmese(or, for that matter, a single Kurd, Hindu, Korean, Assyrian, Moroccan, Filipino, or etc) ever set foot on this land, America would still be America. But if the Europeans, especially Anglos-Germanics-Celts, had never arrived on the land, there would be NO America. Then, those who bitch about the 'racism' of American History in having excluded non-white immigrants are full of baloney. As the rightful discovers, founders, and developers of the great new nation, the founding & leading stock had EVERY RIGHT to decide immigration policy to create the kind of the nation that they favored. If the Chinese had discovered North America first, would they not have favored immigration of their own kind?
The moral dilemma of America's creation has mainly to do with four entities: American Indians, Negroes, white victims of Negroes, and nature. Even though American Indians lost the land for the reason why all defeated folks lost their lands all throughout history — they were outfought and outnumbered — , the tragedy of their loss is undeniable as they'd been living and dying on the land for not only centuries or millenniums but for tens of thousands of years. American Indian connection to the lands of North America is comparable to European connection to Europe and Asian connection to Asia. They lived here for eons. Another people who deserve special recognition is the Negroes who were brought over as slaves. As they didn't choose to be here and were exploited to develop the economy, blacks of slave ancestry deserve special recognition. However, because blacks are naturally 'craaaaaazy', thuggish, and demented, they've been acting wild and nutty since liberation. As such, they've victimized countless whites with robbery, rape, assault, murder, and etc. Therefore, just as America must address the historical wrongs done to blacks by whites, it must also address biological threat blacks pose to whites. By bringing blacks over the US, American History not only wronged the blacks but wronged many future whites who'd be victimized by tougher and more aggressive blacks. Just like Harriet Tubman and the underground railway sought to free blacks from slavery, the phenomenon of White Flight(and Jew Flew) was a kind of exodus for whites from Black Blight and Fight. Whites were running from Biological Slavery under the Thug Supremacism of blacks. (Jews bitch about white 'racism', but they also ran from blacks. And when black violence got way out of control in the 90s, Jews got themselves Billy Boy Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to get tough on crime and lock up record number of blacks behind bars to bring down crime.) Finally, there is the matter of nature, the fauna and flora of the Americas. One of the dire consequences of creating a great modern nation was the destruction of so much nature. Many animals went extinct, and they are lost forever. For that reason, America has an obligation to preserve as much natural lands as possible. And that means, NO MORE IMMIGRATION. If there are towns in America that are emptying of people, then the proper thing is to restore the land back to nature. We can never have too much nature.
Given the facts of history, any fair-minded person would agree with the sentiment that the greatest tragedy of America has been the destruction and demise of the American Indian culture and communities. Indeed, it would be most obnoxious for a people other than the American Indians to hog the stage & microphone and act as if the primary obligation, duty, and responsibility is to serve them. After all, Jews get very antsy if people other than themselves claim the mantle of 'victims of the Holocaust'. Even though Jews acknowledge that Nazi Germans killed millions of non-Jews(and even as part of the campaign that came to be known as 'Shoah' or 'Holocaust'), they insist(and rightfully so) that the Shoah was mainly about the targeting of Jews for mass destruction. So, even though many Poles and other Slavs were killed in World War II(and even under similar conditions as faced by Jews), Jews do have a special claim to Shoah. Every people have their own tragic narrative associated with certain lands. Then, the 'genocide' of the American Indians is a tragedy unique to American History. Because they were the native folks of North America and were vanquished(and even vanished from most of the lands) in what became the United States, the main moral narrative of American History should be about, "What was done to the Indians in the past and what must be done for them in the future?" Even blacks, with their slave narrative, cannot compete with the American Indians whose very homeland was taken from under their feet. Also, while blacks were allowed to live and thrive next to whites — even with Segregation — , American Indians were relocated en masse and settled in reservations that were usually the least productive lands.
Given the fact of American History, only the most obnoxious, arrogant, megalomaniacal, putrid, lowdown, disgusting, filthy, shameless, and scummy people would occupy the throne of Ultimate Victim-hood, Ultimate Claim-hood, and Reparation-hood within the American Context. Can anyone imagine Chinese saying that the main duty of America is to remember all the Chinese victims of Japanese & European imperialism and Maoist communism? Therefore, the D.C. Mall must have a Chinese-Tragedy Museum, all the students must be taught about the Nanking Massacre & other horrors of modern Chinese History, all politicians must say China is the closest and greatest ally of the US, and we must allow endless Chinese immigration to redress historical wrongs? While we can acknowledge the tragedy of modern Chinese History, why should the US go out of its way to 'do right' by the Chinese? Was the US taken from the Chinese? Whatever bad shit happened to the Chinese, it happened OVER THERE, and the US was no more responsible for the mess than other nations like European powers, Japan, Russia, and etc. And yet, we have Jews acting as if they have a special claim on American History, American Morality, and American Responsibility. But why? Did white Christians take America from the Jews(like the Romans took Jerusalem from the Chosen?) Did Jews suffer a great tragedy in America? If anything, Jewish merchants sold guns, ammos, and supplies to white expansionists who took land from the Indians. Also, Jews in the South handled much of the finances of the slave economy. The truth is Jews collaborated with whites in the destruction of the Indians and enslavement of the blacks in America. (Jews were also the main sellers of opium to the Chinese, which is why Jewish historians and their shills are now trying to minimize the assessment of harm done to the Chinese by narcotics. Jews were also leading communists in the Bolshevik Revolution that led to the deaths of millions of Slavs.) As for the Holocaust, it happened in Europe, and it was carried out by Germans who went mad largely because Jews drove them crazy with support for radical communism in the East and Weimar degeneracy in the West. Thus, what is known as Shoah or the Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust, or holocaust carried out by goyim driven to madness by Jewish Bolshevik holocaust of countless Christians in the East. Just like every action leads to a reaction, a holocaust can lead to a counter-holocaust. Even though Jews were on the side of Allies in WWII whereas Japanese were with the Axis, both groups ended up facing counter-holocausts. Jewish radical madness led to so much hatred against the Tribe that it led to the triumph of an ideology as nutty as Nazism. Similarly, so much craziness by the Japanese led to crazy-mad violence against them, the massive destruction of cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If we call Shoah the 'Counter-Holocaust', we will understand history much better. While Shoah was evil and crazy, it didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. It was a deranged reaction to much deranged actions by Jews. If we call it 'Counter-Holocaust', people will begin to ask 'In counter to what?' and then we can explain how much bad Jewish behavior led to rise of 'antisemitism' that finally took the insane form of Nazism. When people are driven to anger and desperation, they become blinded by and consumed with hatred. Why are so many Palestinians angry as hell about the Jews? Some of their hatred may be deranged and even genocidal toward Jews, but why do they feel that way? It's because Jews wiped Palestine off the map and have been treating Palestinians as subhuman trash. If Americans were riled up by Pearl Harbor to attack Japan and kill millions, imagine how the Palestinians feel who were robbed of their homeland? Of course, what was done to Palestinians was far worse. While the US, along with Japan and other powers, had done much to create much of the tensions in the Pacific that led to outbreak of war, the Palestinians had done NOTHING to no one, but the great powers, US-UK-USSR, all conspired to support the Jews in their 'genocide' of the native Arab population.
How dare Jews make themselves the Central People of America? The land was not taken from Jews. And the people who were most responsible for the creation of America were the Anglos and Germanics, not Jews. When it comes to the politics of victim-hood, Jews worked with the cowboys to wipe out the Indians. Jews worked with white slavers to import Africans, and Jews in the South owned slaves and opposed Emancipation. If there was a genocide or 'holocaust' in North America, it was to the American Indians by whites(with support of Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and even yellows who built railroads). By all rights, the Holocaust Museum in the Mall should really be about the American Indians, and Jews should fess up about their own role in the demise of the Indians. But Jews act like they morally and spiritually own America. At least the nutty Mormons cooked up some bogus history about how their ilk have some special connection to the New Land. Jews readily admit they have no deep ancestral roots in America but still claim that America really belongs to them most. Sure, Jews say America is for everyone but then insist that EVERYONE all get behind Jews, support Israel, and worship the Holocaust(as if the Jewish Tragedy should take precedence in the hearts of all races and groups). Since Jews can't claim America by deep ancestry(which belongs to American Indians), tragic experience(that belongs to blacks who toiled as slaves), or vision-founding-creation(that belongs to Anglos and Germanics), they've cooked up the notion of the 'proposition nation' where America is to be defined mainly by 'what it could be' that what it has been or what it is. Since Jews control the media and have spun an Emma-Lazarusean yarn about America as a nation-of-tomorrow(to be defined by endless immigration-invasion by New Peoples) and present themselves as the most iconic and eternal immigrant-group, especially in mythic association with Ellis Island that replaced Plymouth Rock, a mentality took root in the American Mind that the main obligation of all Americans is to honor, worship, & serve Jews and do as they command. Also, as Jews have quasi-spiritualized the Shoah or the Counter-Holocaust, it is no longer limited to the history of WWII and the bloodlands of Central and Eastern Europe. It is regarded as a cosmic thing, like the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ is supposed to be to all peoples in all the world. At least Jesus cared for all of humanity. In contrast, even as Jews have universalized Shoah-Worship for goyim, all they feel for goyim is contempt, often murderous in kind, as when all these Yinonist-Zionists cackle with hideous glee about all the Arabs and Muslims who've been massacred in these Wars for Israel, which might as well be called Mass-Murders for Israel.
Why are Jews so obnoxious? Part of it could be their haggly-waggly and verbally-excessive character. After all, is it just a coincidence that another group that is as often as obnoxious as the Jews are Hindus who are also verbally excessive? As if to follow in the footsteps of Jews and even go one step further, a most foul Dotkin Suketu Mehta(or Suckasstoo Meathead) has written a book called "An Immigrant's Manifesto". Even though America was taken from American Indians and not from Asian Indians, this worthless Asian-Indian Hindu says America has a moral obligation to open its gates to hundreds of millions of his Dotkin kind or Dotkind. It's like Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA. He has this crazy notion that all of America should somehow put out to him and offer him flowers wherever he goes. (Latin American whites are another scummy group when it comes to making Moral Demands on America. They posture as 'people of color' when, in fact, they were the First White Europeans to conquer the New World, spread disease, wipe out tens of millions, 'rape' countless native women, and lord over the brown Meso-Americans as virtual slaves and peons. Now, if Latin American whites acknowledged their part in the tragic dimensions of New World history while also claiming considerable achievements & improvements, it would be understandable. After all, Hispanic whites were not the only great conquering peoples in history[and they did bring an end to human sacrifice and other barbarisms of the natives], and we can't judge the past with today's values, even though, what with all the pro-migration-invasion rhetoric of globalism, one wonders if today's values are any different. What is unforgivable about Latin American whites is they conveniently overlook their essential role in the conquest of the New World and furthermore pretend that the mixing of white and brown was some kind of happy union, a love-fest among the races. Furthermore, their cretinous selves claim to be 'people of color' and dump all blame for New World tragedies on 'gringo' or 'yanqui'. As such, they are as dirty and lowlife as the Jewsters and Dotkins.) 'Verbality' is necessary for power, but with some peoples, it's gotten out of hand. Jews and Hindus are so busy yapping and listening to themselves go on and on and on that they've come believe in their own baloney or curry.
In contrast, the American Indians, who have most to complain about, go unheard because they are deficient in 'verbality'. It's like the 'big dumb Indian', aka Chief Broom, in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He isn't really deaf & dumb but acts it out of a sense of defeatism and resignation. It's interesting that just about the only word Indians are known for is 'How'. Indians need to start talking. They need to drop Broom-ism and learn a thing or two from Jewsters and Dotkins(and of course, the ghastly 'groids', another people who 'talk too much' as Run-DMC noted). If Jewsters, Dotkins, and 'groids' need to shut up a bit, the Indians need to speak up more and loudly. They need to put forth a great chief who will assemble all the Indian Nations in the Washington Mall and give a speech called "I have a vision", one that demands no more immigration-invasion as mass-immigration led to the 'genocide' of the Red Savages hunting gophers for stew.
The truth is as follows. Spiritually, the lands of North America belongs more to the Native Pre-Americans or American Indians than to any other people. They were here for tens of thousands of years before the American colonies and the rise of the United States as a great nation. In terms of territoriality and ancestry, this was Red Man's land for eons. Even if the various Red Tribes fought and slaughtered one another, they were all members of the same race... just like even though the various European tribes and kingdoms bashed one another across the eons, white folks have a special connection to Europe. Therefore, the spiritual connection of Indians and the Land must be respected. Also, because the eradication of Indian communities(and even extermination of Indian folks in some cases) was necessary in the creation of America, the Indian Holocaust must be the central Moral Narrative of American history and politics. And since it was European Conquest followed by waves of mass-immigration that led to the Indians losing ALL their Lands, Americans must address the dark and tragic side of Immigration. Emma Lazarus the Judeo-centric Jew only cared about her Tribe. As embarking to America would be great for her kind, she didn't care one bit about the American Indians who were reduced to poor, wretched, huddled masses rotting away in Reservations. But then, Zionist Jews didn't care that Palestinians would be expelled from their lands either. Jews only care about themselves and disregard goyim as subhuman. Worse, unlike Anglo Christians who felt some degree of sympathy and even admiration for the American Indians who put up a noble fight to defend their lands and culture, Jews feel nothing for the Indians. Sure, Jews pretended to care for the Indians in the counterculture 60s but only as metaphors for Jews. Thus, for awhile, Jews sought to draw comparisons between what Anglos did to Indians and what Nazi Germans did to Jews. Never mind that Jewish merchants took part in the conquest of the Wild West. And never mind that Jews decided to play cowboy with the Palestinians as Indians. And after the Cold War, Jews even went into Judeo-Nazi mode to use the US as its cavalry to ride roughshod all over the Arab-Muslim World.
Most obnoxiously, Jews have laid claim to America as their spiritual home. By making the US out to be a 'nation of immigrants', Jews are effectively saying Pre-American History(of the Indians) and American History(of whites who built a new nation) mean NOTHING. All that matters is what JEWS say America should be. According to Jews, America should be a land where all goyim must be compelled to praise Jews, worship the Counter-Holocaust, support Israel, and obey the Yinon-ist program of hating and slaughtering whatever & whomever Jews order us to hate and kill. "Kill for Jews" might as well be the new motto of Americanism. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but this is just a ruse to use 'white guilt' about the 'Magic Negro' to paralyze white pride and unity, thereby rendering whites easier to manipulate emotionally to do as the Jews as Holy-Holocaust-People demand. If Jews really care about blacks, why do they push for mass-immigration-invasion to replace blacks, along with whites, from many communities, especially fancy ones inhabited by Jews?
American Indians need to drop the Broom-ism and learn to talk. For too long, Indians had others do the talking for them, like when Neil Young sang songs like 'Pocohontas' or when Jim Jarmusch made DEAD MAN. In FARGO, the Indian doesn't talk much, but he gets awful angry. Indians must work on that anger and learn to talk. Indians have the war dance and rain dance. They need to perfect the Talk Dance, and learn to speak loud and clear about how America is spiritually their land. Therefore, the biggest moral imperative of the US must be an end to all immigration-invasion and a sincere effort to revive Indian communities. Indeed, how disgusting that Jews and their cuck-libertarians decided to redress the tragedy of Indian communities by offering casinos, most of which are run by Jews who take much of the profit. Imagine Europeans telling Jews, "Ah, forget about the Shoah. Let's just put some casinos where Nazi concentration camps were, and let's have a good time." That would be pretty repulsive, but that was the deal that the Indians got, like in CASINO JACK about the foul Jew Jack Abramoff.
Finally, American Indians need to understand that white race-ism was a double-edged sword. In their drive to turn the New World into an extension of European Civilization, white race-ist expansionism led to the demise of American Indian communities. And yet, white race-ism also protected the New World from the Non-White world that was even more numerous in people. Thus, even as white race-ism took the land from the Indians, it also protected that land from further invasion by all the world. Given the tragic history between whites and Indians, a non-white people, it's understandable why some Indians decided to form alliances with other non-whites against whites, but what do these non-whites want? They want endless immigration-invasion from all the world, and that means American Indians will have lost their land not only to whites(who felt some conscience and respect for the Indians) but to all the peoples from all the world, many of whom are utterly without conscience, honor, decency, and shame. Take Suketu Mehta, or Suckasstoo Meathead. I mean, how demented must one be to be a Hindu making a moral claim on America, a land that was not taken from his people and wasn't founded and built by his kind. Furthermore, can anyone with integrity say with utmost sincerity that America has improved with Jews as the ruling elites? For Anglos, morality meant 'improving ourselves', 'facing up to our wrongs', and reforming society for the good of all. It was about judging not only others but themselves. With Jews, morality is simply acting as if they're pure as snow, the fount of all truth & wisdom, always blaming OTHERS for all problems, and refusing to admit Jews also have a dark side to their history. Also, even as Jews seek to protect their own kind from deracination and total degeneracy, they push such on their enemies. Some may argue that Jewish embrace of globo-homo-mania is a form of degeneracy, but the fact is most Jews don't really get high on their own supply. Globo-homo is to Jews what cocaine is for the pusher. Jews wield it as a weapon to undermine goy communities than to really indulge in 'gay' worship. Anyway, American Indians need to realize that white race-ism was the last best defense of America from further invasion. As long as whites remained in race-ist mode, American Indians could rest assured that their ancestral-spiritual land would, at the very least, not be invaded by ALL THE WORLD. It was the fading of white race-ism that flung American gates to all the peoples of world, to tens of millions of Hindus, Africans, Asians, Latin American whites(aka Conquis), and Meso-Americans who have no claim on the Americas north of the Mexican border. Without race-ism, a people and land are doomed. Just ask the Jews who guard Israel with race-ism. As bad as Jewish race-ism may be in the eyes of Palestinians, it would be worse if Jews lost their race-ism and opened up Israel to ALL THE WORLD. Then, Palestinians will have lost their land not only to Jews but to Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Turks, and etc, etc.
**If America is all about an 'idea' & 'proposition' and not about soil, roots, and history, then how come there are special reservations set aside for American Indians? Isn't it because they have roots in the soil and deep memory of existence on the land? If America is purely about proposition, Americanism should not tolerate special recognition for American Indians' ties to the soil and the particularity of their history. If such is recognized for Indians, why is it not recognized for whites who were most crucial in American nation's founding and most instrumental in its development? If the Indians' deep historical connection to the land overrides mere considerations of 'universal values' and 'propositions', then the white man's founding and creative relation to the American soil also merits special recognition.**
Blacks Are 13% of London, England's Population: Blacks Represent 50% of the Murder Suspects in London
Prior to black immigration-invasion into Europe, the virtual lack-of-black or Black-Lack was the one true blessing and advantage that Europe had over the US. And same for Canada and Australia. Whatever was wrong with Europe or deficient vis-a-vis the US, it didn’t have the ghastly Black Problem. Nations without the Black problem have no idea how fortunate they are. If they think things are bad at home, they should take heart in knowing it could be much much worse with blacks. Things bad in Uzbekistan or Nepal? Just be thankful it doesn’t have the black problem. Indeed, "at least we don't have the black problem" should be the bright side for nations without a black population. Just when it seems things can't get any worse, it can if the nation fills up with blacks.
Despite the horrors of World War I and World War II(and tragedies associated with Communism and National Socialism), Europe could at least rest assured in having had no blacks(or just a tiny fraction that kept blacks at the level of curiosity than problem). In the long term, even horrible wars were less destructive than having Negroes. Indeed, look at the recovery of Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, and even Hiroshima soon after WWII. Tens of millions died and entire cities were turned to rubble, but in peacetime, there was breakneck construction, restoration, and return to normal. Whites and Japanese can be tremendously destructive in wartime(because their logistical and organizational skills are so impressive), but in peacetime, they are builders and maintainers. In contrast, blacks are ceaselessly destructive even in peacetime if they are afforded full freedom.
Unlike Europe(and Japan) that rebuilt rapidly after WWII, many American cities from the 1960s onward turned into cesspits of degradation and deterioration due to the BAMMAMA factor: Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. Blacks can easily overpower whites, terrorize communities, and destroy social trust & order that are so central to maintaining a good society. (Even though some American cities recovered via gentrification, the black problem didn’t go away as cities like NY and Chicago sent the blacks to towns and suburbs. Rather, rich yuppie-hipsters or yupsters just passed the buck or hot potato to OTHER communities that had less clout and resources to say NO to the Black Flood.)
So, despite Europe being engulfed in the biggest conflagrations in human history while continental US was spared the devastation of both WWI and WWII, things got bleaker in American cities than in European cities in the postwar period. The looming threat for American cities was the time bomb of black rage and savagery that was just ticking to go off. Indeed, even relatively impoverished Communist cities in Eastern Europe were nicer and safer than American cities like NY, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, and etc beginning especially in the mid-60s.
Surely, Europeans(and Canadians and Australians) knew about the American Race problem from watching the news. Their one great blessing and one great advantage over the US were HAVING NO BLACKS to run wild, terrorize law-abiding citizens, and wreck communities. Tragically, instead of feeling thankful and lucky for having no blacks, it was as though Europeans felt envy for not having them. Why? Not enough 'vibrancy'?
1. Blacks won in sports and were prominent in popular music, and whites all over the world came to swoon with adulation over figures like Muhammad Ali, Pele, and Miles Davis. So, Europeans wanted their own ‘cool’ blacks too, especially as black American athletes often beat up white European ‘palookas’. Why should the US win in all the cool events with their blacks? If Europe couldn't compete on the global level with black Americans, maybe they needed 'black Europeans' to bring home the trophy. In time, Rap and Afro-Pop became the main music of France, and Rap and Reggae came to dominate UK pop scene. And as blacks came to own the most popular sports, European cucky-wucks found themselves cheering for blacks as their national heroes. Most British boxing champions have been black since the 80s. French soccer players, boxers, and runners are virtually all black. People are tribal but also naturally servile to winners(even of the Other Tribe). Just like French women went with victorious German men during the Nazi Occupation, white folks rejected loser white athletes and prostrated themselves at the feet of black stars. Whites pledged their cuck-loyalty to the tribalism of blacks as the superior race. Tribalism is most effective when backed with pride and victory. When one's tribalism is associated with loss, defeat, and humiliation, there is the temptation to forsake one's own pathetic tribe and serve the masterful tribe.
2. World Media were dominated by Globalists and Jews, and they spun American racial problems as entirely the fault of whites and ‘racism’. Hollywood spread the image of the Magic Negro who only knew oppression under white bigotry and the nobility of struggle for justice. Many such movies featured haloed blacks. It's no wonder that Europeans loved Barack Obama and felt envy for not having someone like him or Mandela as their own leader. Media and Entertainment made whites(and other races) look upon blacks as sacred objects as John Derbyshire has opined many times. So, the conventional wisdom was that American blacks were just rebelling against legacy of slavery and discrimination. Black violence is always innately noble and moral.
Conceited Europeans figured that they would teach ‘racist’ America how to properly treat blacks. Europe would welcome blacks(from Africa, America, Caribbean, and etc) and treat them with love and decency, and these 'black Europeans' won’t become like American blacks who had no choice but to resort to violence against oppression. Furthermore, Europe would redeem its 'historical sins' by transforming poor African blacks into first-rate 'European blacks'.
In one way, Europeans worship blacks as the superior race with great idolic or idolatrous value. But they also doted on blacks as the childlike race in need of the guidance and beneficence of whites. After all, Europe is rich and modern, Africa is poor and backward. Blacks have become objects of both worship and condescension, as if they are almighty god and helpless baby. Fiendish blacks adroitly sensed and manipulated this delusional white psychology to squeeze ever more concessions from whitey. Blacks toyed with both the servile and maternal instincts of white folks. (Also, as white elites in affluent communities were safe and secure from social problems and rubbed shoulders with better blacks or Good Diversity, they didn’t care about the fate of poor whites who'd likely end up integrating with Bad Diversity. The rich whites get Obamas, the poor whites get Mike Tysons.)
3. In time, white women got jungle fever and white guys strapped on their cuck-shorts. A hit movie in France had a rich white paraplegic who is taken care by big muscular Negro. The message is clear. White guy is reason & riches but no body, and the black body must become the new body of Europe. Whites elites, as the head of the West, don't need the white mass as national body; blacks will take over as the new national body and colonize white wombs. And in BITTER MOON by Roman Polanski, the white guy(Peter Coyote) in the wheel chair is tormented and humiliated by his former lover who gets it on with a Negro. He can only watch helplessly. BBC TV is now all about match-making white women with black men in movie and TV roles. As for white guys, their roles are usually cucky or ‘gay’. No more white national heroes. And young white girls in Europe grow up twerking like their American counterparts. And they go to dance clubs to have their butts bumped-and-grinded by black men.
It just goes to show that the fantasy-reality of media & entertainment can override reality. The grim reality of the US since the 1960s has been "blacks + freedom = fall of civilization", along with end of white manhood as racial integration leads to black guys jumping white guys and humping white girls. Blacks cannot handle freedom like civilized people. Nature and evolution made them too wild and crazy. (Also, feminist 'liberation' has led to white women hankering to be whore-slaves of black men. Women find greatest happiness in surrender, not domination. So, women's liberation really comes down to women freeing themselves of relations with'loser' beta-males and seeking out alpha-males to submit to. As black men have tough-guy-advantage over white men, women's liberation has meant 'empowered' white women increasingly rejecting beta-white-males in search of alpha-black-males, even if only for short-lived affairs. Women's Liberation is not about women seeking equality for all people but about rejecting whom they deem to be inferior men in pursuit of superior men. Women's Liberation has made women more competitive for the limited number of winner-men.)
Europeans should have sighed with relief at their good fortune of black-free cities and towns because news depicted so many reports of race problems in America and black pathology in Africa. But, the media spun American race problems as “It’s all racist whitey’s fault” and “noble blacks are so cool”. And media spun the black African problem as either “It’s all due to white imperialism, and all the world must worship Mandela as god" or "Just a little bit more of white love and compassion can do SO MUCH for black Africans who are just brimming with limitless potential waiting to be tapped." Also, the dogma of blank-slatism and ‘race is just a construct’ had too many whites believing anyone can be molded into anything. So, if millions of black Africans come to the EU, they can easily molded into 'New Europeans' with a bit of education, acculturation, and training. As the result of such follies, Europe is going to hell. If Japan, which is so far away from Africa and West, is going afro-jungle with Japanese women having kids with black men and raising them to beat up smaller/weaker Japanese and take over Japanese sports and pop culture, imagine the fate of Europe where millions upon millions of muscled and big-donged Negroes are coming from Africa with only two things in mind, “Where’s the free stuff” and “Where the white women at?”
The biggest threat to the world is the vilification of ‘racism’ that prevents people from realizing the most important truth: Blacks will destroy your nations, and therefore, you must form a tribal defense system to keep blacks out of your domain. (If Ism means belief, then Race + Ism must mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. 'Racism' is the most ill-defined term in the world. As races do exist and racial differences are real, race-ism must be embraced by all peoples if they are to properly understand reality and take necessary measures to safeguard their own race and community. As blacks are superior in muscle power, aggression, and thuggery, all non-black societies must be wary of blacks coming to settle, terrorize, and take over.) Denial of race-ism is like political veganism. Without honest-to-good race-ist nutrients of tribal protein and iron, the white mind-and-body will be too anemic to change course and save Western civilization from the Ghastly Negro. PC veganism must stop. By denying natural tribal proteins for the white soul, white people(lacking in their own red-meat tribalism) end up seeking tribal satisfaction by taking up radical ideologies or OTHER PEOPLE'S tribalisms. It’s like the vegan body, starved of necessary animal proteins, tries to absorb nutrients, vitamins, and minerals from foods that are deficient in them. It is so futile as there is no real substitute for real animal protein and iron. Women especially do much better with some red meat after menstruation.
Likewise, there is no substitute for real healthy race-ism and tribalism for one’s own kind. Jews gorge on the meat of Jewish tribalism, and look how hale and healthy Zionists in Israel are. (The problem with Zionists, as was the case with the Nazis, is that they insist on gorging on the meat of OTHER peoples as well. Jewish uber-predators aren't content with their own blood-and-soil and must feed on the blood of other volks in imperialist mode.) But because whites are denied white meat and must stick to PC vegan diet, their tribal-protein-starved bodies desperately seek substitute-tribalist-nutrients from ideologies(that never quite satisfy tribal cravings) and OTHER TRIBALISMS, e.g. whites trying to be black in attitude or taking up the black cause against fellow whites. Or, among the cucky-wucks of Conservative Inc., it’s usually about vicariously sharing in the Triballistics of Jews and Israel. As whites aren’t allowed white identity and interests(deemed ‘toxic’ as ‘white supremacist’), whites conservatives seek substitute tribalism in ‘civic nationalism'(which has become useless in overly diverse America) or Zionism(which has no benefits for whites whatsoever). Or, they seek tribal satisfaction in the atomized tribalism-of-one, aka libertarian individualism. But as humans are social animals, individualism alone never satisfies one’s needs.
Whites must learn to eat tribal and race-ist protein again.
Healthy ideology is like the food pyramid. At the bottom(the foundation), there should be tribal identity, the blood and soil thing. Above that, there should be tradition and culture. At the next level, there should be freedom and individualism, and so on. We all need some degree of idealism. But for white folks, the pyramid has been inverted. Idealism or individualism makes for solid base for complex society. It is too abstract to serve as support system for all else. In contrast, blood-and-soil is real and tangible. It’s like existence comes before idealism. If you favor idealism over existence, it means that, when push comes to shove, you may well choose idealism & death over realism & survival. What people need as fundamentals are Blood, Soil, and Saga. The power of story is important as identity alone doesn't say much. What does it mean to say "I'm Jewish" or "I'm Irish" if you don't know the story and narrative of your people? Identity alone is like knowing your name but being amnesiac about your life story. Blood and Soil, yes, but also the Tale.
Consider the tale retold by Joseph Campbell about becoming what you really are.
So the little one is getting that message; he’s picked up and taken to the tiger’s den, where there are the remains of a recently slaughtered gazelle. Taking a chunk of this bloody stuff, the big tiger says, “Open you face.” The little one backs away, “I’m a vegetarian.” “None of that nonsense,” says the big fellow, and he shoves a piece of meat down the little one’s throat. He gags on it. The text says, “As all do on true doctrine.” But gagging on the true doctrine, he’s nevertheless getting it into his blood, into his nerves; it’s his proper food. It touches his proper nature. Spontaneously, he gives a tiger stretch, the first one. A little tiger roar comes out—Tiger Roar 101…. The big one says, “There. Now you’ve got it. Now we go into the forest and eat tiger food.” Vegetarianism Is the first turning away from life, Because life lives on lives. Vegetarians are just eating something that can’t run away.
