An Open Letter to a Globo-Homo Freak who Badmouths Ethan in John Ford's THE SEARCHERS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/john-ford-and-the-politics-of-the-western/

Are you so-called 'lefties' capable of saying anything other than 'racism, racism, racism' about THE SEARCHERS? 

And I find this passage hilarious. Andrew Stewart: 

"He wishes to kill his own family for inter-ethnic coupling. When Ethan speaks the wretched words he does, it is vital to remember that Wayne was saying on screen what a whole generation of fathers were saying in private about the idea of their precious white daughters going to school and perhaps one day dating African teens. The film’s literal Indian War is a deep analogue for the culture war that was going on at the time.... y understanding that Wayne’s Ethan is as psychotic and sexually-confused as De Niro’s Travis Bickle, it is possible to see the earlier film on a psycho-analytic level that otherwise escapes today’s viewers."  

You describe yourself as 'queer'. Ain't it funny that a guy whose idea of 'sex' is fecal penetration with other men would make a fuss about OTHER people's psycho-sexual hang-ups. 

Maybe you haven't heard but sexuality is DARK. It is animal. It is about territory, pride, possession. It isn't something so genteel and refined like a tea party. It isn't lovey dovey in its essence despite the romantic trimmings(but then, is the art of courtship even alive anymore in the West?)

The reason you don't get THE SEARCHERS is because you 'lefty' types see everything through the simplistic prism of 'racism'. Also race-ism is Truth insofar as different races and racial differences exist. Race-ism, properly defined, should mean belief in the reality of race and racial diversity/differences. After all, '-ism' means belief, and there is no reason why race + ism should automatically mean racial hatred or supremacism or prejudice. 

But first, to get a better grasp of THE SEARCHERS, suppose we remove the racial element. The emotional dynamics would be more or less the same though, of course, the factor of race amplifies the tension. It's like this: If a black guy kills a black woman, the family members of the slain victim will feel vengeful toward black killer. But the rage will be greater IF the killer is white. Then, it will be seen as a white-on-black-murder. Indeed, the whole BLM outrage is predicated on the race-rage that young black men are being killed by WHITE cops. Why were Americans so angry when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Because the 'Japs' done it. Jewish media and FDR(that wanted US entry into WWII) were ecstatic because the anger toward the yellow 'Japs' would rile up Americans, even isolationists, into entering the war. 

So, race makes it more intense, but sexual dynamics are pretty dark and brooding on its own. Take THE ODYSSEY. The hero comes back and kills all the suitors. He also kills the female servants of the house who sexually serviced the suitors. Odysseus is about manly pride. He ruthlessly reinstates his authority as man of the house. He kills other Greeks, but the rage isn't different in kind from that of Ethan Edwards. Though the element of race raises the rage level in THE SEARCHERS, Ethan's blood thirst is driven at least in part by healthy manly pride. Maybe you, being a queer, lack an understanding of real manhood. Maybe you are used to other men sticking their dongs into your bung. Maybe you like to play bitch to the stronger Negro. Maybe, maybe not. But real men are like Ethan, a true hero on the Greek scale. And it's not just about race, race, race. Suppose his brother's family had been killed by Liberty Valance and his gang than by Indians. Ethan would be just as furious and vengeful. He would hunt them down and kill them.

As for his willingness to kill Debbie, it's dark but understandable. Ethan wanted to save her but also feared that she'd grow up to become a breeder for the Indians. Imagine that. A tribe of 'savages' murdered his brother and his brother's children. The woman Ethan dearly loved was raped and butchered. Same was done to the older daughter soon after. OF COURSE, Ethan is angry as hell. 

Suppose I'm a leader of a gang, and my gang did such to YOUR family. Wouldn't you be enraged? Wouldn't your bloodlust be PERSONAL? It's like in THE GODFATHER. After the attempt on his father's life, Michael felt compelled, indeed obligated, to kill the Turk and the police captain. And the young Vito Corleone(DeNiro) eventually returns to Sicily to take revenge on the man who'd killed his family long ago. Vito had a calm exterior but always longed for vendetta. And Hyman Roth is committed to taking out Michael because of the death of Moe Green, who was like a little brother or even son to him. Jews may act 'liberal', but they are intensely clannish deep inside and never forget. They still want to destroy Germany for revenge sake. Maybe you don't understand such sense of revenge, pride, honor, and family/clan loyalty as you're a deracinated white queer 'lefty' who prefers abstract and bogus ideas of 'social justice' divorced from reality. 

If Ethan's brother's family had been spared and if Jorgensen's place had been raided instead by the Comanches, Ethan wouldn't have been so obsessed. The issue here is PERSONAL. Ethan really loved Martha. It was bad enough that he'd lost her to his brother(just like Marty nearly lost Laurie to the guitar strummer). But to find her body raped and killed by Indians? That was some bad shit. Ethan loves Debbie and wants to save her. But he knows that as the years pass, she will become part of the very tribe that raped and butchered her family — Ethan's brother and Martha. She will be serving the very people who committed horrors against her own kind. Of course, we and even Ethan know that it's not Debbie's fault. She was taken as a child and the Indians came to accept her as their own. But it means she will make red babies who will grow up to kill white people. THIS is what Ethan cannot tolerate. But your queero PC mentality can only see 'racism, racism, racism'. You don't understand true manly pride cuz you're globo-homo. 

But surely, even a homo can have feelings like that of Ethan. Suppose my gang wiped out your family. Suppose my gang is ultra-right-wing and hate 'progressives' such as yourself. Suppose my gang took your young sister(whom you dearly love) and plan to use her womb to create ultra-right warriors who will attack and kill more 'progressives'.  Wouldn't you be livid with rage? Wouldn't a part of you wish your sister was dead than join the enemy(like Patty Hearst, topic of the Paul Schrader movie) and attack you and your kind? 

Indeed, suppose we flip the SEARCHERS. Suppose it is about a bunch of white cowboys that attack an Indian village. Suppose these imperialist & 'genocidal' white men rape red women and kill almost everyone. But they take one Indian boy and raise him as 'honorary white' and teach him to hate and kill Indians. Suppose the Indian father or uncle of that boy wants to rescue him. But suppose the years pass and the abducted boy has joined the ranks of white invaders-settlers to fight Indians. Wouldn't it at least be understandable why the Indian father and uncle would want to see him dead? 

Do you know about the Ottoman Turks? They ruled over Greece for 300 yrs. They took many Greek Christian boys, brainwashed them, and turned them into Janissary trained to fight and destroy Christendom. Many Greek fathers and mothers would have preferred that their sons die than be taken and turned that way. Does your queer mind at least understand such mindset? Or would you accuse those Greek mothers of 'racism'? 

Indeed, Greek mythology and folklore are filled with such stories. What is the main musical form in US today?  Rap music which is about tribal blacks yapping about how their life be all about fighting and fuc*ing and how they finna blow away anyone who done dis they's pride. You 'progressives' are okay with the violent sexuality of Rap Culture, yet you bitch about how Ethan is enraged over his brother and family having been mutilated and rubbed out in the most gruesome manner. You're too much of a pansy PC ideologue to understand human psychology and instinct. Sure, Ethan is angry, even unhinged at times, but his feelings are understandable and all-too-human. And on some level, it is virile and healthy. Man is, at the root, an animal driven by survival, sex, territory, and pride. It is YOU who are sick because you lack such healthy instincts. Instead, you have the anti-instinct of decadence and racial suicide. 

Now, I'm not saying men should always act out their rage. The World would blow up like in DR. STRANGELOVE. But those instincts are natural and of the essence. There is a powerful bond within the race and between parents and children. 

Why does the black woman in BELOVED(by Toni Morrison) kill her own baby? She would rather have the baby be 'murdered' than grow up a slave.  To Ethan, Debbie has become a sex slave of the very people who raped and murdered her family. And from her womb will come more warriors to kill whites. To him, that isn't 'being alive'. 

Of course, you know and I know that the history of the West was tragic for the Indians. From their point of view, they were defending their own land from white invaders. Indians had their own reasons and pride. The Walter Hill movie GERONIMO is a magnificent tale of a man who fights for his race, land, and pride. Sure, he does horrible things and kills 'innocent' white folks, but it is war, and war brings out the 'worst' in people. After all, it was the democratic powers that economically blockaded Germany in WWI, thereby driving many German children to starvation. It's like Ethan shooting bison to starve the Indians. And the Jews who control the US forced sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, killing by some estimates 500,000 women and children. Ethan has nothing on the Jews when it comes to mass killing. And it was democratic Harry Truman who nuked Japan and killed all those babies. And Jews used Barack Obama to aid terrorists in Syria to bring down Assad. It's amusing how so many progs bitch about how 'racist-wacist' the fictional Ethan is but are totally okay with Jewish-Zionist mass murder around the world. 

Anyway, we need a better understanding of the dynamics of male pride, its dark side but also as a source of courage and inspiration. After all, what is the catalyst of events in SEVEN SAMURAI. One of the farmers had his wife taken by the bandits. He was helpless to do anything and feels shame as a man. His wife is being raped by scum, but he's impotent to do anything about it. He feels the kind of rage that Ethan feels. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy who'd accuse the farmer of 'psycho-sexual hang-ups'.  Or consider Angel in THE WILD BUNCH. He returns to his village and finds out his father was murdered by General Mapache. And his woman was taken... or worse... she freely went off with the very man who killed Angel's father and pillaged the village. So, when Angel encounters Teresa and she mocks him and laughs, of course he's angry as hell and shoots the 'puta'. It is a barbaric act in a barbaric world but understandable. A man's pride can take only so much humiliation. Akira Kurosawa understood this. Sam Peckinpah understood. So did John Ford. But all you can do is bitch about 'racism, racism'. 

Also, you say Ethan's fear of miscegenation is some kind of sickness. Why? If a white man has a white daughter, he naturally wants the girl to look up to her father and marry someone like him. It's part of human nature. If she goes with a man of another race, it means she finds Other Men to be racially-sexually superior. She would be sexually betraying her own kind. 

During Southern slavery, black men sometimes felt this way. Some black women happily gave themselves to white massuh. White master had the whip hand, and the black ho wanted the white man's seed than of the Negro slave. Imagine how humiliated the Negro male must have felt. 

In today's world, white women are finding out that black men are more muscular and bigger-donged. They look down on white males as 'slow white boys'. So, it is only natural that many white men would feel hurt and offended by this. Why wouldn't white men feel like Japanese men after WWII? Bigger and beefier white and black GI's were turning Japanese women into whores, and Japanese women flaunted their relations with American occupiers in front of defeated yellow men. Of course, Japanese men were wounded in pride.  Races are different. Black men are more muscular and tougher than white men. So, it is NATURAL for white men to feel threatened in racial/sexual/masculine in relation to blacks, just like Japanese men felt belittled and humiliated by American men sexually conquering Japanese women. And there is a whore element in womenfolk. Women are naturally into hierarchy. They are not egalitarian in their sexual preferences. They want winners with more money, more muscle, and/or bigger dongs.  So, Japanese men were bound to lose out to American men, and white men are bound to lose out to black men.  It's like French women threw themselves at Nazi German victors upon French surrender. Given that France was defeated, you'd think French women would have stuck with their own men out of national loyalty. But many French women didn't give a damn about that. They saw German men as winners and French men as losers.  French women acted like Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH. Like Arletty said, "My heart belongs to France but my ass belongs to the world."  Women are natural whores who will always go with Power.  Women like power and look down on 'losers'. Women may be politically on the 'left', but their sexual preferences are hierarchical. They want to put out to the Best and reject all the Rest. 

Historically and socially, white men had the advantage over blacks, who'd been historically oppressed. But white men were right to fear that, once social discrimination were removed, black men would gain over white men. Tougher black guys would beat up white guys, and white girls would look upon black men as racially-sexually superior. You see, race-ism is TRUE. Races are not the same. Get rid of social 'racism' and you end up NOT with equality but natural 'racism' that picks new winners and losers. Look at sports. Social race-ism of Yesterday favored whites as blacks were kept out of sports. But natural race-ism of Today favors blacks and discriminate against whites, browns, and yellows. We say US is so diverse, but NFL and NBA are almost all black. 

So, white fathers were understandably worried about their daughters going with Negro men. It meant racial-sexual defeat of white males, not colorblind racial equality. 

Such white girls(as 'mudsharks') were not opting for racial equality but rejecting white men as less manly than mandingo-like Negroes. We hear of the cuckold fetish among white liberals. Why is it racially so unequal? We don't hear of white couples inviting Mexican, Hindu, or Asian men to their bedrooms. It is usually the Negro. And we don't hear of black guys inviting white guys to do their women. Tyrone don't say, "Hey, white Wilbur, hump my Yolanda and humiliate by black ass."

And what does Rap music tell us about black sexuality? Negro rappers say, "da only thing on my mind is fuc*ing and fighting and whupping faggoty ass white boys and banging white girls." 

I find it amusing that white Libs condemn D. W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION for saying that black men are a bunch of sexual beasts, but when one looks at rap culture, sex/porn industry, sports franchises, and much else(all controlled by Jews and Liberals), the message is black men are wild studs, white girls should put out to them, and white boys should accept their wimpy secondary status and be cucky pussyboys.  White Libs SAY one thing but they CELEBRATE another. They say all races are the same and race is just a myth, but they really celebrate black superiority as athletes, singers, sex beasts, mandingos, and studs. And the music industry is run by Lib Jews and 'progressives'. Not by KKK or by D.W. Griffith. But their favored depiction of Negroes is as badass thugs and sex lunatics. And blacks themselves lead all the other races in promoting thug behavior, skank culture, and whore attitude. So, it seems THE BIRTH OF A NATION wasn't entirely wrong about blacks. Its fears about blacks were dismissed by Progs as 'irrational', but the favored Prog image of the Negro is as the thuggish sex stud or gangsta mandingo. Lib Jews control sex industry and own music industry, and the prevailing image of Negroes is a wild studs who have nothing on their mind fuc*ing white women. The ONLY difference between Griffith and Lib Jews is Griffith saw this as a bad thing, a threat to the white race, whereas Lib Jews welcome it because they want to castrate white males so that the white race will never regain the pride and unity necessary to challenge Jewish power. Indeed, consider the Old Spice advertising: It says Negro is the sex stud who is racially-sexually superior to the cuckish white boy. It's the same logic as in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Difference is Griffith called on white race to resist the looming black sexual imperialism. But cucks like you and Ken Burns celebrate your own racial-sexual demise as beta-male wussies before the macho black man. You guys are like the pansy-ass male Eternals in ZARDOZ. You have lost your male instinct to fight and survive. You guys really hate Ethan because he, like Geronimo, is a warrior for his race. You are collaborator cuck dork wimp. You can hide behind all this talk of 'social justice', but you have surrendered to Jews and blacks. 

https://www.facebook.com/wahgwaanmediatv/videos/257359648033355/

Anyway, sexuality is dark and brooding. It's like what Camille Paglia said. We have to start from nature. Nature is at the root of everything, and nature is 'unfair' and 'unequal'. It made men stronger than women. Nature is sex-ist because it created stronger men who can beat up women. Nature is also race-ist because evolution made Jews smarter to rule over us all and made blacks stronger to beat up other races. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

Indeed, if US had imported small Vietnamese as slaves, would we have the same problems? No. White males wouldn't be afraid of shorter and scrawnier yellow males. But whites bought powerful muscular blacks from Africa, and once the blacks were freed, they began to whup white guys who became wussified and afraid. White women lost respect for white guys and more of them go with Negroes. You see, this is not equality. It is the new inequality. More social freedom means nature will play a bigger role in sex and crime. Since blacks are stronger and more aggressive, social equality between the races means blacks will beat up other races. This is why white folks want guns. Man to man, a white man is likely to get whupped by a black guy who will then rape the white guy's wife.  In fact, white guys are so demoralized that they now invite black guys to fuc* their wives. White guys are into cuckold fetish. Do you see black guys invite white guys to fuc* black women? 

http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/the-truth-about-interracial-rape/

Take STRAW DOGS? Sexuality sure can be disturbing. Dustin Hoffman's character got the girl because he's smart and successful. Girls like winners with careers who can provide, like Hoffman's David. But girls also like studs, and studs resent and look down on successful geeks or nerds who lack 'genuine manhood'. So, the sexual dynamics in STRAW DOGS get all confused. That's how nature works. But you are too PC priggish and neo-puritanical to have the requisite empathy to understand. Instead, you hysterically shriek, "Oh, that is so racist, that is so sexist, that is so... blah blah blah." You will never fully appreciate art and reality if you are such a neo-victorian PC pussy boy. 

Yes, all the characters in STRAW DOGS are sexually anxious and/or 'hung-up',  but that is natural. You see, all guys are anxious on sexual matters in one way or another.  A big strong ugly guy can attract a girl with his toughness, but he is jealous of the handsome guy and smart guy. It's like Jake LaMotta in RAGING BULL. He got the girl cuz he's a tough boxer. But he is outwitted by old gangsters, and he is intensely jealous when his wife says Tony Janiro is good looking, something LaMotta is not. Or a guy may be handsome and attract girls. But he may be anxious cuz he can be whupped by strong ugly guys. And a smart guy can get a girl with his money, but he may be anxious cuz she might be attracted to strong guys and handsome guys. It's like that Eagles Song 'LYING EYES'. 

Surely, you know about The Iliad. That was about a woman.  A war for Helen. But then, what do men live and fight for? Land and pussy. That's what matters most. Before there are ideas, there has to be life. And life is created through man and woman. So, if man loses the woman, he is lost. No children, no lineage. And if he has no land, he is vulnerable. This is why Jews obsessed about race for 3,500 yrs. Unless Jewish women had children for Jewish men, the Jewish race would face extinction. Today, there's lots of intermarriage among Jews, BUT most Jews insist that mixed-children be raised as JEWISH and goy partners usually go along because Jewishness has prestige as identity(whereas whiteness is vilified as 'racist' and yellowness is derided as weak). And even after 2,000 yrs of exile, Jews found a way to take back the land with the creation of Israel. Even the most Liberal Jews supported this massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.  Also, blood matters a lot to Jews. Take the Moses story.  Like Debbie was raised by Indians, Moses was raised by Egyptians as one of their own. But he rediscovered his roots. He sided with Jews, and to defend the Tribe, he worked with God to kill all the first born of Egypt. Jews still celebrate that murderous event as Passover. That is how Jews survived for 3,500 yrs. There was a bit of Ethan Edwards in all of them. 

Such is the way of life. Ethan is like a little Moses. He fights for his people. And it's understandable why John Wayne stuck up for Ethan. Wayne's remark about the Indians in your article is valid and invalid. Wayne said the Indians were greedy for having all that land for themselves. He was right in the sense that the US as a nation couldn't have become a reality if a few million Indians had all of it. There would have been no roads, factories, schools, hospitals, universities(favorite bastions of progs), and etc. UNLESS white man took over and settled the land. Besides, the moral logic of Wayne's pro-white-settlement account is now used by Progs. They say US is so big and bountiful that Americans must share the land and wealth with people all around the world. They say whites mustn't hog it for themselves, just like Wayne once said it was wrong for Indians to have sole claim to the land. These progs who feign outrage over Wayne's remark don't seem terribly interested in reviving Indian communities or returning much of the land to them. Instead, they call for even more mass invasion-immigration so that the remaining Indians will lose their ancestral hunting grounds to ALL THE WORLD.

For those who believe in the American enterprise, Wayne's sentiment has much validity because the Indian Way had to go to make way for civilization modeled on European achievements. After all, what has America been but a vast social experiment where white peoples, under leadership of Anglo-Americans, were given a virtual blank slate of land and freedom to show the world what they are capable of? At the time, no other people, provided with the same resources and opportunities, could have done as much. Not even close. 
But Wayne's argument is also invalid because, for the Indians, it wasn't just a matter of economics or politics or 'social progress'. The land under their feet was sacred and mythic, spiritually alive to them. Their folklore and identity were wedded to this land. And even though red 'savages' couldn't build a great modern nation like the Anglos did, they lived in brutal and rough balance with nature, and there is something to be said for nature and wildlife.  America built by whites is a tremendous achievement, but so much nature had to be destroyed to make way for farms and factories. We modern folks don't wanna live like savages, but Indians had a deeply meaningful relation to the land, and it was tragic that it was lost in the progress of industry and science and etc. Progress is good but came at a price. 

So, you see, there are always two ways to look at things. Even what you say of MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE misses the point.  On one level, it is true that the man's career was built on a lie. But it was also built on a truth. While it's true that Wayne's character of Doniphon was the man who really shot Valance, it is no less true that the James Stewart character showed remarkable courage when he picked up a gun to take on Valance. So, his career was built on a half-lie, not a total lie. He mustered the will to stand up to Valance and prove his manhood, all the more admirable because he's no gunman. If Stewart's character had ran from Valance but taken credit for having killed him, that would really have been a lie. But he did show incredible courage in challenging Valance. 

One thing for sure, Ethan is very different from Travis Bickle of TAXI DRIVER(written by Paul Schrader, directed by Martin Scorsese). Ethan is one tough hombre, a leader of men. He is man among men. An alpha. He becomes enraged because of what happened. He can be sociable and in sync with the world around him. He is a good reader of people's character and motives; he's a good leader of men. In contrast, Bickle is really messed up in the head. You can tell he is sort of like Norman Bates crossed with one of Robert Bresson's characters.  

Also, we are talking of two entirely different worlds. In THE SEARCHERS there is civilization vs savagery. Though Ford is somewhat sympathetic to the Indians, the coming of progress means savagery must make way for churches and rule of law. In contrast, TAXI DRIVER is more disturbing because it is set in the heart of civilization, New York, the greatest city on earth. Yet, the decadence and degeneracy are worse than savagery. It is savagery at the core of civilization. 

Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he fears black thugs. But this is so dumb. I mean how could any honest person NOT have noticed black thuggery and crime in NY, especially in the 70s? Things got so bad that even 'liberal' NYers finally got Republican Rudy Giuliani to clean things up. NYers also elected centrist Jewish-Supremacist Michael Bloomberg three times to get tough on blacks through stop-and-frisk(the 'nigger'). So, in a way, Bickle's fears were shared by Libs themselves. You surely have it too. If not, go live in Detroit or the black parts of Baltimore. It's easy for you to talk the Lib talk while refusing to walk the Lib walk.  Indeed, look at all the biggest Liberal cities.  They've been gentrifying to drive out dangerous blacks. San Francisco is only 6% black.  Housing projects have been torn down in Chicago to make way for posh condos for white and Jewish 'progressive' yuppies. And for all those 'nice libs' voted for Clinton who locked up tons of Negroes. So, while all you Libs put down Bickle, your ACTIONS confirm his fears. 

In the original screenplay of TAXI DRIVER, the pimps were black. Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he tries to save  a white girl from black thugs. What in the hell is wrong with that?  Suppose a black taxi driver saw a bunch of white pimps exploiting black girls. Would it be wrong for him to feel racial rage? 

Weren't Vietnamese men angry that whites and blacks were turning their women into a bunch of whores? Viet Cong men were a bunch of Travis Bickles who were trying to end sexual imperialism by the US. Bickle wants to save a white girl from black sexual exploitation. 

If a bunch of Arab men sexually exploited Jewish women, Jewish men would be angry as hell. And good thing too. Suppose Arab men exploit Jewish women in the way that Jewish men exploit Slavic women as sex slaves in Israel and Ukraine. Suppose Arab men control pornography and get mostly Jewish women to have sex with Negroes for money. Jewish men would growl with rage. Any man who is okay with men of another race exploiting the women of his race is a pussy-bitch(like what the Japanese have become since the end of WWII).  

Anyway, sexuality is dark matter. It brings out the murderer in us. Consider what OJ did to Nicole Simpson. Or consider what happens in Othello. In Romeo and Juliet, the two young ones commit suicide or murder themselves for love.  
Sex also creates family and new dynamics of bonds and hatreds. When Agamemnon had Iphigenia sacrificed to the gods, his wife got so angry that she waited for him to return and then had him killed. And then her kids killed her. All very dark and crazy stuff but also very understandable since humans are driven by dark passions. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy freak who can only think in terms of 'that's racist', 'that's sexist', or 'that's homophobic' when it comes to the arts. 

This is why humanities have come to suck so bad. Too many ideological freaks like you reduced art to a set of buzz words. You don't know the true nature of passion. Consider Marty in THE SEARCHERS. He comes across the voice of reason through much of the movie, but when he finds out Laurie his love is about to marry the guitar-strummer, he turns all 'savage', and the 'Indian' side of him emerge. For a moment, he seems even more unhinged than Ethan as he even bites the groom in the ear. You as a homo should know this since the homo community is filled with all sorts of obsessive freako people who are so vain, narcissistic, possessive, and even socio-pathic. But so lacking in self-awareness.

Oddly Enough, the New Waves of Immigrant-Invaders are like Whites of Old America: White Americans are doped on the Peyote and Firewater of the Constitution — African Evolution and Consequential Culture of Buns & Dongs

It has become something of a 'politicultural' pastime among White American Conservatives to gripe about Constitutional Rights being buried by avalanche of Diversity via Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The logic goes, "Since most immigrants are non-white, and since most non-whites vote for Democrats and align with PC, most future elections will be won by the 'Left' that will clamp down on Constitutional Rights and Traditional American Liberties." Even if immigrants themselves may not be anti-white or anti-American(or anti-Constitutional, especially as one of their reasons for wanting to come to America is for greater freedom), they come under the influence of US media. Furthermore, their children are indoctrinated by PC-laden schools and turn into mental robots spouting the usual nonsense about 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'; and they'll say Diversity is among the highest values(even though many immigrant-invaders moved to white-majority nations in the hope of getting away from too much diversity in their mother countries). But then, EVEN IF most immigrant-invaders were totally supportive of the Constitution and what it stands for, they will still vote for Democratic Party for the simple reason that it is more supportive of Broken Borders(aka Open Borders) that will allow them to bring over more of their relatives and the like. It seems India wants to export at least 400 million Hindus to US, Canada, and Australia. Many are also motivated by envy and resentment. This is especially true of people from Latin America, white and brown alike. White Latinos have long been resentful of the far more successful Anglos and Anglo-Americans, and browns see the 'gringo' as the people who got more of everything. So, their anti-white spite would override their hypothetical support of free speech and property rights. Emotions often overwhelm principles(and even material concerns).

But there is another reason for immigrant-invaders supporting the Democrats and PC. While it's true that they come to the US, Canada, and Australia for More Freedom and More Liberty, they want more of that for THEMSELVES(as opposed to for everyone). While Freedom need not be a zero-sum game, it's usually the case that freedom/opportunity for one people leads to diminished freedom/opportunity for another people. Letting blacks freely compete in sports led to far less opportunities for whites to make a mark in athletics because blacks are naturally better at it. Letting blacks wander around freely diminished the freedom of white movement due to fear of black thuggery and crime.
In order for there to be America, the freedom of the American Indians — to continue their culture and traditional ways — had to be crushed. In order for the US to take over the Southwest Territories, Mexican freedoms had to be trampled and curtailed. In order for Jews to freely push for Zionist-Centrism, it certainly helps to limit the freedom of the BDS movement to spread the message of Justice and Liberation for Palestinians. So, there is a kind of Freedom Paradox in the American Dream. It is true that all these Immigrant-invaders come to the West for MORE FREEDOM(as their home nations are often less free), but in order for them to maximize their own freedoms, it certainly helps if Western Policies limit the freedom of White Natives or Nationals who might say "Enough Already, No More Mass-Immigration and Great Replacement" and "Look at all the problems these Newcomers bring with them from so many backward or barbaric parts of the world." It's like, if YOU want to say MORE, it's useful to gag the other person. If he is free to speak just as much as you are, then freedom will clash with freedom. If you want to prioritize your freedom, it's tempting to limit the freedom of the other, especially if he or she holds an opposing view. This is why Jewish Power has spread the Jew Taboo that smears any view that is critical of Jews as 'antisemitism'. Thus, Jews feel free to say whatever they want, whereas non-Jews must be very careful about what they say about Jews lest it be 'antisemitic'! Non-white immigrants feel as the Jews do. They also want to maximize their own freedoms but by suppressing the 'excess' freedom of whites who might push back against mass-immigration-invasion and condemn the cultures/values brought over by the newcomers. But then, were whites any different throughout most of American History?

In a way, white Americans who invoke the Constitution(its protection of rights and liberties) and how it's threatened by all these newcomers(who as new citizens vote 'left' and for 'socialism') are not thinking clearly nor very honestly. Something like true and neutral adherence to the US Constitution was never a part of US history. One may argue that the US was closest to its Constitutional Ideal from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s with the end of racial discrimination against blacks and with explosion of personal rights and liberties all throughout the nation. Of course, even here, there were problems. After all, did the Constitution allow for 'Affirmative Action'? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's right to abortion? And then, there is the problem of federalism and states rights that have never been satisfactorily resolved. Still, for about two decades from the mid-60s to mid-80s, the old restraints faded while PC(the product of the radical boomers) had yet to take hold of universities, though trends had been moving in that direction, mainly due to the agenda of boomer Jews. For those two decades, America seemed freer than ever before in terms of Free Speech and Personal Liberty, and this meant for people on the 'right' and 'left', religious folks and non-religious(or anti-religious) folks,whites and blacks, men and women, and so on. This was a time when the Jewish-heavy ACLU even felt compelled to defend Neo-Nazis and the KKK in certain cases to demonstrate that the US Constitution must protect the rights of all. Free Speech Absolutism was still useful to Jews back then as many were into radical politics and had yet to take total power over all the main institutions of America. But anyone who thinks most of US history was like those yrs from 60s to 80s is gravely mistaken.
The bulk of US history was not about equal freedom for all under the Constitution but White Freedom and White Rights Uber Alles. The US was founded as the Land of the Free(and was freer than most parts of the world, including most of Europe), but it wasn't meant to be the land of equal freedom. Indeed, the US would never have come into being on the basis of equal freedom, whether between elites and the masses, between whites and non-whites, between Anglo-American Whites and Non-Anglo-Whites, between Christians and Non-Christians, and among the various states. For starters, suppose America, from its very inception, had respected the right of American Indians to be equally free. Then, American Indians would have stayed put and kept playing Indian, thereby standing in the way of the white man's move westward and technological progress. Much of America would have remained savage. Also, if Early America said American Indian culture & values are just as valuable and worthy as Anglo-American culture and values, then civilization and savagery would have had to coexist side by side. With both having equal protection under the law, the forces of civilization wouldn't have been free to sweep aside the forces of savagery freely romping around with bows & arrows and tomahawks(and a bit of human sacrifice and cannibalism). America was created by white people hogging the freedom to do as they wished and by crushing the freedoms of American Indians who wished to maintain their way of life on what they deemed as their sacred hunting, mating, and burial grounds. Also, as American Indians practiced slavery and saw no evil in it, equal freedom for the Indians would have meant their 'right' to practice slavery without the interference of Western Culture and Values then moving away from the institution of bondage as grave moral injustice, even an evil. After all, slavery didn't begin with whites in the New World. It had been practiced by American Indians for nearly ten thousand years.
The formation and development of America also depended on the suppression of blacks, a people even more savage in origin than the American Indians. While many whites, in the South as well in the North, weren't proud of slavery and eventually wanted it eradicated(as it was regarded as a moral stain and ideological betrayal of Enlightenment principles), they also instinctively understood that blacks posed a serious threat to the white race. For starters, blacks were more muscular and naturally more aggressive. They had to be trained hard, even severely, to behave because they had a natural propensity to act ugabuga and apelike(like how today's rappers make motions akin to chimp-gorilla behavior). Black women, if left to their own devices, had a tendency to shake their butts to attract the men. It's hardly surprising that with more freedom and fewer inhibitions in America, black women reverted to ass-shaking that is now called 'twerking'. Black women have bouncier butts for reasons of evolution. To attract men in Africa, black 'biatches' had to jiggle their buttocks before the men who preferred bouncier buns. Whereas women were mainly chosen for their faces in Europe, they were chosen for their buns in Africa. When women shook their buns at men, men were supposed to pull out their dongs to show who got the bigger ones. So, over time, black men favored bouncy buns while black women favored bigger dongs. The essence of black African culture was in the buns and dongs. Of course, the Africanization of the West is turning white women into a bunch of whiggirls prepping for Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
White people instinctively understood this threat posed by blacks. As blacks are naturally more rambunctious and uggity-buggity, their use of freedom was bound to be different from that of whites. While all races have their share of good ole boys who like to act wild and rowdy, blacks had badass boys who were likely to act even wilder and crazier. Also, whereas non-blacks regard having-fun as recreation and blowing off steam, blacks regard fun as the core of existence. This is why so many blacks commit crime not just to gain something but to have fun. Non-whites think, "Work, earn, buy stuff, and have fun." Blacks feel, "Grab it if you want it, and that be fun." It's the difference between agricultural mentality and hunting mentality. Farming isn't fun, but you do it because you will be rewarded with harvests that can be sold for profits with which you can have some fun. In contrast, hunting itself is fun whether you catch the prey or not. Long ago, whites understood this side of blackness, and this is why they couldn't allow equal freedom to blacks. Having a different nature, blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Just like men and women with equal freedom spend their money and expend their energies in divergent ways, whites and blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Whites are more likely to use freedom constructively and rationally, blacks are more likely to use freedom destructively and crazily. In order for America to grow and develop by White Freedom Tendency, it was believed that Black Freedom Tendency had to be suppressed. If blacks had been granted equal freedom as whites, black misuse of freedom would have stood in the way of white use of freedom to build a modern nation of Rule, Regulations, and Sound Management.

Of course, there was nothing in the US Constitution that spelled out issues pertaining to Racial Tendencies, but that didn't matter as White Americans favored White Freedom over Black Freedom. As in regards to the American Indians, in order for white Americans to have their way and do their thing, it was necessary to clamp down on equality of black freedom. It's like parents must limit the freedom of children to keep the family together and maintain semblance of order. If parents allow equal freedom to their kids(who are so easily manipulated by junky pop culture and pied-piper charlatans), the family will fall apart and things will spiral out of control. So, even though the suppression of black freedom was a violation of the US Constitution, most whites felt it was necessary and worthwhile to develop and maintain a sound, stable, and sane nation(that could easily be corrupted by unfettered black savagery and brutalized by unleashed black thuggery). What this shows is that most of US history was not about 'Muh Constitution' or Equality of Rights for everyone and all groups. While the Constitution was certainly important and shaped much of American values and norms, most whites who dominated America believed White Survival, White Expansion, White Well-Being, White Prosperity, White Progress, and White Stability were more important. If whites had to choose between the Constitution/Principles and Continuation/Power, they chose the latter. Whites believed the Law existed to guide and serve whites than the other way around. Of course, most whites didn't believe whites were always right or that the law must favor white interests at all times — if a white committed murder of a non-white, he should face justice — , but they believed that the Law must not stand in the way of what was good for whites as a collective.

For most of American History, whites understood that they couldn't have pure tribalism or pure principles. If white were purely tribal, they would have been hardly be different from savage American Indian Tribes or could all devolve into clans like Hatfields and McCoys. Therefore, whites valued the Constitution, Rule of Law, and Higher Principles, such as that led to the eradication of slavery and many other social reforms. And yet, whites also understood that Man Doesn't Live on Principles Alone. After all, even though the West became a Christian Civilization, it wouldn't have survived, let alone grown in power, by adhering to a purist form of Christianity. If the Christian West practiced 'turn the other cheek' and believed in poverty-as-virtue as Jesus had preached, it would have been conquered and dominated by other peoples and races. The West gained much wisdom and good values from Christianity, but its principles had to be balanced by the Way of Power. When necessary, whites had to be warriors and fight. And they had to make peace with human nature and allow people to pursue wealth and privilege in order to have economic development and science/technology. Life has its own organic rules. Human life gained much by creating certain values & rules and obeying them than going purely by life's instinct. Everyone has something to gain by stealing, but good people choose not to steal(even when they can) because it's good for the whole community if people respect each other's property. If people act like animals(or Negroes) and just take stuff because they want it, the thieving individuals might gain short-term benefit, but social order would crumble, and then, things would be harder for EVERYONE. It's because animals act like animals — chimps steal from other chimps, wolves steal from other wolves, lions steal from other lions, etc — that they are mired in a world of brutality. And so, rules and principles are important as regulators of life. And yet, ultimately, rules and principles have real value ONLY IF they enhance the survival and well-being of a community. If adhering to rules and principles leads to the demise of one's community, then it doesn't matter how fancy and precious those values may be. The fact is they led to destruction of life.
The lesson to be learned is that there is a useful limit to every rule and principle. So, while Christianity has been useful as a moral and spiritual guide for the West(and non-West), it would be foolish to follow its tenets to the letter as doing so will definitely lead to the demise of your people. There has to be a kind of compromise between power and principles. Power must agree to adhere to principles, but principles must concede that they don't have all the answers. Principles have value only as a guide. After all, if people must adhere to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal' at all times, then America would have been impossible as it was created through white man's stealing of land from the Indians. In some ways, it was a violation of moral principles, but from the power perspective it made sense because so much of bountiful rich land was occupied by a relatively small number of primitive savages. Same is true of war. Sure, the notion of War Crimes is a useful idea, and all sides should stick to the Rules of War, but the fact is, no side really does and can't expect to win by sticking to the letter of international conventions. So, through most of US history, white people favored Continuation over Constitution. They never rejected the Constitution and, if anything, had great respect for it as a legal and political guide for the nation, but their priority was their own racial survival, victory, and power. They were not willing to give up those things in the name of absolute adherence to the Constitution. Free Speech as an absolute right may have existed in the US from late 60s to the mid-80s, but prior to massive social changes in the 60s, many forms of speech and expression had been suppressed or downright censored by the state and/or private sector for their obscenity, seditious nature, subversive content, blasphemy, disturbance to the peace, and the like. So, the notion that the US will respect Free Speech Abolutism ONLY IF it remains white is to ignore most of US history.
It is also false to believe that US will turn 'socialist' because of the rise of color. Europe was more white than the US, but even Western Europe went far more 'socialist' — with social democratic programs and labor protection laws galore — than the US. Also, it was an overwhelmingly white America that elected 'socialist' FDR four times, indeed so much so that the GOP had to make peace with New Deal policies. And Lyndon B. Johnson who promised Bigger Government was elected by a nation that was solidly white. This was prior to the 1965 Immigration Bill. Why did so many white people vote for the 'socialism' of the Democratic Party? Because the white hoi polloi thought the Democratic Party would take MORE from the Fat Cats(who mainly supported the GOP) and spread the wealth around to the white masses. (White Americans began to turn against 'socialism' and Big Government ONLY WHEN government policies began to favor blacks over whites.)

When we consider all these points, it is rather disingenuous for white Americans(especially of a 'conservative' bent) to argue that the Constitution and Inalienable Rights will go out the window if the US ceases to be a white majority nation. The fact is the US almost never had Free Speech Absolutism though the period from the late 60s to late 80s came closest. Also, it was White America that elected 'socialist' New Dealer Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times. And it was white Germanic Wisconsin and white Scandinavian Minnesota that had some of the most socialist programs in the US. In contrast, socialist policies were generally shunned in the American South because of the fear of blacks. But even that isn't the full picture. Huey Long of Louisiana gained support as a populist who railed against Big Money and spoke on the behalf of 'hicks' who had less(at least according to ALL THE KING'S MEN). And many white agricultural folks in the South voted Democratic because they regarded it as the party of the working class and 'honest farmer' against Big Money dominated by the North. White Southerners began to turn against 'socialism' only when blacks got full franchise and began to dominate the politics of taking from the trough.

A kind of Socialist Paradox operates among whites. A community that is virtually all-white or minority-white is more likely to turn 'socialist', whereas a community that is majority white but with a large non-white population of dependents is likely to be 'anti-socialist'. If a society is all white, most people regard 'socialism' as a kind of all-in-the-family. It's white money going to white folks. Besides, there is a sense of shared values among whites, especially those of Northern European heritage. The understanding is that the rich pay more, but even poor whites have some values and sense of shame and try to get back on their feet. They use socialist services out of need than laziness or chronic parasitism. Thus, 'socialism' is attractive to communities that are overwhelmingly white. In contrast, in a society that is majority white but with a sizable non-white population(especially such as blacks or browns), there is a sense among whites that much of their tax dollars will go to supporting leeches and deadbeats. Whites of such community tend to reject 'socialism' out of lack of identification with and trust of non-whites. However, if non-white population keeps growing and eclipse the white population — as happened in California and fated to happen to Texas as well — , their votes can win elections in favor of 'socialism', whereby whites will have to pay more to fund non-white leeches. California can afford to do so because of its giant businesses in agriculture, entertainment, and high-tech, but this is a recipe for disaster for most white-minority societies. 'Socialism' in an all-white setting is one of common trust and compromise, whereas 'socialism' in a white-minority setting is one of parasitism and resentment. Of course, eventually, 'socialist' policies can no longer be afforded and sustained, whereby the three likelihoods is (1) radical tyranny, as happened in Cuba (2) oligarchic tyranny, as happened in most Latin American nations ruled by military juntas backed by big money or (3) stalemate & stagnation, as is the case in current Venezuela that is, at once, democratic, radical, and oligarchic, with no single side gaining full power to establish order as it wants.

The fact is white Americans for most of US history put their race, survival, well-being, and power before the Constitution. Just ask the American Indians, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians(especially those in 'internment camps' during World War II). And this was also true between Anglo-Americans and non-Anglo-whites. Just ask the German-Americans during World War I who came under great suspicion and were pressured to become more Anglo-Americanized. (It's no wonder that Jews go out of their way to make Israel the closest ally of the US. Anglo-America made German-Americans side with US/UK against Germany. It made Italian-Americans side with the US against Italy. It made Arab-Americans side with US against Arab nations. So, it's possible for the US to make Jewish Americans side with American Interests against Jewish/Zionist interests abroad. To prevent such, Jews have the full might of media and their whore-politicians to repeat the mantra, "Israel is our closest ally and greatest friend, and bagel is the finest food" in the hope it will be inconceivable for any American to believe that US could act against Jewish or Israeli interests. The US is a nation built on betrayal as betrayal can be liberating and spark new possibilities. The colonials betrayed their British King. French King betrayed a fellow monarch and aided the revolutionaries against the Crown. Though the French King did so much for American Independence, Americans had no problem working with the French Revolutionaries who killed him and his family. Whites betrayed all the treaties made with Indians. America betrayed the principles of its anti-imperialist founding by practicing its own imperialism. And all the new immigrants were made to swear oath to America, thereby turning their backs on their ancestral nations. In time, German-Americans were willing to kill fellow Germans abroad to serve the US empire. Just about the ONLY people who refused to betray their own kind are the Jews, and they must be admired for that. Jews were not willing to kill fellow Jews abroad for the US empire. If anything, they were going to take power and make the US fight for interests that served World Jewry, and it is for such strategy that Jews must be condemned. But then, Jews had good reason to think that unless the US was made to bow down before Jewishness, it was possible that the US could turn anti-Jewish and use its might against Jewish interests abroad.) In order to forge a new united nation, Anglo-Americans used many extra-legal and what might now be called unconstitutional means to shove Anglo-Americanism down the throats of non-Anglo white immigrants. Even as such groups found much freedom in America and could keep certain aspects of their culture(mainly in food and wine), they and their children came under pressure from schools, businesses, and so many other areas to conform to Anglo-American standards... or else. Only the Jews, with a deep & profound sense of identity and powerful personality, managed to resist this pressure, though at times they did a pretty good job of pretending to be Good Americans. If Constitutional purism had been upheld and enforced in the late 19th century and early 20th century when so many newcomers came ashore from the Old World, it's difficult to believe the US could have come together as a solid mass of national unity and patriotism.

As valuable as the Constitution is, it is about 'negative rights' and therefore, it is defensive. It's not about a certain vision, nor about right or wrong. All it says is that people should be free to say, do, and have certain things, and those should be secured as 'rights'. It isn't particularly American as most of those ideas had developed already long ago in Europe. Also, constitutionalism has spread worldwide, even in non-white nations. Everyone in all parts of the world know something about 'rights'. To speak of 'rights' is not to say that "I am right." It means, right or wrong, I have a 'right' to say, do, or have certain things. As such, it is morally neutral and defensive. But Power cannot win by defense alone. White people didn't gain power in the US by protecting all rights, all ideas, all property of all peoples and groups. Rather, it had a certain vision about race, culture, values, civilization, and progress. And this vision was going to be realized with or without the Constitution. The Founders were proud white men. They saw all the land and resources before them and had preconception that the US could be a great magnificent nation of immense power and potential. And they were racial loyalists and envisioned the development of America as an extension of European Civilization, albeit with a new fighting and liberating spirit. The stuff about rights, freedom, and property was useful as incentives for Americans to move westward and do lots of work to create a new nation. It also drew in immigrants from Europe of same or similar stock who were looking for new opportunities. It was all about white power.
Some may call it 'white supremacism', but then, it should be given credit as the main reason why the US became a rich and powerful nation. Without 'white supremacism', whites would not have 'stolen' land from the American Indians. And for those who believe blacks are so integral to America and its economy, it was 'white supremacism' that efficiently exploited black labor to expand the economy. Also, the only reason why blacks are in the Americas is due to 'white supremacism' that was willing to use black labor. If there had been no 'white supremacism', black slaves would not have been brought over to the Americas, Latin or Anglo. Blacks or no blacks, the main makers of America were whites, and the fact then(as is still now, more or less) was that whites were the most advanced, most productive, most innovative, most progressive, and most ingenious people in the world. Thus, limiting mass-immigration to the US mostly to whites did great things for America. Seriously, if America right after its founding had practiced open borders in the name of 'anti-racism' and welcomed all the world, would things have worked out so well? Give the Devil its due. What is called 'white supremacism' in American History had a dark side but also was the basis of much that was great and awesome about it. Indeed, prior to the rise of idiotic multi-culturalism, even the main aspiration of non-whites was to be like whites and emulate them. And the most developed parts of the non-West are those that decided that the White Way is the best as the model for development. Of course, under the influence of globo-shlomo-afro-homo, the White Way is now almost entirely useless as it's all about Negro-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, and Diversity-worship, but when whites were riding high, they'd come up a formula for power, prosperity, and progress such as the world had never seen before.

Anyway, what do current Immigrant-Invaders and Whites of Old America have in common? Both groups put Power before Principle. They put their own racial interests before a set of 'universal' notions. Whites of Old America favored concentration and continuation of their power over the Constitution. Only when their power was secure and assured did whites adhere to the Constitution with anything like true commitment.
In dealing with non-whites, here or abroad, white folks of America always understood that their power must not be sacrificed over a set of tenets. And White America was pretty much in this mode until the 1960s. Many people have lauded White Americans(who have lauded themselves) for having 'come a long way' in ultimately favoring universal principles over racial/tribal politics, and this was at a time when white Americans had it so good that they could rest on their laurels, take their power for granted, and indulge in magnanimity & generosity toward other groups in US and the world, not least because the Cold War had created a mentality that the US must show its 'best face' in order to defeat the Soviets that preached World Revolution and Liberation of the non-white world from Western Capitalist-Imperialism. Also, the Civil Rights Narrative made many whites believe that the end-goal of American History was to fulfill the guarantees of equal rights in the Constitution. Finally, free at last free at last, the Negroes be free at last, and America could put behind its legacy of racial discrimination. But such highfalutin thinking overlooked the fact that racialism had been integral and essential to the making of America. Long before whites could rest on their laurels and put on do-goody airs as 'progressive' folks with 'white guilt', the only way America could have come into existence was through White Power. American Indians had to be pushed aside. Black savages had to be tamed and kept tame because of their natural apelike uggity-boogity tendencies. (Just look at the state of Detroit, the product of blacks left to indulge in their freedom.) Also, immigration had to be limited mostly to whites because (1) Europeans were more talented and had higher IQ than most other folks and (2) it was easier to create unity among peoples of same race than different races. Therefore, while it's fair game to point to all the dark sides and horrors of American History(and there are plenty), it is also undeniable that what made America great was its conscientious, intelligent, pragmatic, and sensible race-ism. (Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean the reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and need for racial consciousness. Be a race-ist.) In this, D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be regarded as nearly as important as the Constitution. In some ways, it is more important because while the Constitution deals with 'negative rights', Griffith's great and awesome film offers a positive, powerful, and sober vision of what white folks must constantly be reminded of lest they turn into a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks and/or damned naive fools. A prophetic work, its warnings 100 yrs ago have come to be realized in a nation where whites came to lose identity and reject their own racial pride and heritage. Griffith warned of BAMMAMA(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), jungle fever, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and cucky-wuckery among whites. Well, look all around. Who were more right about blacks? Sappy do-goody race-denying liberal-wiberals who said blacks are merely whites with dark skin and could be treated as such OR sober race-ists like Griffith who warned that blacks, with their higher aggression, natural savagery, tougher muscles, and bigger dongs, will terrorize and intimidate the white race into jungle fever or cucky-wuckery?

What do New Immigrants have in common with Whites of Old America? While they come to the US(or Canada or Australia or New Zealand) for more freedom and opportunity, they place their racial, tribal, and/or familial interests at the center. Even when non-white immigrants are hardcore individualist-libertarians, they still put MY interest before American Interest or the Constitution. If 'my interest' means to be in America and enjoy its fruits, it means that nothing is more important to non-white libertarians than being allowed INTO the US. Therefore, if Party A is pro-individualist and anti-immigration while Party B is anti-individualist but pro-immigration, the non-white individualist is likely to go with Party B because his main priority is to be INSIDE the US. After all, even limited individualist freedom in the US is likely more than what he is likely to have in his own nation.

It's not that all these new immigrant-invaders are anti-free speech or anti-Constitution. They are for it TO THE EXTENT that such doesn't undermine their MAIN interests of wanting to gain access to America(and such nations) for material improvement, better livelihood, and more opportunities. Sure, they come for freedom and 'rights' too, but they are secondary to the priority of gaining access to metropole of World Empire, living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, and bringing over more of their own clan/tribal kind so that they can enjoy the fruits too. In this, they are very much like the white pioneers and settlers who built this nation, albeit without the audacity and adventurous spirit(as they are followers than leaders). When early White Americans were fighting Indians, working the farms, and taking land from Mexico, they were not thinking about 'muh constitution' or some set of highfalutin principles. They had more primal interests and elemental emotions in their minds, hearts, and guts. Americans understood that the only way they could take SW territories from Mexico was by sheer might and power. It wasn't anything in the Constitution that convinced Mexico to surrender those parts to the US. Now, one can argue that the Constitution and its rule of law made for a better-functioning society in the US that was able to expand faster with greater wealth and power. But keep in mind that Imperial Germany made tremendous gains in the late 19th century and early 20th century WITHOUT anything like the US Constitution. In contrast, even with democracy and a constitution nearly identical to that of the US, Mexico has always been a basket-case.

Long ago, white Americans understood that what mattered most was identity, power, solidarity, and sense of heritage/continuity. They were proud to have a Constitution to guide them as a framework and compass, but when push came to shove, they understood that Constitutional Principles had to take a backseat to White Power and White Continuation. "Our People, Our Power, Our Survival, and Our Well-Being come first." Indeed, what would be the point of adhering to the Constitution 100% if doing so led to the demise and eventual collapse of a people? Is it worth it to lose one's civilization in the name of 'muh democracy'? Surely, even tyranny-and-survival is preferable to democracy-and-death. It's like it's better to lose one's freedom and live than gain freedom to use it for self-destruction.
What the American Experiment demonstrated is that one can have both freedom and life, but this is true ONLY IF freedom serves life than other way around. By life, we don't just mean individual lives but the Life of a People, Culture, Civilization, Memory, Heritage, the things that outlast the life spans of individuals. If current 'Western Values' are leading to the demise of the White Race that is to be replaced by non-whites, then they are useless no matter how fancy, precious, and highfalutin they may sound to educated(or indoctrinated) ears. Of course, one must not throw away the baby with the bathwater. While the current globo-shlomo-afro-homo bathwater that masquerades as 'Western Values' must go, there is a great Western Tradition in culture and values that can maintain and uphold a great civilization for many centuries, indeed millenniums, to come. After all, those values and outlooks led to the greatest civilization in human history.

The fatal flaw of the West was in trusting Jews. More than any people, it was the Jews who bitched, whined, and seethed that White Americans had betrayed their Constitutional or Propositional principles. Jewish elites in media, academia, and government urged whites to favor Principles at all cost, even at considerable loss of white power, pride, and prestige. Thus began the white trajectory of being 'beautiful losers'. The sheer stupidity of this way of thinking is proven by the fact that Jews themselves don't practice what they preach to whites. Indeed, Jews urged whites to favor principles over power mainly so that they themselves could gain more power by manipulating those principles(and Hindus have learned this game and are now cooperating and competing with Jews at it). Notice how Jews, even as they admonish whites to let go of white identity, are always telling whites to be mindful of supporting Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish power. If principles must win over power, then Jews should do exactly like whites have been cajoled into doing(by Jews no less), but the fact is, just as Jews tell goyim to do one thing, they do quite the opposite. But then, what kind of people are Jews. They accuse of Palestinians of trying to wipe Israel off the map while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Seriously, if Jews treat Palestinians this way, why would they treat whites any better or with any more honesty? Whites may think, "Uh... out of gratitude to whites for having helped them take Palestine from the Palestinians?" Any white who thinks this way is a willfully naive dupe who knows nothing about Jewish personality and culture. Gratitude-toward-Goyim simply doesn't exist in the Jewish Vocabulary. Also, surely whites need to realize that Jews crave far more what whites got than for what Palestinians had. While Israel has great symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning for Jews, the main source of Jewish supremacist power is in the control of the West, mainly the US, the metropole of the world. And in order to make whites serve Jewish interests, Jews naturally defame & suppress white identity while using the whip of 'white guilt' to make whites channel their repressed tribalism toward another people who would be the Jews. If Jews are really into colorblind universalism(which is supposedly what the Constitution is about), why do they insist that the US support Zionism over Palestinian nationhood? Why do they use their muscles to have US businesses and governments shut down BDS? Why did Jews pull their strings to shut down the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly at Charlottesville?
Jews are for freedom, but they are for Power before Principles. They will tolerate freedom only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize their supremacist control of the US. This is why Jews say, "We defend Free Speech but not 'hate speech'", with 'hate speech' to be defined by the likes of AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC. Likewise, Hindus flood into the US for more freedom and wealth for their kind, and it is precisely for that reason that Hindus will support the US Constitution ONLY TO THE EXTENT it serves their interests.

But then, this was precisely how white Americans practiced the Constitution for most of American History. They always found exceptions and clauses to ensure that principles didn't undermine the core power and survival of White America. It is something forgotten by white Americans while obsessively practiced by non-whites. It is then time for whites to return to how it used to be. It's the ONLY way to survive and to win. It's like what Arthur who, having regained the wisdom of 'you and the land are one', says before the battle: "We'll use the old ways" in John Boorman's EXCALIBUR. And Lancelot, who'd lost himself to religious fanaticism, a kind of SJW nuttery of the day, returns to fight for Arthur once more. Don't damn the principles. Damn the fool who mistakes or favors principles over power. Both are important, but without securing the power, it will be for the other side, very likely your enemy, to manipulate principles to suit its priority of... power. Whites need to say "We believe in free speech but not 'hate speech'", and they must define 'hate' as insulting whiteness, Jewish defamation of white identity, black thug-talk, calls for Great Replacement or White Nakba. Once whites think this way, they will once again be on the path of winning.

Inversion of Prerogatives in Our Crazy World says Your Nation Belongs to Foreigners

Now, what's the point of having your own nation? To have a homeland for your people, right? If you're not going to own and defend it as such, why have a nation at all?
Indeed, why not just abandon your identity and history? Why not abandon your people's special right to the territory? And why not dissolve borders so that any number of peoples can move in and out, like animals roam the wild? If you believe that any number of people should move in and out of any place, there is no need for nations. We might as well act like animals that migrate freely from place to place. All of us might as well become like Gypsies and surrender all sense of roots.
What about Rule of Law? I have no idea how that would work out. If a nation cannot even defend its borders and decide who enters and exits, how can it enforce any kind of rule of law? And if all the world should welcome endless wanderers, nomads, and invaders who come with their own cultural norms, who's to say one Rule of Law is better than another kind? After all, Rule of Law depends on the law itself. In the Current West, the Rule of Laws says you will be financially destroyed if you refuse to bake a cake for 'gay wedding'. And Rule of Law can be used against Rule of Law. In some states, illegals who have violated American laws are given protection under the Rule of Law that favors those who break laws over those who want to defend them. Rule of Law in California and many other states protect illegals and prosecute those who take actions against the invaders. So, what is Rule of Law in a world of Broken Borders?
Indeed, this will be the big question in Europe as Muslim communities demand their own sets of laws and as African communities insist on their tribal customs and norms.
Already, Jews are virtually above-the-law in many parts of the West. Rule of Law can only be enforced within a well-defined nation with shared values and habits. But in a world where nationalism is condemned as passe and where peoples of different cultures, manners, and habits move in and out of communities that they lay to waste, what chance is there for Rule of Law?

Having a nation is like having a house. A nation didn’t just fall from the sky or grow from the ground. It had to be secured, built, defended, built some more, defended some more, consolidated, claimed, and maintained. Likewise, a house has to be built or bought. It doesn’t come into existence just out of the blue. Now, what is the purpose of having a home? To own it as one’s property. To defend it from others, especially trespassers and marauders. Worst thing that can happen to a property is for others to trespass and take it. Now, if you intend to allow just about any human or creature to move in and out of your house, why did you build or buy the house in the first place? Why did you go through all that trouble just to let OTHERS to occupy and tear it apart?
Same thing goes for a nation. Why did your people build that nation if you’re not going to defend it and own it for posterity? Why go through all the trouble of securing the land, settling the land, developing the land, building institutions, enacting laws, and growing the economy IF your final purpose is to just let others have it? If you’re going to give it all away, why did your people go through so much struggle, even great wars, to claim and defend the land? If you think OTHERS should have it, then your people should not have bothered to pour so much blood, sweat, and tears into transforming the land into a nation.
Imagine there is a wasteland that most peoples show no interest in. Suppose YOUR PEOPLE enter into the land, cut down trees, till the soil, and do the heavy-lifting to turn the land into an oasis. ALL OF A SUDDEN, other peoples now want a part of it because it's nice. (It's like people who neglected Noah's advice to build arks of their own trying to climb into the Ark when the rain began to fall.) Should you let them take it? But why did YOUR PEOPLE build up the land just to let others have it? If you think others should have the land, then your people should not have bothered to build anything on it. Let others do the hard work to develop the land. Non-white peoples had no interest in exploring, discovering, conquering, and developing the New World. They didn't even have the vision or commitment to develop their own lands that, even today, remain poor and backward(despite abundance of land and natural resources). But now that they realize that white people have nice nations, they want to claim and take for themselves what was made by whites.

Also, if any people have the ‘right’ to trespass into your nation and take over, do YOUR PEOPLE also have the right to just mass-invade any nation and take over? So, 50 million Africans have the ‘right’ to take over Italy, and 50 million Italians have the ‘right’ to move to Japan and take over... if they feel like it? And the invaders and trespassers have the prerogative and the ‘right’ over the natives with deep roots in the land? Is patriotism the biggest crime in the globalist era? Doesn’t anyone realize that losing a nation is much worse than losing a house? If you lose your house, you can build another one. But if you lose your nation, your people have no homeland to call their own. And it’s very difficult to get it back. Good luck to Hawaiians taking back Hawaii. Good luck to Palestinians getting back Palestine. Good luck to Serbians getting Kosovo back. Good luck to Greeks or Christendom getting Constantinople(now Istanbul) back. It was by a miracle that Jews got Zion back, and it was very messy and bloody, and the problem continues to this day. Kurds continue to suffer because they don’t have a nation to call their own and happen to be scattered among several nations, all of which are hostile to them.
It’s bad business to lose a house, but another house can always be built or bought. But lose your nation, and good luck about getting it back. Jews reclaiming the Holy Land was the exception that proved the rule. Also, a homeland has much greater meaning than a home. Individuals don’t live forever. A man may own a great mansion, but he will be six feet underground after several decades on earth. And the mansion will pass to some other people. But a nation can exist indefinitely as the homeland of a people. Most of the pioneers of Israel are now dead, but their children and their children’s children ad infinitum hope to keep the land for the Jews as long as mankind survives.

Now, some argue that the newcomers will just become part of the national community, but this is wishful thinking. Usually, minorities remain cooperative and respectful ONLY WHEN they’re small in number and faced with a confident overwhelming majority that also commands patriotic elite power. But when the native majority acts all apologetic & wussy and says that their nation belongs more to foreigners than to themselves, the minorities will just call on more of their kind to come invading. And as their numbers continue to swell, they will begin to smell the blood of a dying nation. They will sense they can take over and feed off it. Scavengers and leeches don’t respect weakness in the host.
But then, even if newcomers came with respect and kindness, too many of them will alter the character of the nation because a people are MORE than merely a name. Germans are more than ‘Germans’. It’s like, if you have a daughter named Sue, she is more than ‘Sue’. Even if her name was changed to Jill, she would still be your daughter. But if someone who is not your daughter changes her name to ‘Sue’ and pretends to be your daughter, she is not your daughter despite having the name ‘Sue’ and wearing similar dress as your daughter. But the West is now suffering from the Changeling Syndrome. So, Germans fool themselves that if they take in millions upon millions of Muslims and Africans and pretend that they are ‘Germans’ or ‘New Germans’, then Germany will remain Germany because all the newcomers are ‘Germans’ too. Right, and imitation crab meat is real crab meat. And cats are dogs if you call them ‘dogs’ and teach them to play fetch, which is exceedingly hard to do.

How did this Inversion of Prerogatives happen? How did people(especially whites) come to believe that OTHERS have ‘first dibs’ or primary claim on what had been theirs rightfully and ‘fightfully’(as they’d ancestors had fought to claim it)? Imagine if someone did so much to build a home but then put up a sign that said, "claim my house". Why did he go through the trouble of building a house to let others have it and push him out? That would be retarded. Or, suppose a house was built long ago by your ancestors and handed down generation after generation as special place for your family lineage. Suppose that house is meant to be more than a place of residence; it’s meant to be a place of remembrance. Then, why would you allow a bunch of marauders and squatters to trespass and tear the place apart?

In a way, the problem began with the discovery of the New World. While most parts of the Old World were settled, the New World nations came into being with conquest, settlement, colonization, immigration, and rise of new identities. (The New World template of constant migration and mobility was turned into a universal 'human right'. So, even the EU is to be seen as The Other America, a 'union of immigrants' that must take in endless 'huddled masses' from Africa and the Middle East. This template is now also being applied to East Asia as The West constantly applies pressure on Japan to welcome Diversity and Inclusion-Invasion. According to Western PC, it should be a 'human right' for millions of foreigners to move to Japan and become 'New Japanese' and take over entire communities.)
The trajectory of invasion and expansion couldn’t be helped in the New World as most of it was either unpopulated or underpopulated(by standards of other civilizations, not least due to the deaths of tens of millions as the result of lack of immunity to Old World diseases). But the New World was not discovered and founded by the world but by specific populations. Spanish and Portuguese conquered most of what came to be Latin America. And Anglos and the French to a lesser extent conquered most of North America(minus Mexico). And these peoples created their new orders as racial, ethnic, and cultural extensions of the worlds they knew back home. So, Anglo-American preferred Anglo immigrants and settlers. When the US needed More People, it preferred those who were racially and ethnically closest to Anglos: Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Nordics. As they were virtually same as Anglos in appearance and temperament(though Irish could be rough at times due to the James Cagney gene), they could easily be assimilated into Anglo-America. Also, as fellow Christians, they worshiped the same God and symbols.

The US was not founded as a World-Nation for the simple reason that the World didn’t discover and develop it. A specific population of Anglos and Northern Europeans did, just like a specific population of Spanish and Portuguese came to set the cultural template for Latin America. Their biggest mistake was bringing over all those Sub-Saharan West African blacks who were more muscular and more aggressive than the white race. The race problem between whites and blacks is testament to the Danger of Diversity or DOD. To maintain order among tougher and more aggressive blacks, whites sometimes had to use ugly and cruel violence. And once blacks got their freedom, they began to prey on whites physically, materially, and sexually as the weaker ‘wussy’ race. Another threat came from the Chinese IF they were to be ‘welcomed’ in huge numbers.
In the past few decades, we’ve seen what virtual Open Borders(or Broken Borders) can do to a place. California, which had been overwhelmingly white, is now poised to have more Mexicans than whites. And along with Asians(craven teachers’ pets of Jews and homos), whites are being squeezed out. Worse, remaining whites in California have been mentally colonized by Jews to hate their own race and to welcome the flood. Based on recent events, imagine what would have happened if the US had allowed Open Borders to Chinese immigration-invasion in the late 19th century. China, with a huge poverty-stricken population, would have taken over California and much of the West like Mexicans are doing today. Or look at China itself. As Tibetans don’t have the means to say NO to Chinese migration-invasion, Tibet itself is poised to be majority Han-Chinese if it isn’t already.

Immigration is a tool that can work for or against your people. For most of the 19th century and even 20th century, white people used immigration to boost white presence and power in America. Immigration favored white folks. Immigration is never generic. It depends on who/whom. Israel was created by immigration but of Jews Only. Suppose Israel was founded with color-blind immigration. It never would have become a Homeland for Jews. Suppose Chinese government were to allow Asian-Indians to move into Tibet. In time, Indians instead of Chinese could dominate the place. There’s a huge difference between the Russian government encouraging Russian ethnics to settle Siberia and allowing Chinese to migrate there. If the latter, the Chinese will effectively own much of Siberia. So, when people say the US is a Nation of Immigrants, it’s meaningless because it pretends that immigration is generic. In fact, the kind of immigration that formed the foundation and basis for America was genetic than generic. Back in the 19th century, Emma Lazarus’ poem was not a threat to the US because it was understood, even by Lazarus herself, that immigration would favor European whites(of whom Jews were a part). Race-ism was great for America. It made America and defined America. Without Race-ism, the US wouldn't have developed as an extension of European Civilization. Suppose upon the establishment of the US, the Founding Fathers decided to call on peoples ALL OVER THE WORLD to pour into the New Land. Anglos and whites would soon have been turned into a minority outnumbered by Muslims, Africans, Asians, Hindus, and etc with their own norms, customs, and values. And without race-ism, whites would have had no justification to replace red savages and their primitive cultures with far more advanced Western ones. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism means belief in the reality of race & differences and/or the need for racial identity and consciousness. ‘Racism’ has been willfully mis-defined by Jews to mean irrational or knee-jerk racial hatred, chauvinism, and supremacism.) Whites who settled America were aware of the importance of race. If whites were to build a modern and progressive(as opposed to the degenerate ‘progressivism’ of today) nation, they had to be racially aware. Whites had to make a distinction between themselves and American Indians whose world was savage and primitive. The biggest mistake was bringing blacks over as slaves. This is regarded as a ‘racist’ crime’, but it was really a criminal negligence of true race-ism. If whites had been truly, rationally, and sanely race-ist back then, they would have thought, "Maybe it’s not a good idea to bring over all those blacks. Just look at their muscles. That mountain-sized Negro looks like he can crush my head like a zit. And look at those black women whose main expression is shaking their booties and acting like nappy-headed ho’s. And look at the dongs on them fellers. Not only will stronger blacks whup our ass but turn our women into jungle-fevered whores who go with Negro men as the superior race and look down on us as a bunch of cucky-wucks. So, let’s NOT bring over the ‘groids’ as slaves. Slavery is cruel and unpleasant and will besmirch our reputation, which is bad enough, but furthermore, there is no guarantee that slavery will last forever. Once freed, them ‘groids’ will kick our butts in sports, turn young people wild with jiggity music, reduce us to a bunch of dweeby cucky-wucks, and colonize the wombs of interracist white women who get to thinking like Rachel Dolezal." Now, that is some Core Race-ist thought, and if white people had accepted such Race-ism, they never would have brought over those Sub-Saharan West African Americans. At most, they might have brought over some Pygmies who, being small and short, could only have looked up to white folks like Arnold of DIFF’RENT STROKES and whined, "What you talkin’ about, white man?" This is why we need proper Race-ism that acknowledges and understands racial differences. Integration between whites and blacks leads to loss of white manhood and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) because black men are more muscular, louder, funkier, and generally got bigger dongs. And the nature of women is to get sexually excited about ‘bad boys’ who act tough. This is ever more so in a culture where the main modes of expression is Rap thuggery and booty-chuggery. The main problem with blacks was not slavery; after all, black Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs. It was the fact that the races are not the same. If whites had enslaved any other people, the dynamics would have been totally different. If Anglo-whites had enslaved white Russians, former masters and former slaves would have merged into a common race after Emancipation. After all, the end of Serfdom in Russia led to a unified single people. In contrast, why did Caste divisions last so long in India? Because there was a racial element to the caste system from the master caste to the middle caste to the slave caste to the untouchable caste. Even so, even the racial-caste system wasn't so bad in India because the darker peoples there are NOT bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than lighter-skinned upper-caste folks.

Europeans fail to understand this. They think their Africans won’t turn out like Black Americans because Europeans don’t have the ‘original sin’ of slavery. Granted, some European nations did take part in the slave trade, but Swedes and Germans didn’t. And the French less so than Anglos and Spanish/Portuguese, not least because the French eventually lost out in the New World to Anglos. So, Europeans think their African arrivals will turn out so much better than black Americans. But the end result will be the same because the problem in the US between whites and blacks was racial than historical. Europe can take in millions of FREE Negroes and treat them well, but the Negroes there will end up like Negroes in the US. Why? It’s in their oogity-boogity genes to act wild and crazy. In Africa, they drive hippos crazy, and in Europe they will drive white folks crazy. Also, their generally lower intelligence will mean they will leech off whites forever. Furthermore, their egomaniacal personality makes them less reflective and self-critical. Blacks have poor grasp of modern concepts of property, ownership, contracts, and manners. Blacks think like predators. When lions, hyenas, or bears see something they want, they try to grab it for themselves. Lions don’t think, "Hmm, those hyenas are eating that Zebra. I think it belongs to them, and we should bring down our own zebra." No, lions just think, "Sheeeeiiit, let’s take the eats from the hyena mofos." And if hyenas see a lone cheetah eating a gazelle, they don’t think, "You know, I’ll bet that cheetah tried so hard to bring down that prey. It’s his and let’s get our own grubs." No, the hyenas think, "Sheeeeeeiiit, a free meal! Let’s drive that punkass cheetah away and take his meat." Negroes feel the same way. Their sense of property and ownership is based on "Gots to have me". That’s what Rap is all about. It’s about the thuggery of taking stuff just because you want it. This is why blacks are champion robbers and rapists. Indeed, blacks rape even white women who put out to them. So, when white co-eds with jungle fever put out to blacks, blacks still have to rape them by saying to their brothas, "Here’s some free white pussy for us all, sheeeeeiiit." Blacks don’t hanker for no little white mouse like the mountain-sized Negro does in GREEN MILE. They’s want white wealth, white women, white lands, white everything. They think everything white exists to be taken by them. Blacks even feel that white history should be owned by them. So, white historical characters should be turned into ‘groids’ and blackamoors.

Therefore, people need to stop blaming ‘racism’ for the black problem in America and increasingly in Europe. The problem has been due to the lack of True Race-ism. If white folks had acknowledged the truthfulness of True Race-ism, they never would have brought over all those blacks to the New World.

Unfortunately, whites were motivated by Christianity, Commercialism, and Chauvinism. One part of whites felt that they were civilizing black savages into good decent Christians. By this logic, slavery was a Leviathanic process whereby blacks would go from wild savages to good Christian folks, whereupon they would be freed. But for such process to work, slavery would have had to last over a 1000 yrs with wild and dangerous blacks being weeded out of the gene pool. It’s like it took some time to domesticate wild bulls into livestock. It took some time to turn wolves into dogs. It took some time to turn wild boars into the farm pig. But blacks were under slavery for only a couple of centuries. Also, whites stupidly bred blacks to be extra-strong to carry all them cotton. So, in some cases, white made the stronger race even stronger and ended up like guys like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson(who looks more demented than even African Negroes).
'Racism' violated True Race-ism. Abraham Lincoln was a True Race-ist insofar as he understood the black threat. This is why he wanted the blacks freed and sent back to Africa. He had the same fears as the visionary prophet D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION who feared something closer to BIRTH OF THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. But True Race-ism was overlooked by those with short-term commercial interests or Christian folly that Negroes could become nice meek humble Uncle-Tom-like Christians when, in fact, the Negro soul is too wild and rough to understand the true meaning of higher spirituality. Jesus founded His religion by silently meditating for 40 days. A Negro has difficulty sitting still for 4 minutes. His jiggity oogity-boogity nature turned even Christianity into a butt-shaking foot-tapping pandemonium. If Negroes take up Buddhism, they’ll turn Nirvana into something you attain by hollering and ‘twerking’.
Other than commercial greed and Christian folly(of civilizing blacks into nice Uncle Toms), there was white chauvinism of False Race-ism, aka ‘racism’. Unlike True Race-ism that honestly explores and notices racial differences, False Race-ism or ‘racism’ led to white chauvinism and denial of reality. White ‘racists’ were full of themselves as the toughest and manliest fellers in the world. They believed in the ‘great white hope’ who would finally whup the Negroes and show the world who’s the real King of the Hill. ‘Racism’ stupidly boosted white male pride when white men should have been in alarmist mode(like honest D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION) and feared the ghastly Negro. Of course, on some level, white men did fear the Negro as a threat. After all, Jack Johnson whupped all those white guys, and later, Joe Louis whupped tons of white guys, and Muhammad Ali and other blacks dominated boxing. And blacks took over basketball and football. And blacks in schools beat up so many whites. But white ‘racists’ were too filled with bogus chauvinism to come to terms with the black threat and admit their legitimate fears. Whites had been winning so much for so long against so much of the world that it seemed white superiority was a birthright. But in fact, whites were superior only in certain things while inferior in other things. In raw struggle of animal drives, white men were bound to lose to the tougher Negro men. But too many whites didn’t admit to their fears(lest they come across as ‘scared’ and ‘wimpy’) and exaggerated their manhood by calling blacks ‘niggers’ and acting nasty like Southerners opposed to Segregation. Their anti-integrationist stance would have been much more effective if, in the spirit of True Race-ism, they had laid out why blacks, being more muscular-more-aggressive-and-bigger-donged, pose an existential and ‘sexistential’ threat to the white race. But nope, they just huffed and puffed as tough white guys and acted like thugs in front of TV cameras while blacks were pretending to be marching for ‘peace’ when they were really thinking, "You honkey mofos gonna get your ass whupped once the laws be changed cuz we just pretendin’ to be for MLK’s message of peace as Trojan Horse trick and shit." Yep, the Black Rampage was unleashed on America with the passage of Civil Rights Bill.

Anyway, the point is immigration is never generic. It is about who/whom. A nation has something to gain by letting in more of their own kind. So, when Germany took in millions of Ost-Germans after WWII, Germany just became MORE German. And when Polish ethnics were pushed into Poland from Western Ukraine(which used to be part of Poland from 1918 to 1939), Poland just became more Polish. Granted, even migration of the same kind of people can be stressful and challenging. The sudden rush of millions of Ost-Germans into Germany after WWII led to a humanitarian disaster. And the rush of many Mainland Chinese fleeing Maoism into Hong Kong led to severe socio-economic stress. Even so, problems eventually faded because Ost-Germans were fellow Germans, and all those Mainland Chinese, once they found their footing in Hong Kong, were just fellow Chinese. But the millions of New Germans(from Africa and Middle East) rushing into Germany today will alter the character of the nation. And imagine if a million Hindus than Chinese had rushed into Hong Kong. There would be big tensions between Chinese and Hindus, even if they’re regarded as ‘New Chinese’. Why did Hong Kong return to China? Because of history, ethnos, and culture. If China had the right to reclaim Hong Kong(even though Brits played a key role in having built it) because it was part of Chinese territory and populated by Chinese, why don’t the native folks of Britain have a right of claim to their ancestral homeland? Chinese don’t think, "The rest of the world has first dibs on Hong Kong and any other part of China." So, why do the Brits, French, Germans, Swedes, and etc. feel that OTHERS have greater claim to their own nations? How did such Inversion of Prerogatives happen?

Because of the Inversion of Prerogatives, we now believe that white minds belong to Jews to mold, white wombs belong to black men to impregnate, white wealth exist for non-whites to filch, and white lands exist for immigrant-invaders or immi-vaders to colonize and takeover. As for whites, they must say YES to the surrender of their claims. If they say NO, they are demeaned as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘exclusionary’, ‘Islamphobic’, and ‘antisemitic’. Now, if whites were in other lands lording over others, I can understand why the natives would complain and demand that whites get lost and return to their own lands. But now, even whites in their own nations are told that they don’t own their own minds, womenfolk, wealth, and land. Not even history as White History is being darkened with non-whites(especially blacks) cast in roles of white historical characters. And so many whites serve as cucks and collaborators because they’ve been raised fro cradle to obey Jews, worship homos, revere Negroes, celebrate Diversity(of Immi-vasion and replacist demographics), and hate white patriots who say NO to their own racial demise.
Part of the reason is Western elites are now worthless cuck-collaborators of Judea. But another reason is globalism has inflated Western elitist ego with dreams of neo-imperialism. So, French, British, and German leaders no longer see themselves merely as leaders of their own respective nations but of the World. Theresa May the hideous harridan talks like she is ruler of all humanity than of her British kinfolk. Angela Merkel sees herself as big-titty dairy cow to people all over the world. And the French elites still dream that France will become like a Mini-World with all the immi-vaders turning into New Frenchmen who appreciate French culture when, in fact, most Newcomers assimilate to globo-mondo-trash culture emanating from Hollywood and Rap music industry. While millions of Black Africans flock to Europe to demand "Where the white women at?" and while millions of white women yell out, "I’m here with jungle fever, you big-donged Negro", mentally castrated white males honk out, "I’m a cuck! I’m a cuck!" Indeed, among too many white males, the only warrior passion they can muster is against their own race. So, while Antifa white males honk, "I’m a cuck!" before the Negro and the Jew, they get murderously violent against white patriots who refuse to honk, "I’m a cuck!"

It’s not enough to own something. One must feel one has righteous claim over what he owns. And this is determined by control of the Narrative. It’s like it’s not enough to possess a house. You must back it up with rightful and/or righteous claim. Without the claim, one’s possession of the house becomes iffy and questionable. One is put on the defensive against would-be invaders. It’s the Claim Game. Before Jews could gain Palestine, they had to claim it with their own righteous Narrative about how the land really belongs to Jews due to history. And after WWII, Jews added the Shoah Clause to the claim, i.e. because of what happened in WWII, the West is morally obligated to back Jewish claim on Palestine. If Jews had just tried to take Palestine by brute force, they might have succeeded but would have had no moral claim to back up their ownership. The problem with whites in South Africa is they failed to come up with a useful claim on the land, made much worse by allowing blacks to become majority in the nation.

The US was founded with a specific and special claim made by Anglo-Americans and other Europeans. But Jews resented the special role of White Christianity in claiming and owning America. Jews wanted to own it for themselves. But because they didn’t have the numbers with which to beat out white gentiles — in contrast, Jews did have the numbers to squeeze out Arabs in Palestine — , Jews sought to subvert and nullify the White Christian claim by pushing for mass non-white immi-vasion. America has been a Nation of European Immigrants, but Jews took out the ‘European’ and just made it a nation of Generic Immigration from all over the world. By pushing this Diversity Narrative, Jews terminated the special white claim to America... and that meant that Jews would be the defacto rulers and owners of America. Why would that be if the World comes barging in? Wouldn’t Jews lose out along with White gentiles? No, because Jews control the upper echelons and elite level of America. With control of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Real Estate, Hollywood, Big Media, Ivy Leagues, and much else, Jews would be the Hyper-Elite overlord class over Diversity of Gentiles who can be manipulated and controlled by machinations of Divide-and-Rule.

This is why it was so important for Jews to push Homomania as well. That too is an Inversion of Prerogatives. We know what real sex is. We know that all human life was created by sexual union of men and women. So, marriage and family are something that belong to straight and normal people. Not a single life was ever created by Homo fecal penetration or Lesbian poon-grinding. Marriage developed as a Bio-Moral institution. It understood the way of biology — the sex drive and creation of new life by reproductive process of men and women — and the way of morality — the need for a man and woman to commit to one another to take care of the very lives they produce — , and as such, it was the most important institution in human history. Now, because most people are straight men and straight women, True Marriage has valued the majority population over the homo(and tranny) minority of sexual deviants. Straight people not only got married but had a special claim on and ownership of marriage. This affirmed the power of the majority and normality. Jews figured that such a ‘majoritarian’ institution undermines minority ambitions. If a society of mostly straight men and women should be ruled by them and guided by their needs, the corollary is a mostly gentile society should be ruled by gentiles in service of gentile interests and needs... but that would undermine Jewish supremacist claim on gentile societies. So, Jews pushed the LGBTQ Inversion of Prerogatives that fooled so many PC-addled and Pop-culture-addicted dummies into believing that straight and normal people have no special claim on Marriage. Instead, it belongs just as much or even more so to Homos and trannies. Thanks to Jew-run media and Jew-run government, there is now more fanfare for homos getting ‘married’ even though it’s about guys committing to bugger each other for life.

But such degeneracy has been so sensationalized and blessed by the Jew-run media and entertainment that many vapid, shallow, and superficial straight people now get ecstatic at any manifestations of Homomania, which is now essentially a neo-religion for globalized, deracinated, and desexualized hedonist-morons.

And this lunacy has also bled into the idea of womanhood. We sane people know what real women are. They are the fairer sex, have boobs and pooters(or cooters), and can give birth. Some men used to dress up as women, but we knew they were men as fake women. But now, the Power tells us that womanhood is ‘fluid’. So, if some guy with dick and balls puts on a wig, wiggles his ass, dons a dress, and claim to be a ‘woman’, we better admit he’s a woman. He can get a fake ‘vagina’ through Frankenstein surgery OR keep his dick and balls. The thing is the Inversion of Prerogatives says he is a ‘woman’ and we better acknowledge him as one... or else we are ‘transphobic’ and to be fined for big bucks by cities like New York.

So, just like native Anglos no longer own UK and native French no longer own France, real women no longer own womanhood. The new prerogative for Brits and French is to defer to Immi-invaders and roll out the red carpet to them as having more claim to the land than the existing inhabitants with deep roots of ancestry and history. Because the core meaning of UK and France has been re-coded to define them as ‘nations of immigrants’ and worshipers-of-Diversity, the mass-invaders(as ‘immigrants’ and ‘people of diversity’) now have greater claim to nations like UK and France than the native folks do.
And if tranny men want to claim ‘womanhood’, the New Feminism(totally controlled by Jewish globalists) says women should welcome them as ‘sisters’. So, the Prerogative of Womanhood is no longer to define woman-ness according to biological truth but to the social construct of PC. (Ironically, LGBTQ that says homosexuality and tranns-genderism are biologically fixed, immutable, and unalterable says sex is just a social construct, and there is no fixed ‘man’ or ‘woman’.) So, the vast majority of women must surrender their prerogative of Womanhood to a tiny minority of tranny freaks who claim to own womanhood just as much as real women do. But because virtue-vanity in the prog community is invested in being ‘more evolved’ and ahead-of-the-curve in ideological fashions, so many people unthinkingly go along due to hype and hysteria or out of fear and intimidation, as those who don’t comply are identified and attacked by purity-spiralers.

But then, all the West, despite being majority white Christian — even nearly homogeneously White Christian in places like Hungary and Poland — has surrendered to the Inversion of Prerogatives whereby the prevailing idea is that Jewish & Zionist interests must always take precedence over White Christian/Gentile ones. Indeed, that was the beginning of the end. When white gentile majorities began to defer to Jews and treat them like a Holy People whose identity, interests, and narrative must take precedence over white gentile majority ones, Jews gained tremendous pride, prestige, and power to reprogram the core-coding of the West. The result was Inverted Prerogatives whereupon whites, even in their own ancestral lands, must surrender their title and claim to All the World that the Jewish horsemen use as cattle to stampede over the White West. If white people don’t want to be overrun by the never-ending stampede, they must circle the wagons and, better yet, build fences to keep the cows out.

If Western folks think they can appease Jews and the Invaders by being nice to the ones who have already invaded, they need to think again. Such wussy meekness and weakness emboldens Jews and invaders to push for yet MORE STAMPEDE. If squirrels invade your house, it won’t do to treat the ones-already-inside nicely. Squirrels on the outside will not think, "Humans are being nice to squirrels in the house. Let’s respect them and not invade further." No, when squirrels on the outside see that squirrels-inside-the-house are getting free food and other goodies, they will invade too and more and more will come. It’s just the Law of Organisms. Humans are organisms and naturally flock to where the goodies are. If white nations were dirt poor, corrupt, and messy and IF non-white nations were rich and overflowing with goodies, white organisms will want to move to non-white places. When people heard of gold in the West, there was the Gold Rush. When Africans and Muslims hear that Europe has Broken Borders through which millions can pass through and gain access to goodies, the Euro-Rush is on big time.

It is time to Re-invert the Prerogatives. Not only must the stampede must be stopped but those who’ve invaded the West must be kicked out and returned to their own homelands. If they resist, they must be accused of being ‘racist’ and ‘white preferist’. After all, why do these non-whites not want to live with their own kind? Do they hate their own people and culture? Why do they prefer to live under and with whites? Isn’t their preference for whiteness a form of ‘white preferism’? The invaders must be liberated from ‘white preferism’ and made to re-appreciate their own peoples and cultures. They must be sent back.

And there must be reckoning with Jews who messed with the Narrative and re-coded the West to invert the prerogatives. Something must be done with Jewish Power. Whatever happens, there must be stringent laws that prevent Jews from corrupting and sabotaging the Core Survival Code of any white nation.