Is a Nation(such as America) Just-an-Idea? Is a Person Just-an-Idea?

It’s a common practice(even habit) among politicians and thinkers(mostly official scribes) to reiterate that America is an Idea or even ‘just an idea’. But is a nation just an idea? Can a nation be just an idea? And if a nation is just an idea, is it no longer a nation if those ideas fade and are replaced by new ones?

Let’s compare a nation with a person. Just like nations have an official ideology, identity, and/or narrative, every person has set of values and beliefs. So, the person is shaped by those ideas. Therefore, does it follow that the person is those ideas? Of course not. Rather, isn’t he a holder of those ideas or ideals? Isn’t he a believer in certain tenets and principles than the very embodiment of those ideas? If he is those ideas, is he not himself when sleeping and not thinking of those ideas? Even in waking state, is he himself only when he espouses those ideas?

While ideas and beliefs are very important, a person is primarily his core biological and biographical being. He was himself even before he espoused those ideas, he is himself with those ideas, and he will still be himself even after he has rejected those ideas and moved onto a different creed. Suppose a person claims to be a libertarian or communist. That makes him a person who espouses libertarian principles or communist dogma. So, is he the person = set of ideas? No, he is a person who follows or upholds those ideas. To conflate him-as-core-being with him-as-believer-of-ideas is utterly foolish. If we define people that way, a person is nothing unless he comes into belief in a set of ideas. And he must remain faithful to those ideas because failing to do so will unperson him. Idiotic, right?

Then, why do we apply such fallacy to the nation of America? If America is an idea(as opposed to a nation that upholds certain ideas, which have changed over the course of its history), then America was not America until those ideas came to fruition & dominance. And America would no longer be America if those ideas were compromised or rejected for new ones. In fact, however, America will always be America no matter what ideas it espouses since America is essentially the land mass between Canada and Mexico(and Alaska and Hawaii) constituting the continuity of a particular civilization that originated and developed from the mass arrival of Europeans.

Also, using the current PC logic of ideocentrism, America was not America for most if its history. If indeed America is the current set of globalist PC ideas, then it couldn’t have been America since it held onto different ideas, attitudes, and values in the past. Until the mid-1860s, America had slavery, and until the Civil War, the Northern Free States tolerated slavery in the South. Since America then had slavery — ideas at odds with freedom — , America must not have been America. We are told that America cannot be ‘racist’. But America wouldn’t exist if not for ‘racism’. White Europeans conquered America and drove out the native peoples who came to be called ‘Indians’. And there were race wars between whites and reds where the former prevailed. Also, until 1965, American immigration policy favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, over other peoples. Since the ideas back then were very much at odds with current Ideas(that are said to define True America), America must not have been America in the past, at least prior to 1965 when the Immigration Policy was changed by Jews.

Some have said America is a Christian nation. Some revised it to Judeo-Christian nation. It is true enough that America, as founded, was an overwhelmingly Christian Protestant nation. There’s no doubt that Christianity has been culturally and historically important to America. But is America = Christianity? But the Founding Fathers were Deists who were skeptical of Biblical claims. And they thought Jesus was a great man than a Son of God. If America = Christianity, it was founded by remarkable men who were not the most committed Christians. Also, many Americans of prominence were agnostics or atheists.

While ideas and values matter a great deal, a nation is much more than that. Nations are like people in this sense. If Bob and John are both libertarians, are they the same? After all, they believe in the same ideas. If nations are ideas, why shouldn’t we say humans are ideas too? So, Bob and John would be interchangeable since they are both ideas of libertarianism. But we know this is not true. Even if Bob and John believe in a certain ideology, they are more than what they believe. Also, even when people espouse the same ideology, they interpret and practice it differently. There are no two same Christians. Each person responds to Jesus in his or her own way. And each person came to libertarianism in his own way. And he practices libertarianism in his own way due to factors of intelligence, integrity, character, personality, happenstance, and circumstances. So, a person has a being and story beyond any set of beliefs.
Furthermore, an idea changes over time and can evolve to the point where it has little semblance of its original self. It’s like meanings of words change over time, even to the point of meaning something profoundly different from its original usage. Consider how the Greek term ‘tyrant’ didn’t necessarily have negative connotations but came to mean an evil oppressive ruler. Indeed, even Liberal Americans of the past would not recognize today’s so-called ‘liberalism’. And Progressives 100 yrs ago, or even 50 yrs ago, would be appalled at much of what passes for ‘progressivism’ today. And Conservatives from 50 yrs ago would find nothing conservative about current Conservatism Inc. that’s mostly about "Democrats are the real racists" and "Muh Israel".

Just like every person is more than the ideas he believes, a nation is more than the ideas it upholds and practices. If America is an idea, then it would follow that any other nation that shares those ideas are also ‘America’. If America is about democracy and tolerance, then isn’t Mexico also ‘America’ since it is also a tolerant democracy? Isn’t Germany also ‘America’ since it is democratic? Isn’t Brazil also America because of its democracy?
As for ‘diversity’, it can be an ideal or a condition. A nation can be diverse in actuality but not see diversity as a good thing. A nation can be homogeneous but see diversity as a desired ideal. Many diverse nations are not happy with their diversity and plagued with tensions. Some nations have traditionally been homogeneous but came under Jewish PC influence and feel inadequate because they are not ‘diverse’ enough. So, they welcome Africans and Muslims to increase diversity. Current Sweden believes Sweden = Ideal of Diversity. Since the new mandatory Idea = Diversity, many Swedes don’t believe Sweden was True Sweden in the past. True Sweden can only be created via adherence to the idea of Diversity. See how utterly stupid this line of thinking is? If indeed Sweden = Diversity, are Peru and Morocco ‘Sweden’ since they have Diversity?

Furthermore, if we claim that America is America ONLY IF it commits to the current PC of ‘anti-racism’, then even the America of either political party is not that True America. After all, both parties support Zionist-imperialist-supremacist repression of Palestinians. If True America must not play favorites among racial, ethnic, or national groups, why does the current US favor Zionists over Palestinians? Why does it favor Israel(that has 200 nuclear weapons) to Iran(that adheres to international nuclear agreements and has no nukes)? And why do the national Media favor Jews, blacks, and homos over other groups IF INDEED America is all about ‘equality’ and not about ‘playing favorites’? And if all peoples and groups are equally valuable, why must all peoples be made to support Jews/Zionism and Homomania BUT Jews and Homos are not required to support, praise, or celebrate Mormons, Palestinian-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, German-Americans, or Incest-Sexuals? And if America is about using its might to remind us of past injustices, why is there no Nakba Remembrance Day? And if America is about waging war on its ‘racist’ past, why is the South attacked for Confederate monuments but the North isn’t condemned for its ‘genocidal’ wars against Indians? And if America is all about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, why does it honor the memory of Emma Lazarus who fully endorsed Manifest Destiny and called on more Europeans and Jews to come to America and grab remaining Indian territories by killing Indians or reducing them to wretched huddled masses in barren reservations?

If America is an idea, it is not America whenever it violates those principles. So, America could not have been America during WWII since its media called Japanese ‘Japs’ — how ‘racist’!! — and since the government rounded up Japanese-in-America for ‘internment’. Some German-Americans, tens of thousands of them, were also ‘interned’. Since the US violated its ideals, it must not have been America back then.

Now, certain ideas and values have become so ingrained or instituted into a nation or civilization that there is a tendency to conclude: Identity + Place = Ideas + Values. But the core identity of a people in a place is always more than any set of ideas and values. China was a Confucian Civilization for a long long time. But was it no longer China because Chinese Communists waged war on Confucianism? No, China was China even under the ideology of Maoists. Current China dearly loves businessmen who get rich. But Confucianism despised the merchant class. If China = Confucian Ideas, then current China is not China since the current ideas and values are so much at odds with traditional Confucian moralism.
Now, take the Turks. For the longest time, Turks were defined by Islam. But Kemal Ataturk came along and created modern secular Turkey where religion was banished from much of public life and state affairs. So, were modern Turks no longer Turks since Turkishness = Islam? Atarturkism proved that there is more to Turkishness than what Turks believe as credo.
Same goes for Greeks. Ancient Greeks were pagans. Then, they became Christians. Since their ideas and credos changed, were they no longer Greeks? Or did Greek become True Greeks only as Christians? But, if Greekness = Christian Credo, are Greeks no longer Greek if they become atheist or secular?

Ideas matter but they are not the core of an identity. Under communism, the Soviet authorities insisted that Russia and its Soviet Republics were all defined by an Idea. Soviet Union was a Proposition Empire of Marxism-Leninism. But if that is True Russia, was Russia not Russia prior to the Revolution when it had espoused different ideas and values? And did Russia cease to be Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was no longer the Propositional Idea of Russians?

The fact is cradle matters more than credo. Each person exists because he was born and develops a biography. That existence is the core essential self. Now, ideas and values are very important because humans live with beliefs and principles. But a person is a person, he is himself, regardless of what he believes. John is John as a libertarian. If he chooses to reject libertarianism and adopt communtarianism, he is still John. And even if he changes his name to ‘Muhammad’, he is still his biological self who was born of his parents. Even as ‘Muhammad’, he is the person who was born to such and such parents and was named John, experienced a unique personal history that led him to current set of beliefs that led him to change his name to ‘Muhammad’.

This much is true. Bad ideas or attitudes lead to degradation and demise of a person or nation. Hedonism will destroy a person. Fanaticism can destroy him too. And radical ideologies can bring about hell on earth to nations. Also, crude impulses can ruin a person like crazed personalities can destroy a nation. Take National Socialism. It had good ideas and bad ideas. Its good idea was nationalism and German revival, its bad idea was imperialism and racial chauvinism. What really destroyed Germany wasn’t so much the ideas but the crazed personalities who impulsively acted on the worst ideas of National Socialism. (Even systems with bad ideas can be steered safely by sane personalities. Gorbachev and Deng took over systems founded on radical ideas but steered them to moderation and world peace. If someone like Albert Speer had gained control of National Socialist Germany, wars would have been avoided.) Personalities of a nation are like impulses in a person. If a person’s neurons go haywire and go for short-term impulses than long-term sobriety, a man or woman can be lost to drugs or debauchery. Likewise, if a nation indulges the most radical, fanatical, or crazed personalities to to pursue their egotistical or tribal lusts without restraint, the result is something like US embroilment in Wars for Israel that laid waste to the Arab/Muslim world and destroyed millions of lives, resulting in the massive flood of Europe with 'refugees' as well. Another result is the ‘new cold war’ with Russia on the premise that the entire world exists mainly to serve the megalomania of Jewish supremacists who hypocritically mask their ultra-tribalism and egotism with platitudes about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘human rights’.

One of the worst and most dangerous ideas is to put credo before cradle or to conflate cradle with credo. Such assumption says a person’s ideas are more important that the person. Indeed, we are believe he is the idea. Using such logic, he is no longer a person unless he espouses certain ideas. He is unpersoned if he were to question or reject those ideas. Likewise, globalists threaten to un-nation America unless it commits to the ideas of Emma Lazarus.
But then, even if we play by rules of PC, are Lazarusean ideas really in line with Current PC that claims to be the True America? Wasn’t Emma Lazarus an imperialist and ethno-supremacist? After all, more European and Jewish immigration to America meant the expulsion of American Indians from their ancestral lands. If America is about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, didn’t Lazarusean ethos violate those principles since continued mass arrival of Europeans and white Jews made America less ‘red’(Indian) and more white? Jews say their ancestors ran from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but wasn't America created by 'pogroms' against Indians, just like Israel was created later with massive pogroms against Palestinians in the Nakba?
Furthermore, if Americanism is about atonement for its ‘racist’ past, why does the current America support Israel that was created by imperialism, pogromic ethnic cleansing, & destruction of Palestine and, furthermore, occupies West Bank & practices Apartheid there? If America is an Ideal that requires feeling guilty over Jim Crow and once-alliance with apartheid-practicing South Africa, why is it so un-repenting of its historical ‘sins’ against Palestinians? And if America is about equality, why is there more ‘white guilt’ for what was done to blacks than what was done to American Indians? Surely, ‘genocide’ is a bigger crime than slavery.

When we look at Current America, it’s less about an idea than an agenda(driven by the zealous ego of an ethnic tribe). If America is really an idea as this ethnic tribe claims, why don’t the members of this tribe practice these ideas themselves? If whites must forgo their racial identity and interests to serve the higher idea of True America, why don’t Jews forgo their identity and tribal interests to just merge with all other Americans? Why do Jews tell European-Americans that it’s wrong to preserve and serve European identity but insist that not only Jews but all gentile groups must support, praise, and serve Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionist Israel, and Wars for Israel? Why do Jews insist that all non-Jews must worship Jews-as-Jews. Worse, why do they insist that all non-Jews must hate peoples and nations hated by Jews? So, if Jews hate Russians, all gentiles(even Russians) must hate Russians. If Jews hate Iranians, all gentiles(even Iranians) must hate Iranians. So much for America being an Idea. That ‘idea’ in Current America is just a ruse used by the Agenda serving the Ego of a rabid, virulent, and fanatical ethnic tribe.

Finally, if indeed America is an Idea, there is no need for people to come to America. Ideas are portable and transferable. If American Ideas are the best, then the rest of the world can adopt and use those ideas. It's like, if a people learn how to make fire, that idea can be borrowed by other peoples who can make their own fires in their own lands. They don't have to come to the people with the fire to have the fire.
It's like one doesn't have to go to Mecca to be a Muslim or go to the Vatican to become a Catholic. Islam and Catholicism are ideas or creed. They can be adopted by any people in any part of the world.
So, even if we argue America = Idea, the world can just adopt Americanism-as-Idea in their own nations. There is no need for them to flood into America. Also, if democracy was a precious commodity in the 19th century, it is dime-a-dozen all over the world. Most nations are democracies around the world. Besides, much of the world has been 'Americanized' with McDonalds, Hollywood, Evangelicalism, and even Homomania. They can have their 'America' in their own nations.

The Sordid 'Untold' History of Race-Mixing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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