What was one of the most striking features of Stalinism? It was premised on communist principles of equality and justice for all. Stalinism was nothing new in terms of tyranny as brutality and repression have been around since the beginning of history. What made Stalinism perverse was the contradiction between its principles and its practice of power. Granted, the very term ‘Stalinism’ implied a perversion of communism from a universal-egalitarian ideal to a cult of personality, an idolatry centered around an individual elevated to quasi-divine status. At least in this respect, communism was a bigger moral failure than Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, ‘ideologies’ that openly and honestly insisted that a strong leader with power of vision and charisma should rule and define the destiny of his people. Though Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were anti-individualist when it came to mass politics, they were ultra-individualist when it came to the Great Leader, Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. Presumably, such a man was so awe-inspiring that he needn't operate by the rules of ordinary folks. He belonged to the pantheon of the greatest men in history. It was as if they were imbued with the stuff of myth. In the 19th century, many Romantics regarded Napoleon that way, seeing him more as god-man or force of nature than merely a military leader or historical figure. A man of destiny.
In contrast, communism claimed to be about ideas and principles than idols and power. Sure, communists would have to gain and even monopolize power to realize their Utopian project, but the end-result of such monumental endeavor would be a world in which all peoples would be equal in freedom, work, justice, and responsibility. Granted, modern communism came to be defined by Karl Marx(though communism as an idea predated him), just like much of modern psychology came to be, at least for a crucial period in the 20th century, shaped by Sigmund Freud at the expense of other more empirical but less imaginative experts. Some may argue this was 20th century communism’s fatal error, the allowing the thoughts of a single individual to exert such vast influence on an idea and movement. Beginning with Marxism, communism was less a generic idea of social justice based on collective ownership of property than the prophecy of an individual who, as Modern Moses, insisted that communism must be something more than a blueprint formulated in the minds of men: It was a historical inevitability that no will or power could stop. It was only a matter of when. Prior to Marx, communism was more a matter of social philosophy than grand history, i.e. communist ideals arose from the minds of men, and communist reality could be achieved only by the determination and will of men committed to revolutionary change. Without such conscious will and decision-making, communism would never be realized in the world. In other words, communism was the will of man. Men had to make it happen. As such, it was kind of humanism. Early communists were like the pagans who believed in a plurality of gods and heroes. Nothing was certain, and history was determined by the clash of wills and visions of men. The winners would decide history.
In contrast, Marx believed that consciousness follows material conditions. Though an atheist, Marx believed in a power beyond the will or wish of men. This power was History, a monomaniacal force like the Jewish God. Just like individuals are helpless and powerless before the one and only God, mankind cannot do anything to change the course of History. People can only be agents of History, like people are only pawns of the one and only God. At most, people can try to understand this uber-power; and when this power demands change, one must be ready to ride the waves or be swept aside. According to Marx's view of History, as economic factors change, social relationships also change, and such shifts affect the way people view reality and their place in it. There is a historical logic and dynamics beyond what people may wish to think or believe. Also, most people cannot think or imagine beyond the material limits of their reality. The material reality must change before the mind follows and changes accordingly; it's like in evolution, organisms react/adapt to the changing environment. Economic reality changes with the evolution of production that, in time, comes to favor one class over another. The rise of trade eventually came to favor the merchant-bourgeoisie over the aristocracy. And as Marx saw the future, the dire contradictions within capitalism must inevitably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. While Marx wasn’t averse to individual will and commitment — indeed, one of his boastful comments was that the role of scholar isn't merely to study but change the world — , he thought the Revolution couldn’t be hastened or delayed by much. When it will happen, it will happen. It’s like a pregnant woman may try to have the child earlier or later, and she might alter the date of birth by a few days, but the fact remains most children are born after around 9 months.
Because of Marx’s elaborate theories and deep intellectualism, many communists convinced themselves that Marxism wasn’t really a personality cult but merely the best and most complete theory of communism as revealed by a great thinker. Supposedly, it was like Darwinism that merely attributed the discovery of evolution to the English scientist: Not a reverential cult of Charles Darwin as a know-it-all genius but credit due to the man who first worked out the basic theory of how evolution works. Likewise, Marx was seen as the first social scientist who figured out the true working dynamics of history. Still, whereas Darwin was respected as a great scientist, Karl Marx did come to be revered as a near-divine figure in the communist canon. Perhaps, the theme of justice is more powerful and emotionally charged than the theme of facts. Whereas Darwin merely figured out how biology works(on the amoral level), Marx figured out how history ultimately works to bring about a just world for all mankind. Truth is like ice, cold. Justice is like fire, hot. That mankind may have evolved from apes was mighty interesting, but it didn’t do anything to improve the lot of man, but the idea that material history eventually resolves its contradictions by toppling the exploitative class in favor of the toiling masses was deeply heartening to many who’d gone through the often traumatic Industrial Revolution.
That said, because Karl Marx remained a thinker all his life and never gained political power, his official status was that of a man of ideas. One might even say Karl Marx was too good and pure to dirty his hands in the world of politics with its betrayals and compromises. Similarly, Moses remained a prophet but never became king. And Jesus preached ideas and died for them but didn’t go about the ‘petty’ business of setting up organizations to spread the Gospel far and wide. Muhammad notwithstanding, when the man of principles also becomes a man of practice, much of the luster is lost.
It’s usually the case that the thinker or prophet retains a degree of purity in that he dreams big dreams and dies before his theory is put through the wringer of practice that has a way of mucking things up. After all, even the most pristine, cautious, and well-thought-out plan often goes wrong when put into action. Even the most powerful thinkers cannot foresee all the details and complications. Also, those who involved in the practice often turn out to be madmen, incompetents, hustlers, opportunists, egotists, or deeply flawed individuals. And for this reason, it’s hardly surprising that the failure of communism was usually blamed on men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao than on Karl Marx himself. Plenty of True Believers insisted that the practitioners of communism misinterpreted, betrayed, abused, or perverted True Marxism. The chances are that a system ruled by Marx himself would likely have failed too, but we will never know as the Great Man died before communism became a real political force in the world.
What we do know is that communism, as practiced by men like Vladimir Lenin, Bela Kun, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and etc., proved to be failures. Granted, not all communist nations were guilty of mass-killings, and furthermore, plenty of grisly acts were committed by right-wing and capitalist nations in the 20th century. But in the end, communism failed to deliver all the things it promised. It lost to capitalist nations by standards of materiality, freedom, and justice. If communist nations had produced less goods but nevertheless managed to offer more freedom or justice, that would have been something. But over time, it became more apparent by the day that capitalist nations were not only able to produce more goods but procure greater progress in justice and freedom. In contrast, not only did communist nations lag in technology and consumer goods but failed to deliver freedom and justice as promised. Diehard purists may argue that Marxism cannot be blamed for this because communism came to power in mostly pre-industrial nations, thereby turning Marx’s theory on its head. Marx argued communism would follow late capitalism and then the proletariat would inherit the earth from the fallen bourgeoisie. Marxism was a theory of inheritance, not installation, of industry. After all, Marx himself argued that no force was as revolutionary and transformational as capitalism, and for that very reason, despite its evils, it was an absolutely crucial stage toward the development of communism. Just like there must be night before dawn, there must be capitalism before communism.
As no fully developed capitalist nation turned communist, we still don’t know if post-capitalist communism will work wonders or not, but we can still guess as to how such a system will turn out. While the U.K. didn’t turn communist after World War II, the Labour Party did nationalize many key industries, and that didn’t do much for the economy. If anything, the more market-oriented European economies did better. Also, the paucity of material incentives in communism makes one wonder if a capitalist-made society will remain prosperous for long under the new rules. And facts of human nature suggest communism is, at best, over-zealous idealism blinded by narrow definition of ‘justice’. Still, given the rising contradictions of capitalism in our globalist world, it is safe to say that the End of History(as suggested by Francis Fukuyama) failed the understand the power dynamics and its implications for the future.
In terms of Fukuyama’s definition of ‘History’, he was more right than wrong. The end of the Cold War witnessed the closing days of the battle of Big Ideas. Oddly enough, the smaller, humbler, and more moderate ideas had won over the Big or Grand ones. Moderate Liberalism won out over Radical Leftism with its Macro Theory of History. And seemingly, moderate nationalism and moderate internationalism won out over ultra-nationalism that was once synonymous with imperialist ambition. In a way, one might say it was the triumph of the Anglo/American model over others, far left and far right. But one wonders if Anglo/Americanism won out mainly because of its wisdom and good sense or its good luck. While one can find much that is praiseworthy in British-American ways & values, would Anglo/American power have been so great if not for the superb luck that Anglos got to conquer, settle, and develop North America, the best land in the world? And were ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ really crucial in the development of the United States as a great power? Suppose Imperial Germany had taken North America and developed it along autocratic lines. Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful with all the land and resources utilized by a talented and hard-working people? Indeed, when we compare liberal democratic UK and autocratic Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the latter was gaining over the former. So, perhaps, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ have been over-emphasized as the reason for the power of the United States.
Anyway, the closure of the Cold War did bring about something like the End of History in that people were no longer into mega-ideologies. According to Fukuyama, this was due to the fact that ‘liberal democracy’ triumphed over the final Big Idea of Marxism, the grand theory that claimed to hold the key to the workings of history and culmination of justice. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’ made no such claim and made incremental progress based on liberty, empiricism, pragmatism, individualism, ingenuity & innovation, and free flow of ideas. Instead of one Big School dictating the Truth, liberal democracy allowed many schools and shops to bloom and offer their ideas and products in the marketplace of choice. Termites won over the elephant.
And yet, Fukuyama was wrong in one significant way. Though he valued liberal democracy for its freedom, moderation, and pragmatism, he also elevated it as the Final Idea that would define and dominate the world. The problem of such view was in assuming that The Idea has final power over the Forces within the System. According to Fukuyama, since Liberal Democracy prevailed over Communism(and Fascism), the dominant force in the West is Liberal Democracy, i.e. nothing, no one, and no group in the West can become greater than Liberal Democracy that is all about ‘individualism’, ‘liberty’, ‘free speech’, ‘rule of law’, and etc. But in truth, ideas have no life of their own. Even though every idea favors something over something else, it is also malleable in the hands of those who have the power, especially lots of power. Also, Liberal Democracy doesn’t preclude the monopolization of power or dominance by a certain group. The sheer prevalence of blacks in the NBA and NFL is obvious proof of that. Thus, the End of History with Liberal Democracy as the Final Idea can easily lead to the Beginning of Beastory with the most talented, intelligent, strong-willed, egotistical, maniacal, and/or organized groups using liberty and freedom to accumulate the most power for themselves. And with such monopolization of power, they can easily manipulate the Rule of Law and ‘liberal democratic’ principles to serve their narrow tribal and/or egotistical principles.
Granted, under a system like the US, no group will be able to gain the power wielded by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but given the current condition and global trajectory, it is very possible for a few groups to gain such market and elite dominance as to dictate their agenda and narrative to the rest of us. The passing of Big Ideas from the world stage doesn’t guarantee that the moderate rules and principles of Liberal Democracy will hold sway over all the world or even the West. This might have been the case IF everyone and every group in the West were equal in talent, intelligence, drive, ambition, and egotism, but the fact is certain groups are far more talented and driven than others. As such, they will gain so much more power in a state of relative freedom, even entire monopolies. Just like liberalism in sports only led to black domination and near-monopoly in many position, liberalism in industries and institutions led to the pre-eminence of Jewish power in so many areas, indeed to the extent that we live under what might be called the Ethno-Stalinism of Jews. Thus, the beastly ambitions of certain groups gain a stranglehold over the principles of Liberal Democracy. It is the Beginning of Beastory.
What is the similarity between Stalinism and Jewish Power in the US? Josef Stalin was the leader of a communist state where everyone was supposed to be equal in power, property, and justice. Now, given the nature of reality, it was hardly surprising that the leader of a communist nation would be ‘more equal than others’(or METO). Such is to be expected even from the most principled leader in the most principled community. But Stalin wasn’t mildly METO over the people of the USSR but totally METO over them. The rules that applied to others didn’t apply to Stalin at all. He could do just about anything and get away with anything. He wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god over men. While he could condemn millions to imprisonment or death, others could hardly criticize him. Indeed, it was deemed a crime to show insufficient enthusiasm for the man and whatever he muttered. Such tyranny would have been less perverse IF the USSR had been founded on the principle of Stalin-Worship, but it wasn’t. As brutal and ruthless as communism was from the beginning as a political movement, the idea was that radical will and violence were necessary to sweep away the old decrepit order to make way for the new where all would be equal. Of course, such outlook was hardly unique to communists. The US in World War II was willing to use ruthless means to defeat the Evil Enemy so as to lay the groundwork for a New World Order amenable to US interests and ideals. Many people rationalized communist violence in the same manner that others had justified violence in the name of Christianity, Islam, Homeland, Enlightenment, Civilization, and/or Freedom. Most white Americans acknowledged the tragic dimension of taking land from American Indians but believed it to have been justified as savagery and wilderness gave way to towns with schools and churches for womenfolk and children. In that sense, communist commitment to violence as a force of change was hardly out of line with historical narratives: Means justify Ends.
But Stalinism’s hyper Cult of Personality was something else. It didn’t merely compromise communist principles but totally overrode them, in effect turning the USSR into a kind of Stalinstan. And for Stalin to have more individual worth as the infallible leader — so infallible that even when events proved him to have been wrong, everyone had to make believe HE was right and history was wrong or ignore or rewrite history altogether — , the people of the USSR had to have less individual worth as citizens of the state. In time, Stalin wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god among minions. While the lives of millions could be expended by a mere twirl of his finger, no one could find fault with any aspect of the man and his erratic whims. If he said black is white and white is black, you had to nod along and agree. If he changed his mind, you had to agree again, but he might have you killed because, earlier, you had been ‘wrong’. Never mind that you’d only agreed with the Great Man because he’s always right. But if one man is always right, then all those around him bound to be always wrong because they lack the immunity of the Great One. Stalin could change his mind all the time and be right at every turn because the only law he lived by was "Stalin is always right". That gave him immunity from being wrong. So, he could go from A to B to C, and he would have been ‘right’ in all three cases because he is always right. But as those around him had no such immunity or license, they would have been wrong at every turn because they also switched positions from A to B to C. If the current state says C is correct, those who’d pledged to A or B would have been wrong. But of course, Stalin was never wrong because he was right even when he was wrong because he was above the law, with the only law applying to him being "I’m always right."
We see something like Stalinism with Jewish Power, though some might call it Political Trotskyism as most Jews preferred the Jewish Trotsky over the Georgian Stalin. By ‘Political Trotskyism’, we mean the nature of Jewish Personality and Will to Power than the Marxist-Communist ideological underpinnings of Trotskyism that no Jew(at least in power) believes in anymore. In the US, Jews are not merely somewhat METO(more equal than others) but totally so. Jews are always right, even when wrong. And goyim are ‘wrong’ even when they agree with Jews and reiterate what Jews have said. Plenty of Jews have said the Tribe does own the media. They said it with pride. But if goyim agree and say Jews control the media, they are denounced as ‘antisemitic conspiracy theorists’ and dragged through the mud. Jews claim to push for mass-immigration and celebrate the prospect of whites becoming minorities in their own nations, but if whites notice as much and say Jews are behind Diversity-mongering, they are attacked as ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’. Jews can say whatever they like. They can even brag about their sinister plans for other races and nations. They can taunt others and spew bile, but if you, as goy, take notice of Jewish attitudes as particularly Jewish, you are ‘wrong’ and denounced as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Just like Stalin was always right(even when wrong) and his victims were always ‘wrong’(even when right), the same kind of dynamics exists between Jews and goyim. The charter of the Jewish supremacist organization ADL is premised on the notion that in 99% of Jewish-Goyim relationships, Jews must be ‘innocent’ and goyim must be ‘guilty’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to stereotype, demean, defame, and pigeonhole certain groups of goyim(especially whites) as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and/or ‘hateful’, but goyim better not notice general patterns of behavior among Jews(unless such happen to be positive and flattering).
As with Stalinism, it is the sheer hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Jewish Power so repulsive. Unlike Ivan the Terrible who ruled openly as an iron-fisted tyrant in the Age of Tsars, Stalin ruled as Secretary General of a ‘republic’ committed to equality, justice, and liberation. So, the sheer discrepancy between what the USSR claimed ideologically and how Stalinism operated in reality was absolutely outrageous, so much in fact that Stalin had to tighten the totalitarian screws to make sure that no one said the Obvious: Stalinism was Tsarism x 1000. Though there were some social improvements and certain impressive achievements in the Soviet Union, if the system was equal in anything, it was in forcing blind obedience to the State that went from Stalinist dictatorship to oligarchic one-party rule.
*Incidentally, it appears Jews at Youtube manipulated algorithms so that if one searches for "Stalin Netanyahu applause ovation", no video that draws comparison shows up even though MANY have observed the oddity or similarity. It goes to show that Google/Youtube isn’t really ‘leftist’ but Jewish-tribal-supremacist. If Google Jews were truly ‘leftist’, why would they cover up for Netanyahu’s regime that is more ‘far right’ than even the most right-wing government in Europe? If Jews are so ‘liberal’, why do they push for Anti-BDS legislation that silences and destroys the lives of those who call attention to injustices faced by Palestinian underdogs?*
With Jewish Power, we see the same kind of contradiction in the US and the West in general. Jews make the most noise about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘freedom’, and yet most of what they do is to secure special privileges, supremacy, and hegemony for Jewish Power. Indeed, more often than not, what Jews SAY is merely a convenient cover for what Jews DO. Jews TALK to distract us from how they WALK. Think of a Jew who walks to Point A while making so much noise about how he’s headed to Point B. We need to judge by what Jews do, not by what they say. But even what they say go against what they say. Jews say the New America is no longer about Eurocentrism or ‘white privilege’ but about equal rights and respect for all groups, but in the next breath, Jews insist that America must regard Israel as its closest and greatest ally, and that all Americans must be especially sensitive to Jewish feelings uber alles. Never mind all the anti-Muslim movies made by Jewish Hollywood. Never mind all the anti-white movies(usually set in the American South) produced by Jews. Jews also make lots of movies and TV shows with evil Russian monsters and yellow-peril villains. So, Jewish Power can defame and demean any nation or people, casting it or them as the Enemy of America. Jews can declare Iran or Russia the Great Enemy, but if Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers try to draw people’s attention to the plight of those in the West Bank and Gaza as the result of America’s blind and mindless support of Zionist tyranny and terror, they must be shut down with Anti-BDS laws and resolutions. This is why Jewish Power is essentially ethno-stalinist. The stark difference between what Jews say in one moment AND what Jews say in other moments(and really DO) is totally outrageous. And just like Stalinism could perpetuate itself only via totalitarian tyranny that compelled the tyrannized to exclaim that they were equal, happy, and liberated under Stalin’s rule, the ethno-stalinism of Jewish Power insists that we all tell ourselves, others, and our Jewish masters that there is nothing more American as Apple Pie and 1776 as praising, flattering, revering, serving, obeying, and worshiping Jews. We must love Jewish Power like Winston Smith loved Big Brother in 1984. Unlike with Stalinism, heretics are not dragged off to be shot, but ethno-stalinist Jewish Power is very effective in maintaining control because Jews know that the fate of the nation is decided by a handful of elites. So, as long as Jews can buy off politicians and threaten goy economic elites with total ruin(by defaming their reputations as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic') if they deviate from the Judeo-centric Narrative and Dogma, just about everything is under control.
Also, as Jews have perverted the freedom of so many Americans by addicting them to hedonism and vices, so much of American liberty doesn’t go toward seeking truth and real justice. Generally, half of Americans only care to use their freedom for mindless pleasure, and the other half of Americans, having been molded by media/academia controlled by Jews, have a hard time conceiving of truth and justice beyond what they’ve been spoonfed since kindergarten. They grew up with the ideology and idolatry as controlled by Jews.
For a truer America, we need something like ethno-de-stalinization, just like the Soviet Union sought to de-Stalinize itself after the tyrant’s death(or murder) in 1953. But it’s difficult to change old habits, and vestiges of Stalinism remained to the very end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was that failure to truly root out Stalinism that prevented real reforms that could have made for a better system. Likewise, our de-ethno-stalinization must be total and absolute. It must not be a half-measure, especially as Jews have virulent personalities and radical wills. Just like there is no moderate way to deal with cancer, there is no soft way to deal with Jewish Power gone cancerous in the West.
Cancer is perversely contradictory in that it's about more life that leads to sure death. Cancer produces more cells, thus more life, but it also disrupts balance within the organism. Likewise, Jewish Power works like a contradiction. It speaks of more equality and justice, more progress, but just about everything that Jewish Power does is really to increase and maximize Jewish Power at the expense of all else. Jews are pushing for More Diversity not because they want to share power equally with all groups. No, it is only to create divisions, distrust, and strife among goyim so that Jews at the top can play goyim against one another. The result will be a society that becomes even more unequal and unjust, much like California where the rich(especially Jews) keep getting richer while too many people fall through the cracks and live in a state of ethnic, cultural, and political distress. And if indeed California is the future of America, we can look forward to a one-party state. It is time to wake up, see Jewish Power for what it is, expose its obnoxious & radical hypocrisy, and implement a drastic program of de-ethno-stalinization.
If white people have chosen to relinquish their ownership of America, who shall the United States belong to? By historical rights, the United States should be a White Nation. While, in the 'spiritual' sense, we can acknowledge that the American Indians have the deepest and most special connection to the land — as they'd been here for many eons prior to the arrival of peoples from the Old World — , the nation that came to be known as the 'United States' or 'America' is almost entirely the creation of the Anglo-Germanic founders and settlers. Even acknowledging the key role of black labor in the development of Early America, it was the vision, skills, rules, values, and the culture of whites that made possible the rise of a nation that wasn't only distinct from those of the Old World but those of Mexico, Central America, and South America, the so-called parts of Latin America. The simple fact is No Whites(Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Europeans[non-Anglos who became Anglo-ized as white immigrants in the US]), No America. America as a modern nation is simply inconceivable without white Europeans, especially those of Anglo(and Dutch, Irish, and Germanic)stock who laid down the foundations and supplied the labor guided by Protestant Work Ethic(that, in time, came to affect the Catholic Irish as well). Only a churlish moron or liar would dispute the historical fact of No Whites, No America.
Granted, it's likely another kind of nation might have arisen in North America if it hadn't been for the Anglos(and Germanics, Irish, and Dutch). If Anglos had kept out of the New World, the French might have settled North America and built an impressive Franco-American civilization. Or if the French had also remained out of the picture, perhaps most of North America would eventually have been settled by Russians from the Northwest(via Alaska) and by Spanish from the South. Or, if the Chinese and Japanese had been more adventurous across the seas, they might have settled parts of the West Coast. Those are all maybes, but what actually did happen is that the Anglos and the Germanics(that would include the Dutch and Scandinavians along with Germans), two of the most accomplished and talented peoples on Earth(apart from the French) at the time, managed to settle most of North America and in time gained overwhelming preeminence over it. As such, the main credit for the creation and development is with them.
But, it is true enough that the land was taken from the indigenous natives who, though wild and savage, were proud warrior folks with deep and even 'sacred' connection to the land. Also, as Northern Europeans couldn't produce enough babies fast enough(and in time, birthrates would precipitously fall among their kinds) to settle the vast territories of North America, the American colonies brought over black slaves. And then, to put down railroads and man the factories, the US brought over lots of immigrants from other parts of Europe, south and east. Blacks would long remain a problem, not so much because of the color of their skin but because they're naturally stronger, tougher, more aggressive, and more pathological(as well as having lower IQ, but then it is a good thing that blacks are inferior in intelligence because black psychopathy + black thuggery + high black IQ would have led to even more problems; the last thing we need is blacks with the IQ of Jews as well as the muscles of simians; after all, animals are stronger than humans but thankfully dumber, and only a fool would wish gorillas, lions, and bears were as smart or smarter than humans as humans would be threatened not only physically but intellectually by the beasts). Chinese arrived to work on railroads, but their number was limited, not least because of immigration restrictive laws that came to regard mass Asian immigration as 'yellow peril'. (White Americans feared mass yellow immigration like Palestinians feared mass Jewish immigration. Back then, white Americans were able to stem the yellow tide from Japan and China, the most populous nation on Earth, whereas Palestinians weren't able to put a stop to the Zionist tide that eventually overran the Arab population. Today, Jews in Israel are able to prevent the Right of Return by Palestinians, but white Americans aren't able to do much about the endless non-white immigration that threatens to reduce whites to a minority in the very nation they founded and built.)
As for non-Anglo and non-Germanic immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, they proved to be white enough and more-or-less easily assimilated into Anglo-Americanism. ANGLO-Americanism was the crucial glue(the Anglue) that made it possible for various ethnic groups to become ONE people. If in Europe, the various ethnic groups clung to their own identities against the others as NO single European identity or culture could rightfully claim itself as the Essence of European-ness, Anglos in America could make such claim because they'd been most instrumental in founding and forging a new nation; furthermore, non-Anglo immigrants came to America with appreciation of Anglo achievements and express purpose of becoming a part of the New Nation. Without the Anglue, the diverse ethnic groups that arrived in America could not become ONE people. Even as various ethnic groups clung to something particular to their own peoples and history, they could form common bonds with other ethnic groups(and even with other races) only because all groups adhered, in varying degrees, to ANGLO-Americanism. (Jew-Glue is less effective as a national bond because Jewishness is far more exclusive and particularist than Anglue. While Anglos had racial consciousness, they believed non-Anglos could partake of Anglo culture, ways, manners, and of course language. Anglo-ness could serve as the connective glue even for non-Anglos. But Jews never envisioned their culture in the same way. Jewish ways, values, and language were for Jews alone. Jews never dreamed to use Hebrew or Yiddish as a 'universal language'. Some Jewish guy came up with Esperanto, but that was something entirely divorced from Jewishness. Anglue became like Christmas. Even non-Christians could convert to the Faith and join in the celebration. In contrast, something like Passover is for Jews alone. In the West, there is a kind of Jew-Glue in that all American, Canadian, and European politicians make a show of worshiping the Holocaust and supporting Israel, but they are honoring and paying tribute to Jewishness as the Great Other. They are united in their obedience to Jewishness as a unique and superior quality. In contrast, applying the Anglue meant that YOU, even as a Non-Anglo, could fully partake of the culture even if you could not be racially Anglo yourself. Even a Hindu or African could become something like an 'English gentleman' even if he couldn't become racially English. Or anyone could partake of Anglo-American manners, attitudes, work ethic, and values even if he or she couldn't become Anglo by blood. In contrast, Jewish culture and Jewish race were inseparable. Goyim couldn't become even just 'culturally' Jewish. Jews forbade it as Jewish culture was meant to be practiced only in relation to Jewish identity. So, Jewish assault on Anglo-ness is as disingenuous as the Hindu assault on whites. Both Jews and Hindus have been far more exclusive and particularist in defining their own identity and culture than Anglos ever were. Even as Anglos kept Anglo racial identity for themselves, they allowed and even encouraged Others to partake of Anglo culture in language, values, ethics, and laws. This wasn't the case with Jews[or Hindus]. It was the willingness to take part in Anglo-ness as the essence of Americanism that made it possible for the various ethnic groups to coalesce into One People over time. Without the Anglue, the various groups would have fractured along tribal/ethnic lines[as in Europe] because there would have been no common culture that all groups could acknowledge and adhere to as the founding & defining essence of America. Likewise, Latin American nations have been able to form their own Common Culture because the founding stock[of Hispanics or Portuguese] insisted that the various immigrants participate in the established culture and language to become full members of the nation. Thus, Italians and Germans in Brazil learned to speak Portuguese and became 'Brazilian'; in Argentina, they learned to speak Spanish as ticket to becoming 'Argentinian'. No one disputes that Hispanic/Latin culture has been the defining bond for the peoples in what is called Latin America, but somehow, it's now become unfashionable for Americans[and Canadians] to emphasize the Anglue as the key cultural substance to hold the nation together. This is all the more confusing because even those who are most invested in denouncing Anglo culture are, in more ways than one, taking part in that very culture in terms of language, customs, and adherence to Rule of Law. Furthermore, one could argue that Anglue-as-connective-bond in North America is less offensive than the Spanish Glue of Latin America because, whereas Anglos and Northern Europeans were indeed the majority-dominant folks of the American Foundation, most Latin American nations remained majority Indio or mestizo, which meant that an alien European culture had to be imposed on the brown majority population whose indigenous cultures were destroyed. Anglue was mostly for a white America made up of Anglos and other Europeans, whereas Hispanic culture was imposed on non-European natives. Anglue still exists to the extent that everyone who comes to the US must learn English. Also, its influence and impact are to be found in just about every facet of Americanism: Laws, contracts, property rights, individualism, empiricism, pragmatism, work ethic, literature, moderation, and etc. But it's been turned into Invisible Glue so that Anglo-Americans now almost get NO credit for all that they've contributed to the nation. The only visible glue in regard to Anglo-Americans is the Guilt-Glue that makes everything bad stick onto whites, esp those of Anglo origin. According to shows like HAMILTON, America is really about Junglue, and we might as well pretend Hamilton was a Negro. Oddly enough, the musical is not the work of a Negro but a resentful Hispanic who seeks to degrade and demean Anglo culture[that put Latino culture to shame in terms of achievements and power] by implying that it can only be redeemed by Historical Miscegenation, also a feature of BBC that now often feature European historical figures as Negroes or some Other. KKKrazy Glue is the very opposite of Anglue. It seeks to bind people with pathological animus toward that very thing that was most instrumental in the foundation and creation of America. It's like using anti-glue as new glue. It spreads paranoia and hatred that everything white must be KKK or 'Nazi'. Sadly, most of today's Anglo-Americans suck up to the very people who are most invested in selling KKKrazy Glue.) Most Eastern Europeans, especially Central European Slavs, were almost as pale-faced as the Anglos and Germanics. Southern Europeans, in contrast, especially from places like Southern Italy and Greece, were swarthier and less white, but they were still white enough to gradually assimilate into Anglo-America. Also, despite their fallen status in modern times, Greeks and Italians had tremendous cultural capital as Western Civilization would have been inconceivable without Hellenic and Latin roots. In a way, the United States was like the final culmination of what had begun in the democracy of Athens and evolved in the republics of Rome. Even though the once barbarian-northern Europeans grew to greatness whereas the once advanced-southern Europeans fell on hard times, there was a deep historical and cultural connection between them. In time, even Southern-European Americans became more-or-less Anglo-ized and in effect became Anglo-Europeans of the New World. Also, as Southern European Americans were outnumbered by Northern-European Americans, the majority of them were mindful to fit in with the Northern-European-American models of behavior, manners, and work. Thus, they soaked up aspects of the Northern Protestant Work Ethic and respect for the Law, something that was absent in Latin America where, in most cases, Southern European Latinos set the template for majority populations that were Mestizo and/or Indio. Despite Italian-American criminality, most groups that arrived in the US came to admire the vision and achievements of Anglo-Germanic Americans and sought to be a 'credit to their race' by living up to the American Model as forged by the Founders and Settlers.
And the fate of America might have been a happy or happier story if not for the fact that many of those 'Eastern Europeans' were actually Semites, the Jews who arrived with a different mentality and attitude. Even as the poor immigrants from places like Poland, Italy, Russia, and etc. were grateful to start anew in America, they still fondly harked back to their nations of origins as spiritual homelands. They appreciated the freedoms and opportunities in America, but there lingered a sentimentality and nostalgia for the nations whence they came. They'd left for America out of ambition, not out of hatred for their own nations and peoples. There may have been narratives of disgruntlement with the poverty and backwardness of their ancestral nations of origin, but they still felt an attachment(especially as personal bitterness ebbed away, especially over generations), and many of them tried to recreate the Old World in the New World, as in German-towns and Polish-towns. In contrast, many Jews left Old World Europe for New World America with something bordering on real hatred for the departed lands. Whereas most white Americans felt, "Even if nothing works out here in the New World, there is my homeland in the Old World, the one I might return to", the Jews came to the US with a "Don't Look Back" attitude. It was the attitude of the ancients leaving Sodom or Egypt. They weren't leaving their homeland but the land of hostile strangers. While many Irish-Americans were haunted by bitter memories/stories about poverty-stricken Ireland, it was still their beloved homeland. In contrast, Jews never felt that way about Poland or Russia. John Ford made THE QUIET MAN as tribute to lovely green Eire, but the typical Jewish movie about the Old World was something like FIDDLER ON THE ROOF; there is no love for Russia. (Even the Coen Brothers are more sentimental about the Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING than about Jews in their other films. Because the Irish have a homeland, they feel home away from home. Even when things go badly for them in America or elsewhere, they can at least say, "There is a place called Ireland where MY PEOPLE live" and hum to "Danny Boy". It's the difference between Steve Martin and John Candy in PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES. Even when everything goes wrong, Martin's character knows he has a home and family that waits for him whereas Candy's character is forever a wanderer with no place to call home, no place to return to. THE SWIMMER is ultimately tragic because it turns out Burt Lancaster's character no longer has a home, unlike Odysseus who still had a loyal wife and son waiting for him. The Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING feel at home even away from home because they know Ireland exists even if far away. In contrast, the Jews seem more restless in MILLER'S CROSSING and BARTON FINK, especially as the stories take place in a time before the creation of Israel. Having a homeland can even sweeten the worst tragedies. Irish remember the Potato Famine with great angst, but they still love the land on which their ancestors perished. In contrast, Jews feel no such attachment to the killing fields of Eastern Europe upon which Nazis and their collaborators mowed down countless Jews. Irish tragedy and territory are one. In contrast, the Holocaust that has become so holy to modern Jews happened on the lands of goyim. Irish died in their homeland, whereas Jews died in strangers' lands. It's more comforting to die in your own home than in a hostile stranger's place.) And this is why Jews became especially covetous of the United States. If most white groups felt that they still had a dear homeland to return to(or at least dream about) even if nothing good came of them in the New World, Jews felt they better make it in the New World because they could never feel truly at home in the Old World, especially as the rise of modern nationalism across Europe made things difficult for Jews who were marked by various ethno-national groups as alien, disloyal, parasitic, and rootless.
Jews appreciated the blank-slate aspect of America, the idea that it was a land where arrivals could start anew without the old baggage. It was like a criminal having his tainted record wiped clean. The hope was that Jews would be regarded merely as fellow Americans and free individuals without the deep-rooted prejudices of the Old World. And yet, Jews were bound to be problematic because, even as they enthused over the blank-slate aspects of Americanism(whereby anyone or at least any white person could become 'American' and judged on the basis of meritocracy than identity), they insisted on clinging to their own ancient identity, heritage, and even hatreds. Even as Jews were relieved that America was less 'antisemitic' than the Old World, they themselves remained nasty, hostile,and contemptuous toward the goy population, often animated by bitterness, resentment, and envy.
Furthermore, Anglo-Americans had contradictory reasons of their own for having welcomed in all those Jews. On the one hand, it was that very ancient pedigree of Jews that made Anglo-Americans romanticize them(in the way that bohemian types romanticized Gypsies and the way that Counterculture types in the Sixties did with Hindus and Eastern Mysticism). Especially because America broke free from the British Empire, there developed the conceit of a New Civilization. In fact, United States was essentially a continuation of British(and Germanic) Civilization, but the narrative of Independence & clean break from the Old World made Americans eager to gain cultural credentials. Without the myth of 1776, the American colonies(remaining part of the British Empire) would have regarded themselves as continuous in terms of history and heritage in its loyalty to the Motherland of England. But 1776 became for America what Anno Domini was for Christianity. The vision of a New Beginning.
Never mind that Christianity grew out of Judaism and that America grew out of Britain. To validate the New Idea or New Nation as legitimate and even superior, the breach had to be emphasized over the bond. But this was easier said than done as America, in contrast to Old World Europe, was indeed 'shallow' in history and culture. It couldn't boast of Athens, Renaissance, Shakespeare, or Mozart. Also, many white goy immigrants who came to the New World came without much culture or learning. Many were barely literate and were hardly in a position to contribute much to the development of American Culture. They came mainly to supply manpower to build a new nation by working on farms and factories. But Jews were different. They were more educated, literate, urban, and cultured. Also, more of them were involved with ideas, philosophy, and history. Thus, Anglo-Americans came to appreciate Jews as the instant-bringers of Culture/Heritage to America. Paradoxically, precisely because of America's conceit of rupture from the Old World, it craved something of depth and heritage. It's like a man who breaks free from home may exult in newfound freedom but soon finds himself hankering desperately for a new sense of home. (Replicants in BLADE RUNNER are psychologically unstable because they have no sense of past, no prior memories.) As America broke with Old Britain, it sought cultural sustenance in connection to something with even deeper pedigree. No people were as ancient as the Jews.
In a way, this was rather ironic because the US was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism. And yet, the very enterprising, adaptive, and venturesome ways of the Jews struck a chord with Anglo-Americans who entertained the Ideal of the New Jew. The idea was that Jewishness had been warped and distorted in the Old World because of repressions and prejudices, but the New Jews of America would become wonderful Good Americans in the open and healthy air of freedom and liberty. (And Jews flattered Anglo-Americans for harboring just such delusional sentiments about the Tribe. Much later, American Conservatism would similarly romanticize the Neocons as Jews who would finally see the light and become Good Americans via baptism by Conservatism Inc. In fact, Jews cynically toyed with naive Conservative minds to take over the movement to push Jewish Supremacism in cahoots with Jewish 'Liberals'.)
Another reason why Anglo-Americans developed a certain feeling for Jews had to do with the rootless nature of Americanism. After all, if the vast continent had to be settled, it wouldn't do for too many Americans to put down roots in any single place. They had to keep moving, especially Westward to take land from the Indians and even Mexicans. Thus, unlike Greekness or Polishness, Americanism wasn't defined by vertical roots but horizontal movement. Americanism had to be defined in a portable manner. One wasn't American because he was tied to a particular territory in the New World but because of the portable bag of ideas he carried within his heart and mind at all times. So, even if he left Pennsylvania for Ohio and then for Iowa and then for Idaho and then for Oregon, he was an American because what really defined him was the Narrative, Outlook, and the Constitution.
In a similar way, the Jews, especially following the great Exile from Jerusalem, survived as identity and culture in the Diaspora because Jewishness came to be identified with the portability of their Narrative and the Law. Of course, the difference between American Mobility and Jewish Diaspora was that whereas white Americans felt 'at home' even as they moved from home to home across the great spaces of America, Jews had always felt away from home even as they settled in various parts of Europe, Arabia, and North Africa. A Jew in France wasn't really French, a Jew in Poland wasn't really Polish, a Jew in Germany wasn't really German, and etc. And yet, Jews were promised that a Jew in America could truly become an American and as such was truly 'at home' no matter where he lived in the United States. For a people who hadn't had a taste of homeland for nearly two millenniums, the American Dream was intoxicating for Jews. Just like a famished person over-eats upon being presented with food, Jews gorged on the idea of America as 'homeland'. And yet, there was the paradox. America could be a homeland for the Jews precisely because it wasn't the homeland for a particular people. A nation like Poland or Russia couldn't really be the homeland of Jews because, even if Jews there were allowed to live in peace and prosperity, there would be the constant reminders that Poland really and mainly belongs to the Polish and Russia really and mainly belongs to the Russians. In contrast, if America belongs to no particular people, then it belongs to all the world, and that means Jews could claim it as much as any other people could.
There was certainly an aspect of Americanism that suggested as much, at least as a Dream, but the American Reality was something else. In fact, America was a specific racial and cultural creation, and it couldn't have been created by any other people. Pete Buttplug(aka Buttigieg) says 'white supremacism' will ruin America, but America wouldn't exist in the first place if not for 'white supremacism' and 'racism'. And this would become a great contradiction of Americanism. But there is another contradiction, that between Jews seeing America as belonging to the whole world(including the Jews) AND Jews seeing America as belonging to themselves to own as their empire.
Is there any way White Americans can reclaim the United States as essentially an extension of European Civilization? Maybe, maybe not, but it seems unlikely. If things continue as usual, the US will become a giant California. As Texas is poised to go Democratic in a matter of years, the GOP won't be able to win elections again UNLESS it becomes just another Democratic Party. But then, it's been useless on the issue of immigration and demographic Replacism for as long as anyone can remember. After all, the mantra of both parties became DIOS or Diversity Is Our Strength, a suicidal chant programmed into white minds by the Jews. But then, once US loses its core identity and meaning, most peoples, white and non-white, will lose their sense of identity, heritage, and history.
If Americanism is defined merely as a futurism, most Americans will have little or no sense of the past and just look forward to the latest fad/fashion or trend. They will be like kids who, having no sense of the past, just look forward to new thrills and excitements. Kids are born with blank slate memories. Unless they are taught of the history of their own people, they know NOTHING. Historical memory isn't passed down genetically. This is why kids are mainly fixated on the next meal, next prize, next cookie & candy, next thrill, next excitement. And Americans, even in adulthood, have become like kids. Instead of turning into grownups with a sense of history and duty, they become 'growndowns' as their mentalities are focused on new razzle-dazzles: New sports seasons, new blockbuster movie, new pop song release, etc.
While those who ONLY look backward will be mired in the past and fail to make progress, those who've mastered the art of looking forward-and-backward(like the Roman god Janus) will have a decisive advantage over those who only look forward(or backward). The Amish won't amount to much because they only look backward. But those who only look forward will lose out to those who look forward/backward... and eventually even to those who only look backward(as ultra-traditionalists at least have something of depth to cling to). While those who only look forward may succeed as talented individuals, they have no deep theme to bind them with others of their kind and with their ancestors. A white 'forwarder' thinks and feels as an individual. If smart and talented, he may do remarkable things in science/technology/arts. If untalented and stupid, he will likely wallow in insipid thrills of the moment. But in either case, he can only succeed or fail as an individual. He isn't part of a history, culture, or heritage(that serves as the great equalizer and uniter of the successful and unsuccessful within the race). Even if successful, his money is only about himself. Or, lacking a sense of belonging and history, he will likely donate his money to the latest fads and fashions in 'social justice', like Fund the Magic Negro or invest in Globo-Homo.
In contrast, if you're backward-looking as well as forward-looking, then you not only work towards individual success in the future but feel a powerful sense of connection to the past(with its deep history and line of ancestors). This is why Jews and Hindus are now favored over the deracinated whites who only look forward as Futurist Americans. Looking only forward, whites have forgotten where they've come from and who their ancestors are. Also, under Jewish control, the only thing they know about their own past is now associated with 'white guilt' and 'white shame' for all the wrongs. In contrast, even as Jews(and Hindus) push forward in science/technology and etc., they also feel a powerful connection with deep roots of history, culture, and heritage. They understand that a tree, in order to grow higher, must rely on roots to draw water and nutrients deep in the soil. Also, it is the roots that provide balance and stability so that the tree can remain standing against the wind and other forces. This is why Jews and Hindus want the power of History(backward-looking) only for themselves while they urge whites to look only forward to the Great Future... of atomized individuality and divisive Diversity — Jews would have us believe that Diversity, the main agent of division, is the best bet for unity in American, which is like saying water is the best drying agent. If whites had a powerful sense of history, they would object to Diversity. They would feel proudly white and struggle to keep their domain as white as possible. But under Jewish mind-control, whites have either forgotten their glorious past or been told that it was all shameful and evil, therefore requiring the smashing of White Idols and erasure of White Icons to make way for the redemptive symbols of Diversity(and oddly enough, Globo-Homomania, as if celebration of homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting has the magical power to wash whites of 'guilt'). If White Guilt won't do the trick with all the whites, Jews employ White Flattery to make whites welcome the world as an act of globlesse oblige, i.e. whites are so great, noble, awesome, and 'more evolved' than rest of humanity that, of course, they wouldn't stoop to 'petty tribalism' & 'racist' greed but instead generously and compassionately share their wealth & wonders with the all of mankind. Fools like David French seem to have fallen for this bait, but there has always been a self-righteous save-the-world element in Christianity that could be manipulated in such manner.
This is why Jews and Hindus live in the past, present, and future, whereas the great majority of whites only live in the future. And if the future is anti-white or less-white, whites don't mind because their lack of white-past-ness has failed to instill them with the requisite sense of identity, glory, and pride that would want to make them defend what they're about. Suppose Jews only looked forward and never backward. Why would they care about Israel or the Holy Land? Why would they care about the meaning of Jewishness? Why would they care about what happened in the Shoah? Furthermore, suppose Jews allowed non-Jews(especially those who are hostile to Jews) to rewrite Jewish history so as to selectively shape the Narrative to make Jewish History look pretty bad. Then, most Jews will look only forward because looking backward would be pretty depressing OR will look backward only to feel guilty about their shameful past, which would only embolden them to make amends to rest of humanity by doing all that is possible to erase the evil Social Construct of Jewishness that has done so much harm to the world. But in our world, Jews have the upper-hand over whites because, whereas Jews, like Janus, look backward to look forward, white folks only look forward for atomized success/thrills or look backward only to wallow in 'white guilt'. Of course, there are plenty of whites, especially libertarian-types, who look only forward without much in the way of 'white guilt', but having no sense of roots or past-ness, they have no compelling theme with which to link up with other white folks to form a united racial front like the Jews(and Hindus) have done for themselves.
The great fatal mistake of White America was to trust the Jews. Why did Anglo-Americans so miscalculate the Jews? It was because they imposed their own ideal of the Dream Jew onto the Real Jew, and the psychological savvy Jew read the White Mind and, at least partially, played the role of the Ideal Jew just enough to hoodwink whites. It's like whites also had this ideal vision of the Noble Negro as a credit to his race. This had little to do with the Real Negro. It's like some people have this romantic view of Gypsies as free spirits and soulful wanderers when, if anything, most Gypsies are a bunch of petty crooks and idiots. It's like boomers of Counterculture had this rosy view of Hindus and Eastern Mysticism when, in fact, too many Hindu gurus and the like were egotists, frauds, charlatans, or madmen. Also, contrary to the notion of Asian-Indians living in harmonic-karmic relation to spirituality and cosmos, most dotkins were a petty, stupid, nasty, greed, and materialistic bunch whose main wishes during prayer was More Money. The Counterculture fools also idealized the American Indians as the children of nature who'd communed peacefully with animals and trees before the arrival of Evil White Man. While one can acknowledge the deep 'spiritual' connection between Indians and pre-Columbian America, the fact is the Red Savages were brutal folks(like the ones in Michael Mann's THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS) running around with tomahawks and scaring gophers half to death.
Generally, the powerful are more likely to weave idealized misconceptions about the Other. As they got the upper-hand, they feel free and secure to romanticize weaker groups. And as they control the information and narrative, they can create myths of the Other and then prefer the Myth over the Reality. Having all that power and security makes them feel magnanimous, a noble trait to be sure(but only when not delusional). Such illusions aren't particularly dangerous IF the Other has little or chance of gaining real power. White Americans can idealize and even idolize American Indians or Eskimos all they want. The fact is the Indians or Eskimos are never going to amass the kind of power to threaten whites. But when whites came to prefer myth over reality in regard to Jews and Negroes, it was a fatal mistake as Jews had the will, talent, and means to gain great power; and blacks had the numbers, muscle, and arrogance to do real harm to weaker whites. Of course, powerful white elites initially idealized Jews and blacks when the latter groups were much weaker. There was a time when blacks were indeed slaves or second-class citizens in the US. Also, as blacks feared white power and reprisals(that could sometimes be very violent) back then, they tended to behave better, and this made certain elite and/or reformist whites to feel special sympathy for the Tragic Groid. Likewise, there was a time when most Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe looked like a pitiable lot, the kind lamented in the Bob Dylan song, "I Pity the Poor Immigrant".
There are two realities. Reality as it really is and 'Reality' as one sees it. The latter may be called 'Seeality'. This is why so many marriages go wrong. Suppose one person idealizes his/her partner as the most wonderful lover. He/she becomes so besotted with the idea of love and being wedded to the other person that he/she ignores all the hints, clues, and signals that, maybe just maybe, that person is NOT the dream-partner or ideal soulmate. One's dream, passion, illusion, hope, and/or compassion blinds his/her vision as to the Real Person. Such illusion can exist between humans and animals too. Why do some people end up dead mauled by animals? Because they insist on seeing certain animals as their 'friends' or even 'family members'. One person convinced himself that the alligators he'd raised regarded him as a 'friend'. He projected his humanness onto the mega-reptiles that, in time, killed and ate him. And there was Timothy Treadwell.
Just like American Indians who aided early white settlers had no idea of the true nature of white folks, Anglo-Americans had no sense of the Real Jew, not least because white minds were clouded with the vision of the Ideal Jew. When Jews washed ashore poor and powerless, Anglo-American elites were blinded by compassion and idealism, the notion that America is so wonderful that even Jews, who had a long troublesome history with Christendom in Europe, would become Good Americans and get along as capital fellows with white Christian folks. Instead of trying to figure out the Real Jew, they imposed their idealized view of the Ideal Jew on the Real Jew. Later, as Jews gained in power at the expense of Wasps, Anglo-Americans concocted new hopes that, once again, ran counter to reality. Liberal Wasps saw Jews as committed crusaders for justice for all mankind while Conservative Whites hope that Jews would eventually come to realize their own deep conservative roots, learn to bury the hatchet with white Christians, and invest their great wealth & influence for the good of Western Civilization. Neither bunch of whites had the clarity of mind to see the Real Jew for what he really is. White folks will remain hopeless unless they come to See the Real Jew at last. Likewise, Europe will become Africanized and turned into a hell unless white people there See the Real Negro at last. Due to Jewish control of media/narrative and black success in sports/pop-music, too many white folks have this notion that blacks are tragic-magic, the redeemers of much tainted white civilization, i.e. the white world can only be redeemed if white lands, white wombs, and white everything are touched and healed by Black Magic. The end-result will be the biggest human tragedy ever, what with savage black Africans rampaging through Europe and Africanizing everything they see and touch... just like the Siafu African ants in THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLE lay waste to everything in their path. Black destructiveness is so obvious that one would think white folks would have woken up by now, so why are so many of them still asleep? One reason is Jews and privileged cuck-whites(who are are sheltered from the racial reality) control the media and spread the image of the Magic Negro that became the 'seeality' for countless whites. Another reason is the song-and-dong factor. So many whites are addicted to black music and so many white women are into jungle fever that they mainly associate white surrender to blackness as pleasure in dance and sex. Another reason is 'guilt' and fear. Even whites who know the truth about blacks are nevertheless infected with 'white guilt' and feel paralyzed to saying anything negative or alarming about the ghastly 'groids'. They would rather face total demise than commit the 'sin' of 'racism'. And there is the Fear Factor as anyone even slightly associated with 'racism' will be fired, destroyed, blacklisted, and even physically attacked(with full blessing of the Power).
At any rate, if indeed White America is lost(because white folks just don't have the requisite will, courage, unity, confidence, pride, organization, or good sense), then... to whom should America belong? To all the world, what with the US as Immigration-Nation? If whites relinquished the title of the rightful owners of America, then it seems the only 'fair' and 'just' outcome would be America as free-for-all for all the world. Suppose a pack of wolves bring down a moose and claim it as their own and gorge on it. But then, suppose the wolves figure, "We had enough, and the remaining moose meat isn't simply ours but for all of you", the 'you' being all the other creatures who've gathered around the mass of meat: Coyotes, badgers, eagles, hawks, buzzards, weasels, raccoons, foxes, Gila Monsters, carnivorous turtles, cougars, bears, wild pigs, and etc. If the wolves no longer claim it, then the feast should be a free-for-all for all creatures great and small. It would make no sense for wolves to give it up to all the other animals ONLY TO have one particular species make special claim on it. Ideally, the wolves should have kept it as they'd brought down the moose. But if wolves lost their good sense and decided to share the meat with all the creatures, then it should belong to all equally. But suppose weasels come forth and say that THEY should have special claim to it... even as weasels argue that it was only right on the part of wolves to hand it over to the other animals in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice'. But if so, why should the weasels have special claim on the moose meat, taking the choice parts for themselves while doling out only second-rate and third-rate meat and innards for the other creatures? Indeed, IF one particular bunch of creatures must have claim over the meat, it should be the wolves because they brought down the moose. If the wolves give up their claim to the meat, then NO OTHER particular bunch of creatures should lay special claim to it. They must all share the meat equally. Then, how ridiculous it would be for the weasels to insist that the meat belongs especially to their own kind.
Such is the dilemma facing Future America. There used to be White America that was founded, made, and claimed by whites as their great domain. It was the America of THE BIG COUNTRY, the magnificent William Wyler Western. Whites were takers of the land and makers of the nation. They had every reason to lay special claim on it. But, especially under the influence of rising Jewish Power that pushed the Immigration-Narrative over the Founder-Settler Narrative, there developed the idea that America must be the land for all the peoples of the world. Apparently, America is too big, bountiful, blessed with over-abundant resources, and filled with potential for it to be greedily hogged by one bunch of people; come to think of it, John Wayne said as much as to why Indians didn't deserve to keep America for themselves. Apparently, something that magnificent, wonderful, and incredible has to be shared with all the world. Of course, the difference is that, whereas whites came to a wilderness to build a nation that wasn't there, non-whites come to partake of what another people built(and without much in the way of gratitude as their children are instructed by Jewish Media/Academia to hate Whitey). White Immigration was the story of capitalist enterprise to build what wasn't there; Non-white immigration is the story of socialist entropy to take from others who built it.
A most repulsive Dotkin
For whatever reasons — idealism, magnanimity, generousness, compassion, gullibility, fear of rising Jewish power, wish for buffer against blacks, madness, stupidity, & apathy, naivete, greed for cheap labor, etc. — , whites decided to forsake their special claim to America and re-brand the nation as a Proposition Nation of Immigration and Diversity(and 'Inclusion' too). This was a terrible decision on the part of whites, but what could be done about madness of such magnitude? Whites had the power to be stupid, and they chose stupidity. It's like when the lord made the rash decision to relinquish his power to his sons in Akira Kurosawa's RAN, there was nothing to stop it. He had the power to give it up, and he did. He willfully ignored all signs that his sons could prove to be treacherous and favored the myth of Loyal Sons over the reality of Suspicious Sons. There was once a time when white folks could have kept the title as owners of America, but they made the fatal decision to open America to all the world. Imagine if some rich guy is persuaded to withdraw all his money from the bank and hand it over to the People. It'd be most retarded, but if he's going to do it, then the fair thing would be for him to throw all that cash into the winds from a high tower so that everyone below has a equal chance of getting some. But what if the very persons who goaded the rich man to give it all away also convinced him to hand over most of the money to THEM so that THEY would get to decide who gets what. What would be the purpose of surrendering one's own money in the name of the People IF the bulk of the cash actually ends up in the hands of a tiny cabal of shysters who claim to work for the public trust but hog most of prizes for themselves as personal loot?
If White People give up their special claim to America, then America should belong to the world. I'd pity such an America of endless immigration and deracination all around, of whites and non-whites alike, a nation that has no majority but is made up of minorities of various backgrounds whose only common bonds are Money, Individuality, abandonment of culture-of-origin, and vapid Pop Culture. But such a prospect is still preferable to an America claimed especially by a particular group that has no historical rights to it. While Jews have made great contributions to America, they were not the founders, settlers, or builders who made it possible. They were mostly late-comers who benefited greatly by taking advantages of the system already in place.
Furthermore, it is especially wrong for Jews to make special claim on America because the very essence of their argument against America-as-White-Nation hinges on the New America being a Global Nation equally open to and representative of All Mankind. If such was the 'moral' and 'intellectual' argument that finally convinced White America to give way to New Global America, then Jews have no grounds to demand special privileges. They should be like everyone else in the New America that no longer plays favors to any single group. But, if Jews insist that New America must especially be sensitive and obedient to Jewish and Zionist agendas, then the Jewish argument against White America would have been just an elaborate hustle. Jews persuaded whites to give up special claim to America to hand it on a silver platter to the whole world, BUT, when the moment finally arrived, Jews snatched the platter mainly for themselves. It's so much like what Facebook and Google did to become monopolies. They gained the trust and participation of EVERYONE, 'left' and 'right', on the promise that they would not be biased toward any particular group. After all, if Google and Facebook had revealed their ideological agendas and/or tribal biases from the very beginning, many people would have refused their services and sought out alternatives. But precisely because Big Tech companies promised impartiality and fairness, EVERYONE regardless of race, creed, or color signed up to use their search engines and platforms. But once the Jews at Google and Facebook gained monopoly positions, they rigged results and gamed algorithms to favor the views and agendas of their Tribe and ideology. It was all just a hustle. Terms of Service mean nothing to Google and Facebook Jews. They know that with monopoly power, they can change the Terms as they wish, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, especially as they've bought up so many whore politicians. Furthermore, the Jew-dominated media have their back, and most top judges and lawyers are either Jewish or controlled by Jewish money and power. How lowdown and dirty.
Because the US is the lone superpower, it can do great harm as well as great good around the world. While Anglo-American history is checkered with the bad as well as with the good, the so-called Wasps have not been without some sense of honor, decency, nobility, and rectitude. Also, as white elites of an overwhelmingly white-majority and white-dominant nation, there was a clear sense of American history, American reality, and American interests. There was a good deal of correlation between the American People and the American Way, its diplomacy around the world.
Today, things are so confused. While there are plenty of Anglo-Germanic Americans in upper echelons of business and government still, they are no longer the ruling elites. Even the richest and most powerful of them must look over their shoulders at Jewish Power that can make or break anyone. But Jews won't step up to the plate as the New Elites of America. They still hide Jewish Power behind the drapery of 'white privilege'. Even as the owners and managers of America, they still insist on using mostly white goy politicians as their puppets and buffers. Thus, even though New America is obviously all about "Is it good for Jews?", we are not supposed to notice that Jews are pulling the strings. We are supposed to believe that so many cuck goy politicians chant "We Stand with Israel" spontaneously out of their own volition as American as Apple Pie. We have a situation where so many white/goy politicians still hold nominal positions of power but actually have no power as they do little but the bidding of Jews. They are out front but have no will or agenda of their own. They are puppets. As for Jews, they remain behind the scenes or pretend to even though some of them are so prominent in American Power and Global Affairs. We are not supposed to notice that the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Hollywood Jews, Las Vegas Jews(like Sheldon Adelson), Google Jews, and the like are the real movers and shakers of America that, in turn, shakes the whole world. Just ask the Palestinians.
As the US is the lone superpower with the means to destroy entire nations, why should Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, wield the hammer and have the ultimate say on how American Power is to be used around the world? The only people with a rightful historical claim to America are white Christian Americans. As they gave up their title in the name of America as Proposition Nation for all the world, Jews have no right to claim special ownership of and privileges in America. Indeed, recent events especially following the end of the Cold War have powerfully illustrated the dangers of America-as-lone-superpower being controlled and manipulated for the narrow, supremacist, and hegemonic interests of a tiny minority. Just consider the Wars for Israel that have devastated and/or displaced millions of people. Look what Jewish-Americans, in cahoots with Russian Jews, did to the Russian economy in the 1990s; Jews could pull such a massive scam because they took the Big Stick from the Wasps. Look how Jews made the plight of Palestinians even worse while Israel has been indulged without limit despite its increasingly arrogant and aggressive policies. Consider how Israel is rewarded for having 300 illegal nukes while Iran is economically strangled despite having no nukes and complying with international inspections. And if the New America is all about equality for all, why have so many Jewish crooks, thieves, and gangsters been able to get away with so many crimes and abuses? Where is equal justice in all this? Jews even have special prisons for their own kind.
Consider America as a gun. There was a time when it was a gun held by whites. But Jews told whites that it's unfair and dangerous for whites to own the gun, thereby having unjust power and advantage over other groups. So, whites put the gun on the table so that it could be owned by all, and the only way such sharing would be possible is if the gun is disassembled whereby every group would get a piece of it. That way, no single group could hold the gun to his advantage over others. It would have just a piece, like all other groups. But that didn't happen. Jews grabbed the gun for themselves while handing a toy gun to whites to give the impression that whites still have the gun that has yet to be dismantled and shared equally among all groups. But in fact, the real gun, the real power, is with the Jews who press it on the back of cuck-whites who now have no choice but to do the bidding of Jews. If America were a poor and weak country, it wouldn't matter who owned or ran it. After all, who cares about who owns or runs Burma or Botswana. But the US is the lone superpower and has the power to destroy entire worlds. Thus, American power must be held by a good people. A decent, sane, and responsible people. Even though White America was far from saintly or even all that good, it was still better than most nations around the world, many of which were downright tyrannical, crazy, or evil. Also, with Anglo-Americans at the helms of power, the world got to more-or-less understand, anticipate, predict, and even appreciate what Americanism was all about. There emerged a certain pattern of Wasp attitudes and behavior around which others could adapt themselves.
But with the demise of Wasp rule and rise of Jewish Power that remains behind the curtain, it's been very confusing to the world as to what America is really about. Sure, plenty of people around the world know that the US is Jew-ruled, but because Jews go out of their way to punish anyone or any nation deemed 'antisemitic'(that now means any honest assessment or noticing of Jewish power), even powerful nations like China, Russia, India, and Iran dare not say the JEWS are behind American Power. As for America's obnoxious expressions of obeisance to Israel, Zionism, and Jews? Isn't that evidence enough that Jews control America? But you better not say so. We are to believe that all the politicians, celebrities, and cucks who sing hosannas to Jews and Israel do so purely out of the goodness of their noble hearts because, after all, there is nothing more inspiring in life than to love the Jew, revere the Jew, worship the Jew. "Oh no, Jewish Power didn't make me play fetch and roll over before Jews. I did it out of my own free will because Jews, oh the Jews, are the Chosen, the Holy, the Awesome." This game is very dangerous.
If Whites won't retake America as their special creation and nation, then the only two honest options are (1) We all demand that Jews admit that they are the new elites and take full responsibility on those grounds, i.e. Jews must be fully accountable as the New Rulers of America, taking credit when things go well but taking blame when things fail. It must also be understood by all that the American Proposition is NOT equality but Jewish supremacy. (2) Jews give up their dominant position in the US just like Wasps have done and then sincerely work to ensure that America will really belong to All peoples and will not favor any particular group. In other words, the US will not favor Israel over Palestinians and Iran. It will not favor Jewish globalists against Russia. It will not consider Jewish interests as of paramount importance in decision-making. While Jewish interests will be heard and considered, NO MORE SO than the interests of other groups. It's like the US plays it fair between Greeks and Turks on the issue of Cyprus. If US were truly a World Nation, then it must handle the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the same manner. It must stop insisting that "Israel is America's greatest ally", a supremacist sentiment if there ever was one, while being hostile toward Palestinian concerns. And if white goyim are to be hounded for their over-representation in many fields, the same criticisms must be leveled at preponderance of Jewish wealth and power in so many higher institutions.
Since the end of the Cold War, Arabs and Muslims especially know about the dangers of the Lone Superpower being controlled by one single group. Jews are only 2% of the US population, but they took the steering wheel of the American Battleship and have been using their position to make American superpower to favor Zionists over Arabs and Muslims EVEN WHEN Israel is clearly in the wrong. When we look at the devastation of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen due to Jewish control of America(and when we consider the economic tragedy visited on Iran due to Jewish-controlled US foreign policy), we can understand why Arabs and Muslims would like to see the US belonging equally to all the world. They'd feel much safer in their homelands IF the US were no longer the warship of the Jews. They probably wouldn't mind who owned or controlled America IF American Might wasn't used to bring about so much agony and suffering to the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East. And Arabs and Muslims know that things are the way they are because the US, despite its growing diversity, is firmly controlled by Jews. Indeed, the burgeoning Diversity has, in some ways, emboldened Jewish Power even more because Jews have been able to use Diversity to undermine white power(as potential balance against Jewish Power). As most of Diversity doesn't have the brains, will, and/or guts to rise to the top, Jews will continue to hold most of the power. And Jews play Diversity against whites and whites against Diversity while they themselves are served by both whites and Diversity as Jews who, as high priests and high financiers, control both the Money and the 'Morality'.
America used to be a White Nation. And then, we were told it is to be a World Nation. And in the current year, we are supposed to believe that America belongs equally to all the world and rejects any kind of 'racism' or 'bigotry'. And yet, this is all just a ruse because the US really went from a white-owned nation to a Jewish-controlled nation. Even though its increasing Diversity lends the outward appearance of a World Nation, its inner-workings of power leave no doubt that it is a Jewish supremacist colony, the jewel in the crown(or yarmulke) of the Empire of Judea. And that must end for there to be balance and lasting peace around the world. America should belong to whites, but if whites give up the title, then it must belong to the world. It must not belong to Jewish hustlers who yammer about the America as a World Nation but only really care about World Hegemony by the Tribe.
From Russia Today: Attempts to diminish the triumph of Apollo 11 and to reassign credit don’t just taint the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, but presage the technological decline of the US if it persists with identity politics. With the Founding Fathers now rarely mentioned in the media without side notes about their slave ownership, and the Betsy Ross flag offensive to Colin Kaepernick and Nike, there is nothing new about liberal attempts to strike at the very heart of American identity. But – leaving aside the conspiracy theorists – the moment Neil Armstrong stepped on the surface of the Moon on July 20, 1969 was objectively such a universal milestone that to qualify it seems a fight against human endeavor itself. It would seem like the more logical route, for those who resent that this was a feat of white un-woke America, would be to try and diminish their role in favour of supposedly unsung heroes. HIDDEN FIGURES, the Oscar-winning film from 2016 was the perfect archetype of this revisionist history, exaggerating and fictionalizing the role of a cadre of politically suitable black women, who did an entirely replaceable job and were no more important than thousands of others involved.
This just goes to show that white give-and-give policy urged by Jews proved to be utterly destructive to America.
Naturally, the world should operate on the basis of give-and-take: Whites give but also take & Non-whites take but also give. But with Jewish ascendancy in the US, they pushed a take-and-take policy for themselves while enforcing give-and-give policy on whites. And whites fell for this. By groaning about 'antisemitism', Jews insisted that they could criticize and shit on others but OTHERS, esp whites, cannot criticize and shit on Jews. When Israel pulled the infamous USS Liberty Attack, it was a clear case of take-and-take on the part of Jews. They not only got away with bloody murder but pushed the US into a defensive and accommodating position of weakness. No apology from Israel. No admittance of guilt. Instead, white America had to swallow its pride and just go along with Jewish BS that it was all just an innocent mistake, nothing more to see folks, so just move along.
At some point in US history, conscientious(and affluent) White America sought a give-and-take understanding & compromise with non-whites. For example, White America would learn to 'give' by admitting to blacks that slavery was wrong in the Land of the Free. But White America also insisted on the 'take' from black America. Blacks would have to admit that, despite their tragic history in the US, they also made great gains and attained opportunities non-existent for blacks who remained in ugabuga Africa. Despite their suffering, blacks did gain a foothold in the most advanced nation on Earth fated for great things.
Same give-and-take understanding developed between whites and American Indians. True, whites would admit that American Indians lost their sacred hunting grounds to the white invaders. But Indians would also admit that whites built a civilization that Indians could not have on their own. So, neither whites nor non-whites monopolized all the righteousness.
Whites were willing to 'give' more on the basis of reciprocity. If whites offered more(in material or moral concessions), non-whites would appreciate the gesture of 'give' on the part of whites. They wouldn't just 'take' but 'give' back to whites an acknowledgement that whites were sincerely trying to redress past wrongs, therefore urging both sides to bury the hatchet and learn to live together. The best example of such give-and-take sentiments was when Japanese-Americans who lost property during World War II were offered an apology and financial compensation. It was done more in the spirit of national healing than righteous indignation.
But Jews didn't play by this game. They were into take-and-take mode. They made demands on whites but never gave an inch to whites. Jews never admitted their role in Western Imperialism and slave trade. Their role in communism and organized crime. Their role in corruption and espionage, such as slipping Josef Stalin the secrets to the Bomb. They made demands on White America to support Zionism without ever saying 'thank you'. But then, why should whites have expected much in the way of conscience among Jews when most Jews, 'liberal' or 'conservative', have expressed zero conscience about what they'd done to Palestinians(and Ukrainians in the 'Holodomor'). Jews used take-and-take with Palestinians, and if White America were smart, it would have woken up to the possibility that Jews would come to regard White America as the Next Palestine with Whites as the 'Next Palestinians' and non-white mass-invaders as the invasive proxies of Jewish Globalists.
Granted, Jews made great contributions to America in fields of science, medicine, technology, and etc, but most such achievements were to increase Jewish power and influence than serve All America, white or non-white, as a whole. Consider the sheer concentration of power and wealth in Jewish hands esp since the 60s. It's the result of Tribalesse Oblige.
Because whites submitted to give-and-give mode in relation to take-and-take Jews, such has become the New Template for all other groups who've decided to learn from and copy the Jews, the most powerful people in the world. Booker T. Washington was a give-and-take Righteous Negro when he wrote the book UP FROM SLAVERY. Even while reminding whites of slavery's injustice, he acknowledged the opportunities and freedoms opened up to blacks as the result of the contact between white world and black world. He called upon whites to do more for blacks but also insisted upon blacks to make the most of the freedoms availed to them. Thus, reality was not a matter of absolute right and absolute wrong, of total white and total black. Indeed, such was also the attitude of victorious Northern whites over Southern whites after the Civil War. Even as the Northern Yankees pushed their own righteous narrative of preserving the Union and ending slavery, they also conceded that many Southern men fought with bravery, honor, and own sense of loyalty.
But Jews saw things differently. For one thing, as their long-term goal wasn't merely assimilation or accommodation with whites but total takeover and domination, they had to totally neutralize and devalue whiteness as a matter of pride and self-worth. Jews were especially rabid and virulent because they could only be a minority ruling elite without solid majority-demographic foundation. Jews studied history and know that minority ruling elites are generally faded to fall. British rule couldn't last forever in India. Whites eventually yielded power in South Africa. Turkish minority elites ceded non-Turkish territories with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Even before that, they relinquished Greece once the Hellenics organized and resisted en masse. And the fates of Jewish elites in Europe, whether capitalist or communist, were often uncertain and unstable. Jews were once the dominant economic players in Hungary, Poland, and parts of Germany, but times of crisis changed all that. Jewish Bolsheviks once ruled Russia but lost out to other more numerous groups. (Jews had no tribal defenses against goyim under communism because, even as communism criminalized 'antisemitism', it also made it difficult for Jews to organize power specifically for Jewish or Zionist interests. Even though communists generally couldn't attack Jews as Jews, they could go after Jews as 'liberals', 'capitalists', 'Zionists', or some such.)
In recognition of all these history lessons, Jews figured that the ONLY WAY to permanently secure power in the US is to (1) totally neutralize whiteness as pride and identity (2) make gentiles so diverse, mixed, and confused in identity that they would never be able to unite against Jewish power. This is why Jews have pathologized whiteness as a kind of sickness so that whites won't dare to organize around that identity; according to Jewish logic, the mere realization of White Identity is 'white supremacism'. It's NOT OKAY to be White. In contrast, when the British Imperialists lorded over the Hindus, they never said Hindus don't have a great and proud culture of their own. If anything, extensive British archaeology and study of Indian history(lost to Indians themselves) revived much of ancient heritage and, if anything, increased Indian pride that would come to serve as the basis of Indian nationalism and resistance against the Brits.
The Dalits or Untouchables of India. Under Jewish Rule, white people are being turned into the filthy Dalit Caste.
Jews learned from the British 'mistake' and have decided to associate whiteness with shame, guilt, and wickedness only. And if European archaeology aided non-whites to reconnect with their own histories and cultures, Jewish globo-homo propaganda says all-things-white don't belong to whites who don't even exist as a race. So, Vikings were Vikangz, the Middle Ages in Europe were not white, and Julius Caesar was a brotha. Jews have decided not to emulate the British Imperialists(who, for all their greatness, sank like a stone when the Time came). Jews have decided to take their cues from the Aryan Brahmins who, unlike the Brits, got to remain in India and rule over the natives for not just a few hundred years but 1,000s of yrs. What was the secret that the Aryan-Brahmin ruling elites had over the natives? They were ingenious theorists of the filthy 'castes'(that more-or-less correlated with race). The ruling elites pushed a dogma that the lower-castes deserved to be on the bottom of the totem pole due to cosmic laws of justice. So, it was not a case of social oppression or economic exploitation. It was deemed by Cosmic Karma itself. Untouchables, for instance, were born into the filthy caste because of the sins of their souls in previous lives. Therefore, it was only right and cosmically just for them to accept their lowly lot and utter lack of pride, indeed as the ONLY WAY to expiate their past sins. If they rebelled against their lot in life and rose up against the upper castes, that wasn't just an act of transgression against social superiors but against the cosmos and gods themselves. In a deeply religious and spiritual society such as India, taboos and magic mattered a lot. Then, it's hardly surprising that this 'wokeness' of late is heavily into witchcraft, New Age nuttery, Magic Negro cult, Holocaustianity, and Globo-Homo Queertianity. If white people got into the habit of thinking rationally and empirically, they would wake up to the reality of what is really going on. This is why Jews push Critical Theory against Critical Thinking. (Critical Theory, despite the label, forbids freedom of thought and insists that academics adopt fixed concepts about race, sex, and culture to understand the world. They are told what and how to think about things in accordance to the manual of a ready-made kit.) Just like magical thinking was necessary to make Hindus, upper and lower castes, believe in the justness of Untouchables remaining in their allotted roles without complaint and resistance, it is Hocus-Wokus that has so many people, whites and non-whites alike, spellbound by Magical Thinking that says Whiteness is a kind of spiritual and cosmic disease that requires whites to be totally ashamed and non-whites to be totally anti-white(even if they came to the West to be with white folks). Jewish policy toward whites is like Aryan-Brahmin policy toward the darker-skinned lower castes of India: "You whites are spiritually and cosmically contaminated, and therefore, your kind deserve NO pride and must accept your filthy lot, and the ONLY WAY you can atone for your sins is by serving the holier groups, esp. Jews, Negroes, and Homos." (Being homo is so magical that even Filthy Whites become semi-holy if they are into bung-donging.) So, just like the darker-skinned native of India DESERVED to be invaded by the Aryans who took over Brahmin roles, Hocus-Wokus or Wokus-Pocus says whites are so unworthy that they don't deserve to own anything to call their own: Lands, wealth, bodies, and souls. But then, they have no souls as far as Jews are concerned.
Sean Penn as Kleinfeld in CARLITO'S WAY. Beware of the Fiendish Chutzpastic Jew.
Will Patton as Homo Deep Stater in NO WAY OUT. Beware of the pathological Homo.
Anyway, before whites bitch about blacks, Muslims, and others, they need to square things with Jews, the very first people with whom they developed a fatal give-and-give relationship. The chutzpastic Jewish Way was to demand and demand, take and take, and never give an inch. Now, if Jews were a bunch of 'losers' like Eskimos or Native Hawaiians, then indulging their arrogance wouldn't have amounted to much. It'd be indulging some wino-bum on the street. But when whites opted for take-and-take relationship with such a powerful, intelligent, insistent, and influential people such as the Jews, the appeasement was bound to turn Jews into little hitlers. When whites pretty much let Jews get away with espionage for the USSR and the USS Liberty attack, Jews began to smell blood of white weakness and cravenness. When whites aided Jewish invasion of Palestine, it was akin to UK acceding to Germany's takeover of Czech territory. But at least UK woke up to the true nature of Nazi Germany when Hitler invaded Poland. But white America and white Europe kept on appeasing Jews even after so many Jewish crimes in finance, cultural degradation, radical ideologies, and insane foreign policy(esp after the Cold War). Ironically, the very people who make the most noises about the evil Nazis are now acting most like the evil Nazis of old.
Blacks were always problematic, but they learned the take-and-take attitude from Jews. And now, many other groups are copping the same attitude(as they can't help noticing take-and-take Jews got so much from whites). We see it among Hindus, Mexicans and Guatemalans, Muslims, and etc. Their rabid and virulent anti-whiteness was learned from the behavior of a certain group, and it was mainly the Jews. And Jews concocted such attitude not to combat injustice and promote equality but to weaken whiteness as a rival power so that Jewish Power would reign supreme. After all, isn't it odd that, even as the mass demographics of America grows more diverse, the elite 'oligraphics' of America grows more Jewish-supremacist by the day(though the full extent of this is shrouded by the fact of Globo-Homo as proxy of Jewish power)?
It's not a given that blacks should be so utterly nasty. Look at Cuba, a nation with history of slavery even more extensive than the US on a per capita basis. But Cuban elites, even or especially under communism, fixed the Narrative so that black Cubans have been made to regard their relationship with whites on a give-and-take basis. Blacks take the narrative of their 'noble suffering under slavery' but also concede that they gained much from the white way and white rule, especially under the Castros. Such black-and-white understanding used to be the arrangement in the US as well, but Jews took over and decided to totally shame whiteness as a special kind of evil so that whites must never take and instead only give-and-give and always concede to the Other. Granted, there are waivers as when whites are encouraged to hate and kill Muslims OVER THERE as the enemies of Holy Israel. When white soldiers drop bombs on Muslims OVER THERE, they are 'heroes' according to Jews. But once the Muslims come OVER HERE, Jews goad them to join the POC brigade and dump on Evil Whitey(the relatives of the white soldiers fighting in Muslim lands) as the source of all problems.
Nothing real is possible until whites finally square things with Jews. No more give-and-give with Jews. The only decent terms between Jews and whites should be give-and-take for both sides. If Jews insist on take-and-take stance vis-a-vis whites(as they've done with Palestinians), whites should fight back in kind by going into take-and-take mode against Jews. And if Jews dig up dirt on evil white history, whites should do likewise and show how Jews ran the finance of Southern Slavery, how Jews colluded with Communist Russia, and myriad other crimes of Jews. And whites should deconstruct Jewishness as a supremacist social construct that says Jews are the favored and chosen of all the human races, i.e. 'Jewish Supremacism' is a redundancy because Jewishness itself is a supremacism.
Now, neither side needs to be so nasty and hostile, but IF Jews insist on playing a virulently anti-white game, white people have no choice but to fight fire with fire... if they are to survive as a race and regain pride(that of late has been associated with homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting thanks to Jewish-controlled media and deep state). If Jews won't give but only take and take, whites must do likewise with Jews. Never given an inch to those who won't give it themselves.
As for white domination of the space program in both Russia and the US, it's a historical fact that whites were far ahead of rest of mankind in science and technology. That's a historical fact, not a matter of historical injustice. It's like there were lots of Jewish nuclear-physicists because many brilliant Jews went into such field. Things may change in the coming years, especially with rise of Chinese and Hindu scientists and engineers, though given IQ differences among groups, it's difficult to imagine blacks will be dominant in those fields. On the other hand, blacks dominate many sports because they have natural advantages in stronger bones, fast-twitch muscles, and other factors. A film like THE RIGHT STUFF(directed by Jewish Philip Kaufman based on book by Wasp Tom Wolfe) had no problem with the whiteness of the American air and space program, but that was still a time before the US was totally taken over by mean-spirited Jews and mentally diseased with PC nonsense that has turned so much of media and academia into Oleannaville.
