Black Racial Problems run deeper because Blacks Not Only Lag but Drag Civilization into the Dirt — Black Nature prevents Blacks from working in good faith with Whites and Non-Blacks toward a More Harmonious Social Order

Discussions of black racial problems overlook the most crucial factor. Blacks don't just lag but drag, as in dragging society down to the ground. If the problem was simply a matter of lag, the problem would be far less dire. Blacks would simply trail other groups in achievement and productivity.
Or, if blacks failed miserably but in their own manner and space, that too would be tolerable. After all, the social failures of American Indians and Australian Aborigines(or the issues of alcoholism related to Eskimos) are hardly threats to civilization and order. They are depressing and even self-destructive but not particularly destructive to others. The harm is implosive than explosive. In contrast, blacks don't just lag but drag and drag everyone and everything down with them. The recently arrived black African immigrants in Australia have caused far more harm than the native Aborigines who remain below but don't blow up society.

This is why the issue of Reparations fails to address the most important problem. Now, suppose blacks were doing their share to catch up but remained behind due to past disadvantages. Under such scenario, offering aid to blacks might go some ways to help them catch up more. It wouldn't be money wasted.
However, in the current reality most blacks not only make NO EFFORT to improve their lot but go out of their way to waste everything provided for them, with zero understanding/appreciation of where the goods and services come from. Consider the amount of money spent on educating blacks. What do black kids do when bestowed with such advantages denied to most children around the world, especially in Black Africa? They act like apes and baboons in schools, which might as well be called zoochools.

Suppose a child is shorter than another child because he was fed less. So, while he's still growing, it might make sense to offer him extra food and nutrients so he could grow up faster and catch up with other kids. This would be a case of lag.
However, suppose the shorter kid is given food and vitamins to grow faster, but instead of dutifully taking advantage of them, he throws them everywhere and goes into endless tantrums. He drags the whole thing down to the dirt.

If blacks are behind due to past injustices and were at least making an effort to catch up, added social programs might be of some benefit. Even if blacks are less intelligent and innately deficient in some areas, their goodwill and effort would still lead to some positive outcomes. But too many blacks don't make any such effort. Indeed, they seem totally bewildered by requisite standards of commitment and cooperation. At once, they want everything to be done for them but want all the credit for what others do for them. All too often, even once well-meaning whites become jaded or cynical, though they reliably remain too cowardly or 'nice' to acknowledge that black problem goes deeper into the realm of genetics. It's not just a matter of lower IQ but wilder personality, egotism, psychopathy, and lack of empathy. Their advantage in muscle power made it worse as wild/aggressive personality + muscle power = thug arrogance toward the weaker races. Blacks have much to gain from respecting whites and appreciating white achievement, but thug arrogance looks upon whitey as sorryass mofo who done deserve no respect.

Imagine two groups of tower-builders. One group got a head start and built 50 stories already. The other got a later start and managed to build only 25. Even so, it built something. And somewhat later, the first group made it to 75 stories while the other made it to 50. Even though they aren't equal, both groups are making progress. Even if the second group doesn't catch up with the first, it too is rising higher and higher. Under such circumstances, one could argue for extra help for the second group so that it may rise to parity with the first group in the tower-building.

But it'd be a wholly different matter if the second group, upon finally having the chance to build its own tower, hardly makes an effort. Worse, even when the first group lends a hand and builds some stories for the second group, the latter expends most of its energy to tear it down! Just look what blacks have done with St. Louis(not to mention East St. Louis), Baltimore, parts of Milwaukee, Newark, Detroit, Birmingham, and so many black-majority places. They don't just lag behind(like Mexicans for example) but go out of their way to drag everything down to the mud. If whites achieve more while browns tend to lag, blacks tear down what others make. Look what black Africans have done with foreign aid and investment. When it's given to blacks, they squander it all on bling or whatever. Look what blacks did to Zimbabwe once whites were kicked out. Look what blacks did to Uganda after kicking out the Hindus. Now, whites and Hindus were no saints in Africa, but they built things and made something out of nothing. The black problem isn't a matter of taking something and achieving less but turning something into nothing with their wild and savage ways. So, what use would reparations be when blacks will just take the money and blow it on nonsense? And then, they'll be back to bitching and saying, "We need mo', sheeeeeeiiiiit."

Why are blacks like this? It's genetics. Some will acknowledge black pathologies but blame them entirely on the historical trauma of slavery. But is black behavior different in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, or South Africa where they weren't slaves of whites? No, we see the same patterns. Whites(and Hindus) come and build stuff, achieving some degree of development. Under white rule or Hindu management, blacks gain access to modernity. But once blacks begin to bitch about inequality & injustice and demand to take over everything, they drag everything into the dirt. And even when do-goody whites shower blacks with more free stuff, it isn't long before blacks squander those as well and keep demanding more free stuff.

So, the dominant narrative where whites are ahead and blacks are lagging behind and in need of extra help to catch up is a false one. No, the reality isn't that blacks are merely lagging behind. They are dragging civilization in the opposite direction. They are wasting most of what is handed to them, the kind of stuff that blacks on their own would never have attained. It's not like a fast-walking white guy is roped to a slower-walking black guy. While the slower-walking black guy would slow down the white-guy, he would still be doing his part in the march forward. Thus, the white guy would need to make an extra effort, but he wouldn't be doing all the pulling. But, suppose a fast-walking white guy is roped to a black guy who pulls in the opposite direction and jerks violently. Look at recent events in South Africa. Blacks have totally reverted to their jungle-jive nature. How can white and Asian minorities pull the black majority into modernity where so many blacks are pulling in the opposite direction of wanton savagery?

When whites are with Arabs, whites achieve more, Arabs achieve less. Still, many Arabs are doing their part to make things work. Arabs lag and burden whites somewhat, but it isn't anti-civilizational. It's much the same with whites and browns(mestizos from Latin America). But when it's whites and blacks, the dynamics is whites pull one way while blacks pull in the other way. US has managed so far because blacks are a minority, but the situation in South Africa is proof that black nature is antipathic to the white one: It is anti-civilizational. But because blacks excite whites so much athletically, musically, and sexually, the white race sees the black race as one big Orb(or Negrorb) and just can't let it go... and the rot has spread to Japan and elsewhere.

If blacks seemed to be making progress until the 1960s, it was because they were still under the domination of whites. While this could take the form of prejudice and injustice, it nevertheless had the effect of curtailing some of the more destructive and wilder tendencies of black nature. Also, as the culture was, by and large, more family-oriented and hierarchical, black men and women had some inhibitions about sexuality and black youths had some notion of respect. In the 1960s, Black America threw out the baby with the bathwater. While blacks got freedom and equality, they lost much in social discipline and culture of shame that had provided a measure of stability to the black community. Also, mass immigration meant blacks would have to compete with newcomers for manual jobs & small businesses; and, the welfare state encouraged single-motherhood among young black women who could always look to the federal check. And youth culture got dumber and more vulgar. Pop culture not only turned to trash but became the main culture. Academic freedom and genuine liberalism gave way to Political Correctness and now 'wokeness' that have no room for free thought and discussion. Without a culture of integrity and honesty, how can anyone address the real problem?

The 2020 BLM riots should have made it clear beyond a doubt to any honest person. The problem with blacks is not that they lag behind or simply have less. The problem is they burn what others build. They unmake what others make.

The history excuse isn't very convincing. Consider Europe. For many centuries, the aristocrats had it all. They learned to read and write while the masses of serfs or peasant folks toiled from dawn to dusk. Most people had little time for learning. Many remained illiterate all their lives. Such were the conditions over the millennia. And even though people associate East Asia with education, the great majority of people there were dirt poor, illiterate, and ignorant until late modernity brought about by Westernization. For thousands of years, the only reality for most people was waking up to work all day long on the rice fields, like the peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI. A large share of the population were slaves or something like serfs. But when the caste/class discrimination ended, the children of the lower classes made rapid gains in schools and professions and ably competed with the children of the former aristocracy. When the communists came to power in China in 1949, the majority of adults were illiterate. And yet, when China finally got its act together and provided universal education, great strides were made. China still lags the West in many areas but has caught up considerably(and may even surpass the West in certain fields, as Japan has done). The problems of lag can be dealt with and managed.

But it's entirely different with blacks. Blacks in Africa inherited so much from European Colonialists but destroyed them. Black Africans with some ability and talent opted to move overseas, especially to Western nations, because their skills could hardly be applied in a world where most people are stuck in ugabuga mentality and look upon modernity as just something to grab and loot.
The problem with Detroit isn't that blacks took over and did less than whites because of disadvantages stemming from past discrimination. If that were the case, Detroit would have remained a functional city, only less so than if whites managed it. The problem is Detroit is a total wreck because blacks have a jungle-approach to white-made things.

And black destructiveness isn't the result of resentment and envy for what whites have achieved. If, at the very least, blacks had a fuller, deeper, and richer understanding of West's contribution to World History, they might appreciate the true value of white-made stuff. But most blacks have no understanding of the origins of white achievements. They just think it be like bananas that grow on trees. Things just be, and blacks feel they deserve more of it just because. It's like one bunch of chimps angry that another bunch of chimps got more bananas. Now, if indeed modern goods all grow on trees, blacks would have a point. Why should non-blacks have more of the bananas when bananas just be growing naturally? Recent events in South Africa attest to this. Whites and Asians go through the labor of production and commerce, but the simpleminded black mentality just can't process any of it. It just thinks, "Why whites and Hindus got more bananas?" Their apelike appetites hunger for more bananas and uses any excuse — the imprisonment of Jacob Zuma — to go apeshit and grab all they can.
As for blacks who do understand that modern goods are man-made, they believe they should have the most because Jewish-run PC education and Afrocentric fantasies pushed the nuttery that Egyptians were black and invented everything in the Ancient World, which was then stolen by the evil 'racist' Greeks. Or, it's a case of PC nonsense taught in schools that convinced not only blacks but plenty of whites that American Wealth owes mainly to black slave labor and that even whitey-on-the-moon was made possible by three black women more advanced in math than Einstein. With ignorance such as this, is it any wonder that blacks think they should have the most, if not all?

It is really time to do away with this charade. It's not like blacks are making an effort to catch up but lagging due to past wrongs. If that were the case, regardless of whether blacks can catch up or not, the racial problem would be far less because, at the very least, white efforts at amelioration would be appreciated and used constructively. Even if the extra help doesn't have the desired effect of closing the gap, there would be mutual amity in white good-will and black striving.
But what is really happening? Blacks wasting most education dollars in schools that have come to resemble zoos. Blacks using any excuse to rob, loot, and burn down cities. Black enmity dead-set against honesty & self-criticality and instead blaming whitey for everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. Granted, it's made been far worse by the toxic venality of Jewish Power whose main interest is to manipulate white-black relations to maximize Jewish supremacist power. Jewish priority is to perpetuate and bait 'white guilt', which has been so effective in suppressing white identity/interests and goading sorry whites into seeking Jewish advice and counsel on redemption. Of course, Jews tell whites to kiss Zionist ass and say a million 'hail martins' or 'hail mandelas'. As long as Jews control the West and covet 'white guilt' about blacks as the surest means of controlling white hearts-and-minds, the official narrative will have whites believing that well-meaning and striving blacks are held back ONLY BECAUSE of past 'racism'. In truth, blacks are free. They are free and wild and doing everything to drag white civilization into the ground. Too Many Blacks result in Detroit, Baltimore, Haiti, or South Africa.

In Mexico, whites ruled over browns, and browns still lag behind. The reasons could be genetic(higher white IQ), cultural(backward brown culture), historical(browns were disadvantaged), emotional(browns are more passive and resigned), or whatever. But the white-brown problem in Mexico and Southwest America is one of lag. Browns don't rise to the level of whites, but they do their part to maintain civilization(and do make some progress). But it's a very different matter with blacks outwardly hostile to the very idea of modern civilization and the norms required to sustain it. Blacks are a total drag on modern civilization, but as long as they serve as the Orb or Negrorb of silly whites mind-altered by Jewish media & academia, blacks may well succeed in dragging everything down to the level of Africanery.

THE JOLLY HERETIC EXPLORES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BIG LIE - Dr Edward Dutton: The Jolly Heretic

Minneapolis Riots(spreading across America) suggest the Real Great Sin of American History was not Slavery but Savagery Importation — The Importation of Black Savages from the Dark Continent has led to Thuggery, Crime, & Violence directed at all Non-Black Groups — The Importers of Black Savagery must atone for their great crime against Humanity

White nationalists target Nike despite desperate attempt at corporate virtue signalling.pic.twitter.com/AkQDDwXzmA https://t.co/K1LI3yhPYN

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 31, 2020

George Floyd died under custody of Minneapolis police, and blacks run riot and burn down cities, and predictably enough, the mayor of Minneapolis, a Jew by the way who supports Zionist 'genocide' and apartheid of Palestinians, says it is the result of 400 yrs of oppression of blacks beginning with the slave trade. Indeed, we often hear that the Original Sin of America was Slavery, namely black slavery. Never mind that genocide is worse than slavery, and US was founded on the extermination of the native 'American Indians'. Because Jews run the US and love the Immigration Narrative(as Jewish immigration to the US and Palestine turned out so good for the Tribe), American Indians will just have to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. As blacks are the winners in sports, pop music, oratory, & sex and because the likes of MLK are most closely associated with justice and progress, the narrative of black victimization simply matters more than that of American Indian suffering.

But even putting aside the issue of the American Indians and 'genocide', is it really the case that the black problem is due to slavery? If the US is being punished for the evil of slavery by the god of historical justice, shouldn't it be punished MORE for its treatment of American Indians? If past injustice leads to social unrest and turmoil in the present and future, American Indians should be the main instigators of historical revenge, violence, and social chaos. But American Indians aren't the main criminals, looters, rioters, rapists, and thugs in America. And we aren't often reminded of how the natives of the Americas suffered for 500 yrs under European Imperialism. Only around Columbus Day — called Indigenous Peoples' Day by some — do we hear some murmurings about the tragic fates of the natives at the hands of the European discoverers/invaders, but then, the very people who make pro-indigenous noises on that day spend all the other days of the year promoting and celebrating more immigration and Diversity even though it was Immigration/Diversity that led to the demise and destruction of the natives of the Americas.

If the moral logic of history holds that, "Bigger the Sin, the Bigger the Punishment", then the biggest problems of Brazil should be coming from the native Indio population. After all, they were invaded, 'genocided', and raped en masse(by both whites and blacks). But Indios hardly pose a threat to the social order of Brazil. Most of the problem comes from blacks. While one can argue that black violence in Brazil is the result of the injustice of the Slave Trade — Brazil, especially its Jewish population, imported more black slaves than the rest of the Americas combined — , an even greater injustice was done to the native Indios. Then, how come many more problems come from blacks?
If indeed historical justice is an avenging angel, Australia should be shaken time and time again by its Aborigine problem. After all, Aborigines of Australia experienced a near-genocide even worse than what happened in the Americas. They were regarded as barely human and shot like trophy. And yet, the Aborigines, though problematic for their poverty and dysfunction, don't strike terror into the hearts of whites and others in Australia. They are mostly at the margins and usually just neglected and forgotten. Now, if past injustice leads to recurring nightmares, why isn't Brazil shaken to the core by its Indio population? Why isn't Australia shaking with fear about Aboriginal vengeance?
Isn't it odd that the biggest problems of social violence and chaos in Australia are coming from the newly imported black population from Africa. These blacks were invited as free men and showered with all sorts of amenities... and yet, their behavior is hardly different from blacks in the US. Why is this? It's due to Savagery Importation. Australia doesn't have 400 yrs of history of oppressing blacks. Blacks arrived only recently and as free people welcomed with all sorts of benefits. If Australia did commit a historical 'sin', it was the near-genocide of the Aborigines. And yet, Australia is being shaken by Black African violence than by Aboriginal violence. Given the way blacks were welcomed into Australia, they should be most grateful and kind to Australians, but they are usually the most violent, thuggish, demented, and demanding people down under. What does this tell us? Slavery was not the main problem. The main problem was Savagery Importation. America brought over blacks as slaves, Australia brought them over as free men, but both sets of blacks act like wild and crazy thugs. The great sin of both the US and Australia was Savagery Importation, and the main victims of this are not blacks(certainly not in Australia) but non-blacks who were thus exposed to black thuggery, crime, violence, and dementia. White elites and Jews who allowed Savagery Importation must acknowledge their evil and apologize to non-blacks who must deal with black thuggery and criminality.



Now, there are savages and then there are Savages. Blacks are Savages, or super-savages. In the generic sense, savages are primitive folks who live by hunting-and-gathering and maybe some rudimentary agriculture. American Indians were savages. So were Eskimos in Siberia and Alaska. Amazonian Indians are savages. There are still some very primitive folks in parts of Philippines and India. But despite their generic savagery, they are not particularly tough, big, strong, and aggressive. In contrast, many kinds of Sub-Saharan black Africans aren't mere savages but super-savages. It's like African killer bees are more dangerous than European honey bees. They are Savages and more muscular and aggressive than other races. Therefore, allowing such a race to enter your domain is downright crazy.
But in their shortsightedness, white elites and Jews(yes Jews!) chose to import many many blacks to the Americas. As blacks were strong and relatively more immune to tropical diseases, they were useful for agriculture. These slave traders and slave-owners didn't think of the future when these Savages or super-savages might become free men granted with rights devised by the West, or white rights — what the world calls 'human rights' are really white rights conceived and constructed by whites for whites. (Such legal equality would not lead to racial equality as blacks would still be stronger, tougher, and more aggressive.) Importation of Black Savages to serve as slaves led to lots of short-term profits but laid the groundwork for never-ending nightmare that now affects EVERYONE in the US. Savagery Importation was a bigger crime against non-blacks than blacks. While it's true that blacks did suffer as slaves, they also gained a tremendous deal by having been let into the white world. Without contact with whiteness, blacks would never have amounted to anything but spear-chucking and beating bongo drums. It was under whites that blacks got a taste of civilization. And unlike blacks enslaved by relatively backward Arabs or rather lazy Portuguese of Brazil, blacks brought to Anglo-America came into contact with the most advanced civilization on Earth. Blacks went from being the most backward savage people on Earth to inhabitants of the most advanced society. Even as slaves and servants, blacks in Anglo-America found themselves as members of a nation destined to be the richest, freest, and most powerful. So, there was gain as well as loss for blacks who were brought to the US.

In contrast, non-blacks who must deal with the horrors of black thuggery gained nothing from Savagery Importation. At most, one may argue that they got some good black music, but otherwise, it's been more taxes, more black crime, more black intimidation, more black lunacy, more black lies, more black idiocy, more black destruction, more black savagery. Is soul music worth the price of the fall of Western Civilization? Is 'Disco Inferno' worth the burning of white-built cities? Burn Baby Burn?


So many non-blacks have been insulted, attacked, robbed, raped, or murdered by blacks, and there will be many more victims. Not just in the US but Australia, Canada, and Europe. Neither Australia nor Canada had black slaves, but they are ending up with similar black problems. It's genetics than history. And look at the problems of blacks in Europe. Europe was virtually all-white and black-free, and this blessing should have been appreciated by Europeans who didn't have America's problem. But in their naivete, foolishness, and/or Afro-worship due to sports/music culture & American Civil Rights Narrative, Europeans came to adore blacks and let them in ever bigger numbers, and as the result, Europe is facing much the same crises as the US. And it will only get worse as millions more black savages are headed to Europe.

While we should remember history and the wrongs & injustices suffered by humanity, it's simply not true that history is an agent of justice. If a people are bound to be historically punished for their 'sins', then history sure is a poor judge and executioner. After all, it was mass-immigration that led to the 'genocide' of American Indians, but where is the historical justice punishing whites and other immigrant groups for having conquered and taken the land from the Red Man? Japan committed far greater evils against China than to the US, but China didn't get to punish Japan while the US did. But then, right after the war, the US rewarded Japan for being a good ally. American lies and invasion of Iraq were a worse crime than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor(an act borne of desperation), but has the US been punished with firebombings and nukes? So much for history as judge. Jews carried out Nakba pogroms in Palestine. If history is judge & jury and punishes 'sin', why are Jews so well-off while Palestinians so badly off in that part of the world? Over the years, Zionist oppression of Palestinians has grown ever more brutal and draconian, but Israel has only been doing better and better. The Chinese Communist Party is guilty of horrible crimes under Mao, but it's still in power and seems more powerful than ever.
Now, consider the following alternative history scenario. Suppose, soon after the American Civil War, whites decided to ship all blacks back to Africa. Many would say such an action would have been an even greater 'evil' than Jim Crow and the like. But, would America have been punished for it? No, the US would be black-free and much nicer and more harmonious. Or, imagine an even greater horror. Suppose whites in the 19th century decided to treat blacks like the American Indians and either kill most of them or force them into reservations as separate black nations. Now, such a policy would have been evil, but the US would be a nicer place as it would be black-free, therefore without black crime, black thuggery, black lunacy, and etc. So much for historical justice.

So, the Canard of blaming Slavery for black horrors needs to end. The real big 'sin' or 'crime' of American History is Savagery Importation, not slavery. Just think. Would slavery have been so damaging if the slaves had been any people other than black savages? Suppose America used Russians or Poles as slaves. Once slavery ended, the free white population and ex-slave white population mostly likely would have merged and gotten along... just like Russian serfs just became part of the Russian nation. Or suppose whites had enslaved a non-savage or weak-savage people like the Vietnamese or Amazonian Indians. These peoples are generally short or scrawny and not particularly thuggish or aggressive by disposition. As a smaller and weaker race than bigger/taller whites, they would have just gotten along with the white population once slavery ended.
But, it was bound to be different with blacks because they are super-savages. In other words, even if 300,000 blacks had been brought over to the US as free men, they would have, in time, reverted to their own savage nature and began the destruction of white civilization. Now, blacks would be somewhat less crazy IF fearsome White Power were a thing. Blacks do respect 'badass' power, and the reason why blacks in the past sought to be a 'credit to their race' and emulated white norms was because they regarded whites as powerful, awesome, and not to mess with. Blacks believed in the power of the Great White Man. But once blacks realized, especially through sports, that they could beat up and humiliate white men(or toy with the white boy), they not only lost respect for whites but for white norms of civilization and values. This hastened their reversion to Afro-Savagery.

Again, the problem of American History was NOT slavery per se. It was WHOM the white elites and Jewish slave traders enslaved. They imported black super-savages as slaves to the Americas. The problem was really with Importation of Savagery, not slavery. This needs to be understood by all honest people.
Australia and Europe think that their blacks will be different because they're welcoming blacks as free men than bringing them as slaves. But whether blacks arrive as slaves or free men, they are super-savages, and when their numbers reach critical mass, they will do permanent irreversible damage. The Western elites should protect their own peoples from black super-savages but, because they are so enamored of the notions of the Magic Negro and Cool Badass Blacks — the Mandela/Mandingo Complex — , they welcome ever more blacks to the West while excoriating, silencing, fining, firing, and even imprisoning white truth-tellers who spell out the threat posed by Black Savage Imperialism. Blacks are not gods or angels or saints. They are the most savage, aggressive, and tough among the races.

And all those whites who are so admiring of black athleticism should really ask themselves the questions: (1) Are blacks better because they are faster and tougher? Using this logic, animals are better than humans because they're tougher and stronger. (2) If blacks can beat whites in sports, doesn't it imply they can beat up whites in schools, streets, subways, buses, and etc., thus robbing the white man of white pride and reducing him to a pansy-ass cuck who watches white women go with Negroes?
While we can understand human admiration of power, people need to ask what that power is capable of doing. It's like we can admire the prowess of tigers and polar bears, but it'd be stupid to welcome such in the world of man. Who wants to share the streets with a tiger, bear, or gorilla? I love bears and other animals, but IN NATURE. The last thing I want to come across in the street is a wild bear. While we can understand why an Iranian may admire US military power from an academic or technological angle, would it make sense for him to cheer for the US military that targets Iran for future destruction? While power is impressive, one must never cheer for or embrace power that can do harm to one's kind. When white men admire black athleticism, it's understandable as it's the best in the world, just like US military is the best in world. But white guys CHEERING for black athleticism that demolishes white athleticism would be like Palestinians cheering awesome Israel firepower that is leveling Arab towns. It'd be like the naive British boy in EMPIRE OF THE SUN cheering for Japanese Zeroes.

As for progs who say race is just a social construct or myth and that all races are equal, their BS has been blown to smithereens by Liberal-controlled industries of sports, entertainment, and sex culture. If indeed all races are the same, how come blacks dominate so many sports? It's because blacks are tougher. How come black music is most popular among Libs? Because, for all their conceits about equality, Libs love to feel and behold the power of power, and they feel more potency in the black song and dance. And why do Libs promote the new ideal of black male and white female? It's because Libs feel black males are superior in manhood and therefore deserving of the most attractive women, white women, as sexual trophies. Expression speaks louder than words, and the Lib-dominated presentations in sports and popular culture push black supremacy and black idolatry. What they say have no bearing on what they show. The Say-Show Discrepancy of sports and popular culture gives the lie to the PC BS about 'race is just a social construct' or 'all races are the same'.
Now, why is black idolatry so destructive to the West? Because even though blacks may be impressive in certain areas, their primal nature is savage, wild, and destructive. It may be EXCITING, and savagery is certainly that. But, if left unchecked, it will destroy the West via the forces of BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive) and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).

I counted six white people, so clearly, this was orchestrated by Antifa.pic.twitter.com/CeYvlghoKR

— Ashley Rae Groypenberg (@Communism_Kills) May 31, 2020

What is the Most Important Moral Question of America given Its Historical Origins and Events? Regarding the Other, TO WHOM does White America OWE the Most? How Jews-as-Grinch Stole and Appropriated the Tragic Narrative of American History from American Indians.

What is the most important moral question for Americans, especially in regard to the Other, given the history of America? By 'the Other', of course we mean non-whites. After all, America has essentially been a white European, especially Anglo-American(and Celtic and Germanic), creation. For most of its history, it was founded by whites as a white nation. And why not? They risked sea voyages to the other side of the world and toiled day and night to tame the land for agriculture and built towns & cities. There's a saying, "Finders, Keepers", and white people did more than find the New World. They had the means, numbers, vision, and know-how to transform the wilderness into a bedrock of a great new civilization.
For all the non-whites and cucky-wuck whites who bitch and whine that American history has mostly been by whites and for whites, they need to ask why other peoples didn't bother to get up off their ass, build ships, sail across vast seas in search of new lands, and toil day-and-night to build a great nation out of the New World? As for Hispanic & Portuguese who settled what is called Latin America, why didn't they do as good a job as the Anglos of the US, Canada, and Australia?

But what is particularly bemusing is how the proggy-wogs gripe about how America was violently stolen from the native Indians(who were really Pre-Americans) by 'racist' whites but then whine about how these whites were reluctant to share the land with non-whites all around the world. But if it was wrong for whites to take the land from Indians, how would it have served the Indians any better if whites decided flood America with peoples from ALL OVER THE WORLD? Wouldn't Indians then lose their ancestral land not only to whites but to all peoples of the world? But then, proggy-wogs aren't known for logic or consistency. They are kind of duped morons or clever con-men(especially if they happen to be Jews) who say with a straight face, "I believe in free speech but not in 'hate speech'." (Of course, the Jews get to decide what 'hate speech' is. Apparently, Jews in Hollywood making all those anti-Russian and anti-Muslim movies is not 'hate'. But white people and Palestinians seeking liberation from Jewish supremacism is 'hate'.)

What we need is moral logic and consistency. Those who insist that Columbus Day should be renamed 'Indigenous Peoples Day' should acknowledge that mass-immigration has been synonymous with imperialism, conquest, ethnic cleansing, mass replacement, and 'genocide'. Also, Diversity has been the product of Imperialism. After all, as more immigrants and peoples from the Old World arrived in America, the more the Pre-American Indians lost their land and way of life. Arrival of people from the Old World led to spread of diseases to which millions of native Indians had no immunity, resulting in mass deaths. And mass-immigration meant westward movement of newly minted Americans whose proclaimed destiny was to replace the native Indians on their lands. In that context, the great tragedy of America has been immigration. Contrary to the official narrative, the 'original sin' of America was not slavery but eradication of the American Indians by conquest and mass-immigration-invasion. Some call this 'genocide', a problematic term given the different norms that motivated peoples back then. Still, what is true enough is that Indian Tribes who'd been on the land for tens of thousand of years were effectively wiped off most of the land in a century. Also, whereas blacks gained a tremendous amount as the result of the slavery experience, the American Indians lost just about everything. Consider that 300,000 to 400,000 blacks were brought to America, but their numbers exploded to over 40 million. And, having developed in proximity with whites, blacks had access to the most advanced people on Earth. Furthermore, when we consider where blacks had been and where they ended up, they are the people who gained THE MOST from coming in contact with whites. Most other groups already had advanced cultures or complex civilization prior to their contact with the West. Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Chinese, and etc. were all peoples of High Civilization. Even had they never come in contact with the Modern West, they would have inhabited impressive civilizations with complex arts, culture, religions, and philosophy. In contrast, black Africans were, by and large, the most backward peoples on Earth. They were primitive savages chucking spears at hippos and running like mothaf*****s when the mad hippo came running to stomp their jigger-jiving ass. Had black Africans not come in contact with the Modern West, most of them would still have no wheel, no written language, and no technology beyond bongo drums, spears, and primitive arrows.

Also, blacks not only gained materially but morally in more ways than one. Through the white man, Negroes got to know Christianity and Western Philosophy. Negroes learned of the principle of liberty and of the evil of slavery only under the tutelage of the White Man. And it was precisely because Anglo-Christian folks had betrayed their own moral principle by having enslaved another race that they went about elevating blacks to holy-victim status. So, not only did blacks learn higher morality and deep spirituality from whites but got to use the values inherent in them to judge whites, especially as so many whites got into the habit of showing off their superior 'virtue' by collecting 'white guilt' points. Furthermore, because the modern West was so thrilled with sports and sexualized pop culture, especially with the rise of electronica, the people who excelled most in sports prowess and sexual displays were bound to receive the most adulation. It was the blacks. So, no people gained as much from their contact with whites. Blacks went from zero to hero only on the backs of white achievements, management, and imagination.

Therefore, the notion of slavery as the 'original sin' of America is bogus. Indeed, such sentiment is only more proof that, if anything, blacks gained so much from whites. They are like the 'favorite race' in US and EU. Blacks were enslaved by whites but also liberated from their own savagery. (Furthermore, not only did blacks get to colonize the New World along with whites but they got to keep their own African lands. Today, black Africa is almost entirely black.) The fact that their suffering is held in greater esteem than the suffering of American Indians speaks volumes about how whites ultimately did so much for blacks but so little for the Indians.
By all rights, the 'original sin' of America would be the 'genocide' of the Indians. Unlike blacks who thrived and multiplied under white rule and in proximity to white achievements, Americans Indians were pushed into reservations to rot as wretched huddled masses. Also, while black numbers exploded in the US, Indian numbers collapsed. In time, American Indians were able to multiply their numbers again, but today, they live in among the most depressed communities in the US. Also, whereas blacks in America & Africa(and now even in Europe) can take pride in the blackness of black Africa as the Cradle of the Niggaz, American Indians have no place to call their own. The core of their homeland has been invaded and taken over by peoples from the Old World. They are truly strangers in their own land. So, given these facts that cannot be refuted, the greatest tragedy of American History was the demise and erasure of American Indian communities and cultures.

Of course, there was triumph along with tragedy. Had the white man not arrived in the New World, North America would still be the land of savages and wild animals. Some people might argue that this would have been better, and there is something to be said for such sentiment. The loss of nature was indeed tragic wherever humanity went. Even primitive folks did plenty of damage to nature. Archaeologists now credit the extinction of countless species of animals in the Americas and Australia to the spread of primitive humans tens of thousands of years ago. But modernity accelerated the destruction and exploitation of nature exponentially, and maybe, it would have been better if the New World had only belonged to nature or only to nature and its 'indigenous' folks(who arrived from what is now Asia tens of thousands of years ago). But what is done is done, and it's true enough that America became a great modern nation due to the ability and achievements of European folks, especially the Anglos followed by Celtics and Germanics. There was triumph and tragedy in the making of America.

But given the tragic dimensions of American History, the Most Important Moral Question is "To whom do White Americans owe the most in terms of historical redress and moral consideration?" To answer this isn't difficult. We only need to consider what was the greatest tragedy of American History. There is no question that the biggest tragedy and 'crime' of American History was the 'genocide' of the Red Savages by Pale Face. Furthermore, even other whites and non-whites from the Old World collaborated with Anglo whites in the destruction of the Indians. Spanish Conquistadors invaded Indian lands from the south. Geronimo not only fought the US Cavalry but the Mexicans, a bunch of Mestizos led by white Hispanics. Upon emancipation, blacks didn't return to Africa, their homeland, but stuck around with whites, and many became cowboys and took part in shooting Indians dead. And Chinese worked on railroads that only accelerated the final stages of Manifest Destiny. American Indians were set upon by 'honkeys', 'niggers', 'spicks', 'chinks', 'kikes', and all those damned new immigrants from the Old World.

If America had been taken from the World, one could make a legitimate argument that people all around the world have a right to retake it via immigration. It'd be like the Right of Return. Indeed, suppose peoples of ALL RACES had been in the US, but White Europeans arrived and drove them to other parts of the world while hogging most of America for themselves. Then, mass-immigration of non-whites into the US could be a moral imperative based on historical wrongs. But, in fact, America was not taken by white Europeans from the world. It was taken from native folks who came to be known as the American Indians or the Red Man. Therefore, white Americans have NO moral obligation to open up America, the nation that they founded and built, to all the world. North America was not taken from Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Africans, Hindus, Turks, and etc. It wasn't taken from brown natives south of the border of what came to be USA. One could argue SW territories were taken from Mexico, but then the Mexicans themselves were laying claim to lands that were inhabited by various American Indian tribes who felt no connection or allegiance to the Mexican state and society.

America was not created by taking land and resources from all the world. It was created by white folks who arrived upon vast territories that were still overwhelmingly wild and natural(at least by Old World and Meso-American standards). And if the land was taken from anyone, it was from Red Savages. If any people were historically wronged, it was the Indians. Not because Indians were angelic saints — just like Europeans, pagan and Christians alike, fought each other countless times over 1,000s of years, so did the American Indians who also belonged to various warring tribes — but because they had a deep connection to the land. Suppose a people more powerful and numerous than the Europeans arrived in Europe 3,000 yrs ago. Suppose they found various pagan European tribes warring against each other over land, women, & stuff, and suppose they overwhelmed the relatively primitive and backward Europeans and took the land. (Btw, keep in mind that Europeans were warring against each other well into the 20th century, with World War I and World War II killing up to 65 to 70 million people.) Their conquest of Europe would have been by the general rule of history where might-is-right. Still, if the hypothetical conquerors had some moral sense and conscience, they would have, at the very least, acknowledged that the vanquished Europeans do have special connection to the land on which they'd lived and died for many eons. Likewise, even if we acknowledge that White Europeans won out over the American Indians by the general rule of history, one would have to be churlish to deny that the American Indians have the most meaningful and deepest connection and attachment to the land. And to the extent that they lost their ancestral homeland forever — something that cannot be said for Asians, Arabs, Hindus, Africans, and weaker Europeans(such as Greeks under Ottomans or Lithuanians under Russians) who eventually reclaimed their homelands from imperialist domination — , it is by no means far-fetched to argue that the American Indians are the most tragic people in the world. (Of course, given the advantages they gained by living under whites, it was far from a total loss. Surely, American Indians would be worse off if America had been conquered by another race of people.)

With that in mind, one must ask, "What is the MOST IMPORTANT Moral Question of America given the history of its founding and development?" At whose expense was the great nation of America created? The answer is beyond obvious. It was at the expense of the American Indians. And that means, if the US has any moral obligation, it is to the American Indians and their communities. Meanwhile, the US has NO moral obligation to anyone else. Was the American land taken from Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Senegalese, Hindus, Kazakhs, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Jews, etc.? Emphatically NO. Also, did all peoples play an equal role in the founding and development of America? Do a mental experiment. While there are Burmese-Americans who are probably good decent people, would America not exist if not a single Burmese set foot on the New Land? Of course not. Even if not a single Burmese(or, for that matter, a single Kurd, Hindu, Korean, Assyrian, Moroccan, Filipino, or etc) ever set foot on this land, America would still be America. But if the Europeans, especially Anglos-Germanics-Celts, had never arrived on the land, there would be NO America. Then, those who bitch about the 'racism' of American History in having excluded non-white immigrants are full of baloney. As the rightful discovers, founders, and developers of the great new nation, the founding & leading stock had EVERY RIGHT to decide immigration policy to create the kind of the nation that they favored. If the Chinese had discovered North America first, would they not have favored immigration of their own kind?

The moral dilemma of America's creation has mainly to do with four entities: American Indians, Negroes, white victims of Negroes, and nature. Even though American Indians lost the land for the reason why all defeated folks lost their lands all throughout history — they were outfought and outnumbered — , the tragedy of their loss is undeniable as they'd been living and dying on the land for not only centuries or millenniums but for tens of thousands of years. American Indian connection to the lands of North America is comparable to European connection to Europe and Asian connection to Asia. They lived here for eons. Another people who deserve special recognition is the Negroes who were brought over as slaves. As they didn't choose to be here and were exploited to develop the economy, blacks of slave ancestry deserve special recognition. However, because blacks are naturally 'craaaaaazy', thuggish, and demented, they've been acting wild and nutty since liberation. As such, they've victimized countless whites with robbery, rape, assault, murder, and etc. Therefore, just as America must address the historical wrongs done to blacks by whites, it must also address biological threat blacks pose to whites. By bringing blacks over the US, American History not only wronged the blacks but wronged many future whites who'd be victimized by tougher and more aggressive blacks. Just like Harriet Tubman and the underground railway sought to free blacks from slavery, the phenomenon of White Flight(and Jew Flew) was a kind of exodus for whites from Black Blight and Fight. Whites were running from Biological Slavery under the Thug Supremacism of blacks. (Jews bitch about white 'racism', but they also ran from blacks. And when black violence got way out of control in the 90s, Jews got themselves Billy Boy Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to get tough on crime and lock up record number of blacks behind bars to bring down crime.) Finally, there is the matter of nature, the fauna and flora of the Americas. One of the dire consequences of creating a great modern nation was the destruction of so much nature. Many animals went extinct, and they are lost forever. For that reason, America has an obligation to preserve as much natural lands as possible. And that means, NO MORE IMMIGRATION. If there are towns in America that are emptying of people, then the proper thing is to restore the land back to nature. We can never have too much nature.

Given the facts of history, any fair-minded person would agree with the sentiment that the greatest tragedy of America has been the destruction and demise of the American Indian culture and communities. Indeed, it would be most obnoxious for a people other than the American Indians to hog the stage & microphone and act as if the primary obligation, duty, and responsibility is to serve them. After all, Jews get very antsy if people other than themselves claim the mantle of 'victims of the Holocaust'. Even though Jews acknowledge that Nazi Germans killed millions of non-Jews(and even as part of the campaign that came to be known as 'Shoah' or 'Holocaust'), they insist(and rightfully so) that the Shoah was mainly about the targeting of Jews for mass destruction. So, even though many Poles and other Slavs were killed in World War II(and even under similar conditions as faced by Jews), Jews do have a special claim to Shoah. Every people have their own tragic narrative associated with certain lands. Then, the 'genocide' of the American Indians is a tragedy unique to American History. Because they were the native folks of North America and were vanquished(and even vanished from most of the lands) in what became the United States, the main moral narrative of American History should be about, "What was done to the Indians in the past and what must be done for them in the future?" Even blacks, with their slave narrative, cannot compete with the American Indians whose very homeland was taken from under their feet. Also, while blacks were allowed to live and thrive next to whites — even with Segregation — , American Indians were relocated en masse and settled in reservations that were usually the least productive lands.

Given the fact of American History, only the most obnoxious, arrogant, megalomaniacal, putrid, lowdown, disgusting, filthy, shameless, and scummy people would occupy the throne of Ultimate Victim-hood, Ultimate Claim-hood, and Reparation-hood within the American Context. Can anyone imagine Chinese saying that the main duty of America is to remember all the Chinese victims of Japanese & European imperialism and Maoist communism? Therefore, the D.C. Mall must have a Chinese-Tragedy Museum, all the students must be taught about the Nanking Massacre & other horrors of modern Chinese History, all politicians must say China is the closest and greatest ally of the US, and we must allow endless Chinese immigration to redress historical wrongs? While we can acknowledge the tragedy of modern Chinese History, why should the US go out of its way to 'do right' by the Chinese? Was the US taken from the Chinese? Whatever bad shit happened to the Chinese, it happened OVER THERE, and the US was no more responsible for the mess than other nations like European powers, Japan, Russia, and etc. And yet, we have Jews acting as if they have a special claim on American History, American Morality, and American Responsibility. But why? Did white Christians take America from the Jews(like the Romans took Jerusalem from the Chosen?) Did Jews suffer a great tragedy in America? If anything, Jewish merchants sold guns, ammos, and supplies to white expansionists who took land from the Indians. Also, Jews in the South handled much of the finances of the slave economy. The truth is Jews collaborated with whites in the destruction of the Indians and enslavement of the blacks in America. (Jews were also the main sellers of opium to the Chinese, which is why Jewish historians and their shills are now trying to minimize the assessment of harm done to the Chinese by narcotics. Jews were also leading communists in the Bolshevik Revolution that led to the deaths of millions of Slavs.) As for the Holocaust, it happened in Europe, and it was carried out by Germans who went mad largely because Jews drove them crazy with support for radical communism in the East and Weimar degeneracy in the West. Thus, what is known as Shoah or the Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust, or holocaust carried out by goyim driven to madness by Jewish Bolshevik holocaust of countless Christians in the East. Just like every action leads to a reaction, a holocaust can lead to a counter-holocaust. Even though Jews were on the side of Allies in WWII whereas Japanese were with the Axis, both groups ended up facing counter-holocausts. Jewish radical madness led to so much hatred against the Tribe that it led to the triumph of an ideology as nutty as Nazism. Similarly, so much craziness by the Japanese led to crazy-mad violence against them, the massive destruction of cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If we call Shoah the 'Counter-Holocaust', we will understand history much better. While Shoah was evil and crazy, it didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. It was a deranged reaction to much deranged actions by Jews. If we call it 'Counter-Holocaust', people will begin to ask 'In counter to what?' and then we can explain how much bad Jewish behavior led to rise of 'antisemitism' that finally took the insane form of Nazism. When people are driven to anger and desperation, they become blinded by and consumed with hatred. Why are so many Palestinians angry as hell about the Jews? Some of their hatred may be deranged and even genocidal toward Jews, but why do they feel that way? It's because Jews wiped Palestine off the map and have been treating Palestinians as subhuman trash. If Americans were riled up by Pearl Harbor to attack Japan and kill millions, imagine how the Palestinians feel who were robbed of their homeland? Of course, what was done to Palestinians was far worse. While the US, along with Japan and other powers, had done much to create much of the tensions in the Pacific that led to outbreak of war, the Palestinians had done NOTHING to no one, but the great powers, US-UK-USSR, all conspired to support the Jews in their 'genocide' of the native Arab population.

How dare Jews make themselves the Central People of America? The land was not taken from Jews. And the people who were most responsible for the creation of America were the Anglos and Germanics, not Jews. When it comes to the politics of victim-hood, Jews worked with the cowboys to wipe out the Indians. Jews worked with white slavers to import Africans, and Jews in the South owned slaves and opposed Emancipation. If there was a genocide or 'holocaust' in North America, it was to the American Indians by whites(with support of Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and even yellows who built railroads). By all rights, the Holocaust Museum in the Mall should really be about the American Indians, and Jews should fess up about their own role in the demise of the Indians. But Jews act like they morally and spiritually own America. At least the nutty Mormons cooked up some bogus history about how their ilk have some special connection to the New Land. Jews readily admit they have no deep ancestral roots in America but still claim that America really belongs to them most. Sure, Jews say America is for everyone but then insist that EVERYONE all get behind Jews, support Israel, and worship the Holocaust(as if the Jewish Tragedy should take precedence in the hearts of all races and groups). Since Jews can't claim America by deep ancestry(which belongs to American Indians), tragic experience(that belongs to blacks who toiled as slaves), or vision-founding-creation(that belongs to Anglos and Germanics), they've cooked up the notion of the 'proposition nation' where America is to be defined mainly by 'what it could be' that what it has been or what it is. Since Jews control the media and have spun an Emma-Lazarusean yarn about America as a nation-of-tomorrow(to be defined by endless immigration-invasion by New Peoples) and present themselves as the most iconic and eternal immigrant-group, especially in mythic association with Ellis Island that replaced Plymouth Rock, a mentality took root in the American Mind that the main obligation of all Americans is to honor, worship, & serve Jews and do as they command. Also, as Jews have quasi-spiritualized the Shoah or the Counter-Holocaust, it is no longer limited to the history of WWII and the bloodlands of Central and Eastern Europe. It is regarded as a cosmic thing, like the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ is supposed to be to all peoples in all the world. At least Jesus cared for all of humanity. In contrast, even as Jews have universalized Shoah-Worship for goyim, all they feel for goyim is contempt, often murderous in kind, as when all these Yinonist-Zionists cackle with hideous glee about all the Arabs and Muslims who've been massacred in these Wars for Israel, which might as well be called Mass-Murders for Israel.

Why are Jews so obnoxious? Part of it could be their haggly-waggly and verbally-excessive character. After all, is it just a coincidence that another group that is as often as obnoxious as the Jews are Hindus who are also verbally excessive? As if to follow in the footsteps of Jews and even go one step further, a most foul Dotkin Suketu Mehta(or Suckasstoo Meathead) has written a book called "An Immigrant's Manifesto". Even though America was taken from American Indians and not from Asian Indians, this worthless Asian-Indian Hindu says America has a moral obligation to open its gates to hundreds of millions of his Dotkin kind or Dotkind. It's like Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA. He has this crazy notion that all of America should somehow put out to him and offer him flowers wherever he goes. (Latin American whites are another scummy group when it comes to making Moral Demands on America. They posture as 'people of color' when, in fact, they were the First White Europeans to conquer the New World, spread disease, wipe out tens of millions, 'rape' countless native women, and lord over the brown Meso-Americans as virtual slaves and peons. Now, if Latin American whites acknowledged their part in the tragic dimensions of New World history while also claiming considerable achievements & improvements, it would be understandable. After all, Hispanic whites were not the only great conquering peoples in history[and they did bring an end to human sacrifice and other barbarisms of the natives], and we can't judge the past with today's values, even though, what with all the pro-migration-invasion rhetoric of globalism, one wonders if today's values are any different. What is unforgivable about Latin American whites is they conveniently overlook their essential role in the conquest of the New World and furthermore pretend that the mixing of white and brown was some kind of happy union, a love-fest among the races. Furthermore, their cretinous selves claim to be 'people of color' and dump all blame for New World tragedies on 'gringo' or 'yanqui'. As such, they are as dirty and lowlife as the Jewsters and Dotkins.) 'Verbality' is necessary for power, but with some peoples, it's gotten out of hand. Jews and Hindus are so busy yapping and listening to themselves go on and on and on that they've come believe in their own baloney or curry.

In contrast, the American Indians, who have most to complain about, go unheard because they are deficient in 'verbality'. It's like the 'big dumb Indian', aka Chief Broom, in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He isn't really deaf & dumb but acts it out of a sense of defeatism and resignation. It's interesting that just about the only word Indians are known for is 'How'. Indians need to start talking. They need to drop Broom-ism and learn a thing or two from Jewsters and Dotkins(and of course, the ghastly 'groids', another people who 'talk too much' as Run-DMC noted). If Jewsters, Dotkins, and 'groids' need to shut up a bit, the Indians need to speak up more and loudly. They need to put forth a great chief who will assemble all the Indian Nations in the Washington Mall and give a speech called "I have a vision", one that demands no more immigration-invasion as mass-immigration led to the 'genocide' of the Red Savages hunting gophers for stew.

The truth is as follows. Spiritually, the lands of North America belongs more to the Native Pre-Americans or American Indians than to any other people. They were here for tens of thousands of years before the American colonies and the rise of the United States as a great nation. In terms of territoriality and ancestry, this was Red Man's land for eons. Even if the various Red Tribes fought and slaughtered one another, they were all members of the same race... just like even though the various European tribes and kingdoms bashed one another across the eons, white folks have a special connection to Europe. Therefore, the spiritual connection of Indians and the Land must be respected. Also, because the eradication of Indian communities(and even extermination of Indian folks in some cases) was necessary in the creation of America, the Indian Holocaust must be the central Moral Narrative of American history and politics. And since it was European Conquest followed by waves of mass-immigration that led to the Indians losing ALL their Lands, Americans must address the dark and tragic side of Immigration. Emma Lazarus the Judeo-centric Jew only cared about her Tribe. As embarking to America would be great for her kind, she didn't care one bit about the American Indians who were reduced to poor, wretched, huddled masses rotting away in Reservations. But then, Zionist Jews didn't care that Palestinians would be expelled from their lands either. Jews only care about themselves and disregard goyim as subhuman. Worse, unlike Anglo Christians who felt some degree of sympathy and even admiration for the American Indians who put up a noble fight to defend their lands and culture, Jews feel nothing for the Indians. Sure, Jews pretended to care for the Indians in the counterculture 60s but only as metaphors for Jews. Thus, for awhile, Jews sought to draw comparisons between what Anglos did to Indians and what Nazi Germans did to Jews. Never mind that Jewish merchants took part in the conquest of the Wild West. And never mind that Jews decided to play cowboy with the Palestinians as Indians. And after the Cold War, Jews even went into Judeo-Nazi mode to use the US as its cavalry to ride roughshod all over the Arab-Muslim World.

Most obnoxiously, Jews have laid claim to America as their spiritual home. By making the US out to be a 'nation of immigrants', Jews are effectively saying Pre-American History(of the Indians) and American History(of whites who built a new nation) mean NOTHING. All that matters is what JEWS say America should be. According to Jews, America should be a land where all goyim must be compelled to praise Jews, worship the Counter-Holocaust, support Israel, and obey the Yinon-ist program of hating and slaughtering whatever & whomever Jews order us to hate and kill. "Kill for Jews" might as well be the new motto of Americanism. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but this is just a ruse to use 'white guilt' about the 'Magic Negro' to paralyze white pride and unity, thereby rendering whites easier to manipulate emotionally to do as the Jews as Holy-Holocaust-People demand. If Jews really care about blacks, why do they push for mass-immigration-invasion to replace blacks, along with whites, from many communities, especially fancy ones inhabited by Jews?

American Indians need to drop the Broom-ism and learn to talk. For too long, Indians had others do the talking for them, like when Neil Young sang songs like 'Pocohontas' or when Jim Jarmusch made DEAD MAN. In FARGO, the Indian doesn't talk much, but he gets awful angry. Indians must work on that anger and learn to talk. Indians have the war dance and rain dance. They need to perfect the Talk Dance, and learn to speak loud and clear about how America is spiritually their land. Therefore, the biggest moral imperative of the US must be an end to all immigration-invasion and a sincere effort to revive Indian communities. Indeed, how disgusting that Jews and their cuck-libertarians decided to redress the tragedy of Indian communities by offering casinos, most of which are run by Jews who take much of the profit. Imagine Europeans telling Jews, "Ah, forget about the Shoah. Let's just put some casinos where Nazi concentration camps were, and let's have a good time." That would be pretty repulsive, but that was the deal that the Indians got, like in CASINO JACK about the foul Jew Jack Abramoff.

Finally, American Indians need to understand that white race-ism was a double-edged sword. In their drive to turn the New World into an extension of European Civilization, white race-ist expansionism led to the demise of American Indian communities. And yet, white race-ism also protected the New World from the Non-White world that was even more numerous in people. Thus, even as white race-ism took the land from the Indians, it also protected that land from further invasion by all the world. Given the tragic history between whites and Indians, a non-white people, it's understandable why some Indians decided to form alliances with other non-whites against whites, but what do these non-whites want? They want endless immigration-invasion from all the world, and that means American Indians will have lost their land not only to whites(who felt some conscience and respect for the Indians) but to all the peoples from all the world, many of whom are utterly without conscience, honor, decency, and shame. Take Suketu Mehta, or Suckasstoo Meathead. I mean, how demented must one be to be a Hindu making a moral claim on America, a land that was not taken from his people and wasn't founded and built by his kind.
Furthermore, can anyone with integrity say with utmost sincerity that America has improved with Jews as the ruling elites? For Anglos, morality meant 'improving ourselves', 'facing up to our wrongs', and reforming society for the good of all. It was about judging not only others but themselves. With Jews, morality is simply acting as if they're pure as snow, the fount of all truth & wisdom, always blaming OTHERS for all problems, and refusing to admit Jews also have a dark side to their history. Also, even as Jews seek to protect their own kind from deracination and total degeneracy, they push such on their enemies. Some may argue that Jewish embrace of globo-homo-mania is a form of degeneracy, but the fact is most Jews don't really get high on their own supply. Globo-homo is to Jews what cocaine is for the pusher. Jews wield it as a weapon to undermine goy communities than to really indulge in 'gay' worship.
Anyway, American Indians need to realize that white race-ism was the last best defense of America from further invasion. As long as whites remained in race-ist mode, American Indians could rest assured that their ancestral-spiritual land would, at the very least, not be invaded by ALL THE WORLD. It was the fading of white race-ism that flung American gates to all the peoples of world, to tens of millions of Hindus, Africans, Asians, Latin American whites(aka Conquis), and Meso-Americans who have no claim on the Americas north of the Mexican border. Without race-ism, a people and land are doomed. Just ask the Jews who guard Israel with race-ism. As bad as Jewish race-ism may be in the eyes of Palestinians, it would be worse if Jews lost their race-ism and opened up Israel to ALL THE WORLD. Then, Palestinians will have lost their land not only to Jews but to Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Turks, and etc, etc.

**If America is all about an 'idea' & 'proposition' and not about soil, roots, and history, then how come there are special reservations set aside for American Indians? Isn't it because they have roots in the soil and deep memory of existence on the land? If America is purely about proposition, Americanism should not tolerate special recognition for American Indians' ties to the soil and the particularity of their history. If such is recognized for Indians, why is it not recognized for whites who were most crucial in American nation's founding and most instrumental in its development? If the Indians' deep historical connection to the land overrides mere considerations of 'universal values' and 'propositions', then the white man's founding and creative relation to the American soil also merits special recognition.**

Richard Spencer finds Nothing Redeemable about the 'Puritanical' Foundations of the American Civilization — He is missing the Larger Picture of the Iron Triangle — What if Jewish Zealots, instead of Jesus and Paul, had come up with a Universal Faith?

In the video above, Richard 'Fausto' Spencer says he finds much that is redeemable about the American Narrative, especially concerning the Southern Aristocracy and Western Frontiersmen but finds NOTHING redeemable about the founding Puritanical themes of the Northeast Coast. First, it's rather amusing that he would invoke the spiritual notion of 'redeemable'-ness in addressing the conquerors and frontiersmen. One doesn't conquer and grab parts of the world to redeem anything. One does it just to win and be victorious. Vikings and Mongols didn't conquer in search of redemption. They conquered to grab stuff, to dominate, and to rule. Same was true of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. The notion that one's conquests must be 'redeemed' derives from the Christian and Islamic tradition.
As Christians and Muslims believe in the one and only God as the righteous ruler of all, their actions must ultimately be redeemed and justified in the eyes of God. So, it's not enough for Christians or Muslims to just conquer. Their exploits must aligned with the way of God. Or, if conquests were made against the rules of God, there must be atonement and redemption through good works. So, the very notion of 'redemption' in conquest is a religious notion. Spencer is far more influenced by Christianity than he likes to admit, even if subconsciously. If he really were a neo-pagan Faustian guy, he wouldn't be speaking of the 'redeeming' value of anything. Might-is-right would be enough... as with Hillary Clinton after she smashed Libya. She came, she saw, and Gaddafi died, hahahahaha!
But for morally-spiritually righteous people, power isn't enough. It must be justified. For Christians, it had to be justified in the name of God. This was more problematic for Christians than for Muslims because Islam permits Jihadi warriors to wage war on infidels and convert them to Islam with the sword. In contrast, Christianity is about the courage of righteous love and peace. So, if a tyrant tells you to do something evil, you must disobey. And if you are threatened with violence and/or death, you must still disobey and meet your fate with courage. In this sense, true Christianity is not a 'slave religion'. It is not about submission to authority. It is about resistance and disobedience. But unlike the violent way of the Zealots, the Christian way is to resist not only tyranny(by disobeying unjust decrees) but the animal drive toward violence and vengeance. When faced with violence, our natural urge is to react violently. The problem is, in acting just like the tyrant, we end up becoming just like him upon triumphing with the sword. Granted, given the way of the world, Christianity was NOT going to prevail by disobedience, love, and forgiveness alone. So, it ended up making a pact with the Roman Empire.
Romans, in turn, were attracted to Christianity for several reasons. One was because they'd grown cynical about their own gods. As the pagan gods were essentially super-humans with limited powers(like comic book superheroes to put it simply), it was difficult for educated elites of high civilization to really believe in any of that stuff. So, pagan religions turned into empty rituals and parody, like Ovid's METAMORPHOSIS which was written mostly for laughs. Anthropomorphic gods with limited powers lost their luster and no longer possessed the element of mystery or infinitude. They just seemed like exaggerated version of egotistical humans. In contrast, the Jewish/Christian God was faceless and full of mystery and depth. He was the God of Infinity and beyond the infinite. So, Christian cosmology was tantalizing and profound in ways that pagan myths no longer were. Also, if the Romans were indeed about becoming masters of all the world, didn't it make better sense to ally with the one and only God of all time and all things than with little gods of paganism? After all, even the mightiest god of Greeks and Romans, Zeus/Jupiter, was nothing compared to the Jewish-Christian conception of God. Zeus/Jupiter didn't make the world but was born of earlier gods. And despite his top position in the hierarchy, he wasn't all powerful. It's said the Fates are even more powerful because they could end time itself by cutting the rope. In contrast, the Jewish-Christian God is the God of all things, the maker of all time and creator of everything. So, if Romans were really the ultimate power destined to rule the world, why not ally with the ultimate God than with pipsqueak gods of paganism? Also, there was a righteous element in Christianity that lent a 'redeeming' element to Roman conquests. Prior to rise of Christian Rome, victory only meant military might. Romans conquered simply because they were stronger and better at fighting. But it didn't necessarily mean Romans were the good guys or justified in their victories. But armed with Christianity, the God-blessed Romans could begin to morally and spiritually justify and 'redeem' their spoils. They did it for God, to spread His Gospel and with His blessing. So, Roman victories over other people weren't merely military but moral and 'holy'. This Holy Roman Template became the foundation of Western Civilization for the next 1500 yrs.
But then, perhaps, the Roman Empire would have done better to spiritually merge with something like Islam, a religion of Right + Might whereas Christianity at its core is about Right > Might. Because of the pacificism at the core of Christianity, even violent victories carried out in the name and glory of God become somewhat stained with 'sin'.
It's been said Christianity is a 'slave religion', but paradoxically, for that very reason, it was an anti-slavery religion or slave-rebellion religion. Paganism's emphasis on Might glorified the victorious warrior, but what did such a figure do? He conquered other peoples and turned them into slaves. So, even as paganism glorified the free-spirited warriors, their triumphs reduced much of humanity into slaves. Mongols and pagan Romans were great conquerors and turned millions into slaves. Neo-pagan Nazis had plans to turn Slavs into a race of slaves. A culture where Might rules will be a slavery culture. Victors will enslave the losers and inferiors. In contrast, because Christianity morally favors the slaves and downtrodden(at least those with noble hearts because being oppressed per se doesn't make one a good person in the eyes of Jesus), there is a universal drive for freedom. Slaves are to disobey the unjust ruler. They are not to resist violently like the Zealots but to drop the sword and hammer. If an unjust ruler commands his minions to go yonder and rape and pillage, they should disobey and not take part in the bloodbath. If the unjust ruler orders his minions to build him a big palace where he can live like a pig, the minions should disobey and refuse to pick up hammers. And if they are threatened with punishment or death, they should accept such fate than be participants in evil or vanity. Christianity actually requires the greatest kind of courage because it means the will to die for one's conscience and convictions. Be that as it may, it was too impractical. If most people are slapped, they will to slap back. And if they are threatened with crucifixion, they will either run or pick up a weapon to fight back than face righteous death and self-sacrifice. Because of the contradiction within Christianity — a religion of the one and only ultimate God whose message to mankind is to choose love and sacrifice over power and pride — , the Roman Empire might have done better by merging with something like Islam, but Romans weren't able to produce a man of prophetic power like Muhammad who later arose among the Arabs. (Maybe there is something in the Semitic blood, Jewish or Arab, that makes them more prophetic.)

But then, what if one of the Jewish Zealots had come upon a universalist brand of Judaism? Indeed, suppose we do a thought-experiment: What would have happened if the Jewish Zealots conceived of a universal faith? Something like Islam might have emerged from the Jewish community. History could have been very different. Under Roman Occupation, Jews had three ways of coping. (1) Collaboration and/or Assimilation. If you can't beat em, join em, especially as serving the empire could be lucrative with lots of 'carrots'. And many Jews chose collaboration and/or assimilation. (2) Resistance. Arm and fight to the end, whatever the cost. Be tough warriors and use bloody guerrilla tactics. Zealots did this. (3) Counter-conquer the Romans with the power of prophecy. Mind over matter. Romans had military might, but maybe Jews could conquer Roman souls with higher spiritual power. Such Jews became the early Christians.
Collaboration or assimilation was easy and profitable, but it meant the loss of pride and/or identity at the feet of the Romans. It could also lead to attacks by Zealots who didn't tolerate traitors.
Resistance conserved identity, culture, and pride. But there was no way a small band of Jewish Zealots were going to prevail over the Romans, the mightiest military force the world had ever seen. No matter how committed and courageous, the Zealots had no chance against the pagan Romans who were utterly ruthless in dealing with any obstacle to their power.
Now, Assimilation/collaboration and Resistance are old as history itself. But the third option, the use of awesome prophetic imagination to conquer the souls of your conquerors, was a near-impossible task. Also, even if successful, it could be construed just as much a tragedy as a triumph of the Jewish imagination. While Roman pagans would have been made to submit to the God of Jewish origin, the universalization of the Jewish God would have implied that the Jewish Covenant has been rendered null and void. So, rise of Christianity was both the greatest triumph and worst tragedy for Jews. In one way, non-Jews were made to worship the product of Jewish imagination, but in another way, Christians gained moral advantage over Jews who were deemed as Christ-Killers, or the very people who killed God's very Son. Jews believed that God chose them over all other peoples, but Christians believed that Jews were mainly responsible for the death of the Messiah. (Also offensive to Jews is the notion, in both Christianity and Islam, that human choice determines one's relation to God. So, if a white pagan or Arab infidel chooses to believe in God[as Jehovah or Allah], his individual choice seals his fate with God. God can't say NO to such a person because Christianity and Islam says God's House is open to all who CHOOSE to enter it. In contrast, Judaism says the power of choice is with God, and He chose the Jews. Jews didn't choose God. God chose them, and Jews can never say no. It was an offer they couldn't refuse, for good or ill. And since the Jewish Covenant is based on God's choice of Jews, it is the real stuff. After all, it was God's choice. In contrast, Christian and Islamic 'covenants' are bogus because they are based on man-made choices on the conceit that God must accept anyone who wants to enter His House. From the Jewish Perspective, Christianity and Islam are like illegal immigration of gentiles into the House of God that was meant for God and His Chosen People, the Jews. On a subconscious level, Jewish push of Open Borders in the West and Muslim nations via invade/invite strategy could be revenge for the gentiles' having stormed the Jewish House of God.) Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries were faced with similar questions. Do they just assimilate(and even convert to Christianity)? Do they resist in the name of Jewish identity and pride? Or do they envision new prophecies with which to conquer the souls of those who have power over Jews? Granted, things got muddled along the way. Many Jews who assimilated nevertheless stuck to tribal guns in subconscious or underhanded ways. And Zionism, a neo-zealous form of Jewish national resistance, actually gained the backing of the great empires of UK, US, and USSR. And unlike early Christians, the Jewish Marxists were careful not to vilify Jews(even though, to be sure, Karl Marx had some harsh things to say about Jews and Capitalism). One wonders if modern Jewish prophecies(Marxism, Freudianism, Globalism, Vaginalism, Homomania, etc) have been in earnest or tools(consciously or subconsciously) to better protect and serve Jewish identity and interests.
The early Christians(who were mostly Jews) seemed sincere in their transformation from tribalism toward universalism. Maybe Marx and early Jewish communists were too, but one wonders about the many Jewish leftists in the West in the 20th century. Did they abandon Jewishness to take up universalism, or were they using universalism as smoke screen to further Jewish interests? For example, many Jews talk of Americanism as a Proposition in an almost prophetic way. It's as if all the world should become ersatz-America and America should become ersatz-all-the-world. All nations should be blessed with Americanism, and America, as a proposition, should welcome all the world. A kind of neo-messianism. (And there is Homomania.) But are these Jews sincere in their conviction? Or is it all just a chimera to fool goyim in order to consolidate Jewish globalist aims? After all, if Jewish globalists really prophesy such a future, why do they cling to Zionism and Israel? It seems Jews today are trying to have all three options. Assimilate into goy nations, resist sufficiently to maintain Jewish identity and loyalty to Israel, and call on all nations to adopt globo-homo-Americanism as the new messianic vision.
Jewish neurosis is baked into the Jewish condition because Jewish identity is premised on both separatism & uniqueness AND globo-integration & universalism. One side of Jewishness permeates into goyim, another part of Jewishness recoils from goyim. Jews bewail 'antisemitism' of goy resistance to Jews, but Jews also fear kindly acceptance by goyim because they might lose their ways and dissolve into goyness. Then, everything that Jews achieved and came to own may just pass over to goyim. Jews want goyim to love Jews but also want fellow Jews to hate goyim. If Jews loved goyim like goyim love Jews, Jewish minority will be swallowed into larger goy majority. So, even as Jews tell goyim that it's their moral obligation to love Jews, they tell fellow Jews it's their duty to be hateful toward the dominant goy majority of whichever nation(while forging alliances-of-convenience with minority goyim). So, Jews demand Wasps to love Jews but also demand fellow Jews to hate Wasps. The Jewish way with goyim is "Don't punch us but let us punch you." We see this with so many Jews like Jennifer Rubin and William Kristol. They demand that whites love, love, and love Jews, but they do little else but berate and insult whites for all sorts of reasons.
There's the stereotype of the un-athletic Jew. If we apply this factoid to the Ancient World, it means brainy Jews had good chance of success with assimilation under the Roman Empire. Or, even though far more difficult, they had a chance with prophecy — Conquer Roman souls with spiritual imagination — because it involved mental skills. But if Jews were physical wusses and gimps, Zealots who took up arms couldn't have had a chance.
But, is it really true that Jews have always been physically weaker, and therefore, hopeless in physical combat? Vietnamese are a small people, but they became fearsome warriors in the 20th century. And the IDF seems to be pretty effective. Also, I'm thinking that Ancient Jews, at least a lot of them, worked at stuff like carpentering or fishing, like Jesus and Peter. They weren't all accountants or college professors or bookies. The real problem with the Zealots was they were too small in number to defeat the Romans. But, what if a Jesus-like or Paul-like figure was militant than pacifist? What if he came up with a warlike universal prophecy? Instead of promoting love and forgiveness as the highest virtue of humanity, suppose he preached fighting spirit and warrior creed in the name of the one and only God? Such a Zealot-universalism might have won over tons of converts among non-Jews also living under Roman Rule. Zealots on their own had no chance, but what if Zealotry could have been a universal faith and spread like wildfire? What if all converts were told that, following their deaths in the struggle against Romans, they will ascend to Heaven and be blessed with eternal life? Or, what if the Romans themselves adopted this militant form of spiritual universalism and used it as moral justification to conquer yet more of the world?
Now, the actual Zealots, being ultra-conservative, weren't going to universalize their faith to recruit warriors among heathens. By its very nature, militancy tends to be conservative, closed, and tribal. In contrast, pacifism tends to be liberal, open, and universal, perhaps the reason why pro-peace Christianity reached out beyond the Jewish community. (Granted, pacifism can be conservative and insular, like the Amish Community, and militancy can be liberal and aggressive, like the expansionist goals of the Enlightenment to spread its truths to all corners of the world.) In time, it was Muhammad who demonstrated that militancy could become the stuff of universal faith, and its detonation led to shock effects still being felt today. The impact was a form of universalized zealotry. (The frightening Taiping Rebellion also resulted from fusion of militancy and messianism, though ironically inspired by Christianity.) Maybe if Zealots could have produced a messianic figure who went about converting and recruiting non-Jews in the war against Rome, the empire would have collapsed soon enough. Or, upon the Zealot-messiah's death, suppose the Romans eventually took up his banner of militant prophetic universalism as their own. While the pagan Romans were mighty and awesome, there is nothing more frightening than religious fanatics willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of God. It was one reason why communism conquered parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa but failed to make inroads into the Muslim World. (Consider what Indonesian Muslims did to communists following the failed 1965 coup.) And the USSR suffered terribly in Afghanistan. But then, in a way, communism was a secular formula of mixing universal messianism with militant zealotry. This formula(of missed opportunity?) was dramatized in the movie SPARTACUS(made from novel by Jewish Howard Fast and produced by Jewish Kirk Douglas). Though SPARTACUS is about a goy slave rebellion against Romans, the gladiator-rebels are like fantasy-Zealots. The difference is that whereas the real Zealots were staunchly tribalists who fought only for a narrow Jewish cause, Spartacus of legend arrives at a higher vision, the dream of uniting all slaves against the Empire. It is like a hypothetical fantasy of "WHAT IF the Zealots hadn't been so 'parochial' and had reached out to all peoples enslaved by the Romans?" Then, the Ancient Jewish Warriors need not have fought and died alone but could have led huge armies of slaves against the Roman slavers. Or, maybe the Romans themselves would have been so inspired by the vision that THEY chose to adopt the formula for themselves.
In a way, this was the dream of communism. Modern Jewish prophet-revolutionaries would lead ALL OF MANKIND toward liberation from greed and exploitation. In the Stanley Kubrick movie, Spartacus becomes the kind of messiah that the Zealots might have produced had they translated their passion into universal prophecy. Now, Jesus and Jewish Christians did eventually conquer the Romans spiritually but, in having done so, passed the spiritual secret of the Jews to the Gentiles who used it to grow more powerful and beat up on Jews(as Christ-killers). But if Zealots had produced a warrior messiah with a universal vision of justice, the Jewish-led rebellion might have physically, as well as spiritually, smashed the Roman Empire. And then, history would have been so very different.
The pagan Spartacus failed, but then, his cause was simply that of war and justice. He lacked spiritual vision. In contrast, Muhammad who fused spiritual vision with militancy achieved some of the most awesome feats in history. Jesus had spiritual vision but chose the path of pacifism, and so, He got clobbered and killed real bad, and it took a few centuries for the new Faith to begin to take hold and spread. In the current situation, Jews don't need to lead any rebellion because, with their control of Deep State and much else, they have control of the Goy Imperial Military to romp around the world to crush or encircle whatever enemies Jews don't like.


Anyway, Spencer fails to appreciate the spiritual(or Puritanical) foundation of America because he overlooks the Iron Triangle of Civilization. From the earliest to the latest forms of civilization, the complementary unity of the military caste, priestly class, and economic class was essential. To be sure, sometimes, these castes/classes overlapped. In aristocracies, the military caste owned most of the property and thus constituted a huge economic caste that worked with the economic class of merchants or middlemen. In some orders, the religious caste also took up arms. In a theocracy, it's not always easy to distinguish the boundary between the martial and the religious. In some ways, Islamic Civilization was a unity of fist and faith. Also, even though religion is now treated separately from the sciences(based on facts and reason), for most of humanity for most of history, the priestly caste/class was the intellectual and 'scientific'(or cosmological) component of society as well. Also, it must be noted that so many social scientists(and even hard scientists) in our time play quasi-priestly roles as upholders of Official Dogma and Iconography. Clerisy is the new clergy. And given the decadent and degenerate character of our times, even the Industry of Idolatry secured a role in upholding the New Sacred(albeit molded from the Profane, such as Homomania).

The truth is that no Order that wishes to last can rest on military might or economic might alone. It needs the third line of the triangle that lends spiritual meaning and moral justification. So, while it's true that America grew to greatness as the result of its business class and military class, it also owed to the American sense of righteousness and justification supplied by both its religious underpinning and philosophical foundation. Today, we think of religion, philosophy, and science as separate — religious colleges go almost totally ignored in most universities, and besides, most of them use religion merely as a tool for the latest globo-homo gospel — , but it wasn't so from the time of America's founding to mid-20th century America. Even though many of the Founding Fathers were Deists than devout religionists, most of the elites in all fields were Christian and did sincerely believe in God. Also, many of the top colleges were founded as religious schools, and even when they became more secular institutions, religious studies played an important role. It was the French than the American Revolution that put forth a new dichotomy that set political philosophy violently at odds with religion and spirituality. Even though the Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment that had grown critical of religion, the notion that one must choose either the State or the Church was more a European than an American crisis. The French Revolution went about demolishing the Church and clergy as tyrannical and superstitious bulwarks of tradition and reaction, not least because the power of Church and Monarchy had long been joined at the hip. In contrast, America was doubly removed from the dominant European Church(Catholicism). It grew out of Britain, a Protestant nation that had already cut ties with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the first religious communities in the Northeast Coast regarded themselves as being in defiance of the official church of England. So, the religious mindset that developed in Early America was more independent of the official Church of England(that naturally sided with the English King during the Revolutionary War). In a way, the religionists in America had a head-start over the secular forces in striving for independence from Britain. While the religionists hadn't the political and economic means to make themselves independent of the British Empire, they felt spiritually freed from the Official Church, and that mindset laid the moral foundation for the rebellion that arose among the Colonial intellectual and business class.
At any rate, by today's standards, most religious folks in Europe and America in the 17th and 18th centuries would come across as 'fanatics' and 'lunatics'. It makes no sense to judge people back then with standards today. Also, in our time, the kind of people who become religious fanatics are low IQ and fringe elements. Back then, many men of intelligence, vision, and talent became true believers. It's like, in our time, the worst dregs of society join organizations like Antifa, but there were many men of brilliance, insight, and integrity who joined radical far-left movements in the 19th century and early 20th century. Whatever one may say of men like Lenin or Trotsky, they were no dummies. Likewise, the religious pioneers who sailed across the Atlantic to found new communities were people of real courage, vision, and some integrity even though their views may seem 'extreme' to us. Just consider. The people of Waco Compound were mostly slouches and parasites. Even as they sought separateness, they totally leeched off the state. In contrast, the first religious communities in America were formed by men and women who were willing to risk everything to found a new order. They were men and women of conviction, not just members of some cult.

Until the French Revolution that drew a clear line between secular ideology and religious culture, most of Western Civilization operated in a middle ground between reason and religion. And given that most men in the sciences and philosophy at the time were also religious — they used science to understand the ways of God, not to disprove Him — , religious thought was part and parcel of intellectual culture. It was considerably later, especially with the rise of Darwinism(along with geology and modern physics), that a decisive break took hold between religious thought and philosophy. (And then, with the progress of specialization in the sciences, a break happened between philosophy and science. For most of history, science and math were regarded as fields of philosophy. But as knowledge of the material world became more extensive and complicated, the traditional philosophical approach, which relied heavily on contemplation and rumination along the line of "I think, therefore I am", came to be increasingly marginalized and disregarded by hard scientists who decided that the truth couldn't be ascertained by contemplation or speculation but only by experimentation and hard evidence. In other words, to really understand the workings of the mind, it was better to actually study the matter-and-energy of brain functions than apply logic to one's contemplation of the mind. The 'Platonic' aspect of philosophy lost out. Empiricism, once a field of philosophy, became just about the only real thing. Ontology > Phenomenology. Because science broke free from philosophy and grew in prominence(in inverse proportion to philosophy, whose last truly relevant representatives were maybe Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus), even figures who relied more on contemplation and speculation, such as Sigmund Frued and Carl Jung, claimed to be 'scientists' committed the 'experimental method'. But over time, they were discredited as scientists and, if they still commanded respect from certain corners, it was as 'thinkers' and culture-theorists than as men of medicine. But then, the triumph of science over philosophy didn't mean that the New Era would be governed by Reason over Religion. In a superficial way, the story of the Modern World has been one of science and technology gaining predominance and the inexorable decline of religion(despite Islamic resurgence in certain parts of the world). And yet, despite the weakening of traditional religions such as Christianity and Buddhism, most people(from elites down to the masses) didn't become more rational, empirical, and logical. They merely erected new gods to replace the old ones. Marxism, as we all should know by now, became a secular religion with its own gods, sacraments, symbols, and canon. And so-called Liberal Democracies worshiped new gods like MLK and Mandela(and other Magic Negro figures). Indeed, given the mania for the Noble Negro, it wouldn't do to suggest that blacks have lower IQ because it would undercut the cult of Negro genius and wisdom. The elites began to preach mindless sermons about Diversity and Inclusion without making a logical or factual case for either. What began as a movement for 'gay rights' turned into a neo-religion of Gay Rites whereby homos(and even trannies) were to be regarded as saints and angels, the kind of people who should be running Boy Scouts and reading fairy-tales to children. And of course, Homomania says churches should be festooned with 'gay-rainbow' colors. And then, there is the neo-pagan idolatry of celebrity whereby entertainers aren't merely fun figures or figures-of-fun but demigods around whose vaunted status our lives are supposed to revolve. PC is religious dogma without the traditional religion, and Pop Culture is pagan idolatry without the old superstition. Their effect on the world has proven that a society can be made by science and technology but operated on the social, cultural, and political level by Men and Women spellbound by new charms and taboos.

Anyway, on the matter of America, there was the need for the Iron Triangle, and its 'puritanism' or 'spiritual reformism' was one side of the triangle, the other sides being the martial spirit and business know-how. One could also speak of the political or governmental class, but it was largely an extension of the business class and intellectual class(which, even up to the 20th century, was closely aligned with religious values; the role of Christianity in US universities cannot be underestimated up to early 20th century). Even though the military class is glorified and moneyed class is glamorized, whereas the religious class is often regarded as humorless party-poopers — Moses return from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments was a real downer for the Golden Calf revelers — , the truth is no Order could last long without strong moral-spiritual element. Assyrians and Mongols were great warriors. They conquered much of the known world, struck fear into hearts of their rivals, and were held in awe by their subjects. But rule-by-might, in lacking a moral or deep spiritual element, soon becomes resented and hated. If a bank-robber holds a gun to you and tells you what to do, you obey out of fear, not out of respect. Thus, a power predicated only on military might cannot last too long. It lasts only as long as the Fear Factor holds out. It's like, the moment we realize we can overcome the robber with the gun, he is finished. We'll just pile on him and beat him up. So, when the military might of Assyrians and Mongols began to weaken, their empires collapse rapidly, almost overnight. The greatest pagan conquerors of the Ancient World gained more territory than Muhammad did in his lifetime, but they failed to leave behind lasting civilizations. In contrast, Islamic Civilization is still with us. Why? It had a powerful moral-spiritual side to its Iron Triangle. And when the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, what was the ONE civilizational idea that survived and, if anything, came to culturally and spiritually conquer the Germanic warriors, the very people who'd laid waste to Rome? It was Christianity.
Now, it's true enough that pagans also had spiritual beliefs and customs. Every society did. Then, why didn't their spiritual concepts have the kind of lasting power that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam did? It was because pagan religions tended to be amoral(or even immoral). And even their moralism was wobbly. So, even as Zeus and Apollo were seen as upholders of order and justice, they often acted like men of power who all-too-often abused their advantage over humans(and lesser gods). And we know the Aztec gods demanded human sacrifice on a massive scale, as did some of the gods of Mesopotamia. In contrast, the spiritual idea that flowed from Judaism maintained that there is the one true God, and He isn't just about might but unity of might and right. He is a just God who favors the good(and weak) over the evil(and powerful). Granted, the Jewish God had nothing against a people being Good and Powerful. Indeed, He promised the Jews that if they acted good, He would bless them with power and mastery over the world. But it seemed good Jews fared no better than bad Jews. One thing for sure, both kinds of Jews came under Roman domination. As God didn't seem to be blessing the good Jews much, there arose the figure of Jesus who said being Good and being Powerful(and/or Rich) cannot co-exist. You could be Good & weak or Bad & powerful. But, the Good & weak shall triumph because they, and only they, shall be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven to be with God. Some people think that Jesus' blessings upon the Good & weak means that the poor, wretched, diseased, enslaved, and oppressed are the Salt of the Earth. Not true. Jesus believed that a man can be poor & oppressed but still an evil son of a bitch. To be Good, one had to have a good heart. If one was poor and oppressed BUT craved riches and power, he was wicked of heart, indeed no better than a tyrant with riches and power. Jesus saw poverty as a path to goodness but ONLY when it was voluntary and without complaint. If a man is poor but wants to be rich, he is wicked of heart. A truly good man accepts his poverty as personal choice. He understands poverty is good because he has willfully relinquished materialism and fleshly desires. He has made himself free of the bondage of Earthly wants. As Jesus saw it, the desire for riches and power is a form of slavery. It is soul's bondage to the fleeting temptations of the world. For the soul to be free, it must choose eternity in heaven over ephemera on earth. Therefore, willful poverty is the first stage toward choosing the spiritual life. (There is something similar among military figures as well, even though they are very much men of the world. To be a true warrior, one must forsake affluence and comfort. One must be willing to fight and die for honor. Thus, self-denial and spartan commitment to hardship are the path to true glory for the fighting man. The true man of war sees affluence and leisure as bondage to comfort that is the bane of warrior spirit. Once a man becomes attached to the pleasures of the world, he loses the will to put his life on the line for honor and glory.) This is why so much of current Christianity is corrupted. Instead of seeing poverty as a positive good, the pathway toward salvation, it sees poverty as a curse that must be overcome by mass migration-invasion of the First World. If true Christianity preaches to people to voluntarily choose poverty, the current Christianity tells people that their poverty is awful, and therefore, they must escape it by moving to America, Europe, or Japan(though never Israel). Also, it presumes that poor people are naturally good because Jesus went among the poor. But, Jesus didn't go among the poor to preach against poverty but to convince them to embrace poverty as a good thing, the path to true virtue and salvation. His idea was that poor people should not ask much from the world. They should be content with having little, devote their lives to prayer, transcend temptations of the flesh, and finally attain spiritual salvation. In contrast, there is nothing Christian-minded among all those Third World peoples seeking entry into the West. They just want better material lives. Now, that's perfectly understandable as most people want more stuff and more comfort. But, there is nothing Christian about people taking leave of their own nations, cultures, and folks to find more material stuff and comfort in another. They could even be coming to the West for Mammon as well as material comfort, especially as America's 'soft power' of Pop Cultural hegemony has filled countless minds with the impression that everyone's having a great time with sex, dance, and revelry in the West. Notice that many who come to the West are not hungry or diseased. Many of them just want more fun. Western Churches that welcome these 'salt of the earth' are sure to be disappointed because, once the children of these materialist-minded immigrants/migrants can get 'what is mine', the last thing on their minds is morality or spiritual salvation. And if their parents are religious, it's because they want to pray for more money and bigger house.

Anyway, no order can last long on money or might alone. While most people want to be rich and admire/envy the rich, there is no real respect for wealth alone(unless one happens to be a libertarian). It's good to be rich than poor, but most people know that money doesn't equal integrity, goodness, nobility of soul, and soundness of spirit. After all, some of the most famous rich people are louts like movie stars and rock stars. Or charlatans like Oprah or mega-church hustlers. And even people of genuine intelligence and talent who got super-rich often turn out to be shallow a**holes or scumbags, like Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, not to mention George Soros and the Koch Brothers. Money can buy loyalty but only in the way a man can buy a whore. When the money dries up, there is no loyalty left. Or the whores of the world just go to those who can pay MORE. This is why Jews understand that their power cannot rest on money alone. Jews with their great wealth can buy a lot of loyalty, but there is no guarantee that their minions really love or care about them. Whores aren't loyal to anyone or anything. They will go with the money. Because Jews got so much money, they can buy up a lot of whores. But there are other groups with money too. Another problem is that those with money draw the most attention and come under the most scrutiny. Granted, Jews with their money can buy up media outlets and rely on tribesmen in the academia to go easy on Jews and distract attention from Jewish Power by spreading hysteria about Russia-Russia-Russia, Iran and Muslim Threat, or Yellow Peril. Or Jews can put homos out in front as the face of power and privilege, thus deflecting criticism that should really be directed at Jewish Power. Still, if Jews only had money power, they would be very vulnerable. After all, Anglo-American elites had lots of money power, but they kept losing in power and prestige year after year, especially since the 60s, as their moral standing eroded under pressures from various social movements and cultural trends. If anything, the power and wealth of Anglo-Americans became the focus of attack by Jews, blacks, and the Left. Money power without Moral power means less justification for a people's wealth and influence.
Now, a group can use Fear as well as Money, the old carrots-and-sticks trick. Gangsters operate along such lines. They "make you an offer you can't refuse". And Jews have been big in organized crime, a fact covered up by the Jew-run media and entertainment emphasizing Italian-American gangs over Jewish ones. But what works in the criminal world works less in the legitimate world. Use of fear and terror may be able to take out other gangsters and little people, but it'd be too risky with big-time politicians, oligarchs, and respected individuals in media and academia. Indeed, consider all the furor over the Saudi killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a globalist-journalist with connections to Washington Post.
This is where Control of Morality becomes crucial. Once a moral paradigm takes hold in society, anyone can be intimidated by the fear of heresy. In the current West, Shoah has become sacrosanct, thereby shrouding Jews with tragic holiness. Jews, merely by being Jewish, are seen as a special people to whom the rest of humanity must apologize, show respect, and shower with praise. Thus, Jewish use of fear need not be with a gun or garrote. It can merely be with words. Because Jews are holy-schmoly, they can threaten anyone with the charge of 'antisemitism'. Even a fat, gross, and odious Jew like the guy in JURASSIC PARK can get a lot of mileage by pointing his finger at goyim and screaming 'nazi'. He's just like Abe Foxman.

The way Jews exploit the Holocaust and wield it like a weapon shows the dark side of morality. Morality, at its best, is about being conscientious and self-critical of one's failings, an honest attempt to be a better person. Or, it's about working with other members of the community to uphold the Golden Rule by censuring those who violate it. But too many people use morality as a holier-than-thou stick to beat others with. Jews are the champions of this. If Jews were just as hard on themselves as on others, their moral berating of rest of humanity would be more tolerable. But Jews, who wallow in all sorts of filth and corruption for their self-aggrandizement, are always preaching to OTHERS about their failings. Sometimes, Jews accuse OTHERS of the very problems that they themselves are most responsible for. It's no wonder there is a saying, "A Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." In the US, what is the charge of 'white supremacism' but a deflection and projection on the part of Jews. By screaming about 'white supremacism', Jews deflect our attention from Jewish Supremacism that really rules America. Also, it's a projection of Jewish supremacism onto others. Just consider. A man like Jared Taylor(who only wants a world of his own and doesn't want to rule over other races) cannot even use Paypal and Twitter, but the Jew-run media would have us believe that the US is under threat by 'white supremacists' like him, Kevin MacDonald, and David Duke. Such men don't have much money and zero allies in the Establishment. In contrast, Jewish billionaire oligarchs buy up whore politicians and appoint Deep State goons to destroy entire parts of the world to serve the interests of Israel that continues to occupy West Bank. And half the states(blue and red) have anti-BDS laws that violate the US Constitution in favor of Zionist supremacism over justice for Palestinians. And yet, Jewish Supremacist bleat on and on about 'white supremacism', as if David Duke or Richard Spencer are on the verge of taking over the nation. Jews are among the worst practitioners of morality because their cultural psychology is based on a contradiction. Jews believe there is only one God, therefore only one Power and Justice for all of humanity. So far so good. But the Jewish Covenant says this one and only God favors Jews above all other peoples. Jews are special, goyim are not. Today, most Jews are secular, but his mental habit persists in their worldview. On the one hand, Jews act as though there is only One Truth(as concocted by Jews of course) for all of mankind, and Jews push this globo-homo agenda on every people... except on themselves. Consider how Jews handle Free Speech. Free Speech is good all around the world in the sense that Jews should have the freedom to criticize and condemn any race, ethnic group, or nationality... but NO people better do the same to Jews. If anyone dares to speak truth to Jewish Power, it is 'hate speech', thus not free speech. But Jews can spew the worst kind of filth against Russia, Iran, China, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, Turks, Greeks, Italians, Poles, white Americans, and etc. Is such vileness the product of Jewish cultural attitude? Or is there something genetic in the Jewish Personality that makes them so obsessively nasty, vicious, and hypocritical?
Granted, Jews are not the only people to have wielded morality in ugly and dark ways. Christians have done this forever, acting holier-than-thou and condemning others of immorality and/or heresy while indulging in corruption, avarice, and egotism. Still, because Christianity says God loves all peoples equally, it wouldn't be good form for one bunch of Christians to feel and act like they and only they have a special connection to God. And even if they did, they would still believe that others could be converted to their creed. In contrast, Jews are so used to thinking that the one and only God favors them over all others. Therefore, even though both groups have been spectacularly hypocritical through the ages, Christians are bound to be more troubled by awareness of hypocrisy, whereas Jews regard that very hypocrisy as the central tenet of the Covenant: There is only one God who has one truth for all of humanity, BUT He chose Jews over all others, so Jews get pass-over privilege that don't apply to goyim.
Besides, most goy nations just mind their own business and do not dictate world policy. Iran is mostly about Iran. Syria is mostly about Syria. Hungary is mostly about Hungary. Even big nations like Russia and China pursue national sovereignty. They will do business with the world but don't tell other nations how to run their own affairs. In contrast, Jews are always acting like they are the torch-bearers of universal human rights when, if anything, they manipulate World Events(from their cabin in Battleship America) to serve Jewish Supremacist interests.

Nicky Santoro and crew in Martin Scorsese's CASINO demonstrate the limits of money and might. The fellas remain loyal to Nicky out of greed and fear. Stick with Santoro, and they can make some serious bucks. Also, they fear displeasing Santoro because he is psychotic. But there was never any real love or respect there. And when they finally decide they have more to gain by having Santoro and his brother killed, they do so without a smidgen of remorse. In contrast, there was real respect among the Disciples for Jesus, and this is why Peter who denied Jesus three times later breaks down in guilt and devotes his life to atoning for his betrayal. Having saved his own life by denying Jesus, he eventually gives his life in service to Jesus. Morality is the best kind of fear and best kind of reward. It makes a person feel righteous in what he does. It's like a soldier who is committed to a moral cause fears betrayal as a stain on his soul than a mere breach of contract. Also, facing death, a soldier who believes in the rightness of his cause feels a sense of reward even at the cost of his own life. He feels that his sacrifice was worth it for a just cause. Why did North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers fight harder than the South Vietnamese troops even though the latter had better arms, supplies, food, and pay? Because the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong passionately felt the justness of their cause whereas South Vietnamese troops felt as mere mercenaries and lackey of a foreign empire. It's the same reason why Castro's patriotic guerrillas prevailed over the mercenaries of the Batista regime that had lots of money and muscle but NO respect among the populace.

Richard Spencer bitches about how everyone left him high and dry after Charlottesville, but what has been the theme of Spencer-ism? Vanity, ego, narcissism. All so vapid and hollow. So, sure, when he was riding high as the glamorous enfant terrible poster-boy of the Alt Right, a bunch of guys gravitated toward him. But once he was struck down by the Power and made to look small-and-weak, guys who'd once looked up to him saw him as pitiful and pathetic. Even in persecution and defeat, the Disciples loved Jesus because they regarded Him as a great and profound moral-spiritual figure. Spencer hardly put forth a moral-humanist vision for the cause. Instead, it was all about political celebritydom, his own ego-tour. Because he'd relied so much on shallow factors to be catapulted into the limelight, he could easily be made to fall on his ass once those factors were removed. Spencer was made and unmade by the media. As Spencer likes to say, 'It is what it is'. There is nothing to Spencerism or Spenceristics but the Image. If his followers truly respected him, they would have felt some remorse for their running away and would have returned to the fold. But by all personal accounts, Spencer has lost the trust and/or respect of those around him by words and actions that struck others as rash, childish, selfish, or even deranged. Also, some of his associates, like Kyle Bristow, turned out to be mentally deranged. Spencer is like a selfish player in team sports who, in trying to hog all the attention, makes foolish moves instead of working generously with others. Furthermore, Spencer has no right to bitch about those who ditched him because they dropped him on the basis of his own standards. Spencer is all about power, power, power and sneers at 'slave morality'. Well, if those are the rules — power, power, power uber alles — , why should anyone stick around Spencer who has no power and has been bitch-slapped by Jewish Power that drags him around like a dog? If power is the measure of everything, Spencer deserves no respect and no loyalty since he can't even use Paypal and has to walk on eggshells to barely remain on Twitter. Spencer has to be Jack Dorsey's bitch to keep his last connection to social network. If Spencer insists that power, power, power is the only true golden rule, then he really cuts a weak, wimpy, pitiful, and pathetic figure. For all his Faustian-Nietzschean yammering, it appears his 15 min of fame rested entirely on media attention. Once the media spotlight was shut off, he was instantly turned into a nobody again. So much for power. If Spencer's sermon to the world is POWER is all that matters, then he should logically worship the Jews who have the most power. At least, cucks like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney know who has the real power. And logically, NO ONE should follow Spencer since he has no power. He can't even control his wife. And how can he expect anyone to respect him after standing for a photo in front of a giant homo symbol?

Morality is the best weapon for those without power. And even as they gain power(and possibly even dominance), they must maintain the Moral Narrative to justify the power. This is why Islam has lasted for so long. Muhammad began without power, but he had a spiritual vision and embarked on a powerful moral mission. And Jews lasted for so long because their identity wasn't only about money and might but about spiritual connection to God and moral destiny in the world. And the explosive power of communism also owed to its moral component, without which the whole enterprise would have fallen apart like so many radical anarchist movements that soon gave into nihilism.
Granted, morality is a double-edged sword. The morality with which you or your kind judge others to justify your rise to power can be used against you and your kind by others. Morality can be a wind on your back or wind against your face. What this suggests is that all power must understand their limits. The greedier you are for power, the more likely you are to trample on others, thereby losing grasp of the justification for power. In an amoral world, the people will support the man of power who conquers most. But in a moral world, the people will support your aggression only if it's morally-spiritually justified. The pagan Roman masses or Mongol masses loved whomever was winning. But the Christian West became ever more moral, and that meant its expansion around the world had to be morally-spiritually justified to maintain support at home, and that was why themes of Christian conversion(of the heathens) and spreading the Light of Civilization became so crucial to the Western Enterprise. Such moral passion had an empowering effect because it made the West feel not only powerful but justified in its hegemonic expansion. The Spanish didn't want to believe that they were in South America only for gold. It was for God as for gold. Now, one can argue that it was all very cynical and hypocritical for the Hispanic Europeans to uphold spirituality as a moral front to hide the insatiable greed that really motivated the imperialism.
But, we can still appreciate how the Moral Factor can go so far in making Power feel justified and good. Likewise, the prestige of the Soviet Union in its heyday was not only that it had become an industrial power and defeated mighty Germany. It was the moral component of Marxism. In contrast, Fascism and National Socialism failed to gain as many admirers around the world because they seemed to be more about power-for-power's sake than power-for-moral-cause. While non-fascists and even anti-fascists were, for a time, impressed by Italian Fascist showmanship and awed by National Socialist German might, they couldn't feel much of an emotional or ethical connection to a movement where Power was so much into Muscle-Flexing. This is why Neo-Fascism has to be humanist and nationalist. It mustn't regard humans as cannon-fodder for the whims of Great Man(like how Harry Lime feels about most people in THIRD MAN), and it must acknowledge that every people have a need for their own space, heritage, and pride. Then, in a world of mutual respect, the nations can get along and work with one another. Ironically, Jews and Spencerists have in common a nihilistic-supremacism. Jews now claim to be pro-war in the name of spreading 'democracy' or 'universal values', but it's really to submit the entire world to Jewish Hegemony. Spencer claimed to be anti-war in his opposition to Trump's lobbing missiles at Syria, but his real beef wasn't with imperialism per se but that it was serving the Jewish imperialists. So, if the US were controlled by his ilk, Spencer would be okay with lobbing missiles everywhere to create a Darth-Vaderian world where he, as 007-Batman, gets to rule everything. ROTFL.

Given Spencer's vapid vanity and celebrity-nihilism, it's understandable why he admires the American themes of Money and Might but has nothing but rebuke for its Moralism. It's like a child loves to receive allowance and read superhero comics(about men of might) but hates to be dragged to church. (Even though superhero comics are about good guys vs bad guys, their main appeal is about power. After all, if Superman lost his power but became even 'gooder', who'd want to 'read' about him?) All little boys prefer money and might to morality. But boys eventually grow into men, and men must understand Good and Evil; they must appreciate the moral meaning of life. But Spencer is stuck on Batman/Star-Wars fanboy mentality. Though he studied Western philosophy, his basic (pseudo)intellectual and cultural mindset is stuck on Pop Culture. Now, if he were honest about this, it'd be no big deal(as plenty of men his age are still stuck on childish pop culture), but he continues to window-dress his comicbook fantasies by alluding to the Western Canon. When it comes to the mythology of the superhero, M. Night Shyamalan is far more interesting in discerning the disturbed relation between human frailties and mythic fantasies(in such films as UNBREAKABLE and SPLIT) as crutch. Myth is both inspiration and 'incapacitation'. The power of myth can motivate people into action in the real world, or it can offer escapism from the real world. Notice all those white guys who've given up on the future and withdraw into the superhero world of video games where they zap a million 'virtual' enemies. Myth can be tonic or opioid, something well-understood by Shyamalan.
But people like Spencer are too full of themselves to be self-aware. Too many on the Alt Right, due to their lack of moral or spiritual grounding, are incapable of Confession. By Confession, I don't mean something necessarily for public consumption, like the autobiographical works of St. Augustine or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Indeed, Confession can be wholly private, between oneself and God, between oneself and the Truth, or between oneself and oneself. It is a way of realizing one's own failings, shortcomings, limitations, betrayals, and regrets. Given so many of Spencer's failings and setbacks, plus the fact of his near-total lack of culpability in his problems personal and political, it seems he is incapable of Confessing anything, even to himself. There was a reason why Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad all retreated into contemplation and self-purging before embarking on their missions. Before they could preach unto others, they had to be true with themselves and realize their own faults. People have mocked Jordan Peterson for advising them to 'make their own beds' first. Though no great fan of Peterson myself, his advice was, of course, meant as metaphor. It means you must order your own life before embarking on bigger things. Spencer, who can't even be trusted to run a family or small organization, can hardly be trusted to lead a movement of thousands, let alone millions. He is incapable of Confession. Not that those who are religious are necessarily any more capable of Confession. Nicholas J. Fuentes is Catholic, but religiosity is used as a crutch, a short-cut to self-righteous sanctimony. In his case, religiosity means he never has to confess because God is on his side, and that's that. He doesn't even have to grapple with real science, like evolution. It's a smug kind of spirituality.

For a go-getter like Spencer, moralism is a drag, a scold that says you can't do this or that. Naturally, those motivated by might or money feel fewer restraints in trying to get what they want. In contrast, moralists worry and grapple as to whether they're doing right or wrong. On the other hand, some of greatest adventurers have been moralists because moral consciousness can be utopian and/or revolutionary as well as self-abnegating and self-denying. It's like Muslims have a double-meaning for Jihad. In one way, it means righteous and aggressive war against the Infidels to crush them or convert them. This aspect of Jihad is proud and expansionary. But Jihad can also mean a confessional self-purging of the soul, a war waged on one's own moral and spiritual turpitude in order to restore one's true self. This is why moralists can be the biggest drag on or the biggest push for ambition. When moralists have doubts about a certain project, enterprise, or war, they come forth to condemn the plan as immoral. But if they see righteousness in a certain cause, they will be the loudest voices calling for war, be it social, cultural, or militaristic. During the Vietnam War, moralists ended up on the side of 'peace'. But earlier, during the period leading up to World War II, some of the loudest moralists(on the Liberal and Leftist side of course) were for war(against evil Nazis).

Spencer hates the Northeast Coast Puritan and/or Reformist heritage because he conflates it with all the SJW or NPC nonsense we see all around us. He seems to believe such mindset was always anti-white or on the 'left', but it wasn't always so. For much of American History, the Protestant Reformists(with roots in Puritanism) were on the side of white identity, white power, and white expansion. Their view of America as a City on a Hill with a unique destiny lent moral and spiritual blessing on the White American Project.
Furthermore, the Southern Aristocracy, though proud of their military honor, were also moralistic in defense of their local power and customs. After all, Southern Whites regarded slavery not merely as an economic system but a moral good in transforming black savages into semi-civilized folks. In their own way, the Southerners were just as moralistic as the Northeast Protestants. And for a time, their moral visions complemented one another as the slave trade and economy couldn't have been possible without the cooperation between North and South. Eventually, their moral visions diverged, but this is where the North was on firmer grounds because, surely, an argument against slavery is more moral than argument for slavery. No matter how much the South tried to morally defend slavery, it wasn't very convincing because of the nature of slavery and the principles of American Founding that stressed the dignity of man. Now, if the South wanted to make a moral case against Emancipation of Black Slaves, the ONLY justification would have been on biological grounds: Whites and Blacks are naturally different, with blacks being naturally stronger, more aggressive, more impulsive, and less intelligent. Also, as free black guys could easily whup white guys, white men would lose manhood if the races were integrated. Also, as black men got more muscle and bigger dongs than white men, white guys would suffer not only beatings but the humiliation of seeing their women get infected with jungle fever and run off with Negroes to give birth to Negrolets. In a way, Abraham Lincoln understood this. Though he knew that the Abolitionists were too naive in their idealism, he also knew that Southern moralism about slavery was hogwash. While it was true that African savages surely gained something under white rule, the fact was slavery was really about profits and greed. Lincoln sought a middle-ground between the naive & zealous Abolitionists and the disingenuous Southern apologists of slavery. He instinctively grasped the problems that would result from racial differences. Having had humble beginnings, he may have developed a more clear-eyed view of Negro men and their strength. He was caught between two moralistic camps, one that wallowed in righteous supremacism on account of wanting to free the slaves AND one that indulged in racial supremacism on account of civilizing the savage Negroes via the 'necessary evil' of slavery. In both camps, there was the unity of 'martiality' and morality. Abolitionists were so morally righteous in their fury that they called for use of military might on the South; and Southern whites were so proud of their culture of military honor that they summoned moral justification to maintain the system of black bondage. It was moralism-to-might vs might-to-moralism. At any rate, even the South understood that it couldn't justify slavery on might and money alone because such moral logic would have implied the South only cared about might and money. People want to feel morally justified. There is honor even among thieves. The lesson of the American Civil War points to the danger not only of naive moralism(of the Abolitionists) but disingenuous moralism(of the Southern Aristocracy). Lincoln had good sense because he was about Moral Realism. He understood that slavery wasn't tenable in the American Republic(and increasingly around the world awakening to moral progress and dignity of man) but also understood that reality isn't merely about 'good intentions', i.e. no matter how well-intentioned the Abolitionist may have been, the fact remained that racial differences were real and blacks posed a real threat to the white race. This is why Lincoln suggested, "We must free the Negroes and give them a separate nation because them black boys will kick our ass and take our womenfolk."

Regardless of the founding principles of any order, there are more than one way to employ those principles. Just like every side invoked God as being on its side in war(even when the worshiped the same God), there was no guarantee that the founding moral principles of America would naturally favor one side over another. Rather, it is the side that works hardest, toughest, and smartest that gets to use the moralism to its benefit. Take the Jews. There is no guarantee that the essence of the Shoah Narrative will support Zionism. Zionism can be spun as a moral response to the horrors of the Holocaust or an immoral betrayal of its lessons. One can argue that Jews need a homeland to preserve themselves from a potentially hostile world OR one can argue that Jews have acted like Nazis against the Palestinians. As all of history is diseased with germs of human compromise, even the 'good guys' and 'saints' are tarnished with much 'sin'. America was a great creation, but the native Indians had to be 'genocided'. In World War II, aka the 'Good War', the good guys beat the bad guys, but even the good guys did an awful lot of bad shit... and even the bad guys had some redeeming qualities. Imperialism destroyed so many peoples and cultures around the world but also paved the way for something new and promising. And anti-imperialist struggles overcame foreign invaders, but sometimes the results were more horrific than conditions under foreign rule: Cambodia under Khmer Rouge and Uganda under Idi Amin. So, the good and bad will always be mixed in history, and that means there is no guarantee that a set of moral principles will favor one side over another. It largely depends on who gets to spin the narrative. It's usually those with the most resolve, commitment, talent, intelligence, drive, and money. Blaming America's moralism for White Decline is disingenuous because that very moralism had been so useful for white power throughout US history. It was useful against the American Indians: White folks brought vision and hope to a land inhabited by crazy savages. It was useful against blacks: White folks need to rule over blacks who were savages in Africa and in need of a strong guiding hand. It was useful for Anglo-Americans in relation to white ethnic immigrants: Anglo-Americans achieved the most and attained the highest levels of civilization and progress, therefore newcomers must assimilate to Anglo-Americanism. (For a time, even many Jews agreed with the template.) It was useful for America's entry into the Game of Empire: The US should exert hegemony over places like Philippines because it's the moral duty of White America to uplift backward peoples. All these actions were sanctioned by American brand of moralism, and the result was expansion of White American power around the world.
Why did things begin to change? There was, to be sure, a brand of Moral Reformism that became perhaps overly critical of the failings of one's own civilization. But then, a civilization is better off with some critical element than wholly without. Without sharp criticism, a social order will grow accustomed to all its failings and grow stagnant. Most civilizations throughout history were uncritical of themselves and fell into decline, like Byzantium, Persians, Ottomans, and Manchu-ruled China. Granted, excessive self-criticism can also be debilitating, but for most of American History, there was a balance between the constructive side and critical side. Then, what upended this balance? One reason was the Jews with a stronger and more ingenious Culture of Critique. Also, whereas Anglo-Americans had the vision thing and reformist mentality, they were no match for Jews with their prophetic ability of threading so many strands of history, philosophy, science, and spirituality into a single unified idea. Even if history has disproved many ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, they captivated and fascinated many prominent people because of their ability to bring together so many disparate ideas and trends into a Total Vision. And the reason why Ayn Rand has such a cult following was the combination of her force of personality and totalizing concept of the Individual-as-Hero grounded in history, philosophy, and myth. Right or wrong, Big Ideas tend to prevail over small ideas, just like the concept of the one and only God beat out all the little pagan gods. It may be that the more modest Anglo/American empiricism offered a keener grasp of the truth via the accumulation of facts under the careful gaze of logic, but the mytho-spiritual side of man favors something of grand faith than minute facts. Even though Marx, Freud, and Rand claimed to be scientific and logical, the totality of their ideas came across as so awesome or profound that their admirers felt as if in the presence of higher power, a god(or at least a prophet). But even among less famous Jews with smaller ideas, there was the force of personality and persistence of will that intimidated and overwhelmed many white goyim who, being less intense in will and personality, caved under the spell of Jews. The rise of Jewish Power was crucial because it tipped the balance in favor of White Criticism over White Constructionism, in favor of White Guilt over White Pride. Prior to the rise of Jews, white guilt and white pride had been more-or-less in balance, somewhat tipped in favor of white pride that made white might possible. But once Jews gained greater influence in the White System, they provided added weight to white guilt on the seesaw of White Morality, and that is why white pride lost out. Still, it must be remembered that so much of white progress owed to a balance of white pride and white guilt. It was guilt that made for conscience and social progress toward more dignity for the common man. People like Spencer scoff at the notion of the 'common man' because, having read Nietzsche and watched BATMAN & 007 100x, they are obviously of the superior breed, which is why Spencer, in all his brilliance and wisdom, rushed into a marriage that soon proved loveless and then made an ass of himself with a bunch of hoors.

There was nothing inevitable about the foundational principles(be it spiritual, moral, or philosophical) of America eventually leading the nation to the state it is now. While SJW feminists with green hair, pins through their noses, and tattoos on their asses may appear to have the kind of quasi-religious zeal common among the Old Puritans, there was no certainty that religious puritanism would lead to the current degeneracy. Iran was established as an Islamic Republic with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, but will Islamic puritanism or Fundamentalism lead to rise of green-hair feminist wenches in that country? Also, the foundational principles of modern Russia and China weren't laid down by religious zealots, but they sure went through some extreme periods of radical madness. While the 'puritanical' streak in America, in and of itself, could have been dangerous, it was mostly constructive in co-existence with American emphases on might and money. Just like the US government had checks and balance among the executive brand, legislative branch, and judicial branch, the American Civilization had a balance among the entrepreneurial class, military class(which, in some ways, included all armed Americans), and spiritual/reformist class(which, until the early 20th century, consisted of unity of pragmatic philosophy and reformist religion). The three influences checked and balanced each other, tempering the excesses of any particular one. American capitalism was restrained from materialistic excesses by moralism and religion. American ambition for more power was tempered by moral conscience and pragmatism of the business class. And American religiosity was checked by secular and material concerns. Perhaps, the problem is that the Separation of Church and State overlooked the danger that social philosophy or ideology could also become something like a quasi-religion. So, even though theocratic power was prevented from taking control of Americanism(due to individualism inherent in democracy and property rights), a quasi-religion like Jew-worship, MLK-worship, and Homoamania were allowed to become official state dogma and policy. Because such are not religions in the technical sense, they could worm into the power of the state. So, while courts could strike down School Prayer and display of Ten Commandments on government buildings, the fact remained that cults like Negro-worship, Jew-worship, and Homo-worship could slip by Rules and Principles governing separation of Church and State. Then, what we need is something more than Separation of Church and State. We need separation of Worship and State. Anything, even if not technically religious, that is worshiped and protected by taboos & sacraments must be forbidden to become the official dogma of the State. We should know from communist history that a state can turn even mortals and a materialist philosophy into something akin to a religion. US found a way to prevent the rise of theocracy but failed to forestall an ideocracy and idolatry because secular quasi-religions could slip into the inner sanctum of power as rational or political concerns. Take mantras like 'Diversity Is Our Strength' or DIOS. They aren't rational ideas or arguments but mindless matters of faith that one is expected to repeat and accept on faith... because if you raise questions about the validity, you will be hounded as a heretic.
The sheer illogic of the Official Dogma is evident in how the Progs lionize both Indigenous Folks and Immigrants. But in fact, indigenous folks of America were destroyed by mass immigration-invasion from the Old World. More immigration meant more westward expansion into indigenous Indian territory, and that meant less land for the natives. So, it makes no sense to honor both indigenous folks and immigrants in the same breath. Now, Jews who control the media and academia are trying to pull a dirty trick. According to twisted Jewish logic, both indigenous folks and immigrants(esp non-white ones) have been at odds with White Americans. After all, white Americans came and took land from the indigenous Indians. And white Americans, for a long time, allowed mostly white immigration while excluding non-whites. But this overlooks the fact that whites in America also arrived as conquerors, settlers, and immigrants. And non-whites, such as blacks and Chinese, did their part in building Modern America that finished off the Indians. Also, if white folks who 'stole' land from the Indians owe something to the natives, I can't think of anything worse than allowing MORE IMMIGRATION so that the once-Indian-land will fill up even more with foreigners from the Old World or with browns from South of the Border who have no roots in North America. Notice how the devious Jews have defined both 'indigenous' folks and 'immigrant' folks as belonging to the same 'progressive' camp of Diversity when, if anything, it was the coming of Immigration and Diversity that laid waste to the indigenous native folks and cultures of the Americas. (And it seems most Indians are too stupid to even realize this.)

Anyway, there are many ways to use moralism to justify just about anything. In the end, those with the power decide. Granted, there are limits to any system on the basis of its foundational principles. Marxist-Leninist principles made it difficult to introduce market reforms into communist systems because ideology does matter. And the US Constitution does put brakes on Jewish Globalist attempt to take away our speech-and-gun rights. Also, when a system does something that goes against its moral foundations, there is bound to be contradictions that may lead to crisis. America's founding as a Nation for Free Peoples and its practice of slavery definitely led to moral crisis that exploded with the Civil War.
But back then, when white folks had decisive power, even the Civil War was spun as a moral credit to the white race. After all, Walt Whitman beamed with pride that America was the FIRST nation to fight a war to end slavery. Thus, the Civil War was seen as redemptive than condemnatory of the White American experiment. Furthermore, Anglo elites of the North eventually came to see eye-to-eye with Anglo elites of the South, especially as both groups of shared lineage came under increasing pressure from ethnic European immigrants. It was really only with the rise of Jewish Power that the White South came under special attack and opprobrium, which is rather ironic since Jews demand that we all support Apartheid-like policies in the West Bank(and even inside Israel). Also, given that Gorbachev and Deng embarked on drastic transformations despite the communist foundations of their nations(indeed, even by rationalizing that their market and/or liberal reforms were in line with Marxist-Leninist ideology) goes to show that any ideology can be stretched, twisted, and turned in so many ways by those in Power. Therefore, it is rather ridiculous to blame current American woes on its founding principles, be they religious, economic, or military. Also, one could just as easily blame America's foundations of money and might for the current troubles. After all, the current SJW nuttery has as much to do with capitalist excess, consumerist piggery, and materialist nihilism as with anything else. Indeed, just how did justice come to be associated with boundless vanity and preening narcissism of idiots who write for Salon and Huffington Post? And who funds Homomania? Wall Street and Hollywood. Also, how did US come to be an imperialist power instead of one that minds its own business and respects the sovereignty of others? It was the cult of might, that American Power must be used to show the world who is boss. So, American woes can be seen as the product of the corruption of all three: Money, Might, and Moralism. It wasn't American 'puritanism' that led to craziness like 'gay marriage'. Rather, it was American Money that funded homo vanity as the 'new leftism'. And it was American might that decided to take up the banner of Holy Homo as the new justification for World Conquest. Apparently, there won't be justice around the world until the homo colors are planted as victory flag in every nation. When one considers the sheer mendacity of America's business class and the sheer idiocy of its military class, it's not just the moralist traditions of America that have rotted to the core. The demeanor and attitude of American generals from Gulf War to present conflicts suggest a class of clowns. And America's Deep State is filled with will-to-power lunatics whose worldview is hardly different from Spencer's. Of course, they are careful to mouth the same old platitudes about 'equality' and 'diversity', but if we judge them by what they do as opposed to what they say, they are really just vile dogs who will do anything to concentrate even more power among themselves. This is why, if indeed Spencer loves power so much, he should have just shut up about 'white nationalism' and joined the Deep State where he could rub shoulders with vain, egotistical, and sociopathic scum who dominate policy in the CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon, and etc. Just consider how these types reacted to the victory of Donald Trump. Sure, they bitch about how they must oppose Trump-the-fascist, but the real reason they hate Trump is he campaigned as a populist candidate who won by calling out on the Deep State(the Swamp) and called for end of Mideast Wars(and better relations with Russia). Granted, Trump is being swallowed up by the Swamp, but it only goes to show that the Deep State is crypto-Spencerist. The real difference is the Deep State is smart enough to hide its supremacism to perpetuate itself, whereas Spencer, by blurting out that he wants to be Darth Vader over all mankind, has marked himself as a scapegoat.

Anyway, for most of American History, the three sides of the triangle — spiritual/moral conviction, material/moneyed enterprise, and martial/masculine courage — served it well. Each on its own could have easily lost itself to excess but was tempered by the other two. While there were extremists among the spiritual-moral types, they also existed among the martial and material types. During the Cold War, some US generals wanted all-out nuclear war. They were like mini-Hitlers or General Jack D. Ripper. And the history of American business is as full of greed, foulness, and corruption as well as ingenuity, vision, and enterprise. Take one look at what gambling and pornification of mainstream culture have done to America, and it's obvious that unchecked materialism has it own madness. Military extremism and Materialist extremism are just as ugly as Moral extremism.
The big question is how did American moralism, which had done so much good in pushing forth reforms, go so wrong? Granted, it had gone terribly wrong with movements like the Prohibition, but still, the themes of Prohibition were at least serious because so many lives had been destroyed by alcohol. Also, the Civil Rights Movement was a great moral movement that called for justice for blacks. Its ultimate failure had less to do with the themes of the Movement itself than the fact, all too overlooked by many, of real racial differences. If those who supported the Civil Rights Movement ignored the reality of racial differences, those opposed to the movement only stressed the matter of black inferiority, thereby coming across as arrogant, supremacist, and bigoted. They should have stressed areas in which blacks had an advantage over whites. Thus, they could have opposed the Movement on grounds of not only white superiority(in intelligence) but white inferiority(in muscle power) that would doom white race to biological-slave status under the tougher black race that would intimidate and beat up weaker whites and conquer white wombs infected with jungle fever. In the end, it was the failure to speak the True Truth that undermined so much of white power, security, and well-being.