Why did Capitalism go 'Woke'? — Idolatry, so intrinsic to Capitalism, led it toward the promotion of Jewish Supremacism, Negromania, and Globo-Homo — Political Correct Capitalism as the Neo-Catholicization of the New World Order

During the Cold War, there was the sense that the West was about freedom, about having a good time and being 'cool'. Not everything had to be politicized. In contrast, the communist world was seen as overly political, with ideology shaping and coloring just about everything. This was especially true of Stalinist USSR and China of the Cultural Revolution. So, while everything had to be Marxist-Leninist in the communist world, one could be just cool and happily apolitical in the West. You could have fun and be left alone by the state, commissars, or activists. It's like that movie NINOTCHKA. Garbo as Soviet commissar is staunchly ideological, so hardline. She is humorless and stern. But when she begins to laugh, she begins her transition to capitalism and freedom. She learns one doesn't have to be uptight and upright all the time with radical commitment. One could take it easy and enjoy life. And unlike communist propaganda devised to shape one's politics and worldview, capitalist advertising had only one thing in mind: To sell stuff. It was about profits for the company and fun/convenience for the consumer(as king or queen). The appeal of capitalism was its apolitical character. It was about products and services. It was about money for the company and happiness for the consumer.

So, even though the West was plenty political and ideological during the Cold War with its own propaganda and messaging, one could nevertheless ignore all the humorless and heavy-handed stuff in the world of capitalism, consumerism, and entertainment. For sure, Americans weren't dragged to ideological sessions. One's involvement in politics was voluntary, not mandatory. One didn't drink Coca-Cola to be political. One didn't watch a Disney movie for ideology. One didn't watch a 007 movie for propaganda. Even when James Bond took on the Russkies, it was more about fantasy and romance than politics. One didn't read Archie comics for 'moral' instructions or guidance. Indeed, the West often portrayed itself as apolitical compared to the Communist East. The dreary notion was that people behind the Iron Curtain, from cradle to grave, were molded into 'good communists' and everything was politicized. If you were politically suspect or heretical, you could be hounded, persecuted, or even executed. But in the West, the capitalists didn't care about your ideology. They just sold you stuff and services. And when you took part in capitalism, it was to buy something of convenience or pleasure. You didn't purchase it for meaning or commitment. When Richard Nixon met Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, the message was that Americans were consumers with freedom and money to buy what they wanted without meddling of the state. And when China opened up in the late 70s, one of the famous images was of Chinese youths wearing sunglasses and drinking Coke. The appeal of sunglasses and Coca-Cola wasn't ideological. They were consumer products. At most, they had 'idolic' value. Cola meant easy pleasure, cold drink on a hot day. Sunglasses meant looking 'cool' and stylish.
During the Cultural Revolution, sunglasses had been banned as a product of 'Western Decadence'. And in the Soviet Union, body building was frowned upon(if not illegalized) as a form of vanity and narcissism. And indeed, one of the Western attractions for people in the communist world was the sense of apolitical freedom, especially in America. In the movie MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON(by Paul Mazursky), the Russian exile(played by Robin Williams) encounters many problems in the US, but he still chooses to remain because he's left alone and free to do his own thing. There isn't a commissar breathing down his neck 24/7. He could say to the Power, "It's none of your business", something disallowed in a communist system. You don't lose your job over politics(unless it's truly grievous).

So, the idea was that capitalism is fun, cool, easy-going, tolerant, individualist, and apolitical whereas communism is radical, fanatical, censorious, repressive, dogmatic, and conformist. This contrast is illustrated in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING where pro-Western Czechs act in libertine fashion whereas the Communist Order is presented as rigid and heavy.

So, what happened? Why did capitalism in the West turn 'radical' in the current 'woke' form? Why is it so incessantly activist and pushy with its constant messaging and propagandizing? Why are people being fired or demoted or censured over some tweet years ago? Why are they being denied products and services over matters of personal creed, politics, and values? Why do capitalists fund, propagate, and lend support to views that smack of 'radical' nuttery? When Coca-Cola made inroads into China in the 1980s, it was the apolitical drink of the world. The idea was its dominance owed to quality and service, not to any idea or message. But now, Coca-Cola is the promoter of the cult of White Fragility. Burger King constantly reminds us of the sanctity of homos, as if it wants to rebrand itself as Bugger King. What does sodomy have to do with burgers? But then, why did Homosher take off as the new kosher? Why are Oreo Cookies packaged in homo colors? What do cookies have to do with guys sucking each other's pud? Why are capitalists pushing BLM the big lie when surely anyone with a sense of reality knows that blacks mostly kill one another(when not attacking non-blacks) and that the number of innocent blacks killed by cops is negligible, if existent at all? It's bad enough that capitalists are taking part in politics(when they are all about products and profits). What's worse is they willfully take the ideological or idolatrous line than have any real concern for the truth. They go with what is politically advertised than what is true in the real world. It used to be capitalism was like the Beach Boys(fun, fun, fun), whereas communists were like the Red Guards. Now, capitalism funds and supports 'woke' mobs and pushes 'radical' dogma through their public announcements and advertising. Also, they fire and intimidate their own work force on the basis of ideological correctness and idolatrous sanctity. How did things become this way? It's almost as if capitalism has taken on the attitude of Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1920s. 'Wokery' is doing to business what Neocons did with American Conservatism. It's in selective purge mode, condemning whiteness while enabling Jewish Power to grow ever bigger.

1. Surely, the ascendancy of Jewish Power is a major factor in this as Jews are the top capitalists and have an obsessively supremacist mentality. Jews love money, but their top priority is tribal supremacism. Having abandoned socialism, Jews are now totally capitalist and determined to use their monopoly power to shape the narrative and direct the course of history to secure their supremacist position. Mass media are part of Jewish capitalist enterprise, and Jews use their near-monopoly lock on news and information for tribal supremacist's sake. So, for Jews, capitalism isn't just a cash cow but a political weapon of mind-control. Jews especially feel vulnerable despite their vast riches because they are only 2% of the population. For Jews, capitalism is useful as both a political and apolitical tool. As an apolitical instrument of hedonism, leisure, fun, and entertainment, capitalism turns the masses into complacent and infantilized bunch of mindless consumers. Better to have goyim obsess about sports, video games, movies, and gambling than gain independent political consciousness that might realize that Jews control just about everything.
But an apolitical order never stays that way. In a vacuum of political meaning, some force enters the scene to offer meaning, direction, and sense of purpose. Man doesn't live on bread alone, not even on bread-and-circus alone. In the past, Jews used capitalism for profit-making and used socialism & radical politics for meaning. Jewish capitalists made the profits, and Jewish leftists served as the prophets. But genuine Jewish leftist have all vanished. Most Jews are capitalist and pro-rich. They are for more money and more privilege for the Tribe and have lost interest in Humanity. Thus, Jews have bundled profit and prophet into one package. For example, in the past Jews made some movies and TV shows for fun and nothing but fun. They hardly had any politics and were made to be as uncontroversial as possible to make the audience complacent and happy. But Jews also made other kinds of movies, usually scripted by leftists, radicals, and subversives, that were meant to push a message. These movies generally made less money and even lost money. Still, they had political and propagandistic value.
Today in contrast, even mindless entertainment is likely to be loaded with politics. Advertising is often heavily politicized or in service of ideology or idolatry of certain groups, especially Negroes and Homos, the holy icons of commercialism. The way things are going, even slot-machines of the future might be politicized with ideological symbols. Jews control advertising, entertainment, and news media, all of which are capitalist enterprises. And as the #1 priority of Jews is Jewish Supremacism, they are hellbent on using whatever means, even consumer-capitalism, as a tool of power. As Jewish Power relies most essentially on the cuckery of white goyim, Jews use capitalism to spread images, ideas, and narratives that gaslight, shame, or paralyze white identity and interests.

2. The corruption of Gramsci-ism. When Antonio Gramsci spoke of Cultural Hegemony, he hardly had stuff like 'gay' Oreo Cookies or BLM-narcissistic fests in mind. His idea wasn't to take over capitalism to spread idolatry in favor of certain groups. Rather, the idea was for leftists and socialists to gain cultural influence to win over hearts & minds. His idea of Good Culture would have been something like BICYCLE THIEVES or the films of Roberto Rossellini. For him, Marxist cultural hegemony was to destroy capitalism, not to take over capitalism and indulge in narcissistic hedonism as proper platform for good ideas and values. If socialism must have dignity, it must be conveyed through serious and noble manner. In contrast, today's neo-hegemonists indulge in the culture of excess and use such means to convey supposedly important messages. It's like radicalism expressed through a strip-tease.

If Gramsci looked forward to winning hearts and minds with a new cultural paradigm, the neo-hegemonists are perfectly fine with capitalist excess, self-indulgence, narcissism, vanity, and infantilism... as long as those are loaded with the favored idolatry, mainly of Jews, homos, and blacks. So, it's great to 'twerk' as long as it's for BLM or Globo-Homo. It's okay to indulge yourself with wild-partying and girls-gone-wild and wanton hedonism AS LONG AS you remember to pay tribute to Jews, blacks, and homos.

This has obvious appeal to Neo-Hegemonists who are more Cultural Marx Brothers than Cultural Marxists. There is precious little that is Marxist or even mildly socialist about them. They are total capitalists even if they make some obligatory noises about the dangers of 'greed' and the 1%. Indeed, the neo-aristocratic globalists fixed it so that leftism would be changed from a movement of laboring masses and lesser-haves to a movement centered on vanity, celebrity, narcissism, freakdom, and mental illness(as the new normal). Leftism went from the voice of the majority to that of favored minorities, Jews-blacks-homos. This bogus 'leftism' is not about basic justice or equality but the look-at-me obsessions of those infected with 'celebrititis'. It's not about homos asking for tolerance but demanding they be celebrated by the entire world, even in places of worship. It's not about blacks struggling for justice but howling to be the center of attention and affection REGARDLESS of how they act. It's not about blacks condemning white bigotry and violence against blacks but about them bitching and yapping about how it's unjust for blacks to be brought to justice for bad deeds and criminality. The Civil Rights Movement ran on, "Don't hurt us", but today, it's more about "Shut up when we hurt us." And of course, this is partly due to the fish rotting from the head. Jews are the ruling elites of the West, and they rigged things so that they have license to kill, steal, and feel(the shikses). With Jews having such power and privilege, why wouldn't blacks and homos, two especially self-centered groups, demand similar affection, deference, and privilege? The new 'leftism' is about the nihilism of Jews, blacks, and homos intoxicated with idolatrous megalomania.

Jewish supremacists and globalist elites studied history. They know why the French King lost his head and why the Russian Tsar was mowed down. Them fellers were at least honest in their relation to the masses. They ruled over their subjects. The neo-aristos of Jews and globalists also rule over us, and in more ways than one, they are even more powerful and privileged than the kings and emperors of old. And they know the people may rise against them IF they are seen as the over-privileged ruling elites. And so, they decided to appropriate, indeed confiscate, the cult of leftism for their own uses. This way, they can have the power of ultra-kings and uber-emperors BUT be shielded by their professed 'leftism'. In actuality, they work against the people, but their mantle of 'leftism' creates the impression that they are for 'progress' and 'justice'.
This is why today's capitalists and globalists love it when idiot conzos call them 'communists' and 'leftists'. Imagine that, conzo losers with little or nothing calling super-duper capitalists and their well-funded flunkies a bunch of 'communists'. The right would do much better to adopt socialism, and why not? Nationalism is intrinsically socialist in this sense. It says, regardless of private property, a nation belongs equally to all its people. It doesn't matter how rich or poor someone is. The nation belongs equally to the rich and the poor. Therefore, the rich national must make common cause with the poor national, at least as fellow patriots. He may be rich while the other is poor, but they are fellow nationals, and as such, there is a bond and obligation that goes beyond dollars and cents. But globalist capitalism tells people that the Nation is an outdated and archaic idea. The only thing that matters is a system of global networks whereby the elites of the world all collude with another. The rich national has no obligation to fellow nationals. Of course, this doesn't apply to Jews. While Jews push ultra-individualist libertarian deracination for white goyim, they themselves have a sense of Jewish brotherhood and sisterhood. Even as they pressure whites to give up every last vestige of white identity and interest, they press upon whites to support Jewish identity and interests. Jews even got Jonathan Pollard sprung from prison, and the freed Jew is now in Israel urging fellow Jews all over the world to betray goy nations for Jews Uber Alles. No wonder Jews grow stronger as a group while whites are dividing into successful white individuals and unsuccessful white individuals(who are derided by successful whites as 'losers'). Rich Jews look out for lesser Jews, but rich whites sneer at have-less whites as 'losers' who should use opiates and die. If rich whites care for anything other than themselves, it is in accordance with the gods controlled by Jews. So, white goy elites sing paeans to Jews, homos, blacks, and even illegal immigrants while spewing venom at the 'deplorables'.

3. Another factor is the catholicization or 'christmasization' of capitalism. Look back into Christian History. Christianity was not a happy creed. It was about self-denial, sacrifice, poverty-as-virtue, turn-the-other-cheek, and other righteous deeds & values. In contrast, paganism was a lot more fun and colorful. Paganism indulged in pleasure, appreciated beauty, celebrated life as a circus, and had space for vanity, narcissism, and egotism. The Greeks and especially the Romans knew how to have a good time. Christianity looked upon much of paganism as sinful, wicked, demonic, satanic, and degrading. Christianity was severe and spartan in its mode of life and expression. It was deeply ideological. And yet, the Catholic Church didn't want pure Christianism. It was too gloomy, depressing, and judgmental. And so, the Church found ways to fuse the spiritual righteousness of Christianity with the colorfulness of paganism. This way, the Catholics could have the cake and eat it too. Practice Christianity but in a colorful pagan way. Make the faith more festive and cheerful. Of course, the Church was careful to reject the more licentious aspects of paganism and shape paganesque expressions into something holier and sanctimonious. Still, Christianity in its spiritual purity was too stark and depressing for the Catholics who found a way to fuse Christian ideology with pagan idolatry. If pagans, lacking deep spiritual grounding, were drawn to Christianity's profound faith, it was the case that Christians, lacking color and cheers, were drawn to the excitement offered by paganism. While some pagans rejected Christianity to the end while some Christians denounced all vestiges of paganism, the Catholic Church arrived at a synthesis of faith and festival. And this has been especially true of Christmas. Ostensibly a somber observance of the birth of Christ, it has turned into a kind of pagan bacchanalia of materialism, partying, and hijinks. Jesus and Santa.

In our post-Christian age, people of the West have been clamoring for new 'spiritual' meanings, and of course the Jews, as controllers of media, academia, and entertainment, get to choose the new gods. And the new gods are the globo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Reverence, and Homo Devotion. This new trinity constitutes the new faith. But just lamenting the Shoah, crying about Slavery, and recalling how homos used to be called 'fags' wouldn't be much fun. They need color and excitement, sass and zing.
This is where the symbiotic partnership with 'pagan' capitalism comes in. Capitalism, often characterized as crass and trashy, is redeemed by its association with Sacred Jews, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. And in turn, the Jewish cause, black cause, and homo cause are made cool and fashionable by capitalist color. Consider the marketing that goes into AIPAC conferences. It's like the freaking Emmy Awards night. Jews hire publicity firms to put on a big show with fanfare and razzle-dazzle. Indeed, what is the Academy Awards ceremony all about? Hollywood is mostly about marketing crass entertainment, but once a year to burnish its image Hollywood puts on a big show about how it cares about art, quality, meaning, and values.
Even though the moralists and activists may resent the power of money, they are also dependent on and grateful for the money that comes their way. So, if Marxists sought to totally do away with capitalism, the neo-catholicist 'left' is happy to form a symbiotic relationship with Big Money. The Golden Calf is also the golden goose for the activist community. Same goes for the so-called Green Energy movement. It's really bait-and-switch. It's about Jews invoking environmental concerns to replace goy-owned fossil-fuel industry with Jewish-owned fossil-fuel industry, except that the latter has been packaged with 'green energy' credentials when, in fact, most of the Jewish-backed industries are overwhelmingly run on fossil-fuel. (As for nuclear energy, Jews oppose its proliferation because other nations might, like Iran, have the potential to develop nukes. Whatever is good for Israel.) So, the Jewish oligarchs of 'green energy' aim to take over entire sectors of the energy industry, and the 'green' activist community is flush with donations. Even though the latter are mere tools, they like being in the limelight in their roles as the saviors of the planet. But then, the clergy played much the same function in European history. They mostly served the ruling elites but got housed in nice big churches and hogged roles as spiritual-moral voice of the community.

4. In a way, the fanfare around LGBTQ and BLM makes sense in accordance to the logic of capitalism. The favoritism for homos and blacks owes more to capitalist logic than socialist/Marxist logic. After all, capitalism is far more idolatrous than communism is. Granted, there were massive Stalin and Mao cults in Soviet Union and China. But the monopolization of iconography by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other top leaders meant that everyone else had to remain on the human level. In Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were like gods but everyone else was merely human, equal to others. And when Soviet Union did away with the cult of personality after Stalin's death, it was mostly humanist. It was a repressive and restrictive form of humanism but humanism just the same. Humans had value as humans, neighbors, comrades, fellow citizens, and etc. Not as idols, icons, stars, and divas.

And in a way, the West was wrong to assume that the communist world was about nonstop propaganda. While propaganda could be overbearing and shrill at times, most of the arts, culture, and entertainment in the communist world was humanist than ideological. They were about people faced with daily problems, something anyone in any part of the world would recognize. So, on one level, communism vs capitalism wasn't entirely about radical propaganda vs apolitical pleasure.
It was also a matter of humanism vs stardom-ism. When youths in communist nations hankered for blue jeans, rock n roll records, and Western fads, they weren't merely seeking escapism from ideology and dogma. They were bored with humdrum humanism and were besotted with the narcissism and celebrity-cult of the West. While some resisted communist ideology in favor of Western freedom, others rejected social humanism in favor of capitalist idolatry, i.e. they weren't so much striving to be free as to fall under the spell of Western excess of vanity and diva-cults.

Apart from elevating Marx, Lenin, and some local ruler to high heaven, communism offered humanism as the proper mode for most people. Accept and appreciate people as people, as fellow workers, patriots, and comrades. Don't put on airs like you're something special. Don't be aloof and 'cool' like you're above the fray. In contrast, especially with the rise of youth culture around Elvis Presley, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and the Beatles, capitalism turned into a mass idolization of celebrities, stars, and divas. Nihilo-Narcissism pushed humanism aside in the West. The French New Wave got started with the humanist 400 BLOWS by Francois Truffaut. But on the eve of May 68 disaster, Jean-Luc Godard was already pondering the emergence of youth centered on 'Marx and Coca-Cola'.

But over time, people forgot about Marx altogether, and if there are young Marxists today, they got it from The Clash or Rage Against the Machine, except the Machine could easily appropriate the 'rage' that was never anything more than moral narcissism to parade onstage by shallow divas.

If the current order was truly about 'cultural marxism', then it would certainly not favor homos who are natural materialists, narcissists, egotists, and aristos. Homos have always been deferential to the rich, privileged, and/or famous. No wonder the US deep state is teeming with homos who work for NSA and CIA to smash other nations. And globo-homo agenda isn't about tolerance for homos(a good thing) but compulsory celebration and deification of homos and trannies as new angels, even new messiahs.
As for the Negro agenda, one could argue it is more in line with 'cultural marxism'. Negroes, after all, have roots in slavery, and many of them toiled in low-end jobs on farms and factories. But is that the reason why Negroes get so much attention? No, if that were so, how come browns don't get much attention? Browns were conquered by whites and mostly toiled as peons and servants in South and North Americas. Even when white libby-dibs feigned outrage over Trump's "kids in cages", it was less about the illegals than about JEWS, i.e. border security reminded all these libby-dibs of Jewish Refugees during the Holocaust, LOL. (And now that Biden's administration is putting the kids in 'cages', they aren't cages anymore according to the Jewish-run media.) And if 'cultural marxism' is about the oppressed, there is precious little discussion of the American Indians, the most tragic people in the world who permanently lost their homeland to foreign invaders. And there's hardly any talk of Palestinians and Arabs destroyed by Wars for Israel cooked up by Zionists.

So much for 'cultural marxism'. So, the reason why blacks get special love is due to 'cultural capitalism', not 'cultural marxism'. It owes less to the history of slavery or Jim Crow than black success in the idolatrous fields of capitalism, mainly in sports and pop music. It also helps that Jews own the media and much of sports industry and have much to profit from black ability and talent. And of course, Jews associate 'white guilt' with blackness because blackness is most potent in paralyzing white agency and unity. After all, people feel more guilty about having done wrong to the superior than to the inferior. It's like there's more outcry over someone killing a grand elephant than a lowly warthog. As whites idolize Negroes as rappers, athletes, and super-studs in the capitalist-hedonist order, it was only natural that so-called 'woke' capitalism would come to favor blacks and BLM mainly due to the higher idolatrous value of the Negroes.
So, in a way, capitalism's promotion of globo-homo and BLM isn't so much a fusion of 'right-wing capitalism' with 'leftwing ideology' but the logical outcome of capitalism's obsession with vanity and idolatry, finally leading to the moneyed apotheosis of whatever has the most 'idolic' value. It's hard to think of two groups more narcissistic and exhibitionist than blacks and homos, and not surprisingly, under Jewish media orchestration, BLM and LGBTQ symbols are often displayed side by side. This is 'cultural capitalism'.

“THE LIE OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT” MIKE PEINOVICH, APRIL 10, 2021

Jewish Power controls not only White Minds but White SOULS — Soul Control is far more powerful than Mind Control — INVISIBLE MAN(2020) is a Prime Example of INVERSION NARRATIVE under the domination of Jewish Supremacism

Jean-Luc Godard spoke of the Generation of Marx and Coca-Cola. Now, it's the generation of BLM and Fried Chicken.

White bodies seek refuge from black violence and pathology, but white minds are affected by the Jewish-dominated Narrative that pushes the Inverse of Reality. Worse, white souls have been poisoned with Jungle Faith, which is downstream from Jungle Fever. When white minds receive false information, that isn't as fatal as the mind is a rational faculty that uses facts and logic. So, if white minds marred with false info are confronted with facts and data, they may come around to the truth. For example, if you believe margarine is good for you but are presented with evidence otherwise, you may well change your mind. But when white SOULS are poisoned with falsehood, it is difficult to change the hearts of such whites. It's like no amount of factual info about beef will convince a Hindu that it's okay to consume meat derived from cows because the Asian-Indian soul, as opposed to his mind, feels that cows are 'sacred'. Same goes for pork. No amount of nutritional information about pork will convince Muslims and Orthodox Jews that it's okay to eat pig-meat. Their soul-sense is repulsed by pork as SPIRITUALLY dirty. (The real reason not to eat pork is pigs are smarter than dogs and, as such, are our brothers and sisters.) The soul-sphere transcends reason or operates in the area of sub-reason. It's more about dreams and faith than facts and logic. This is why Jewish Power relies so much on sensory-driven propaganda, much like the Catholic Church with its iconography and music. If Jewish Power were to engage only the white mind, the faculty of facts and logic, it could lose control IF the white mind were presented with counter-Narrative facts. And that'd be doable as the Jewish-controlled Narrative is based on lies about history, biology, race differences, and so many things. This is why Jews feel they must go past the white mind and infect the white soul, the nether-region that is impervious to reason, facts and logic. It's like a truly devout religious person, no matter how well-educated and knowledgeable of science, still clings to God. It's a matter of faith and holiness, and as such, rejection of God would be tantamount to sacrilege. Of course, some religious folks overcome this and do become atheist or at least agnostic. But, it's an agonizing process to reject or let go of something so emotionally and spiritually important to oneself. Still, given the impact(of depth and meaning) that faith once had, the chances are the newly irreligious person still craves for something else to fill the void. It's no wonder that so-called atheists are so eager to latch onto some secular cult like Globo-Homo, Save-the-Planet, 'Muh Israel', or Magic Negro.

The recent BLM lunacy has demonstrated how deep the Jewish Power has sunk its fangs into the white soul and injected it with pseudo-spiritual venom. So many whites seem quasi-religious about BLM as Tucker Carlson pointed out. Despite(or precisely because of) higher education(much of which is PC indoctrination), some of the best-educated(or indoctrinated) white people are the most devout followers of 'wokeness'. Education didn't make them more factual or logical but made them more dogmatic of PC and idolatrous of certain groups, especially Jews, Homos, & Negroes. It's like the secular religion of Marxism produced generations of dogmatists than critical thinkers(despite Marxism being touted as 'scientific materialism'; it was more like spiritual materialism). It is because so many whites have been affected in the soul-region that they seem utterly unperturbed by facts such as Fentanyl Floyd most likely died of drug overdose, white cops are NOT committing genocide on blacks, most blacks are killed by other blacks, blacks are the biggest thugs & destroyers of American society, Liberals are hypocrites because they don't care about all the Arabs & Muslims killed by Wars for Israel — there's no PLM or Palestinian Lives Matter — , Jews control the media and spread endless lies, black pathology is the product of evolution that made blacks more muscular and more aggressive, and etc.
If Jews had affected only white minds, truth would win out sooner than later as the faculty of facts and logic prefers correction over falsehood. But when white souls come under Jewish control, it is far more difficult to bring them to sense. When someone is lost to a cult(Manson Family or Jim-Jones-town), it's hard to pull him out because he or she believes on the soulful level, even if demonic. His faith/commitment, no matter how loony, has become sacred to him. This is why sane discussion about the Shoah is near-impossible. It's very likely that the 6 million number is bogus, and the number could be half that. But so many people have been instilled with Shoah-Worship that anything less than 6 million is Denial, akin to rejection of the holy spirit, or holy number. It's more numerology than statistics. (But then, there is a Denier Cult that won't accept anything other than "Handful of Jews died of typhus and, if anything, Nazis were trying to save Jewish lives.")

In the end, idolatry and iconography win out over ideology among most people. Most Christians were more about idolizing Jesus than following His teachings. Jesus told people to love their enemies, forgive, and be humble. But your average Christian was willing to hate, torture, and murder anyone who blasphemed. The theme of SILENCE by Shusaku Endo(made into film by Martin Scorsese) is the choice between Jesus as Icon and Idea. What is worse? To desecrate the image of Jesus or to disobey His teachings? If Jesus was willing to sacrifice His body for mankind, is it okay to let mankind be tormented so as not to defile the image of Jesus? For many Christians, the teachings of Jesus were secondary to Jesus as the iconic King of Kings. They never would have dared to insult Jesus or desecrate His image, but they were more than willing to disobey His teachings and slaughter millions for whatever reason, especially if the mission or crusade was said to be in His name. So, Jesus was more a sacred war banner than the teacher of mankind.
And such mentality was bigger among Catholics because they put such great emphasis on iconography and spectacle. In contrast, Protestantism suppressed sensory manipulation and focused on the meaning, and that may have been why there was more moral progress and advancement of conscience in Northern Europe. In the South, you could act like a lout but then perform certain rituals before certain icons, and you felt cleansed. In the Protestant North, you had to wrestle deeper with your demons; you couldn't just put on a clean shirt without showering to remove the filth from your own body. But even so, when push came to shove, the North was also about using Jesus as poster-child for Power and Aggression.

How did the Church reach out to souls? Oratory, spectacle, music, rites & rituals, iconography, and narrative. Oratory is different from discourse or dialogue. A man of charisma speaks to spellbind and gain power over other souls. Spectacles are meant to be magnificent, awesome, and overpowering. They override reason and sense of proportionality. Music obliterates facts and logic. Even a secular person can be deeply moved by Bach; even an anti-communist has to admit the Internationale and Soviet Anthem are powerful stuff; even Jews have to admit Richard Wagner was one helluva of composer; even people with distaste for youth culture had to admit Beatles were driving teenyboppers crazy. Rites and rituals, by their very repetition, remind people of what is most deserving of attention or affection. It's like birthday parties, Christmas, and Easter(that goes ignored by Google Jews who prefer 'Pride Month' as new easter or beaster). Globo-homo is celebrated yearly, even monthly. There is blackness this, blackness that. People generally tend to forget unless they are reminded over and over and over. This is why Jews have turned Holocaust Remembrance into a ritual with more TV shows, movies, educational programs, speeches, and reminders that there are Neo-Nazis just around the corner. Iconography and the more vulgar idolatry sensationalize and amplify certain images and figures over all others. They become shared images, much like statues of gods in Greco-Roman times. The Narrative is less a factual telling of events than a selective hagiography devised to idolize certain figures and groups at the expense of others who are dehumanized or vilified. The Bible is the greatest of its kind. There is a good deal of history there but skewed in favor of the Jewish Story over those of all other tribes who are often presented as villains, monsters, or scum who deserved to be rubbed off the face of the Earth; and many Jewish holidays celebrate the extermination of goyim. Most authorized biographies are hagiographic narratives. And of course, most official biographies of world leaders are Narratives than true histories. Even if everything in the Narrative is a verifiable fact, it's been selected and connected(often speciously) with other facts to create an idealized impression. But, more often than not, the facts are padded with falsehoods. Jews have such power in the West that they were able to take a total lie, the Russian Collusion Hoax, and float it as the dominant narrative for 3 years of Trump presidency. And the thing is to GET THEM WHILE THEY'RE YOUNG, just like they get you when you're asleep and dreaming in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Kids can be made to believe in Santa Claus, and it was easiest for the USSR and Red China to mold the minds of the young. And Adolf Hitler understood this, and there was Hitler Youth. This is why Jewish Power pushes globo-homo, Magic Negro, and KKK monster tropes on white children. There was a time when the Catholic Church had such powers. Even though the Vatican didn't have the military or political prowess to match the power of kingdoms, it had the power of spiritual narrative, and that went a long way to maintain its prestige. It's no wonder why the Catholic Church felt so threatened by the rise of Protestantism. It meant a good chunk of Europe, possibly all of it, may grow independent of the spiritual Narrative Monopoly held by the Catholic Church. Not having political, economic, and military domination over Europe, the power of narrative and iconography was the only things that kept the Vatican relevant.

These days, Hollywood is the new vatican, but then, Jews also control finance, vice industries like gambling(and now pot), news media, tons of retail & real estate, big pharma, and Big Tech. Jews control elite academia that sets the tone for the rest of education, from state universities to community colleges to high schools to grammar schools to kindergartens. And libraries a month ago across the nation had BLM messages on their websites. Jewish Power got it all, which means the Jewish Elites got goy politicians in their pockets like so many nickels and dimes, as Sollozzo the Turk might say. Just about NOTHING gets done without Jewish Approval, and freedom in America is hanging by a thread due to the Constitution which is, for all practical purposes, close to a dead letter. For all the libertarian types who say Big Tech is private enterprise and can censor anyone, what do they have to say about suppression of BDS by the STATE? Also, I thought libertarians understood that monopolies must operate under different rules, especially if monopolies are in bed with the government. In truth, libertarians speak their BS because they're funded and controlled by Jews.


Jewish Power as the new vatican and much more has taken over the SOULS of whites. Paradoxically, Jewish control of white souls means that whites don't have souls. Imagine that. Jewish Power accesses white souls to convince whites that there is mostly hollowness within white hearts and what little exists is mostly 'racism', 'antisemitism', 'misogyny', 'homophobia', 'xenophobia', and etc. Because white souls are so soulless and infected with a variety of evil viruses, the only correct path for whites is to surrender to Jewish holistic healing(really a kind of quackery) that would eradicate evil germs and fill the empty white heart with meaningful convictions such as 'muh Israel', Holocaust-cult, Magic Negro worship, Jungle Fever/Faith, Globo-Homo-mania, and Diversity celebration, all of which are meant to destroy the white race, white identity, white interests, and white survival.
As Jewish Power brainwashes white parents, white parents brainwash their own kids. And in cases where white parents neglect their parental duties, the kids grow up with TV and electronic devices as their substitute parents — besides, Pop Culture is the main culture in the modern world — and come under Jewish programming as Jews control most of entertainment, news, and platforms. As every other kid has a smartphone from a young age, Jewish Power gets them when they're young. Is it any wonder that the duopoly of Google and Apple won't allow services like Gab and Bitchute? Jewish Power knows that the internet has changed the game where anyone can find dissident views, and therefore, Jewish finance and Jewish Big Tech work together to make sure that Jews remain the gatekeepers. And gangster organizations like ADL strong-arm goyim like Jeff Bezos, Jack Dorsey, and Tim Cook to follow suit. And of course, politicians of both parties do NOTHING as they're nothing but Jewpets, or the teacher's pets of Jewish Power.


This is why it's so difficult to approach so many white people with facts and logic. Jewish Power has gotten hold of something deeper than their minds. Jewish Power has accessed their souls and instilled them with 'woke' cults and 'white guilt'. Just like Christians are deeply moved by the Passion of the Christ, so many white people FEEL the Passion of White Guilt about Holy Homos, Sacred Jews, and Magic Negroes. It's no wonder whites set up shrines to George Floyd in Minneapolis. And even sucker-soccer-moms were bawling about St. George, and many of these women are atheists or agnostics. Even though the Narrative on Michael Brown(of Ferguson Notoriety) has been exposed as a sham, plenty of people still carry on with the “Hands Up, Don't Shoot” bullshit and with full approval of the Jew-controlled media — but then, white souls infected with Jew Worship are prone to praise and revere Jewishness no matter what Jews do. White Souls infected with faith in Magic Negro cannot properly use their minds as faculty of reason and sense. Even dumbass Donald Trump was eulogizing about Fentanyl Floyd as an angel looking down on us. (Most likely, angels had their knees on his ass and kicked it down to hell but then, I doubt even the devil wants him.) It's like the pod-people in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS are capable of facts and logic — they have minds equal or superior to humans — , but it doesn't matter. Though seemingly emotionless, they have one overriding passion(to the point of hysteria), and it is to SAVE everyone by turning him or her into a fellow pod person.



A good example of Hollywood-as-new-vatican's Inversion Narrative can be seen in the 2020 movie INVISIBLE MAN. Though its depiction of social-racial dynamics is the exact opposite of reality, it will affect many white people, especially white women, because the power of art/entertainment, especially through a medium as spellbinding as cinema, is so overwhelming. So, never mind actual factual reality and FBI crime stats & all that. What matters is that so many white people sat glued watching the movie with their emotions manipulated by the new vatican's tropes of a white damsel finding liberation and empowerment by killing an evil white man with the support of a Noble Negro. Such sensory manipulation bypasses the white mind and goes right to the white soul and molds the white heart to feel revulsion at white males(as the source of all evil) and idolize black men as the noble defender of white damsels against Evil Whitey.

The movie begins with a white woman fleeing a rich guy's mansion. This rich guy is like a arch-comic-book villain. He has invisible-man-suit-technology. The white woman just barely flees from his clutch and finds refuge in the home of a Noble Negro who is also a crime-fighting detective. Now, I'm not one to say that just because blacks commit lots of crime, all black men should be presented as thugs or criminals. There are good black cops who work hard to protect communities, and there are plenty of white male creeps so full of themselves. White men have killed white women, and good black cops have been involved in solving the case. But, INVISIBLE MAN isn't dealing with real-life characters but with archetypes. The villain isn't just a bad individual but the Evil White Male, and the black guy isn't just another cop but Noble Black Man who's there to protect white damsels from Evil White Males. (It's like how Sabrina Rubin Erderly and Jewish Media sensationalized stories about how Evil White Frat Boys are raping white girls, all the while suppressing the truth about white sluts being raped by black gangs. And never mind all the black women raped by black men, and all the brown women raped by brown men; just focus on the White Frat Boy.)
Now, reality is never as simple as ALL WHITE MALES ARE GOOD and ALL BLACK MALES ARE BAD. But, the general truth is that white women are far safer with white men than with black men. White women are far more likely to get hurt in relationships with black men. And there are plenty of black-on-white rapes. Also, white men are more likely to be dependable family men. In the movie, the Evil White Guy is an ultra-narcissist who's too into himself to have a family and kids. He just likes to OWN things. In contrast, the black guy is a wonderful father with his daughter. In reality, so many black men don't raise their kids. So, as archetypes go, INVISIBLE MAN is peddling total BS.

As it turns out, there doesn't seem to be a sexual relationship going on between the white damsel and her black friend, but the message of the movie is White Woman should look to Black Man for protection from White Man, which is like saying a rabbit should look to coyotes for protection from other rabbits. In reality, black thugs intrude into white homes. But in the movie, white guy(in Invisible Suit) is the intruder into the sanctity of the black family and does violence on blacks. At the end(spoilers alert), the white woman uses the Invisible Suit to slit the throat of the Evil White Guy, and then, just right outside the door, she meets with the black guy who makes sure all is well. And she walks toward us with a smile of relief on her face as the Evil White Man has been killed, and she is free. So, the triumph of good in this movie is a white man with a slit throat in his own house and the white woman and black man affirming their bond and friendship right outside the door. And this movie wasn't made by a black guy, as GET OUT was, but by a white guy, Leigh Whannell who seems to be a Australian-Anglo.
Now, why would an Anglo-Australian make a movie that extols the fantasy Noble Negro while vilifying a fellow white guy? Why is he such a worthless cuck-jesuit of the new vatican? It's because the new vatican has infected white souls not only in America but in Canada, Australia, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and etc. White souls now believe there is a hole in their souls and it can only be patched with confessions of 'white guilt' and healing by Noble Negro(when not globo-homo and Jew-worship). If E. Michael Jones pushes Logos Rising, the new vatican pushes Bogus Rising. After generations of such brainwashing by Jews in TV, movies, and academia, we now know why so many whites are so 'woke', brain-dead with political correctness, and soul-feverish with 'white guilt' that seeks expiation by kneeling before Sacred Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes. And yet, even the Dissident White dutifully puts on Occam's blindfold and, uh gee, wonders why the 'left', 'communists', 'progressives', and etc. are defaming the white race. They look at the puppets but refuse to name the puppet-master, which is Jewish Power.

Commentary on “Mayor Pete Butt-Gig and the Crackup of Christianity”(by Pat Buchanan) – Religions vs Religiosity

https://buchanan.org/blog/mayor-pete-and-the-crackup-of-christianity-136855

In some ways, religiosity is stronger than ever. Indeed, paradoxically enough, the reason for the decline of traditional religions is because they no longer offer the moral high and high ground of religiosity. People are abandoning them not because they are rejecting religiosity but because they can find it or more of it in something else.

Now, religiosity is not the same thing as religion. Religiosity is the state of strong commitment, righteousness, and/or moral outrage. Religiosity can be gotten from anything, even non-religions. Marxists and Maoists were surely riding high on religiosity as they firmly believed that history, humanity, truth, and morality were on their side.

A religion has power only if it retains the element of religiosity. Consider so many religions that have fallen by the wayside. Zoroastrianism for example. Today, it is mostly a matter of scholarly, mystical, and/or theological interest. Almost no one gets worked up over it.
Some people seek out Eastern Mysticism, but it will never gain power because it lacks religiosity. Buddhism, Taoism, and such religions are about peace of mind, the search for the Way, the harmony. This was one reason why the East was less dynamic than the West, the culture of which was driven by Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. According to the Greeks, if there is A and B, the two must duke it out. Thus, the philosophical and historical pendulum swings violently back and forth, left and right. It causes a lot of friction and even trouble, but it also sets off lots of sparks. If both A and B remain viable, the dialectics continues and keeps shooting off sparks, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive. But if A or B were to overcome the other or arrive at synthesis, it goes up against a new force: C, D, E, etc. As for Judeo-Monolithics, it says the ONE idea is absolutely true and all the power must be exerted to spread that idea far and wide. This is the core of Western Messianism and puritanism. Greco-dialectics made for dynamism, and Judeo-Monolithics made for commitment, aggression, and expansion. The Crusading or Jihad Mentality.

In contrast, Taoism and Buddhism seek to rise above conflicts. Taoism seeks the Way, or the hidden harmony behind all chaos. It urges people not to involve themselves directly in world conflicts and instead to recede and contemplate with a cup of tea. Buddhism says everything is an illusion, and people should meditate to reach Nirvana and eternal extinction. With such spiritual outlooks, it's no wonder the East was less dynamic(though it allowed for longer stretches of peace and stability, albeit of the repressive kind by today's standards).

Modern religiosity thrives on psycho-cultural legacy of Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. Pat Buchanan loved politics all his life as a kind of sports. Political season is like sporting season. And so many people see the world in terms of 'we are right, and you are wrong'. Most people don't seek the middle-ground or the Way. They savor the dialectical bloodsports of politics. This owes to the pagan Greco-dialectical tradition. But Greeks and Romans, with their many gods, weren't really into the cult of self-righteousness. Through endless discourse, they believed somethings were more right than others, but they didn't believe there was anything or any people that was the holiest in the world for all eternity. They regarded everything, even the great gods, being in a state of flux.
In contrast, Jews did see the world in absolutist and monomaniacal terms. They weren't just another tribe, but the Tribe, the Chosen, and their God was the only true God, and they were blessed by the true God. So, Jews were filled with sanctimony and (self)righteousness, and this mindset flowed to the West via Christianity. If Greeks politicized conflicts, Christians spiritualized and moralized them. In the Athens vs Sparta conflict, both sides knew that it was all about power, economics, and influence. Sure, each side called on their gods for favors, but it was a conflict of 'mighteous' than righteous. It was dialectical politics. In contrast, infused with the mindset of Judeo-monolithics, Christians saw their conflicts in strongly moral and spiritual terms. So, there was a greater sense of moral outrage in conflicts involving Christians(which is why the US tries to morally justify everything it does around the world, a factor that blinds so many Americans to the true nature of what is really going on). Each side among Christians was totally holier-than-thou, even though many of the wars were triggered by political or economic factors than spiritual or moral ones.
The Thirty Years War was even more destructive and harrowing than the Peloponnesian War because of the sense of spiritual outrage. If Spartans and Athenians were merely seeking political advantage over the other, Catholics and Protestants, armed with Judeo-monolithic moral outrage, was trying to totally crush the other for all time. When Spartans finally won, they let Athens survive. But if either Catholics or Protestants had gained total victory, the losing side would have been totally crushed and rubbed out. But as it happened, the stalemate finally led to some kind of understanding, and the art of Greco-dialectics prevailed over Judeo-monolithics. Catholics and Protestants would have to co-exist in lively conflict and not try to crush the other totally in the spirit of moral/spiritual absolutism.

Why did Christian religion lose its religiosity in the 20th century?

We know the usual suspects. The rise of science undermined religion, especially among the elites. Around the time the US was founded, many of the most intelligent people in both Old World and New World still believed in God, sought meaning in God, attended religious schools, and spread the Gospel. Religion back then had spiritual and moral authority, from top to bottom.
But with the rise of modernity, most intelligent people abandoned religion, and if they did remain religious, it was on the personal level than on moral, spiritual, and social one. With best and brightest eschewing the religious life, the leadership came increasingly from the less intelligent segments of the population. Also, as religious authority lost prestige, fewer men were willing to give up worldly happiness for God. Back when the Catholic Church was like the Harvard of the West, many intelligent men were willing to sacrifice sex and good times to serve God. As priests, they had much respect in society. But when society no longer regarded priests as anything special, what was the point of giving up sex, marriage, and good times? So, an increasing number of priests came from eccentrics, derelicts, perverts, and homos. Some homos sought repentance for their sinful ways by serving God. Other homos figured they would take over the Church and make it 'gay' to serve toot-toota-loop homo vanity.

Mainline churches replaced saving souls with saving the world with good work. But what is 'good work'? As worldly matters and issues were defined by secular forces, Mainline church's idea of 'goodness' came to be defined by academia and media. Then, it's no wonder than Mainline churches now think god is all about the 'gays'. After all, Ivy League, Hollywood, and NYT said so. Evangelicals were more traditionalist and moralistic, but they were dumb, and dummies lose out to smarties. Being dumb and childlike, Evanjellies could easily be manipulated by the Power. It's no wonder so many Evanjellies are into 'muh Israel' and 'Jews are holy' even though Jews despise them and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Also, Evanjellies put emotions before dogma. It's all about the FEELS. Then, it is no wonder that homomania is making inroads even among childlike Evanjellies. Also, as most Evanjellies, like Mormons, suffer from inferiority complex of status and class, they tend to suck up to the rich and powerful. Look how Mormons are changing full-steam ahead toward homomania because the rich and powerful now worship it as their main cult. And many Evanjellies are suckers for televangelists whose shtick is 'god made me rich' and 'Jews are great cuz they are so rich'.
As for the Catholic Church, it shot itself in the foot by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. While some of the reforms were good and necessary, others presented the Church in the position of weakness, especially via Jews and modernity. The main mode was of concession and contrition, and this put the Church on the moral defensive than offensive. Instead of judging the world with the One True Faith, it sought forgiveness from the world. Thus, being a Catholic came with less religiosity and more perplexity.

While people may be drawn to religions for metaphysical or philosophical reasons, religion has power ONLY WHEN it has the element of religiosity. Religious or secular, people are more prone to organize, unite, and rally IF they the run the fever of religiosity. This is why the anti-homo voices tended to come from the religious. There are non-religious people who oppose the homo agenda, but they feel less worked up because they just believe it is wrong, not an affront to God. There are secular people who are anti-abortion, but again, they see it as ugly and wrong, whereas religious people see it as a grave sin. Because of their element of religiosity, the religious often united to push for or against certain issues.

This is what Jews hate about Christian religiosity. (They hate Islamic religiosity too, but at least in the West, they make alliances with Muslims against Christians.) Those armed with religiosity are more likely to leave the house, meet with others, gather together(esp in churches), and protest. Even when people dislike or oppose something, the chances are they are not gonna do anything about it unless they are armed with religiosity. They see it as a personal matter -- "I don't like it" -- than as a grand moral/spiritual one -- "It is an affront to God".
But Jews fear Christianity far less now because it's either been bled of religiosity or infected with neo-religiosity of PC, e.g. all those churches that are now all about Diversity, Globo-Homo, Anti-Whitey, Holy Negro Worship, and Jew-Worship. Catholic Church is no longer a force of religiosity because it's in cucky-wuck apologetic mode. "We are sorry so many of our priests buggered boys". "We are sorry for having aided and abetted imperialism, genocide, etc." "We must fill up Europe with Africans and Muslims because Christians have so much to atone for." There is no moral pride or spiritual authority. It now even has what looks like closet-homo pope, aka the Poop, who says Europe must be Afro-Islamized as fast as possible. Because the Church is still officially opposed to 'gay marriage' and abortion, progs still eye Catholicism with disgusts and trepidation. But because it is so cucked and wussy, traditional Catholics feel nauseous about sticking with the Church. There is hardly any real religiosity found in Catholicism anymore.

But people love religiosity because it's like a drug. It gives them the high of moral sanctimony, the rush of holier-than-thou rage, and a sense of unity with 'history is on our side'. The thing is religiosity can be gotten from anything: Ideology and 'Idology'(or idolatry as ideology).
Those Red Guard lunatics during the Cultural Revolution were surely filled with righteous religiosity. Incidentally, the Cultural Revolution showed that religiosity had little to do with truth and more to do with control of information and indoctrination. After all, Mao's policies had killed tens of millions in the Great Leap Forward. He should have been disgraced forever based on historical facts, but with control of propaganda and the military Mao and his gang were able to instill countless young people with fever of religiosity and set them loose to smash 'class enemies' in ruthless abandon and righteous rage.



It's like no amount of destruction done by Black Savage Reversion, Crazy Jewish Supremacism, and Nutty Homo Perversion has made any real dent in the holiness of those three groups. Given all the black crime and thuggery, one might think Americans would have wised up to the fact that blacks are the crazy savage race, but Jews control the media and they keep rerunning the Emitt Till and MLK narrative over and over. And come Superbowl season, white cucky-wucks are back to worshiping blacks as sports hero demigods. And given what Jewish Power has done to the US in terms of financial distress and foreign Wars for Israel(that created WWII situations in Middle East), you'd think people would have wised up to Jewish power by now. But every year, it's Holocaust this, Holocaust that, and "Jews are eternally holy holocaust people" and "If you notice Jewish power, you're an anti-Semite." So, even 'literally Hitler' Trump spends most of his time with his lips wrapped around Netanyahu's pud. And given the HIV mess caused by deranged homos, you'd think people would have woken up to the danger of homo influence and practice. But Jews(who run the media) 'sacralized' homos in movies, TV shows, and advertising. And Jews associated homos with the 'rainbow', and whore politicians just can't get enough of pontificating about how the New Normal of morality is all about celebrating homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting.

If Rob punched you but has the megaphone and says that you punched him while he makes himself out to be the poor poor victim, people will side with Rob and denounce you and maybe even punch you. Worse, even people who saw Rob punch you may not come to your aid because Rob's megaphone can attract many more people to his side. Or, even those who witnessed Rob punching you may believe you deserved to be punched because you're a bad person. This is what Jews are doing with 'punch a nazi' meme. They are saying that if Jews, Antifa, or blacks attack whites who happen to be 'nazi', then the righteousness belongs to the puncher because 'nazis' are evil and deserve it. This is how religiosity works. It's not so much about objective definition of right or wrong or legal or illegal. It's about holy vs unholy. It's about blessed vs the wicked. Just like Christians in their hyper-religiosity could be inspired to carry out violent acts against heathens, the PC crowd can be driven to rages of religiosity to attack any people and feel good and righteous about it.

As Jews control academia, media, entertainment, and whore-politicians, they control the levers of religiosity. Academia writes the sacred texts, the canons of officialdom. Media relay them as 'news' and sermons. Entertainment turns certain figures and narratives into idols. And whore-politicians use oratory to push the acceptable narrative.

People are leaving the church and flocking to PC, Homomania, and Afromania because most of the hottest religiosity is now to be found there. PC slogans and chants about 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' are the new mantras and catechisms. And 'gay rights' became Gay Rites, a neo-religion. There was a time when NO ONE was worked up over homo issues. At most, some supported the legalization of homosexuality because they figured homos were born that way. Also, they figured homos are deserving of individual rights too. It was a legal matter, not a moral one. No one thought there was innately holy about being a homo. No one felt he was holier or more righteous because he was pro-homo.
But Jewish media spun the HIV crisis to make homos out to be victims of something akin to a holocaust even though homos did it to themselves by acting like a bunch of butt-bang-boys in bathhouses. Movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN made homo lust the highest and most tragic kind of love. Homos were made into saintly icons. Such ploy would have been thought outrageous when the US was more religious and moral, but in Boomer-dominated America of the 1990s and 2000s, it went over with post-religious people and young people raised on degeneracy. Also, as Bush II was such an awful posterboy of the Christian Right, young people turned away from religion. Furthermore, what with religions being so cucked & apologetic while AND homomania got more judgmental & aggressive, young people realized that there was more religiosity points to be found on the holy-homo side than on the religious side. While homomaniacs are passionately and aggressively sure of their cause and position, the Religious Right seemed confused, cowardly, and castrated. As Jews came to dominate the GOP and bought off most top church leaders, NO ONE on the Right mounted any counter-attack against homomania. They kept their heads down like the worthless Rich Lowry lest they offend Jews as allies of holy homos. Also, young people, raised on celebrity culture, were addicted to the cult of the cool. So, what some pop star or famous actor said mattered more to them than what some crusty religious type said. Mormons for one are really a bunch of Mammonites who will sell their mothers down the river for thirty pieces of silver. Look at those worthless piles of shit Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

Now, it may well be that the current religiosities of PC may blow away. After all, where is Maoist religiosity today? Where is Stalinist fervor? Secular forms of religiosity have short-shelf lives because history proves them wrong. History proved communism wrong. All the icons and altars to Marx and Lenin came to mean nothing to Eastern Europeans with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Hitler, who was once the much revered icon of glory among Germans, has been disgraced. In contrast, God cannot be deposed and may yet win again in the long run. That said, in any given MOMENT in history, those with more religiosity win over those with less. And the fact is religions have lost the fire of religiosity either because people lost faith or because the religions have become cucked and apologetic. There was a time when to become a Christian was to be filled with a sense of salvation, glory, and pride. Now, joining the church means you should kneel before a homo and apologize for the church's 2000 yrs of 'homophobia' against guys like Butt-gigs who thinks dicks-up-my-ass is great because 'god made him gay'. Using such logic, a fatso should take pride in his gluttony since god made him want to pig out like a hippo. And I suppose a drunken Irish can argue that his alcoholism is a wonder to behold because god made him want to hit the bottle.

Ideologies can be full of religiosity because they offer a formula for understanding history and fixing humanity. As such, they are more than mere ideas but a worldview of 'what REALLY happened' and 'what must happen'. It has an element of prophecy, and so, ideologues are armed with religiosity. In time, ideological religiosity may fade as people get tired of the same-old-same-old and/or because the promises don't come true. This was true enough with communism.
Or, even if the ideology does succeed -- such as the Americanist individualist-capitalist ideology -- , it can lose its righteous luster if critiqued endlessly by radicals and subversives. Notice how the very founders and makers of the American nation have been so drastically 'discredited' by Jewish use of PC that now says MLK is the true 'founding father' while all those 'dead white males' were a bunch of hypocrites who owned slaves. (Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of 'white supremacist' imperialism around the world, and Jewish immigrants worked alongside whites to wipe out Indians and enslave & exploit blacks.)
In our increasingly post-literate age or what Christopher Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, the power of 'idology' or neo-iconography may now matter more than ideology. Why are so many people reverential toward rappers even though all they ever say is 'muh gun', 'muh dick', 'muh bling', 'muh ho', and etc? Because idolatry makes them look cool and badass, and that's enough for neo-worship in our deracinated and degenerate age. But then, because of the narrative and iconography of the Noble Negro as victim of 'white racism', the image of black cool is fused with image of black tragedy, and this makes them even more potent as idols for young people to worship and that means a lot of religiosity points in the 'idolic' worship of the Negro. And of course, nothing is holier to SWPL crowd than the holy holy of the 'rainbow' valley. Compared to that, what does the current Church have to offer except butt-hurt apologetics and "I'm sorry".

A Response to "Must the West Beg the World for Forgiveness?" by PAT BUCHANAN — The Special Tragedy of Indigenous Folks of Mexico & South America — Why Latin Whites are utterly Useless as allies of White American National Liberationists

https://buchanan.org/blog/must-the-west-beg-the-world-for-forgiveness-136755

Pat Buchanan: 
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador(El Presidente de Mexico) has written Pope Francis I and King Felipe VI to demand their apologies for the Spanish conquest of Mexico that began 500 years ago with the “invasion” of Hernando Cortez... “One culture, one civilization was imposed upon another... There were massacres and oppression... They built their churches on top of the temples.”
...Now no one denies that great sins and crimes were committed in that conquest. But are not the Mexican people, 130 million of them, far better off because the Spanish came and overthrew the Aztec Empire? Did not 300 years of Spanish rule... lead to enormous advances for its civilization and human rights? Or is there never a justification for one nation to invade another, conquer its people, impose its rule, and uproot and replace its culture and civilization? ...Did the Aztecs have a right to be left alone by the European world? If so, whence came that right?

All throughout history and all around the world, people have been conquering each other. Demanding apology for past imperialism is stupid. The entire world was about small imperialism and big imperialism. Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia before the French arrived. Zulus conquered other tribes in southern Africa. Even before the Europeans arrived in the New World or some non-white part of the world, the native peoples had been bashing and invading one another. Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans(though gone before the Europeans arrived) were imperialists in their own right. American Indians of the Great Plains were no strangers to ceaseless warfare. Mongols were among the greatest conquerors. Ottoman Turks controlled much of Southern Europe for centuries.
Now, not all peoples at all times were into imperialist mode, and there were long stretches of history in certain areas of the world when certain peoples mainly kept to themselves. Japanese were perhaps the most famous example of this. After Hideyoshi's failed attempt to conquer China by the way of Korea, Japan mostly looked inward and shut itself from the bigger world. Finally, it was pried open by the West. And even though China was more of an imperial power, it had no interest in expanding across the seas. (Even Chinese territorial expansions were oftentimes less the work of Chinese themselves than of peoples who'd conquered the Chinese and then pushed beyond existing borders. In time, as the conquerors themselves were absorbed into China, their conquests ended up in Chinese hands.) Still, the concept of respecting borders and sovereignty of nation-states is a relatively recent idea, at least as a 'right' as an ethical principle. Therefore, it should be morally applied only to the world after World War II when most peoples came to an agreement of national independence and sovereignty. It's like condemnation of past slavery makes little sense because most of the world not only practiced it but didn't find it particularly evil.

For most of history, borders always shifted like the scrimmage line in a football game. Polish-Lithuanian Empire was once huge and, if sustained, might have rivaled the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the petty Poles were too divided among themselves and failed to generate sufficient central authority to make it work... unlike Moscow or Vienna. And so, the once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Empire grew ever smaller until it was all gone, followed by Poland and Lithuania being swallowed by bigger empires.
That said, even in the Ages of Empires, there was a crude sense of blood-and-soil national consciousness even among conquered peoples. This was evident in Judea vs Rome. Romans conquered and ruled, but Jews still regarded themselves as the true owners of the land. Roman blood-and-spoil vs Jewish blood-and-soil. While empires constantly fluctuated in reach and size, there was nevertheless a sense among the conquered/occupied that a foreign people were ruling over them. Even when Poland was wiped off the map(like Palestine much later) by Russian and Prussian empires, many Poles in their ancestral territory dreamed of restoration of Polish nationhood on the soil that the Poles stood. Poles aspired to end to foreign rule, just like Cossacks in Ukraine had once risen up against Polish imperial domination. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and it is now Israel. And Zionist imperialists are looking to annex West Bank, but Palestinians still dream of their own nationhood. Jews are the New Romans, Palestinians are the New Judaeans.... though one difference is Jews have a somewhat legitimate claim of blood-and-soil connection to Judea, something Romans lacked when they scattered Jews to the winds. And of course, Greeks lived under Ottoman rule for centuries but clung to Greek-Christian identity and hoped for liberation one day. It finally came though at bloody cost to both sides.

Given the history of mankind, it makes no sense for people to apologize for past 'wrongs'. Should Mongols apologize to Persians and Romans? Jews sure ain't apologizing to Palestinians. And when will Turks apologize to Greeks and Balkan folks? Chinese aren't apologizing to Tibetans and Uighurs, nor for its cynical role in propping up the insane Khmer Rouge... though Chinese do make a big stink about how Japan needs to grovel more for what it did to China. Due to the complexities of history, it's difficult to ascertain collective guilt, especially for descendants who weren't even around when the tragedies happened. Furthermore, apologies are rarely taken in good faith. Instead, it is abused as a political weapon to squeeze out more apologies, more groveling, and more concessions from the 'apologizer'. Look how Jews milk the Holocaust to no end. Norman Finkelstein wrote about Shoah Industry as a never-ending cash cow, a kind of Holocasino. It doesn't matter how much Germans prostrate themselves and hand over more cash, build more monuments, imprison more 90 yr old camp guards, and censor more speech. Jews just see cucky weakness and demand GIMME MORE, GIMME MORE. And not just to 'holocaust survivors'(a very loose term as just about ANY Jew who lived in areas of German Occupation is designated as a Holocaust Survivor EVEN IF he or she was never sent to a concentration camp) but to their children and grandchildren and so on. Also, Jews have used Holocaust Guilt as moral shield for their Nazi-like behavior in crushing Palestinians, spreading Wars for Israel, and economically raping entire nations.

So, how should nations deal with dark chapters of their histories(and all nations have dark chapters aplenty). They should honestly and truthfully acknowledge what happened and draw useful lessons and make comparisons with other civilizations. Comparative Tragedies. It should be like Alcoholics Anonymous where everyone takes HIS turn to confess problems with addiction. The fact is ALL OF HUMANITY has been drenched in blood, and if some spilled more than others, it generally had less to do with more evil but with more power. Now, one can argue that some peoples at certain times were especially cruel, even by the standards of the times. It seems fair to say that Assyrians, Mongols, Vikings, Aztecs, Nazis(at least in imperialist mode), Khmer Rouge, Japanese in Nanking, and Idi Amin were especially ruthless and bloody. But then, just about all civilizations had their extreme periods and extreme figures... like Ivan the Terrible of Russia and the utterly ruthless first emperor Chin of China. The best way to understand history is through Comparative Studies. Just like there is comparative literature, we need more sensible use of comparative history. But too much of 'comparative' discourse in history is to make white civilizations seem especially evil while whitewashing non-white ones.

Now, there is ONE reason why there is more pressure on white civilizations to apologize, and it owes to something inherent to white civilization itself. It has to do with Christianity, the faith of Pat Buchanan. What's the difference between Christianity and Islam? Jesus told His flock to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor and forgive enemies. In contrast, Muhammad, like Moses, was a warrior-prophet who commanded his followers to wage Jihad to spread the faith. Now, both Christians and Muslims expanded their powers thee same way: War, violence, and terror.
However, Muslims need not feel sorry for what they did according to their sacred text of the Koran. Muhammad was a fighter and urged the faithful to use the sword as well as the word to spread the message of Allah. In contrast, Christian civilization was vulnerable to pangs of doubt, hypocrisy, and guilt because Christian expansion(fueled by greed, violence, and ambition) went so much against what Jesus had preached. Christians often found themselves apologizing to God in prayer for having gone against Jesus' teachings in their victories in His name. Muslims saw their violence as an act of virtue. Christians saw their violence as, at best, a 'necessary evil' to defeat the greater evil of heathen darkness. Muslims did 'good', whereas Christians did 'lesser bad' to defeat the 'bigger bad'. This is why it's much more difficult for Jews to toy with Muslim psychology than with Christian psychology. Try to guilt-bait a Muslim, and he will laugh in your face. Try to guilt-bait a Christian, and it's so easy. For most of Western history, white Christians controlled the narrative and dogma; therefore, they could suppress matters exposing their hypocrisy and guilt. But once Jews took over the media and academia, they've been having a field day in guilt-baiting white Christians for their betrayal of their own ethos. Jews left whites feeling like hypocristians.

If Muslims had conquered South America and Mexico, there wouldn't be this issue of 'apology' or 'guilt'. Islam would be the dominant culture, and that'd be that. Muhammad told his flock to kick butt if they must. Enslave infidels if they must. Whatever it takes to spread Islam. Now, Islam did have a theory of justice and called for just treatment of fellow Muslims(and to some extent the fellow peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians), but violence was okay if a bunch of infidels could be crushed and converted.
But, even after 2000 yrs of Catholic theological discourse, the fact remains that it isn't very persuasive to argue that Jesus(and the Christian God) would ever have blessed the use of violence to spread the faith. In a way, Christianity was morally compromised in the moment it forged a pact with the Roman Empire. It began as a faith among Jews resisting the Roman Empire but then re-branded itself as the faith of a militarist behemoth maintained by endless blood-letting. (Perhaps, another reason why Islam has been more resilient is it spread Arabic far and wide as the sacred language of the Koran. As a result, many peoples in the Near East and North Africa abandoned their own languages and adopted Arabic. In contrast, Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, remained only among the elites, and furthermore, various European folks kept their own languages.)

On the matter of South America and Mexico, we need to deviate from the general standards of history. It is because what happened there is especially tragic, indeed far beyond anything that happened to other peoples. While it's true that all peoples were caught up in one form of imperialism or another -- indeed, all organisms, everything from bacteria to weeds to ants to fish to wolves and etc. vie for domination and expansion -- , the scale of devastation in South America and Mexico was unprecedented. Now, this is morally complicated because most of the natives died from diseases for which they had no immunity. In other words, EVEN IF the Spanish and Portuguese had come with the best of intentions and meant NO harm, it's likely that tens of millions(the great majority) of the natives would have died just the same. If the natives had had immunity to Old World diseases, it's likely that their fate would have been more like that of Asian Indians, Russians, and black Africans. Asian Indians were under British rule for a few centuries, but Anglos simply couldn't rule forever. There were too many native browns. And even though Mongols conquered Russia, the far greater number of Russians eventually reclaimed independence and pushed out or absorbed the Mongols. And Blacks still own and control black Africa.
In contrast, Old World diseases were so devastating and debilitating to the native population in South America and Mexico that the Spanish and Portuguese effectively gained permanent dominance. The natives had little chance of retaking their territories like most other peoples were able to eventually. Perhaps, if British diseases had wiped out 95% of Asian Indians or Chinese, it's possible that India or China today would still be an Anglo-dominated civilization. All peoples came under imperialist rule at one time or another, but most of them eventually reclaimed their land and gained autonomy. Romans eventually left Britain. Mongols eventually left Russia. Turks eventually left Greece. Imperialism is violent and destructive but also liberates and opens up new channels by loosening or destroying the native-conservative power structure. While the Chinese in Hong Kong did collaborate with British Imperialists, they gained lots of first-rate knowledge and wealth. However, the thing is the British eventually left, and Hong Kong is now part of China again.

So, when Buchanan argues that the Spanish and Portuguese imperialism in South America and Mexico did a lot of good as well as bad, that's all very true. Indeed, many native folks sided with the Europeans because they loathed the monstrous Aztecs. It's like if space aliens had come to Earth during World War II and declared war on Germany, Poles and Czechs would have allied with space aliens against the German foe. Poles and Czechs would have been grateful to the space aliens for coming to their rescue. But then, what if the aliens refuse to leave? What if they decide to stay and, in doing so, spread diseases that wipe out 90% of Poles and Czechs. And suppose they demographically take over Poland & Czech-land and rule as the New Boss. And just like Simon Mol the African Negro nearly turned Poland into Moland by humping tons of Polish girls, what if space aliens enslave the Polish and Czech men while having sex with Polish and Czech women to create mestizos who look like creatures in STAR TREK?

While it's true that Aztecs were demented and their defeat was a good thing, it wasn't as if EVERYTHING about their civilization was evil. While it's true that the native civilizations of South America and Mexico practiced horrid rituals like human sacrifice, they also built cities and had their own impressive bodies of knowledge and arts. But nearly all of that were wiped out by the Europeans. They threw out the baby along with the bathwater. We know Nazi Germany was evil, and it deserved to be defeated(even though Nazism was less defeated by communism and liberal democracy than by its own over-weaning ambition; any power, regardless of ideology, will destroy itself with excessive hubris or preserve itself with caution and moderation). But, the thing is Germany was allowed to survive as a civilization. Germans still had Germany(even if reduced in territory). Even the Soviets who occupied East Germany didn't deny Germans the right of people-hood and culture. But suppose the victors of World War II decided to destroy ALL of German identity and culture by conflating everything German with Nazism. Would that have been justified?

While imperialism has its pros and cons and even though subject peoples can gain something from imperialism -- Roman imperialism certainly spread civilization to the Germanic Barbarians -- , its positives can be justified ONLY WHEN the empire finally recedes and the native folks regain their lands. India and China are two cases of civilizations that were both victims and beneficiaries of European Imperialism. They did undergo stages of defeat, humiliation, and exploitation, but they also learned a great deal from the West and made remarkable advances because of revolutions in values and organization unleashed by Western influence. (Unless pried open by an outside force, their internal conservatism wasn't going to budge for new possibilities.) But the thing is neither Chinese nor Indians lost their land or culture in the long run. The imperialists eventually went home, and the natives reclaimed their land. Sadly, this cannot be said of the natives of Mexico and South America. Even though India was ruled by the Brits for couple of centuries, we don't call it Anglo-India. And Brits ruled parts of China, but we don't call it Anglo-China. But both 'Latin' and 'America' are permanent fixtures in a world that had once belonged to non-European civilizations.

Now, imagine Europe in barbarian times. Suppose Vikings are going around pillaging and raping and committing human sacrifice. Suppose the more civilized Arabs or Chinese arrive with deadly diseases and superior technology. Suppose they defeat the cruel Vikings and create a superior moral order premised on Islam or Confucianism. And since most whites died by diseases introduced by Arabs and Chinese, the newcomers get to stay and rule. And suppose they promote massive race-mixing, whereby most white women have children of Arab or Chinese men. And suppose to this very day, Europe is called Arabo-Europe or Sino-Europe.
Would Buchanan say it was worth it because, after all, the cruel pagan Vikings were defeated and a new order was founded on the estimable wisdom of Islam or Confucianism? I think not. Pat Buchanan has been a race-ist(a term of praise in my book), and I would think he'd prefer even a barbarian Europe that is white than a civilized Europe that is overrun and ruled by non-whites. Indeed, if Buchanan had to choose between an all-white Germany that is ruled by Germanic barbarian ax-lords who act like Big-Boss-Man AND a race-mixed Germany that is ruled by Chinese Christians who impose Christo-Confucian theocracy and encourage race-mixing on a massive scale, which one would he choose? The latter might be more orderly and civilized, but the core of any people and culture is blood-and-soil and must be above all. Surely, even an all-white Communist Germany is preferable to race-mixed multi-culti capitalist Germany that will end up looking like Morocco.

South America and Mexico are especially tragic because they had impressive civilizations, all the more remarkable for having been created in utter isolation from the Old World. Also, there were huge population centers. In contrast, as tragic as the fate of North American Indians was, they simply had no chance against the white invasion, no more than primitive Aborigines of Australia or the Eskimo-like tribes of Siberia. Once Anglos and French set foot on North America, they were going to take it, just like Russians were bound to grab all of Siberia(as long as Chinese failed to do so). Primitive folks sparsely spread out over vast territories will have to yield to the force of Macro-History.
In contrast, according to general historical patterns, what happened to the peoples of Mexico and South America is almost unprecedented, of course mainly because of the lack of immunity to Old World diseases. Had the natives had been disease-resistance, their fate would likely have been more like that of the peoples of India or Indonesia. They would have been under white rule for a time but would have eventually gained independence and autonomy. And if they adopted Christianity, it would have been on their own terms. It's like the spread of Christianity to Europe didn't necessitate Near Eastern demographic takeover. Even though Christianity originated among tribes in the Middle East, it spread far and wide as an idea and creed. Europeans remained European and kept their own lands even as they adopted the new faith(though one could argue that the 'cultural genocide' by Christianity did grave harm to pagan cultures of Europe; also, it could be argued Byzantine Orthodoxy destroyed or buried much of pagan science and math, leading to kind of Christo-Platonic hibernation of the mind).
In contrast, it wasn't only Christianity that spread to peoples of South America and Mexico. It was Christian Europeans who took over demographically as well and sexually colonized the native folks. (Now, some people might say that race-mixing was good for the natives because it made them taller and better-looking because Europeans are considered to be more desirable and robust. But then, one could use the same logic to argue for massive African invasion of Europe and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. After all, mixed-raced kids will be tougher and more macho than pure-white males.)
It's one thing for a people to gain something by coming in contact with another people. Whether it happens peacefully or violently, there is bound to be some kind of gain. This was certainly true with the Moorish conquest of Spain. Moorish Arabs at the time were more sophisticated and advanced in learning and the arts, and their contributions altered the fate of Spain. That said, Spanish Europeans finally did defeat and expel the Moors and regained control of their territory. This dream has been permanently quashed for the native brown folks of South America and Mexico. Their anger, if such exists, is understandable.
Indeed, why are white nationalist so angry about mass-immigration. It's one thing for white folks to try other foods, watch films from around the world, listen to all sorts of music, pop and folk, from all parts of the world, and learn from the ideas of other cultures. But, it's an entirely different matter for white lands to be demographically and genetically transformed by massive third world invasions and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Adopting foreign ideas and cultures can do much good. Japan certainly gained much by Westernization beginning in the 19th century. But Japanese were still in command of their own nation.

Buchanan says Christianity and Western Civilization did much good for the natives of South America and Mexico, and that is true. But is moral and spiritual progress worth the loss of one's homeland? Was Christianity a fair exchange for permanent subjugation to a foreign people from another continent? Indians and Chinese gained a lot from Western ideas and sciences that came with Western Imperialism, BUT they kept their own lands. Black Africans gained a lot from Western Imperialism, but Sub-Saharan Africa is still theirs. Middle Eastern folks also gained a lot from Western Imperialism. Think of the oil fields and all that wealth gushing from the ground. Arabs and Persians still own and control the Middle East.
In contrast, the peoples of South America and Mexico not only fell like flies in the tens of millions to European diseases but were mass-'raped' into 'mestizos' and came under what looks to be like permanent rule by imperialists(who never went home) who labeled the land of Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs as 'Latin American', with both 'Latin' and 'American' being of European origin.
Furthermore, the native folks weren't a bunch of crude savages like Aborigines in Australia or Eskimos in Alaska but a people who'd created remarkable civilizations all on their own. On that note, what befell the native peoples of South America and Mexico was the greatest tragedy in human history. But, such view isn't part of a dominant narrative because browns tend to be rather inarticulate and inexpressive, unlike Jews who are verbally gifted and blacks who are vocally rambunctious. Being of a servile and slavish mentality, most native brown folks just go along with the Narrative formed by Others. (Just look at the sight of idiot brown radicals demanding that 'Latino' be changed to 'Latinx'. First, do these browns not know that 'Latin' is an imposed European identity on the Americas? Second, don't they know that this globo-homo gender-bending crap is Western cultural-imperialist degeneracy at its worst?) One dominant Narrative of Diversity-Worship gushes that a wonderfully unique civilization was created by the fusion of Latin and Native traditions. This narrative is presented as a kind of love story of various colors, flavors, and spices, a global Romeo-and-Juliet Story. It utterly overlooks the fact that Diversity is a product of imperialism and was forcibly imposed on the native folks through wars, 'rape', 'genocide', and slavery. It's like Che Guevara's laughable bullshit that 'Latino' is a wonder to behold as a happy blend of all of humanity. Or Orson Welles waxing romantic about Brazil as a joyous cocktail of so many races, colors, and cultures. Now, while it's true that such blend of many peoples and cultures did lead to something new(and even wonderful & inspired) in Latin America, it was also a bloody process of endless violence and mayhem(that goes on to this very day).



If we deconstruct the celebration of Diversity, and it is really an apologia of imperialism. After all, why did South America and Mexico become racially diverse? Because whites conquered and took over. And why did it become even more diverse? Because of the slave trade that brought over millions of black Africans to the New World. So, the brown natives didn't just lose out to whites but to ghastly Negroes who were even worse. It was bad enough that whites took the land and the women, but then the stupid jerks had to import tons of black savages for short-term profit. (And Jews played a considerable role in Latin American slave trade.) Natives didn't just lose out to whites but to blacks brought over by whites. Imagine a barbarian Germany that is conquered by the Confucian Chinese who choose to stay, race-mix, and rule forever. That'd be bad enough, but suppose those a**holes decide to bring over millions of black Africans as slaves to Germany as well. Then, whites would not only have to deal with yellow peril but with black lunacy.

This is why anyone who claims to be for both 'indigeneity' and Diversity is full of crap. DIVERSITY is what destroys 'indigeneity'. 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' imply that the native folks who have blood-and-soil claim to their own land MUST be 'inclusive' of invasions by foreign peoples in order to increase DIVERSITY to the point where the native folks end up strangers in their own homeland. Look what 'inclusion' and 'diversity' did to Palestine. Palestinians were forced to 'include' all those Jews, and guess what happened?. And West Bank is currently forced to 'include' more Jews as well. The result has been Diversity alright, that of Palestinians having to live with more and more Jews who demand endless 'inclusion' of Jewish immigrants.
Any people who adopt Diversity and Inclusion will end up like Palestinians or Native Hawaiians who are outnumbered in their ancestral homeland by whites and Asians. Now, it would take a special kind of lowlife to tell native Hawaiians to celebrate Diversity, which is akin to celebrating their own loss of land and demographic demise. But then, as most native Hawaiians are rather stupid like the brown masses of 'Latin America', I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been hoodwinked with the idea that Diversity is good for 'indigeneity'. Why? Because Diversity is often invoked as an anti-white agenda, native browns of Latin America and native folks of Hawaii may well think it empowers them against White Privilege. They overlook the fact that Diversity means white globalism has opened up immigration floodgates to the point where EVEN MORE foreigners keep streaming into Latin America and Hawaii. People who don't control their terminology and narrative are mental putty in the hands of others.
Smart people invoke Diversity and Inclusion to conquer and take from others, BUT THEN invoke Nation and Culture to keep what they have for themselves. Jews are smart, which is why they push Diversity and Inclusion on goyim(whom they see as More Palestinians) while they themselves emphasize Nation and Culture to defend and preserve Israel as a Jewish State, one that allows only Jewish Immigration.

Now, there is an aspect of this recent controversy that Buchanan is overlooking. The demand by the Mexican president is totally disingenuous. Unlike Anglo, Germanic, and Scandinavian progs who really cuck hard -- look at that worthless Joe Biden denouncing English Law -- , Hispanic 'leftists' bitch about whiteness to actually keep their white power. Look at the Mexican president. He is white or mostly white, as are most leaders of Latin American nations. Then, why is he denouncing the Catholic Church and Spain? Because he wants to fool the native browns that he is with them, that people like himself are really part of 'people of color' than European. It's a dirty trick. After all, if the Mex Prez is really sincere, how about calling for whites in Latin America to GO BACK HOME or handing all political power to the browns?
While native folks have a historical reason to blame Spain and the Church as the source of their problems, white and mostly white peoples in Latin America have no such right. They've been the main beneficiaries of imperialism. They've been ruling over the natives, and nothing much changed with Latin America's independence from Spain. If anything, independence led to continued white rule and even more importation of black slaves. White Latinos blaming Spain and the Catholic Church for Latin American problems is like Anglo-Americans blaming Great Britain and the Anglican Church for all the problems in North America. (Maybe there is something more to Biden blaming 'English' law, a way of blaming the Old World for New World problems.)

Latin whites are among the scummiest people on Earth. Now, if Latin whites honestly acknowledged the tragic aspects of history and sought an understanding whereby all sides could bury the hatchet and move forward, that'd be ideal and good for everyone. But these lowlife scum don't play fair. Though white and privileged themselves, they pretend to be 'people of color' and, just like Jews, try to blame Anglo-Germanic whites for ALL THE PROBLEMS. Latin Whites are like Greeks in having no sense of honor or principles. It's all talk, no walk. Take the loathsome Guillermo Del Toro who looks about as white as a white person can be. He's the kind of Latin turd-person who've been hogging all the wealth, privilege, and opportunities in Latin America. Latin whites have been far more corrupt, violent, and oppressive than gringos in the North. But these lowlife scum are always pretending to be People of Color and always hectoring gringos for stuff like Selma and 'racism'. These Latin White scum(who spread diseases and killed tens of millions, committed massive 'rapes', and enslaved many more blacks than North America ever did) are always pontificating about how they are full of tolerance and love. They sermonize about how Trump's proposed WALL is so evil while conveniently overlooking the fact that their intrusion into the New World led to untold misery for the native folks, for whom things got even worse when Latin whites decided to bring over hordes of crazy black Africans to carry bananas.

This is why people like Buchanan have failed in the Culture War. Buchanan is sticking up for Latin whites even though Latin whites, being the weasels that they are, go out of their way to form alliances with Jews, blacks, and any POC(even Muslims) to bash gringo and yanqui. Why defend Latin whites from POC when Latin whites use POC against northern whites? It's as stupid as whites siding with Jews against Palestinians when Jews are using POC and Muslims against whites. (And if Jews are capable of doing what they did to Palestinians, why would they not do it to your people as well? If Bob steals from Bill, what makes you think he won't steal from you? Oh, because you helped Bob steal from Bill? Well, if Bob has a sense of gratitude, maybe he will go easy on you. But is Bob capable of gratitude? If not, you will be the next victim for sure. People like Max Boot and William Kristol do not inspire trust. When have they ever said Thank You to America?) Furthermore, Latin whites side with POC against northern whites mainly to keep their own white privilege. It's a game of misdirection. Just like Jews want people to focus on 'white privilege' as distraction from Jewish Power(an 'antisemitic trope'), Latin whites manipulate the brown masses in Latin America into hating and blaming 'gringos' or 'yanquis'(or European Spain or Catholic Church) than take notice of the all-too-obvious fact that Latin America is mostly ruled by white Latin elites(often allied with globo-homo Jewry).

White Americans should return the favor. Two can play that game. If Latin whites want to rouse up POC against whites in the US, whites should rouse up POC in Latin America against Latin whites. Latin whites are too sleazy and slimy to come to a mutual understanding with Northern whites. They are like Greeks, a people that simply cannot be trusted with honor and principles. White Americans should go tit-for-tat and denounce Diversity in Latin America as the product of imperialism. White Americans should call for restoration of Aztec Rule and reopening of the temple for massive human sacrifices(of Latin whites). All Latin whites like Guillermo Del Toro should be led up the steps for crude heart-transplant operations. And the brown Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show) should be renamed Moctezuma II and made ruler-for-life of Mexico(as he looks more native than European). Mexican white elites are the scum of the Earth who champion POC for the most cynical and self-serving reasons. It isn't really to favor browns over whites but to ensure that Latin whites will keep the power by directing brown rage against the OTHER whites(Anglos, Germanic, and Europeans).



These Latin whites are dirtbags, and white Americans must give up any hope of alliance on good faith. Just look at scumbags like Jorge Ramos, Ana Navarro, Jim Acosta, and etc. What total filth. Though their ancestors messed up South America and Mexico, they never accept any blame. If anything, they take pride that Hispanic imperialism, slave trade, and mass 'rape' of natives led to so much vibrant Diversity in Latin America. That one magic word 'Diversity' redeems all the horrors. And of course, Jews indulge Latin whites and let them carry on as honorary POC because Jews figure Latinos are currently useful in the POC coalition against white goyim. These Latin whites messed up their own nations and ran from their own problems, but they are always accusing gringo and yanqui of being 'racist' and 'not caring'. Instead of going back home and fixing the problems, they come to the US to leech off gringo, and they expect gringos to let in endless waves of 'Latinos'(many of whom are not Latin at all) and bear all the responsibilities of solving the problems of humanity. Latin white's idea of panacea is "Let us go to gringoland, let's take stuff, and let's blame gringo for everything" and "Gringo, if you don't let us in, you are racismo." Adios Rule of Law.
There is no honest discussion as to why Latin America is messed up so bad. No mention of Latin white culture of corruption, vanity, and superficiality. No mention of the problems of Diversity that seriously undermines social trust. No mention of black problems due to Hispanic and Jewish slave trade. No mention of problems of somewhat lower IQ of browns and their lackluster personality. Instead, all the burden is on gringos to keep taking in more and more peoples from Latin America. Now, won't too many 'Latinos' lead to degradation of America into something more like Latin America? Won't they be killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg? But Latin whites don't care because they've long eyed the Anglo-Germanic success in the US with burning envy and resentment. They want to leech off it, and if it is finally destroyed with excessive diversity, what do they care? Just like barbarians pillaged civilizations out of envy and resentment(as well as greed), Latin whites hate the very existence of the US because it stands as stark reminder of the failure of Latin whites in the South.

Justin Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples. France’s Emmanuel Macron has apologized for the torture of rebels in Algeria’s war for independence.

This is all BS. If Trudeau really cares about Canada's indigenous peoples, why is he allowing mass immigration? If white people are guilt-ridden for having stolen Indian lands, shouldn't they try to revive the indigenous communities and return some of the land? Instead, Trudeau lets in tons of Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, and Africans who have ZERO ancestral or historical claim to the land. With globo-homo scum like Trudeau, it's all horseplay. He's a Muslim, Hindu, Indian, Homo, Chinese, African, and etc, etc. The man for all costumes, all hipster-dipter larping. Besides, how can anyone who truly respects indigenous culture go about spreading Homomania all around, the product of Western decadence, Jewish subversion, 'gay' vanity, and capitalism-gone-cancerous? So much for defending native cultures.

As for Macron, he's just another BS artist and globo-homo shill. If indeed Macron truly feels guilty for what the French did in Algeria, why is he supportive of all these Wars for Israel that have decimated entire parts of the Middle East? Why is he blind to the plight of Palestinians who are far worse off than Algerians under the French? Syria has some of the greatest ancient treasures and artifacts, but so many have been blown up sky-high by US-Israel-Saudi backed terrorist Jihadis labeled as 'moderate rebels'. Do people like Macron even care or voice criticism? And France worked closely with US in the utter destruction of Libya. It's all talk. Macron talks of 'human rights' and uses it as moral cover for his collaboration with Jewish supremacist imperialism. It's like scummy Hillary and Madeline Albright spout sentiments about 'saving Muslim refugees' while overlooking the fact that those refugees are the result of Wars for Israel in which they had a hand.

Also, it's about time Algeria and rest of them apologized to the French for colonizing France. And it is about time the French patriots got resistance mode as depicted in the film BATTLE OF ALGIERS. At this point, unless there is a BATTLE OF FRANCE, it is game over for a nation that is being colonized demographically and sexually by Muslims and Africans. In the coming decades, France will be even darker than Algeria and Morocco. North Africans generally disdain black sub-Saharan Africans and use harsh means to keep them under control. This is why black Africans don't stick around in North Africa and make it to Europe, esp France-UK-Germany-Sweden where they treated as Magic Negroes. In 'liberal' Europe, blacks are celebrated and allowed to run jungle wild.

Anyway, Pat Buchanan is stuck in Old Think. The paradigms he refers to are gone. We need new paradigms in dealing with stuff like Diversity. We must spell out that Diversity is the product of imperialism, genocide, slavery, and replacement immigration-invasion. And it's about time to give up on the alliance of North American whites and South American whites. It might have worked if South American whites had a sense of honor and if North American whites fended off Jewish takeover of elite power and stuck to their noble race-ist principles. But Latin whites are a bunch of weasels who try to keep their white privilege by directing brown rage at Europe and 'gringo', and most Northern white elites are a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks who bend over to homomania and roll over before their Jewish supremacist masters and wet their pants in joy over their daughter marrying a Negro. Utterly worthless.