There is much to recommend in the video above by Jared Taylor on the topic of White America's unique guilt regarding the enslavement of blacks. Taylor has been in the fight for white(or hu-white)peoples all over the world for much of his adult life, and he has brought intelligence, erudition, and dignity(especially relative to Neo-Nazi morons and Alt Right bad boys). But, everyone has a blind-spot, willful or otherwise, that misses out on the whole picture. Taylor is no different. There is so much that is good about the video, but it fails to answer its own question because it ignores the the founding creed of America, the notable advantages/talents of blacks(especially in the age of hedonistic pop culture), and the dominant power of Jews in current America. Once those matters are addressed, the truth is plainly visible. It should indeed be obvious WHY American Slavery has come to be regarded as a special evil unlike all others.
Though Jared Taylor is far more honest and courageous than most commentators on controversial topics, he tends to shy away from open discussion of Jewish power/influence, the black athletic/sexual threat, and the contradictions of the American Creed(and history). It is then hardly surprising that for much of the video, he goes into Pat Condell mode and dumps on Muslims and their brutal histories regarding conquests, slavery, and atrocities. Not being an expert on Muslim history, I defer to Taylor's knowledge on the subject. But why doesn't Taylor mention the Jewish role in slavery as well? Surely, Jews practiced slavery as much as any other people. According to Thomas Sowell, Jews played a prominent role in European slave trade in the Middle Ages. Jews sold plenty of white Europeans to Arabs and the like. (Jews also collaborated with Muslim conquerors of Southern Europe.)
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR RAPISTS - Pat Condell
New World Slavery also had considerable input from Jews, especially in Brazil that brought over the most number of slaves. (Taylor says 12 million black slaves were brought to the New World. In college, I was taught that Brazil brought over 3 million slaves, and that was more than in all the rest of the New World colonies combined. So, I'm thinking the number had to have been less than 6 million.) Why does Taylor spare the Jews? He's been attacked, ostracized, and slandered by Jews and also removed from social media platforms and banking services. What does he have to lose at this point? Is he afraid that Jews will hurt him even more? Or, is he a starry-eyed seeker of the Great White Jew, the hope that Jews, being white(enough) and possessed of high IQ, will finally come over to the White Side as the intellectual engine of White Power? Well, he can keep dreaming, but reality seems otherwise.
Whatever Muslims may have done in the past(as slave-masters of captured blacks and whites), they are hardly the authors of the current Western demise. While Muslim immigrants may cause problems in Europe, Muslims themselves haven't controlled the powerful institutions that persuaded and browbeat Europeans into welcoming endless tides of non-white immigrants. White Politicians in Europe aren't generally beholden to Muslims. Rather, they take their cues from Jews who have near-monopolistic sway over media, academia, legal institutions, finance, and other centers of power. Jews also control the gods that make whites fear and tremble at the altars of Anne Frank and Nelson Mandela. And even though Muslims practiced White Slavery and exploited white women as sex slaves, so have the Jews.
Furthermore, Jews are the biggest White Slavers in the world today, even though they now do it legally. Jews control pop culture & pornography and use them to promote Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). Jews encourage cucky-wuckery among white men who are now reduced to cheering every instance of white woman ditching white man and going with blacks. Somehow, whites remaining faithful to their own race and having white children for white posterity is 'racist' even for mainstream 'conservatives'. Hardly surprising as both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are utterly taken with the dogmas, idols, and narratives pushed by Jews who control academia and media. While this isn't slavery in the technical sense, it is in a deeper sense: Biological Slavery. After all, white women are going with black men and having black children not for color-blind reasons but interracist ones that say black men are the Real Men(with more muscle, bigger penises, and thicker voices) whereas white men are a bunch of slow flabby pansies whose role is to turn 'gay' and cuck to blacks. Jews don't so much push colorblind 'anti-racism' as interracism as a form of 'neo-racism', a proggy kind that says whites should mix with blacks not because race is just a social construct but because blacks are the superior race that deserves to lord over whites. And of course, in the relation between Jews and White Goyim is the unspoken faith that whites should serve Jews precisely because Jews are superior in intelligence(IQ), spirituality(the Chosen), and/or morality(eternally noble and saintly victims of 'antisemitism').
But Jared Taylor will not touch on these issues. It's likely he avoids matters related to Jungle Fever and the like because his formative years were more uptight about sexual matters, especially when pertaining to race. Still, Taylor has held nothing back in detailing black criminality and thuggery, their psychopathy and lower intelligence. On the matter of Jews, perhaps there is a kind of proto-boomerish sentimentality, as whites in the past grew up at a time when Jews hadn't yet consolidated their control of America and shown their true face. And it could be Taylor has had lifelong Jewish friends in the HBD community whom he's afraid to offend. It could be the hope for the Great White Jew. Or, despite having lost so much as the result of Jewish Power, perhaps he could lose even more, not even being able to hold his beloved American Renaissance conferences. At any rate, his reluctance to fully address the Jewish Question or JQ hinders him from a complete evaluation of what is really going on in the world, e.g. why has American Slavery come to be seen as a unique evil?
There are three key factors to be considered as to why the AMERICAN Slavery has become the focus of intense moral condemnation.
1. Jewish Factor. True, there were strong pro-black sympathies throughout US history, even before Jews arrived in large waves as immigrants. Before the Civil War, a Jew in America was more likely to be pro-Confederate and even own slaves. Abolition Movement had many fiery radicals fueled mostly by Christian moral outrage(that later became one of the pillars of the Prohibition Movement). Even many non-extremists thought slavery was a stain on America as a political and social project. And many whites in the North supported the war against the South to preserve the Union. The mindset was both nationalist and imperialist, as US was a nationalist outgrowth of British imperialism and spawned an imperialism of its own that spanned ever westward. A project committed to gaining more territory wasn't about to lose huge areas of the South, no more than the French were willing to let go Indochina and Algeria in the post-WWII period.
At any rate, prior to Jewish takeover of the US, there was a more balanced understanding of the struggle, war, and tensions between North and South. Being Anti-Slavery wasn't the same as being Anti-White, an unimaginable concept at the time. Most Northerners didn't want Southern whites to be terrorized by feral blacks. And even most anti-slavery whites in the North didn't believe in absolute racial equality between whites and blacks. If anything, the Republican Party soon became the conservative party of Anglo-American elites, big business, and the ever-expanding state.
Also, Northerners gave Southerners their due. Even if the South fought for a lost cause(that deserved to lose), they fought with courage and honor. Consider the sympathetic treatment of the South in John Ford's HORSE SOLDIERS. Dwight Eisenhower wrote glowingly of General Robert E. Lee. Before Jews took power in the academia and media to tip the scale, White America was, more or less, evenly balanced between conservative and liberal voices, with a modicum of mutual respect between the two.
But Jews did gain elite power in the US, with profound implications. Now, it's likely that many idealistic leftist Jews(when they were sincerely ideological) believed in the Boasian notion that Race is a social construct. Given their own struggles against goy prejudice(and explosions of violence), they felt special sympathies for non-whites and convinced themselves that the real dividing line between whites and blacks was mostly skin color, which could be overcome with social conditioning. (As things worked out, it didn't work because, while whites increasingly kept their side of the bargain, blacks failed ever more with theirs. Whites made an effort to become ever less 'racist', but this made blacks even more stereotypically uninhibited in aggression, violence, obnoxiousness, and ludicrousness, even to the point of a rapper calling himself Ludicris. But because whites traditionally held power over blacks, the assumption is the racial solution is entirely contingent on white improvement because whites control everything, whereas blacks are mere hapless victims with no sway over anything. Perhaps, this made sense at one time, but it no longer does, as blacks have plenty of power over many communities, even huge areas of big cities and key states. While one can blame the abusive parent for the problems of a young child, such lopsided moral aspersion is untenable when the child is a big teenager with considerable leeway in behavior and prone to delinquency. We are now at the stage where the black 'teen' is beating up the white 'parent', but we are still supposed to blame only whitey while pretending blacky is an innocent skittles-munching child.)
At any rate, Jews rule America, and Jews have thought long and hard about the essential pillars of their power. Jews know they got the talent but not the numbers to maintain the empire. They need white support. THIS is the main reason why Jews use blackness as the bullwhip against white identity, interests, pride, and freedom. Jews fear White Liberation more than anything, just like the British who regarded India as their 'jewel in the crown' feared the stirrings of Indian nationalism and resistance movement for independence. Of course, one could say Jews are being paranoid. Most whites are okay with Jews, and a whole lot of them are totally crazy about them. Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel. Whites love Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, and Jerry Seinfeld. But, Jews figure things can suddenly go south. Jews feel that much of white sympathy for Jews hinges on the Shoah, and perhaps its effect will fade over the years. Furthermore, Jews know themselves all too well. They know there are many wicked/crooked ones among them. Now, if good Jews were to flush out the bad ones, something like 'antisemitism' might not flare up. But Jews know they tend to circle the wagons. Good Jews(or better Jews) give cover to Bad Jews. Also, even Good Jews aren't good all the time and need bad Jews to do the dirty work, like with the respectable eye doctor in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS who calls on his gangster brother to deal with the woman problem. This means that Jewish Power will grow more corrupt and gangsterish. It means that even whites who'd been partial to Jews may grow increasingly suspicious of them. They might become 'red-pilled'. The fact is, when push comes to shove, even Good Jews have chosen to side with Bad Jews than side with Good Goyim. Ideally, good whites and good Jews should be united against bad whites and bad Jews. Jews have, over the years, goaded good whites to denounce bad whites and make common cause with good Jews and good non-whites. And many good whites have done just that. But have good Jews reciprocated by denouncing bad Jews? No.
Now, if good Jews don't denounce the bad Jews, aren't good Jews also bad Jews? When the good aids and abets the bad, what's the difference? Where is the Jewish outrage over Jonathan Pollard's release? Where is the Liberal Jewish outrage over what's been done to Palestinians? To morally cover for this contradiction, Jews have increasingly fused morality with identity politics. Goodness is less a matter of what you do than what you are. So, the mere fact of BEING Jewish is good. Never mind what Zionists have DONE to Palestinians or millions of Arabs. Jews are good because they are Jews, who are forever to be associated with the Holy Holocaust, timeless wisdom, genius(that is such a benefit to mankind, like the latest Covid 'vaccines'), and crowd-pleasing humor. So, never mind what Jews do. Just dwell on what they are. They are Jews, and that means they are good. And if you praise and bless Jews, you too must be good or better than those who don't. Result is moral rot.
It means good Jews should embrace bad Jews because the mere fact of Jewishness is good. So, even bad Jews are good simply for being Jewish. But in having embraced and protected bad Jews, even good Jews have made themselves bad. And the Jewish community, in insisting that goyim embrace and praise Jewishness on the basis of identity alone, have spread the moral rot to goyim as well. Most goyim never pay attention to Jewish behavior, actions, or impact on the world. The mere fact of Jewishness alone is synonymous with morality. "I have Jewish friends" makes you automatically better than those without Jewish friends, just like being Jewish makes you automatically better than being a mere goy. When morality turns into idolatry, morality turns into ethno-nihilism. Take the latest GOP yapping about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and West Bank. The ice cream company made its decision on the basis of Jewish behavior. Jews are occupying West Bank and tyrannizing the people there, who continue to lose land to Jewish 'settlers'. It isn't 'antisemitic' in the sense of targeting Jews simply because they are Jewish. The company policy is based on Jewish behavior. But, GOP-tards are howling like it's the biggest moral outrage simply because it was done against Jews. According to GOP-tards, being Jewish alone is enough to end the debate. Jews are right because they are Jews, just like God is always right because He is God. So, even though Jews are stealing Palestinian land, Jews are morally correct simply because they're Jewish whereas Palestinians are evil scum who dare to resist Jewish expropriation of their lands and property.
Now, a kind of 'morality' that is skewed toward favoring one group over another based solely on identity sounds like the classic definition of 'racism'. After all, if 'anti-racism' is the law of the land, all groups should be judged by the same set of rules. Then, why aren't Jews condemned for their actions against Palestinians? Why do Jews, who howl most about 'racism, racism, racism', of whites of course, demand that white goyim support what Jews do to the Palestinians simply because being Jewish makes Jews right? And why do Jews get away with this, as both most Republican and Democratic voters hardly raise a fuss about their political representatives shamelessly whoring themselves out to Zion? Fish rots from the head, and Jewish elite power has corrupted the moral health of America. Jews have done a bait-and-switch on whites. Jews pressured whites to abandon any vestige of white identity/interests and go for colorblind ethics for all, regardless of creed or color. But these very same Jews will shriek and howl if any white(or goy) says America should treat Jews and Palestinians equally with the same set of rules. Given the sheer hypocrisy of this, one would think whites would have caught on, but no. Why not? Because most whites rely on their leaders, elites, and representatives to tell them what is what, and most whites-at-the-top are bought-off and/or blackmailed whores of Zion. The other is the power of myth. As most whites grew up with Holocaust Mythology, Anne Frank Cult, and so many movies & TV shows were Arabs/Muslims are little more than swarthy terrorists or white-slavers, their emotionality favors Jews and Zionists over Arabs and Muslims. And as Jews control the news media, most Americans get a very warped view of Middle East affairs.
'Idolatrism' is the new 'racism'. This is why even Jewish Liberals are really Triberals, i.e. it's about the use of Liberalism to ultimately serve Jewish Tribalism. If white 'racism' was about favoring whites over non-whites on the basis of whiteness alone, 'idolatrism' is about favoring Jews, blacks, and homos over all other groups regardless of their deeds, action, or behavior. This is obvious with blacks. They burn, loot, and create havoc, but they are always moral saints. The notion that some creep like George Floyd would be considered a saint or angel would have been laughable in an earlier time, but it is reality today.
Now, it's true that certain groups underwent special tragedies in the modern era. So, one could sympathize with the victims of those tragedies. But to permanently affix tragic dimensions onto a group can only lead to moral nihilism. We can sympathize with Chinese of the Nanking Massacre period and with millions of Russians who died in World War II. But does the fact that many millions of innocent Chinese and Russians died mean that today's Chinese and Russians are automatically noble and saintly on the basis of identity and above moral opprobrium when they do bad? Sounds absurd, but such are the rules in the West in regards to Jews, blacks, and homos.
A major fallacy is to confuse victimhood with virtue. Most human tragedies weren't the result of saintliness, nobility, or martyrdom but of pure-and-simple defeat to the bigger power. American Indians didn't lose because they were noble pacifists who turned the other cheek. They lost because whites had the numbers and more guns. Blacks became slaves not because they were meek and humble but because they got captured by bigger African tribes who sold them for gold to white slave ships. While tragedies suffered by Christian saints resulted from pious acts of self-sacrifice, most human tragedies were really the result of one set of bullies losing to a stronger set of bullies. Japanese and Germans faced great tragedies in WWII, but they were in the fight, often as initiators. Also, while the Shoah was horrific, it was an extreme and fanatical reaction to lots of bad Jewish behavior. Jews weren't saintly victims but often a**hole victims. This doesn't excuse Hiroshima or the Holocaust, but it was not a case of wholly innocent and saintly people being killed for the hell of it.
Not only are we supposed to believe that Jews bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for the Shoah, but we are supposed to believe that all Jews everywhere forever and ever are akin to Anne Frank regardless of what they do. Saying that Jews deserve partial blame for the Shoah isn't the same as blaming-the-victim. If a woman minding her own business is attacked and raped in a park, she is blameless. Blaming her would be blaming the victim. But if someone in the park taunts and provokes others to the point where someone finally has had enough and beats him to a pulp, he is partly to blame. Given Jewish role in communism, financial capitalism, and cultural degradation leading up to WWII, yes, Jews do deserve some blame for what happened to them, just like Germans and Japanese must take some blame for the destruction of their nations in WWII. Sadly, Jews, in their Holocaust-moral-megaloamania, have learned nothing and are once again spreading filth and craziness all around the world with zero self-awareness that they themselves may be at the epicenter of world troubles. And the cucks play along and pretend all the problem stems from China or Iran(if the cuck is 'conservative') OR from Russia or 'white supremacists'(if the cuck is 'liberal'). And of course, blacks deserve some blame for the rot in their communities, but the current 'idolatrism' says that they are totally and eternally blameless(just like Jews and homos), and all the blame must go to whitey.
Unless Jews are judged for what they do than for what they are, 'idolatrism' is the order of the day in the US, and it is virtually identical with what is called 'racist'. The only difference is Jews have associated their identity with historical tragedy. Thus, one could say they are not favored for their 'skin color'. Rather, they are favored for their Memory. But morally pasting the past to the present to excuse bad behavior is just another kind of prejudice. In some ways, it is worse because Jews are invoking morality to act immoral. "Because Nazis treated us badly, we can act like Nazis and treat others the same way." Jews denounce 'white supremacism' not to attack supremacism as a general principle but to buttress Jewish supremacism.
Likewise, blacks complain about how white 'racists' in the past done stereotyped them as savage apelike thugs as a moral excuse to act like, well, savage apelike thugs prone to looting, robbing, beating, hollering, raping, murdering, shooting, and acting demented. But because we are supposed to judge blacks on the basis of Memory, they are forever the saintly slave-victim even when they use their advantage in muscle and natural aggression to terrorize entire communities. Blackkks are the main thugs and lynch mobs in America.
And of course, even though homos spread HIV and died from too many wild orgies of homo-fecal-penetration in bath-houses, parks, and wherever, they are not to be judged, lest one be denounced as 'homophobic'. More 'idolatrism'.
To better understand Jews and whites, suppose you're a rancher and have a variety of animals. You have a horse, a dog, a hedgehog, a frog, a monkey, a turtle, a cow, a goose, a chicken, a goat, a sheep, a hawk, a gopher, a deer, and etc. Which animal would you value most? Which animal would you be most mindful about having control over? It's most probably the horse. It's the most powerful and the most useful animal. Dog would be second, but you can't ride a dog or use it for plowing. Not only is the horse most powerful but it's also naturally fierce and independent(and least fearful of small man). A horse naturally wants to run free. And it surely doesn't want to carry a man on its back. Also, if it goes out of control, it can do most harm. One kick from a horse can turn a man's brains to mush.
In contrast, take a hedgehog. It is hardly of any use to man. It might be fun to have around as a pet. Also, even if a hedgehog acts out of order, what could it do? It can't harm, let alone kill, a man. Turtle might be put in a pond. Maybe it can be made into turtle soup. Again, it's hardly of any use to man, and there's no concern about its behavior. A goat-gone-bad might be troublesome, but even a bad goat isn't much of a threat to man. Also, goats aren't very useful for anything but producing goat milk. But the horse is very useful, and it must be made to obey and follow instructions. The well-being of the rancher counts so much on his control of the horse.
Jews see whites as the White Horse or the War Horse of Jewish Power. Without whites in the military, state, industries, and institutions to run things, Jews could only do so much. And among whites, Northern European whites are most prized. Indeed, would Jews have taken over the world without saddling on top of the Northern European horse? Anglo/Germanics are the prize stallion of Jewish Power. That is why Jews do everything to make sure that white people(especially Anglo-Germanics) obey and follow Jews. But carrots aren't enough. Jews have a lot of money, but money only goes so far. Japan spread a lot of money around in the 80s, and China does the same today, but they can only buy favors, not loyalty. And the stick isn't enough either, especially as Jews themselves don't have the military and/or police muscle to beat all whites into compliance. If they did, like with the Palestinians, Jews would probably rely less on 'white guilt'. After all, Jews know they got the stick of military power to crush Palestinians and don't bother to instill Pallies with 'Arab Guilt'. But Jews can't do to whites what they do handily with Palestinian men, women, and children. And that is why Jews use power of media and academia to instill white souls with 'white guilt'. THAT is why the subject of American Slavery has come to loom so large. Historically, Latin America enslaved many more blacks, but for the time being, Jews need Latinos as allies against the gringos and yanquis, and so the Narrative on Latin America is, "all the races are so wonderfully mixed, and there is hardly any racism down there, and all is forgiven and forgotten." History is often a game of selectivity. It's not about all that happened but about picking and choosing and shaping narratives to serve the power and agenda of the group that gets to select them.
2. American Credo factor.
Jared Taylor has often said that the Founders envisioned America as an outgrowth of Europe, especially the Anglospheric World and parts of Germania. The Founders also believed it would be a Christian nation despite the absence of an official religion or state church.
But the American Credo was chockful of contradictions from day one. Despite the social realities and personal preferences of the Founders(and the peoples back then), there were powerful tendencies in the American Vision that directed the national future toward universalism and globalism. There wasn't a single credo but competing credos. Some were merely sensed or taken for granted, whereas others were written down as laws and principles. And when one looks at the Constitution, pro-whiteness isn't spelled out. Perhaps, the Founders didn't need to write it down because it was taken for granted. But on the other hand, perhaps the Christian impulse and Enlightenment Values of the time gravitated toward a larger definition of Americanism. So, while the details of Americanism at the founding(and for a century and half) was Anglo-American, Eurocentric, and pro-white, the overarching goal aimed at something bigger. Also, universalism has a loftier perch than particularism. Enlightenment was credo-imperialist in wanting to unite the world with the power of reason and science. Christianity had the missionary zeal of converting the world and saving souls of all peoples. So, despite the many particularist realities of the American founding and history, there was a semi-utopianism that was either idealist or invoked idealism to justify the ambition for more conquest and power. Why did Christianity and Islam win out over more particularist cults and religions?
Consider the Old Testament, full of competing narratives and credos. At times, God is peace-loving and understanding. Other times, He is angry and violent, willing to smite entire peoples. Parts of the Old Testament suggest at the need for peace and understanding between Jews and goyim. Other parts suggest Jews should crush and destroy the goyim. God has many faces in the Old Testament, and one could use it to condemn or justify slavery. After all, Jews fled from bondage from tyrannical Egypt. But Jews also owned slaves, and Jews had no laws against slavery. There are times when God is about justice. Other times, His power seems arbitrary, a matter of whim. Old Testament says God is the only God, the sole Deity for all the world and all mankind. But it also says God has a special relation with Jews. Some Jews interpreted this as God commanding Jews to be light unto all mankind. Other Jews interpreted this to mean Jews alone have souls whereas goyim are like beasts who should be treated like cattle. So, there is no single interpretation of the Old Testament. However, the fact that the Old Testament led to the New Testament and the Koran that came to profoundly impact history suggests that its universalist urge was too powerful to overcome. Of course, Jews rejected it and kept with the Covenant. But some Jews forged a new religion that argued that God is truly for all mankind and not only for Jews. After all, if there is only one God and if He is about love and justice, why shouldn't He bestow His blessing equally unto all the peoples? And Christianity later inspired Islam, another universal faith.
Likewise, despite the contradictions within Americanism from its founding, certain ideas were bound to gain an upper-hand over others. The Founders spoke of liberty, freedom, dignity, and equal justice of mankind in general. They were Enlightenment idealists, and most Americans had a powerful Christian impulse to save the world, extending all the way to the time when Jared Taylor was a child in Japan of Missionary Parents.
History often depends on which elements have more charge, as in electrical charge. Suppose there are 50 of elements A and 50 of elements B. They are even-steven at the start, but suppose elements of A have more charge in them. Thus, they are more active and pull together and cause more commotion. Suppose, in coming together, they create sparks and create even more elements of A. So, A elements go from 50 to 100. In contrast, the elements of B have less charge. They are less active and manage to produce only 10 more of its kind. Over time, it's 100 A vs 60 B. Why did America achieve so much more than Russia since1800? Anglo-American Protestant spirit was far more charged than the Russian soul mired in Orthodox Byzantinism.
Some ideas are dry, some are wet. Some are cold, some are hot. The combination of Enlightenment Principles and Christianity(unmoored from statist controls in Old Europe) added more charge to the universalist impulses in American History. Universalists were often more aggressive and dreamy than the particularists.
Also, universalism was a way to deal with the moral contradiction inherent in the American Enterprise. America expanded by taking lands from the Indian savages who, in some cases, were wiped out. Also, America relied on black slave labor in the South. America could have created a Constitution that specifically said Whites have the right to rule over darkies and the red man, but then, the American Project would have sounded grimly Spartan. Sparta had the brooding Spartans lording over the cowering Helots. It was a dark order. Americans wanted to feel good about themselves. After all, Jefferson spoke of the Pursuit of Happiness. They were moralists and didn't want to feel mean and cruel. So, even though they did cruel things, they wanted to convince themselves that the American Experiment would eventually morally redeem all that had been done. If America had been founded on an island with no natives and without slave labor of another race, perhaps things would have been different. But to insist on a wholly white country in a land taken from the Red Man and labored by the Black Man and furthermore committed to the principles of freedom and fairness was something of a stretch. The very fact that blacks were allowed to become American citizens under the law meant that one didn't need to be white to be American. If blacks could be American like the whites, who was to say peoples from other parts of the world couldn't be Americans one day as well? Surely, whites in the 1860s had no inkling of the mass non-white immigration that would engulf the country a hundred years later, but in making blacks the equal of whites as American citizens(at least in theory), they effectively did away with the idea that only white people could be Americans.
Another factor was that white births simply couldn't keep up with the demands of American development. There was too much land to settle. Too many factories to fill. When Anglo and German immigrants weren't enough, the US looked to Eastern and Southern Europe. A lot of this had to do with white Americans favoring fellow white workers than blacks, but the need to assimilate these Other Europeans further weakened the particularist elements of Americanism. With the Other Europeans also came the radicals, especially among the Jews, many of whom were anarchist or socialist. But Jews were also the most talented capitalists and gave the Anglos a run for the money. Jews wanted more immigration to bring over more of their own kind to the New Land, a more hospitable and tolerant place than the Old World. Also, the greater meritocracy in the US meant that Jews could rise faster and higher, even challenging Wasps for mastery over the nation. Then, it was in the interests of Jews to play up the universalist aspects of Americanism. And yet, the great irony is that Jews were also the most particularist people to have set foot on America. Indeed, Jews weren't aiming to join in the melting pot but to melt the goyim into a hodge-podge so that they would be too mixed and confused to take on rising Jewish Power. The Melting Pot as Jew Stew had the Jews as the chef and the goyim as the ingredients.
In a way, American Guiltism is the flipside of American Narcissism. It's the one who highly regards her own beauty who sees every little blemish as an intolerable ugliness that must be expunged. The myth of American Founding had brave freedom fighters resisting and defeating the British. Americans defined themselves as free people in a republic or democracy, as opposed to Europe that was mostly dominated by kings and aristocrats(until World War I brought an end to monarchical rule). The 'genocide' of the Indians was spun as the great Manifest Destiny, white settlers and freedom-and-opportunity-seeking immigrant folks expanding westward to tame the wilderness and build communities fit for womenfolk and children, with schools and churches, like in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Western genre mythologized this in Hollywood. (Jewish moguls sure funded a lot of 'genocidal' propaganda.) Americans flattered themselves as protectors of the New World(including Central and South America) from the clutches of the Old World. (Of course, Latin America saw North America as its tormentor, but that's another story.) And even though US had slavery, the Civil War Narrative redeemed America. Supposedly, no civilization had ever fought a war to end slavery. The US did because, when push came to shove, Americans are for freedom over bondage. Americans regarded themselves as saviors of Europe in World War I and II. And Americans were also full of themselves as the saviors of the world from communism. So, one of the running themes of Americanism was that United States wasn't content to be just one nation among many. No, it was different. Its destiny was grander than any other nation. America was blessed with great land and resources. It was founded on freedom. It cleansed itself of the sin of slavery with the Civil War that cost so many white lives. Not only did America break free from Old tyrannical Europe but in the 20th century stretched out to defend Europe from German Imperialism, Nazism, and Soviet totalitarianism. So, in retrospect, it seemed like America was bound to be a Nation of Destiny, a superhero nation. And of course, Jews fed on this vanity. Theodore Roosevelt ate it up when Jews flattered America as a special nation. Roosevelt was among the most racially chauvinistic presidents ever. He was a kind of 'white supremacist' even beyond the norms of the day. But even he couldn't resist the portrayal of America as the land of the free, a beacon of light unto the world, and all that.
But when a people have such high regard for themselves, they're bound to be traumatized by proof to the otherwise. It's like the Don Henley song, "End of the Innocence". Now, there was always plenty that was dark, violent, cruel, and crazy about America, but compared to the rest of the world, it wasn't a bad place to be in the 19th and 20th century. In the 19th century, it was far freer than Europe that came under aristocratic rule after Napoleon's failures. And Asia in the 19th century was the beginning of its humiliation(along with renewal). Latin America got mired in stasis and backwardness. Africa was still totally savage. And in the 20th century, even being a Negro living under Jim Crow in the US was a hell of lot better compared to what would befall the fates of those living in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Poland, China, Turkey, and etc. So, relative to the rest of the world, America went from success to success, victory to victory. American Triumphalism became mainstay of the Narrative, and this made a lot of Americans rather naive and 'innocent'. They got to seeing America as the land of baseball, apple pie, five-and-dime stores, and milk shakes at the local drug store. Even Jews couldn't resist this. In Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, Jews across the ocean are facing hell, but the lead character is mainly obsessed with baseball cards and nudie photos of women. The worst thing he can imagine is eating liver and onions for dinner.
And American Amnesia has gotten worse since the boomer 60s. At the very least, white folks prior to the boomers had it pretty tough themselves. Few grew up with privilege. Many worked on farms or factories. Or coal mines. And they had tough parents who whupped them. It's like Pat Buchanan wrote a autobio about his father using the belt on him and his brothers like they was Negroes who ain't picked cotton all day. So, even though many white folks could sympathize with Negroes on some level, they didn't go overboard with 'white guilt' crap because their parents and they themselves had to struggle to make ends meet. They figured life was often hard for them but harder for Negroes. But since the 1960s, the boomers grew up and became huggy-wuggy parents who raised their kids in a world of plenty, leisure, narcissism, and convenience. So, unlike white folks in the past whose sympathy for Negroes was tempered by their own hard knocks in life, the Millennials are 'triggered' by the fact that blacks had it tough. For past whites who had it tough, blacks merely had it tougher. But for Millennials who had it so nice, it was unimaginable that anyone could have it tough. Now, if they had real knowledge of American History, they'd know that most whites didn't have it so good. But as the academia and media are controlled by Jews, the emphasis is almost solely on black hardship(and Jews facing 'antisemitism' and homos persecuted by 'homophobia'). So, Millennials don't compare black hardship of the past with white hardship. If they did, they'd realize blacks had it worse but whites didn't have it so good either. But because they're only told of black hardship, they compare past black experience with their current good times. Instead of comparing black sharecroppers with whites toiling in coal mines, factories, or railroads, they compare blacks with their spoiled white selves immersed in the leisure of watching Netflix and playing video games.
In the past, white journalists came from the school of hard knocks. They had it tough themselves. Many didn't go to fancy schools. So, even though a good number of them were liberal-leaning and could see the fundamental unfairness faced by blacks, they didn't feel like princes with undeserved privileges over blacks. But look at today's Millennial journalists. They grew up in total affluence with huggy-wuggy parents who provided them with everything. They really don't know any hardship. Many went to tony schools and rubbed shoulders with other privileged kids. So, when they read about black reality of past or present(as blacks continue to wallow in violence and misery), they just can't believe it and go all weepy-'woke'.
At any rate, one of the main reasons why American Guilt came to matter more is Americanism has been founded on More Pride. Bigger they are, harder they fall. Bigger one's pride, bigger one's shame when the pride is pricked with evidence to the contrary. A humble man isn't much bothered by the exposure of his failings. He will readily admit, "Nobody's perfect." But a man who is so full of himself as Mr. Wonderful is due for a great fall when it's shown he's not so wonderful.
America calls itself EXCEPTIONAL. Well, exceptional guilt is the flipside of exceptional pride.
Hubris is met with Nemesis, and the lesson is America was stupid to be so full of itself. But then, a less ambitious America wouldn't have been America.
3. The third reason as to why American Slavery came to be regarded as especially evil can be illustrated by way of the Guillermo Hypothesis. The problem isn't slavery per se but the enslavement of blacks. Had the US enslaved another people, the guilt complex would be far less. Suppose Americans had decided to use brown natives of South America as slaves. Southern Plantations would have been packed with people who look like Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show). The slaves would have been more docile. There would have been less fear of slave rebellions. Being more docile, the Guillermo-like Gomezers would have made less trouble, and there would have been less reason to whip them. The slavery enterprise would have been less cruel.
Furthermore, slavery might have ended sooner with Southern initiative because the Guillermos would have been less threatening than muscled Negroes with big dongs who be yapping and hollering all the time. A civil war might have been avoided. And after Emancipation, the Guillermos would have been mostly a silent minority. White Men need not have feared Maize Fever. And whites would have continued to dominate sports. Over time, whites would look back and feel sorry about brown slavery, and there would be stuff about how America owes something to the Guillermos who picked cotton and helped build the American Economy. But whites wouldn't feel much guilt because Guillermos are, well, just a bunch of Guillermos, a mediocre bunch. So, whether Guillermos be slaves or free men, they could only amount to serving as the sidekicks of the white race.
But it's different with blacks because, after slavery, blacks became so prominent in sports and pop music. Also, blacks got them boombox voices that secularized white folks hear as the voice of god hisself. Even though US is vilified for its 'racism', the special American Guilt regarding blacks is predicated on a kind of 'neo-racism', the proggy kind. Subconsciously, whites feel they enslaved the superior race. They really feel this way because they hold blacks in awe in athletics, rapping, hollering, and humping. It's the song-dong-strong-wrong dynamics. Whites are obsessed with black musicality. White youths love rap, and European elites are most into reggae. They got jungle fever for black dongs(and twerking black buns). They worship black athleticism and believe in black girl/boy magic. And that's why what they did to blacks seem especially wrong. It's one thing to have enslaved the Guillermos of the world, but it's another thing to have enslaved the Muhammad Ali's, MLK's, Otis Redding, and Long Dong Silvers of the world. Of course, this is 'racist', or 'neo-racist'. 'Anti-racism' would demand that guilt be equal in regard to all peoples as a matter of principle: All Men are Created Equal. While whites ideologically subscribe to such notion, their visceral sense of awe regarding blacks overwhelms any consistency in logic. But then, it's the same in regard to Jews and Palestinians. Whites are so philosemitically smitten with Jews as geniuses and gurus that they are overly sensitive to any tragedy involving Jews but almost totally insensitive to the tribulations of Arabs/Muslims, even if they were mainly caused by Jews and their Western enablers.
Notice whites feel almost nothing for American Indians today even though the latter are, by far, the most tragic people of the Americas and even of the entire world. (Whereas blacks still got Africa and Asians still got Asia in the aftermath of Western Imperialism, American Indians lost their homeland forever.) But it wasn't always so. In the past, American Indians were respected as fierce warriors. Once the dust settled after the bloody and cruel Indian Wars, whites could romanticize Indians as brave warriors, fearsome and worthy foes. And so, for a time, Indians had a certain prestige in the annals of American Tragic Narrative. But with the passing of years, Indians became less visible and significant because they fail to cut it in the fields whites are most obsessed about, sports and pop culture.
Anyway, if we combine factors of 1, 2, and 3, we can understand why America has a special guilt-fixation about black slavery. Muslim World didn't let Jews take over elite institutions and industries. Had Jews gained such power, maybe they would have pushed 'Muslim Guilt' onto the young ones. Whites let Jews take over at the top. Furthermore, unlike Latin American countries that also imported black slaves(even far more than the US), the US was full of itself as the Nation of Destiny. Latin America countries were rather humdrum about their place in the world, their destinies. Americanism was predicated on becoming a world power, a nation like no other, a beacon of freedom, the one that would bring about the End of History. It was born of the contradictions inherent in British Imperialism and formulated as Enlightenment-Imperialism. America was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism, what the Roman Empire was to Greek Civilization.
Though the Founders were mainly focused on securing the fragile republic, the seeds were there at the beginning, and the radiant(and unrealistic) idealism outshone the racial particularism of America as a white nation, much like the sun drowns out the stars. It's like Christianity could emerge only by going beyond Jewishness. Alexander the Great could forge his empire only by going beyond Greek power and prestige. In outlook, the Founders were in many regards temperate and modest men, but the creation mythos of America as a kind of New Eden freed from Old World tyranny was bound to have huge implications. America developed as a kind of experiment where European Civilization would start anew by planting its best ideas about freedom and dignity of man MINUS all the baggage of tradition and prejudice. Also, unlike cramped Western Europe, America seemed boundless in land and resources.
Of late, Europeans reversed this dynamics in the post-WWII era. Increasingly, Europeans came to see America as the land of 'racism' with its black problem. So, by importing tons of blacks and treating them right, Europeans would start Americanism Anew in the EU but without the element of 'racism' and slavery. Blacks would be welcomed as free men, and they would prosper alongside white Europeans as equals. That would show the Americans what Americanism really could have been if white Americans hadn't been so greedy and hypocritical, so 'racist' against blacks. But of course, whites in both US and EU are dummies because blacks are the destructive race, and it has nothing to do with laws coded in books. It's in the coding of DNA that drives blacks to destroy whatever whites build, regardless of whether whites are kindly or meanly disposed toward blacks. But whites are doomed to fall because they are so in awe of blackness. In 2020, blacks laid waste to so many communities. They exhibited new levels of savagery and wantonness. But after all that, whites in Milwaukee are besides themselves with Negro-worship and Negro-lust because black 'heroes' won the basketball championship for the city. Whites are dummies, or whummies.
