Oddly Enough, the New Waves of Immigrant-Invaders are like Whites of Old America, whereas White Americans are doped on the Peyote and Firewater of the Constitution — African Evolution and Consequential Culture of Buns & Dongs

It has become something of a 'politicultural' pastime among White American Conservatives to gripe about Constitutional Rights being buried by avalanche of Diversity via Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The logic goes, "Since most immigrants are non-white, and since most non-whites vote for Democrats and align with PC, most future elections will be won by the 'Left' that will clamp down on Constitutional Rights and Traditional American Liberties." Even if immigrants themselves may not be anti-white or anti-American(or anti-Constitutional, especially as one of their reasons for wanting to come to America is for greater freedom), they come under the influence of US media. Furthermore, their children are indoctrinated by PC-laden schools and turn into mental robots spouting the usual nonsense about 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'; and they'll say Diversity is among the highest values(even though many immigrant-invaders moved to white-majority nations in the hope of getting away from too much diversity in their mother countries). But then, EVEN IF most immigrant-invaders were totally supportive of the Constitution and what it stands for, they will still vote for Democratic Party for the simple reason that it is more supportive of Broken Borders(aka Open Borders) that will allow them to bring over more of their relatives and the like. It seems India wants to export at least 400 million Hindus to US, Canada, and Australia. Many are also motivated by envy and resentment. This is especially true of people from Latin America, white and brown alike. White Latinos have long been resentful of the far more successful Anglos and Anglo-Americans, and browns see the 'gringo' as the people who got more of everything. So, their anti-white spite would override their hypothetical support of free speech and property rights. Emotions often overwhelm principles(and even material concerns).

But there is another reason for immigrant-invaders supporting the Democrats and PC. While it's true that they come to the US, Canada, and Australia for More Freedom and More Liberty, they want more of that for THEMSELVES(as opposed to for everyone). While Freedom need not be a zero-sum game, it's usually the case that freedom/opportunity for one people leads to diminished freedom/opportunity for another people. Letting blacks freely compete in sports led to far less opportunities for whites to make a mark in athletics because blacks are naturally better at it. Letting blacks wander around freely diminished the freedom of white movement due to fear of black thuggery and crime.
In order for there to be America, the freedom of the American Indians — to continue their culture and traditional ways — had to be crushed. In order for the US to take over the Southwest Territories, Mexican freedoms had to be trampled and curtailed. In order for Jews to freely push for Zionist-Centrism, it certainly helps to limit the freedom of the BDS movement to spread the message of Justice and Liberation for Palestinians. So, there is a kind of Freedom Paradox in the American Dream. It is true that all these Immigrant-invaders come to the West for MORE FREEDOM(as their home nations are often less free), but in order for them to maximize their own freedoms, it certainly helps if Western Policies limit the freedom of White Natives or Nationals who might say "Enough Already, No More Mass-Immigration and Great Replacement" and "Look at all the problems these Newcomers bring with them from so many backward or barbaric parts of the world." It's like, if YOU want to say MORE, it's useful to gag the other person. If he is free to speak just as much as you are, then freedom will clash with freedom. If you want to prioritize your freedom, it's tempting to limit the freedom of the other, especially if he or she holds an opposing view. This is why Jewish Power has spread the Jew Taboo that smears any view that is critical of Jews as 'antisemitism'. Thus, Jews feel free to say whatever they want, whereas non-Jews must be very careful about what they say about Jews lest it be 'antisemitic'! Non-white immigrants feel as the Jews do. They also want to maximize their own freedoms but by suppressing the 'excess' freedom of whites who might push back against mass-immigration-invasion and condemn the cultures/values brought over by the newcomers. But then, were whites any different throughout most of American History?

In a way, white Americans who invoke the Constitution(its protection of rights and liberties) and how it's threatened by all these newcomers(who as new citizens vote 'left' and for 'socialism') are not thinking clearly nor very honestly. Something like true and neutral adherence to the US Constitution was never a part of US history. One may argue that the US was closest to its Constitutional Ideal from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s with the end of racial discrimination against blacks and with explosion of personal rights and liberties all throughout the nation. Of course, even here, there were problems. After all, did the Constitution allow for 'Affirmative Action'? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's right to abortion? And then, there is the problem of federalism and states rights that have never been satisfactorily resolved. Still, for about two decades from the mid-60s to mid-80s, the old restraints faded while PC(the product of the radical boomers) had yet to take hold of universities, though trends had been moving in that direction, mainly due to the agenda of boomer Jews. For those two decades, America seemed freer than ever before in terms of Free Speech and Personal Liberty, and this meant for people on the 'right' and 'left', religious folks and non-religious(or anti-religious) folks,whites and blacks, men and women, and so on. This was a time when the Jewish-heavy ACLU even felt compelled to defend Neo-Nazis and the KKK in certain cases to demonstrate that the US Constitution must protect the rights of all. Free Speech Absolutism was still useful to Jews back then as many were into radical politics and had yet to take total power over all the main institutions of America. But anyone who thinks most of US history was like those yrs from 60s to 80s is gravely mistaken.
The bulk of US history was not about equal freedom for all under the Constitution but White Freedom and White Rights Uber Alles. The US was founded as the Land of the Free(and was freer than most parts of the world, including most of Europe), but it wasn't meant to be the land of equal freedom. Indeed, the US would never have come into being on the basis of equal freedom, whether between elites and the masses, between whites and non-whites, between Anglo-American Whites and Non-Anglo-Whites, between Christians and Non-Christians, and among the various states. For starters, suppose America, from its very inception, had respected the right of American Indians to be equally free. Then, American Indians would have stayed put and kept playing Indian, thereby standing in the way of the white man's move westward and technological progress. Much of America would have remained savage. Also, if Early America said American Indian culture & values are just as valuable and worthy as Anglo-American culture and values, then civilization and savagery would have had to coexist side by side. With both having equal protection under the law, the forces of civilization wouldn't have been free to sweep aside the forces of savagery freely romping around with bows & arrows and tomahawks(and a bit of human sacrifice and cannibalism). America was created by white people hogging the freedom to do as they wished and by crushing the freedoms of American Indians who wished to maintain their way of life on what they deemed as their sacred hunting, mating, and burial grounds. Also, as American Indians practiced slavery and saw no evil in it, equal freedom for the Indians would have meant their 'right' to practice slavery without the interference of Western Culture and Values then moving away from the institution of bondage as grave moral injustice, even an evil. After all, slavery didn't begin with whites in the New World. It had been practiced by American Indians for nearly ten thousand years.
The formation and development of America also depended on the suppression of blacks, a people even more savage in origin than the American Indians. While many whites, in the South as well in the North, weren't proud of slavery and eventually wanted it eradicated(as it was regarded as a moral stain and ideological betrayal of Enlightenment principles), they also instinctively understood that blacks posed a serious threat to the white race. For starters, blacks were more muscular and naturally more aggressive. They had to be trained hard, even severely, to behave because they had a natural propensity to act ugabuga and apelike(like how today's rappers make motions akin to chimp-gorilla behavior). Black women, if left to their own devices, had a tendency to shake their butts to attract the men. It's hardly surprising that with more freedom and fewer inhibitions in America, black women reverted to ass-shaking that is now called 'twerking'. Black women have bouncier butts for reasons of evolution. To attract men in Africa, black 'biatches' had to jiggle their buttocks before the men who preferred bouncier buns. Whereas women were mainly chosen for their faces in Europe, they were chosen for their buns in Africa. When women shook their buns at men, men were supposed to pull out their dongs to show who got the bigger ones. So, over time, black men favored bouncy buns while black women favored bigger dongs. The essence of black African culture was in the buns and dongs. Of course, the Africanization of the West is turning white women into a bunch of whiggirls prepping for Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
White people instinctively understood this threat posed by blacks. As blacks are naturally more rambunctious and uggity-buggity, their use of freedom was bound to be different from that of whites. While all races have their share of good ole boys who like to act wild and rowdy, blacks had badass boys who were likely to act even wilder and crazier. Also, whereas non-blacks regard having-fun as recreation and blowing off steam, blacks regard fun as the core of existence. This is why so many blacks commit crime not just to gain something but to have fun. Non-whites think, "Work, earn, buy stuff, and have fun." Blacks feel, "Grab it if you want it, and that be fun." It's the difference between agricultural mentality and hunting mentality. Farming isn't fun, but you do it because you will be rewarded with harvests that can be sold for profits with which you can have some fun. In contrast, hunting itself is fun whether you catch the prey or not. Long ago, whites understood this side of blackness, and this is why they couldn't allow equal freedom to blacks. Having a different nature, blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Just like men and women with equal freedom spend their money and expend their energies in divergent ways, whites and blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Whites are more likely to use freedom constructively and rationally, blacks are more likely to use freedom destructively and crazily. In order for America to grow and develop by White Freedom Tendency, it was believed that Black Freedom Tendency had to be suppressed. If blacks had been granted equal freedom as whites, black misuse of freedom would have stood in the way of white use of freedom to build a modern nation of Rule, Regulations, and Sound Management.

Of course, there was nothing in the US Constitution that spelled out issues pertaining to Racial Tendencies, but that didn't matter as White Americans favored White Freedom over Black Freedom. As in regards to the American Indians, in order for white Americans to have their way and do their thing, it was necessary to clamp down on equality of black freedom. It's like parents must limit the freedom of children to keep the family together and maintain semblance of order. If parents allow equal freedom to their kids(who are so easily manipulated by junky pop culture and pied-piper charlatans), the family will fall apart and things will spiral out of control. So, even though the suppression of black freedom was a violation of the US Constitution, most whites felt it was necessary and worthwhile to develop and maintain a sound, stable, and sane nation(that could easily be corrupted by unfettered black savagery and brutalized by unleashed black thuggery). What this shows is that most of US history was not about 'Muh Constitution' or Equality of Rights for everyone and all groups. While the Constitution was certainly important and shaped much of American values and norms, most whites who dominated America believed White Survival, White Expansion, White Well-Being, White Prosperity, White Progress, and White Stability were more important. If whites had to choose between the Constitution/Principles and Continuation/Power, they chose the latter. Whites believed the Law existed to guide and serve whites than the other way around. Of course, most whites didn't believe whites were always right or that the law must favor white interests at all times — if a white committed murder of a non-white, he should face justice — , but they believed that the Law must not stand in the way of what was good for whites as a collective.

For most of American History, whites understood that they couldn't have pure tribalism or pure principles. If white were purely tribal, they would have been hardly be different from savage American Indian Tribes or could all devolve into clans like Hatfields and McCoys. Therefore, whites valued the Constitution, Rule of Law, and Higher Principles, such as that led to the eradication of slavery and many other social reforms. And yet, whites also understood that Man Doesn't Live on Principles Alone. After all, even though the West became a Christian Civilization, it wouldn't have survived, let alone grown in power, by adhering to a purist form of Christianity. If the Christian West practiced 'turn the other cheek' and believed in poverty-as-virtue as Jesus had preached, it would have been conquered and dominated by other peoples and races. The West gained much wisdom and good values from Christianity, but its principles had to be balanced by the Way of Power. When necessary, whites had to be warriors and fight. And they had to make peace with human nature and allow people to pursue wealth and privilege in order to have economic development and science/technology. Life has its own organic rules. Human life gained much by creating certain values & rules and obeying them than going purely by life's instinct. Everyone has something to gain by stealing, but good people choose not to steal(even when they can) because it's good for the whole community if people respect each other's property. If people act like animals(or Negroes) and just take stuff because they want it, the thieving individuals might gain short-term benefit, but social order would crumble, and then, things would be harder for EVERYONE. It's because animals act like animals — chimps steal from other chimps, wolves steal from other wolves, lions steal from other lions, etc — that they are mired in a world of brutality. And so, rules and principles are important as regulators of life. And yet, ultimately, rules and principles have real value ONLY IF they enhance the survival and well-being of a community. If adhering to rules and principles leads to the demise of one's community, then it doesn't matter how fancy and precious those values may be. The fact is they led to destruction of life.
The lesson to be learned is that there is a useful limit to every rule and principle. So, while Christianity has been useful as a moral and spiritual guide for the West(and non-West), it would be foolish to follow its tenets to the letter as doing so will definitely lead to the demise of your people. There has to be a kind of compromise between power and principles. Power must agree to adhere to principles, but principles must concede that they don't have all the answers. Principles have value only as a guide. After all, if people must adhere to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal' at all times, then America would have been impossible as it was created through white man's stealing of land from the Indians. In some ways, it was a violation of moral principles, but from the power perspective it made sense because so much of bountiful rich land was occupied by a relatively small number of primitive savages. Same is true of war. Sure, the notion of War Crimes is a useful idea, and all sides should stick to the Rules of War, but the fact is, no side really does and can't expect to win by sticking to the letter of international conventions. So, through most of US history, white people favored Continuation over Constitution. They never rejected the Constitution and, if anything, had great respect for it as a legal and political guide for the nation, but their priority was their own racial survival, victory, and power. They were not willing to give up those things in the name of absolute adherence to the Constitution. Free Speech as an absolute right may have existed in the US from late 60s to the mid-80s, but prior to massive social changes in the 60s, many forms of speech and expression had been suppressed or downright censored by the state and/or private sector for their obscenity, seditious nature, subversive content, blasphemy, disturbance to the peace, and the like. So, the notion that the US will respect Free Speech Abolutism ONLY IF it remains white is to ignore most of US history.
It is also false to believe that US will turn 'socialist' because of the rise of color. Europe was more white than the US, but even Western Europe went far more 'socialist' — with social democratic programs and labor protection laws galore — than the US. Also, it was an overwhelmingly white America that elected 'socialist' FDR four times, indeed so much so that the GOP had to make peace with New Deal policies. And Lyndon B. Johnson who promised Bigger Government was elected by a nation that was solidly white. This was prior to the 1965 Immigration Bill. Why did so many white people vote for the 'socialism' of the Democratic Party? Because the white hoi polloi thought the Democratic Party would take MORE from the Fat Cats(who mainly supported the GOP) and spread the wealth around to the white masses. (White Americans began to turn against 'socialism' and Big Government ONLY WHEN government policies began to favor blacks over whites.)

When we consider all these points, it is rather disingenuous for white Americans(especially of a 'conservative' bent) to argue that the Constitution and Inalienable Rights will go out the window if the US ceases to be a white majority nation. The fact is the US almost never had Free Speech Absolutism though the period from the late 60s to late 80s came closest. Also, it was White America that elected 'socialist' New Dealer Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times. And it was white Germanic Wisconsin and white Scandinavian Minnesota that had some of the most socialist programs in the US. In contrast, socialist policies were generally shunned in the American South because of the fear of blacks. But even that isn't the full picture. Huey Long of Louisiana gained support as a populist who railed against Big Money and spoke on the behalf of 'hicks' who had less(at least according to ALL THE KING'S MEN). And many white agricultural folks in the South voted Democratic because they regarded it as the party of the working class and 'honest farmer' against Big Money dominated by the North. White Southerners began to turn against 'socialism' only when blacks got full franchise and began to dominate the politics of taking from the trough.

A kind of Socialist Paradox operates among whites. A community that is virtually all-white or minority-white is more likely to turn 'socialist', whereas a community that is majority white but with a large non-white population of dependents is likely to be 'anti-socialist'. If a society is all white, most people regard 'socialism' as a kind of all-in-the-family. It's white money going to white folks. Besides, there is a sense of shared values among whites, especially those of Northern European heritage. The understanding is that the rich pay more, but even poor whites have some values and sense of shame and try to get back on their feet. They use socialist services out of need than laziness or chronic parasitism. Thus, 'socialism' is attractive to communities that are overwhelmingly white. In contrast, in a society that is majority white but with a sizable non-white population(especially such as blacks or browns), there is a sense among whites that much of their tax dollars will go to supporting leeches and deadbeats. Whites of such community tend to reject 'socialism' out of lack of identification with and trust of non-whites. However, if non-white population keeps growing and eclipse the white population — as happened in California and fated to happen to Texas as well — , their votes can win elections in favor of 'socialism', whereby whites will have to pay more to fund non-white leeches. California can afford to do so because of its giant businesses in agriculture, entertainment, and high-tech, but this is a recipe for disaster for most white-minority societies. 'Socialism' in an all-white setting is one of common trust and compromise, whereas 'socialism' in a white-minority setting is one of parasitism and resentment. Of course, eventually, 'socialist' policies can no longer be afforded and sustained, whereby the three likelihoods is (1) radical tyranny, as happened in Cuba (2) oligarchic tyranny, as happened in most Latin American nations ruled by military juntas backed by big money or (3) stalemate & stagnation, as is the case in current Venezuela that is, at once, democratic, radical, and oligarchic, with no single side gaining full power to establish order as it wants.

The fact is white Americans for most of US history put their race, survival, well-being, and power before the Constitution. Just ask the American Indians, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians(especially those in 'internment camps' during World War II). And this was also true between Anglo-Americans and non-Anglo-whites. Just ask the German-Americans during World War I who came under great suspicion and were pressured to become more Anglo-Americanized. (It's no wonder that Jews go out of their way to make Israel the closest ally of the US. Anglo-America made German-Americans side with US/UK against Germany. It made Italian-Americans side with the US against Italy. It made Arab-Americans side with US against Arab nations. So, it's possible for the US to make Jewish Americans side with American Interests against Jewish/Zionist interests abroad. To prevent such, Jews have the full might of media and their whore-politicians to repeat the mantra, "Israel is our closest ally and greatest friend, and bagel is the finest food" in the hope it will be inconceivable for any American to believe that US could act against Jewish or Israeli interests. The US is a nation built on betrayal as betrayal can be liberating and spark new possibilities. The colonials betrayed their British King. French King betrayed a fellow monarch and aided the revolutionaries against the Crown. Though the French King did so much for American Independence, Americans had no problem working with the French Revolutionaries who killed him and his family. Whites betrayed all the treaties made with Indians. America betrayed the principles of its anti-imperialist founding by practicing its own imperialism. And all the new immigrants were made to swear oath to America, thereby turning their backs on their ancestral nations. In time, German-Americans were willing to kill fellow Germans abroad to serve the US empire. Just about the ONLY people who refused to betray their own kind are the Jews, and they must be admired for that. Jews were not willing to kill fellow Jews abroad for the US empire. If anything, they were going to take power and make the US fight for interests that served World Jewry, and it is for such strategy that Jews must be condemned. But then, Jews had good reason to think that unless the US was made to bow down before Jewishness, it was possible that the US could turn anti-Jewish and use its might against Jewish interests abroad.) In order to forge a new united nation, Anglo-Americans used many extra-legal and what might now be called unconstitutional means to shove Anglo-Americanism down the throats of non-Anglo white immigrants. Even as such groups found much freedom in America and could keep certain aspects of their culture(mainly in food and wine), they and their children came under pressure from schools, businesses, and so many other areas to conform to Anglo-American standards... or else. Only the Jews, with a deep & profound sense of identity and powerful personality, managed to resist this pressure, though at times they did a pretty good job of pretending to be Good Americans. If Constitutional purism had been upheld and enforced in the late 19th century and early 20th century when so many newcomers came ashore from the Old World, it's difficult to believe the US could have come together as a solid mass of national unity and patriotism.

As valuable as the Constitution is, it is about 'negative rights' and therefore, it is defensive. It's not about a certain vision, nor about right or wrong. All it says is that people should be free to say, do, and have certain things, and those should be secured as 'rights'. It isn't particularly American as most of those ideas had developed already long ago in Europe. Also, constitutionalism has spread worldwide, even in non-white nations. Everyone in all parts of the world know something about 'rights'. To speak of 'rights' is not to say that "I am right." It means, right or wrong, I have a 'right' to say, do, or have certain things. As such, it is morally neutral and defensive. But Power cannot win by defense alone. White people didn't gain power in the US by protecting all rights, all ideas, all property of all peoples and groups. Rather, it had a certain vision about race, culture, values, civilization, and progress. And this vision was going to be realized with or without the Constitution. The Founders were proud white men. They saw all the land and resources before them and had preconception that the US could be a great magnificent nation of immense power and potential. And they were racial loyalists and envisioned the development of America as an extension of European Civilization, albeit with a new fighting and liberating spirit. The stuff about rights, freedom, and property was useful as incentives for Americans to move westward and do lots of work to create a new nation. It also drew in immigrants from Europe of same or similar stock who were looking for new opportunities. It was all about white power.
Some may call it 'white supremacism', but then, it should be given credit as the main reason why the US became a rich and powerful nation. Without 'white supremacism', whites would not have 'stolen' land from the American Indians. And for those who believe blacks are so integral to America and its economy, it was 'white supremacism' that efficiently exploited black labor to expand the economy. Also, the only reason why blacks are in the Americas is due to 'white supremacism' that was willing to use black labor. If there had been no 'white supremacism', black slaves would not have been brought over to the Americas, Latin or Anglo. Blacks or no blacks, the main makers of America were whites, and the fact then(as is still now, more or less) was that whites were the most advanced, most productive, most innovative, most progressive, and most ingenious people in the world. Thus, limiting mass-immigration to the US mostly to whites did great things for America. Seriously, if America right after its founding had practiced open borders in the name of 'anti-racism' and welcomed all the world, would things have worked out so well? Give the Devil its due. What is called 'white supremacism' in American History had a dark side but also was the basis of much that was great and awesome about it. Indeed, prior to the rise of idiotic multi-culturalism, even the main aspiration of non-whites was to be like whites and emulate them. And the most developed parts of the non-West are those that decided that the White Way is the best as the model for development. Of course, under the influence of globo-shlomo-afro-homo, the White Way is now almost entirely useless as it's all about Negro-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, and Diversity-worship, but when whites were riding high, they'd come up a formula for power, prosperity, and progress such as the world had never seen before.

Anyway, what do current Immigrant-Invaders and Whites of Old America have in common? Both groups put Power before Principle. They put their own racial interests before a set of 'universal' notions. Whites of Old America favored concentration and continuation of their power over the Constitution. Only when their power was secure and assured did whites adhere to the Constitution with anything like true commitment.
In dealing with non-whites, here or abroad, white folks of America always understood that their power must not be sacrificed over a set of tenets. And White America was pretty much in this mode until the 1960s. Many people have lauded White Americans(who have lauded themselves) for having 'come a long way' in ultimately favoring universal principles over racial/tribal politics, and this was at a time when white Americans had it so good that they could rest on their laurels, take their power for granted, and indulge in magnanimity & generosity toward other groups in US and the world, not least because the Cold War had created a mentality that the US must show its 'best face' in order to defeat the Soviets that preached World Revolution and Liberation of the non-white world from Western Capitalist-Imperialism. Also, the Civil Rights Narrative made many whites believe that the end-goal of American History was to fulfill the guarantees of equal rights in the Constitution. Finally, free at last free at last, the Negroes be free at last, and America could put behind its legacy of racial discrimination. But such highfalutin thinking overlooked the fact that racialism had been integral and essential to the making of America. Long before whites could rest on their laurels and put on do-goody airs as 'progressive' folks with 'white guilt', the only way America could have come into existence was through White Power. American Indians had to be pushed aside. Black savages had to be tamed and kept tame because of their natural apelike uggity-boogity tendencies. (Just look at the state of Detroit, the product of blacks left to indulge in their freedom.) Also, immigration had to be limited mostly to whites because (1) Europeans were more talented and had higher IQ than most other folks and (2) it was easier to create unity among peoples of same race than different races. Therefore, while it's fair game to point to all the dark sides and horrors of American History(and there are plenty), it is also undeniable that what made America great was its conscientious, intelligent, pragmatic, and sensible race-ism. (Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean the reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and need for racial consciousness. Be a race-ist.) In this, D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be regarded as nearly as important as the Constitution. In some ways, it is more important because while the Constitution deals with 'negative rights', Griffith's great and awesome film offers a positive, powerful, and sober vision of what white folks must constantly be reminded of lest they turn into a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks and/or damned naive fools. A prophetic work, its warnings 100 yrs ago have come to be realized in a nation where whites came to lose identity and reject their own racial pride and heritage. Griffith warned of BAMMAMA(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), jungle fever, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and cucky-wuckery among whites. Well, look all around. Who were more right about blacks? Sappy do-goody race-denying liberal-wiberals who said blacks are merely whites with dark skin and could be treated as such OR sober race-ists like Griffith who warned that blacks, with their higher aggression, natural savagery, tougher muscles, and bigger dongs, will terrorize and intimidate the white race into jungle fever or cucky-wuckery?

What do New Immigrants have in common with Whites of Old America? While they come to the US(or Canada or Australia or New Zealand) for more freedom and opportunity, they place their racial, tribal, and/or familial interests at the center. Even when non-white immigrants are hardcore individualist-libertarians, they still put MY interest before American Interest or the Constitution. If 'my interest' means to be in America and enjoy its fruits, it means that nothing is more important to non-white libertarians than being allowed INTO the US. Therefore, if Party A is pro-individualist and anti-immigration while Party B is anti-individualist but pro-immigration, the non-white individualist is likely to go with Party B because his main priority is to be INSIDE the US. After all, even limited individualist freedom in the US is likely more than what he is likely to have in his own nation.

It's not that all these new immigrant-invaders are anti-free speech or anti-Constitution. They are for it TO THE EXTENT that such doesn't undermine their MAIN interests of wanting to gain access to America(and such nations) for material improvement, better livelihood, and more opportunities. Sure, they come for freedom and 'rights' too, but they are secondary to the priority of gaining access to metropole of World Empire, living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, and bringing over more of their own clan/tribal kind so that they can enjoy the fruits too. In this, they are very much like the white pioneers and settlers who built this nation, albeit without the audacity and adventurous spirit(as they are followers than leaders). When early White Americans were fighting Indians, working the farms, and taking land from Mexico, they were not thinking about 'muh constitution' or some set of highfalutin principles. They had more primal interests and elemental emotions in their minds, hearts, and guts. Americans understood that the only way they could take SW territories from Mexico was by sheer might and power. It wasn't anything in the Constitution that convinced Mexico to surrender those parts to the US. Now, one can argue that the Constitution and its rule of law made for a better-functioning society in the US that was able to expand faster with greater wealth and power. But keep in mind that Imperial Germany made tremendous gains in the late 19th century and early 20th century WITHOUT anything like the US Constitution. In contrast, even with democracy and a constitution nearly identical to that of the US, Mexico has always been a basket-case.

Long ago, white Americans understood that what mattered most was identity, power, solidarity, and sense of heritage/continuity. They were proud to have a Constitution to guide them as a framework and compass, but when push came to shove, they understood that Constitutional Principles had to take a backseat to White Power and White Continuation. "Our People, Our Power, Our Survival, and Our Well-Being come first." Indeed, what would be the point of adhering to the Constitution 100% if doing so led to the demise and eventual collapse of a people? Is it worth it to lose one's civilization in the name of 'muh democracy'? Surely, even tyranny-and-survival is preferable to democracy-and-death. It's like it's better to lose one's freedom and live than gain freedom to use it for self-destruction.
What the American Experiment demonstrated is that one can have both freedom and life, but this is true ONLY IF freedom serves life than other way around. By life, we don't just mean individual lives but the Life of a People, Culture, Civilization, Memory, Heritage, the things that outlast the life spans of individuals. If current 'Western Values' are leading to the demise of the White Race that is to be replaced by non-whites, then they are useless no matter how fancy, precious, and highfalutin they may sound to educated(or indoctrinated) ears. Of course, one must not throw away the baby with the bathwater. While the current globo-shlomo-afro-homo bathwater that masquerades as 'Western Values' must go, there is a great Western Tradition in culture and values that can maintain and uphold a great civilization for many centuries, indeed millenniums, to come. After all, those values and outlooks led to the greatest civilization in human history.

The fatal flaw of the West was in trusting Jews. More than any people, it was the Jews who bitched, whined, and seethed that White Americans had betrayed their Constitutional or Propositional principles. Jewish elites in media, academia, and government urged whites to favor Principles at all cost, even at considerable loss of white power, pride, and prestige. Thus began the white trajectory of being 'beautiful losers'. The sheer stupidity of this way of thinking is proven by the fact that Jews themselves don't practice what they preach to whites. Indeed, Jews urged whites to favor principles over power mainly so that they themselves could gain more power by manipulating those principles(and Hindus have learned this game and are now cooperating and competing with Jews at it). Notice how Jews, even as they admonish whites to let go of white identity, are always telling whites to be mindful of supporting Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish power. If principles must win over power, then Jews should do exactly like whites have been cajoled into doing(by Jews no less), but the fact is, just as Jews tell goyim to do one thing, they do quite the opposite. But then, what kind of people are Jews. They accuse of Palestinians of trying to wipe Israel off the map while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Seriously, if Jews treat Palestinians this way, why would they treat whites any better or with any more honesty? Whites may think, "Uh... out of gratitude to whites for having helped them take Palestine from the Palestinians?" Any white who thinks this way is a willfully naive dupe who knows nothing about Jewish personality and culture. Gratitude-toward-Goyim simply doesn't exist in the Jewish Vocabulary. Also, surely whites need to realize that Jews crave far more what whites got than for what Palestinians had. While Israel has great symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning for Jews, the main source of Jewish supremacist power is in the control of the West, mainly the US, the metropole of the world. And in order to make whites serve Jewish interests, Jews naturally defame & suppress white identity while using the whip of 'white guilt' to make whites channel their repressed tribalism toward another people who would be the Jews. If Jews are really into colorblind universalism(which is supposedly what the Constitution is about), why do they insist that the US support Zionism over Palestinian nationhood? Why do they use their muscles to have US businesses and governments shut down BDS? Why did Jews pull their strings to shut down the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly at Charlottesville?
Jews are for freedom, but they are for Power before Principles. They will tolerate freedom only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize their supremacist control of the US. This is why Jews say, "We defend Free Speech but not 'hate speech'", with 'hate speech' to be defined by the likes of AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC. Likewise, Hindus flood into the US for more freedom and wealth for their kind, and it is precisely for that reason that Hindus will support the US Constitution ONLY TO THE EXTENT it serves their interests.

But then, this was precisely how white Americans practiced the Constitution for most of American History. They always found exceptions and clauses to ensure that principles didn't undermine the core power and survival of White America. It is something forgotten by white Americans while obsessively practiced by non-whites. It is then time for whites to return to how it used to be. It's the ONLY way to survive and to win. It's like what Arthur who, having regained the wisdom of 'you and the land are one', says before the battle: "We'll use the old ways" in John Boorman's EXCALIBUR. And Lancelot, who'd lost himself to religious fanaticism, a kind of SJW nuttery of the day, returns to fight for Arthur once more. Don't damn the principles. Damn the fool who mistakes or favors principles over power. Both are important, but without securing the power, it will be for the other side, very likely your enemy, to manipulate principles to suit its priority of... power. Whites need to say "We believe in free speech but not 'hate speech'", and they must define 'hate' as insulting whiteness, Jewish defamation of white identity, black thug-talk, calls for Great Replacement or White Nakba. Once whites think this way, they will once again be on the path of winning.

Paradoxically, the Best Way to Defend Free Speech is to Deny It to Your Enemy — Then, Your Enemy will Work Hard to Defend Free Speech — Call for Hate Speech Legislation against Zionist 'Hate Speech' against Palestinians and Anti-White Defamation emanating mainly from Jewish Supremacism

Jews who monopolize social and video platforms like Facebook and Youtube are at it again. They are purging entire accounts and deleting 100,000s of videos. Some say internet companies are implementing this policy under duress from organizations like ADL but that’s neither there nor here as both ADL and the monopolists of those internet companies are Jewish and arch-Zionist. The wretched hag Susan Wojcicki, who was given control over Youtube, may pretend to care about free speech, but it’s all phony hand-wringing. Her ilk would like for us to believe they are defenders of free speech but are forced to act under pressure from ADL and the like. But this is nonsense. Google that owns Youtube is one of the richest companies in the world. It doesn’t have to listen to ADL. It can do as it wants, which is, of course, what it does. And what it chooses to do is work closely with ADL to push Terms of Services that are conducive to the Only Rule that matters to Tribe: "Is it good for Jews?" or more precisely, "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" And it’s not a left vs right issue because Jews on both sides of the political aisle work tirelessly to shut down BDS by means of both business and the state. Incidentally, BDS is mostly aligned with the American Left, but it’s given no latitude by the Zionist monopolists of Google and Facebook who are less ideological and more tribal-supremacist.

Google and Facebook(and other companies) yammer about Terms of Services, but it is THEY who have violated the Terms and Promises. When they were getting started, they wanted to draw everyone in because they wanted to be monopolies. If they had honestly stated from the get-go that they’d favor the Democrats, Globalists, Zionist-Supremacists, Homomania, and etc. at the expense of others, many many people would not have used those services and instead would have sought out alternative services. The ONLY reason why ALL OF US decided to use those services was because Google, Facebook, and the like more-or-less promised us neutrality, fairness, and balance. Google even boasted early on that it would not do ‘evil’. Because people of all stripes trusted Google and Facebook, they signed up for those services on a massive scale, thereby turning them into mega-monopolies that pushed out all competition. But now that they have amassed monopoly powers, what are they doing? They are using their muscle to favor and promote certain voices and viewpoints while suppressing, censoring, and banning others. This is called the Jewish Hustle. It’s like what a pool shark does. He plays the first few games not so well and even loses a few to lure suckers into more games with higher stakes. Google and Facebook Jews conned us. They became monopolies but sucking ALL OF US in on the basis of fairness and neutrality, but once they gained great fortune and power, they decided to use their monopoly muscle to favor certain voices over others.

Furthermore, they’ve betrayed the entire spirit of Youtube and Facebook. Youtube became a thing because, for the first time, ordinary people could become part of the media than mere passive observers. Prior to the internet and effective video-platforms, most people watched TV news and shows made by a handful of corporations, but there was no effective way for them to offer feedback or create their own content. But with advancing video-streaming technology, millions of people were able to become content-creators and share their views. And in some ways, they were advantaged over media ‘mavens’ because they didn’t have a boss telling them what they could or couldn’t say. This freedom made some of the commentary downright loony, but it also meant more freedom for people to speak freely, something that is impossible in ‘mainstream media’ where any reporter or personality who spouts wrongthink can summarily be fired. So, on a host of issues and subjects, the personalities on Youtube and Facebook began to share their views with genuine sincerity. This element of sincerity and courageousness made certain Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter personalities very popular(or notorious), regularly drawing a larger share of the audience than ‘mainstream’ media where most news people and opinion-makers couldn’t step beyond the boundaries set by corporations and official narrative.
That was the whole point of Youtube's appeal. If we should just watch and listen to Corporate News and Shows made by a handful of mega-corporations, why bother with a platform like Youtube or Facebook where the DIFFERENCE is you can gain access to things OUTSIDE the perimeters of corporate and state control? Youtube began as a place where you could upload videos and share your views and share in the views of others just like you who had something to say and could do by making videos. But, what has Youtube been doing lately? It’s rigged search results so that, on any hot, controversial, or contentious topic, just about the only search results it will show are those by corporate news and bogus ‘independent’ content-creators(like the Young Turks) who’ve been tamed by massive funding by the super-rich Jews. Again, what is the point of using Youtube if it’s going to operate just like the Old TV. YOUtube has turned into WEtube, the ‘we’ in this case being oligarchic Zionists and mega-corporations that hog ownership and control of most of the media. They now say, ‘WE’ got the power, and ‘WE’ Zionist oligarchs will work with other Zionist monopolists of the media to control the Platform, Megaphone, and the Narrative. When push comes to shove, Jews prove to be tribalists first and ideologues second. All this stuff about ‘free speech’ and ‘First Amendment’ means nothing to Jews if free exchange of facts, analysis, and opinions threatens the Jewish lock on power.

Of course, the problem isn’t merely Jewish but Cuck-Wasp. Anglo-Americans who once used to rule America handed over power to the Jews so thoroughly and completely that Jewish Power has no effective opposition. When the Founding Fathers formed the new republic, they were careful to implement a system of checks and balances where no person, sector, or branch of government could have total power. But when Wasps handed over power to the Bugs(Busy Urban Globalist Semites, aka Jewish elites), they implemented no standards and methods by which the New Power could be counter-balanced and critiqued. But then, this massive quasi-revolutionary transference of power took place almost stealthily without declaration. It could be a Silent Revolution, Silent Coup, Silent Surrender, and Silent Betrayal because it didn’t happen overnight but over a decade or two. It was dramatic, indeed seismic, but gradual enough for people not to notice, especially when the Jew-run media created the impression that Whites were still in control, not least by using Wasp figureheads & mouthpieces and by getting young people all worked up about ‘white privilege’.
It’s incredible that the Founders were more concerned about the future of the American republic than the late-stage Wasps who handed power to Jews without putting any safety locks in place. To be sure, it would have been risky for late-stage Wasps to sound the alarm as Jews had such control of media and academia when the transference of power happened. Back in the early days of America’s founding, all the organs were controlled by Anglo-Americans who could freely debate the nature of power. But when Jews were taking over, they had near-total monopoly of the media, academia, and the deep state, and it would have been risky for anyone to raise questions about the character of ascendant Jewish Power. Even in the early 70s when Wasps still held the power, Richard Nixon and Billy Graham had to speak secretively about the Jews.

Even though Jews could loudly voice their issues with Wasps, it became deeply contentious and then downright taboo to discuss the problem of Jewish power, personality, and pathologies. Jews could psychoanalyze men like Nixon and raise alarms about the ‘authoritarian personality’(of white goyim, of course), but no one better say anything about Jewish neuroses and pathologies. One thing for sure, late-stage Wasps were most derelict in their duties. Perhaps, it was inevitable that the power would pass over to smarter and more driven Jews, but Wasps, in losing power, could still have created a Culture of Critique(of their own) to scrutinize and expose the dark side of Jewish Power. After all, if Anglo/Germanic Americans(especially those on the Right) were infected with the ‘authoritarian personality’, then one could say Jews carried within them the germ of the radical will(though a compliment in Susan Sontag’s vocabulary) that has caused so many problems around the world(while also leading interesting ideas and propositions).

Anyway, in order to face the rise of censorship in the West, we need to expose and discuss its core source. We need to remind ourselves that it’s not mainly ideological but identito-centric. Essentially, it’s about Jews shutting down any voice they find threatening to Jewish supremacist power. Those who say the ‘left’ or ‘woke capital’ is behind the Culture of Censorship are focusing on the dogs, not on the dog-owner; on the puppets, not on the puppet-master; on the ‘buffers’, not on the guy who is ‘pushing the button’. Besides, the Real Left is deader than the Right. As I’ve said many times before, today’s so-called ‘left’ is just an ‘idological’(idolatry as ideology) front of Jewish Supremacism and Global Capitalism. Big Money and Big Institutions pushed bratty and insipid inanity, triviality, and decadence as the hallmarks of ‘new leftism’ so that Jewish Superpower and Global Capital would NOT come under any real pressure from the populace.
As history has shown, the most effective counterbalance against Big Capital is nationalism and working-class consciousness. Nationalism pressures Big Money to be patriotic and prioritize what is good for the nation-as-a-whole than "what’s in it for ME?" Nationalism binds the elites to a place and people. And worker-consciousness can organize for higher wages and more concessions from the Big Capital class. This is why Big Capital has come to dislike nationalism and worker-consciousness. By undermining nationalism, Big Capital can make more profits by outsourcing jobs and ‘insourcing’ cheaper foreign labor. Furthermore, to erode nationalism even further, the elites say the foreigners must be accepted as ‘New Nationals’ or else it’s ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’. Thus, the rich elites, who’d been morally defensive against the demands of nationalists and workers positioned themselves on the moral offensive as the ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’ Good People at odds with ‘closed-minded’ nationalists and ‘petty-minded’ working class folks.
Of course, the rich elites don’t have to bear the brunt of mass Diversity as they, with increasing profits via globalism, can afford to live in the nicest and safest areas. And even if they rub shoulders with Diversity, it is with the quality kind — the most educated and high-earning POC(people of color) — than with the worst dregs of society. Just like rich whites get the Obamas whereas poor whites have to deal with the Mike-Tysons of the world, rich whites(and Jews) rub shoulders with affluent Asians and Hindus(and white Latinos), whereas the poorer whites must deal with the worst elements among the new arrivals. The elites claim to reject nationalism as too small-minded and petty because their hearts and minds are BIG ENOUGH for all the world and all of humanity. But this is utter nonsense because, even as they destroy national walls, they are busy building economic walls of privilege for themselves that are among the most exclusive habitats on Earth. Also, while elitism on a national level is realistic, elitism on a global scale is merely rhetorical. Elites can lead nations, not the world. Thus, those who claim to care about the whole world end up doing nothing for anyone... but themselves. It's like parents who neglect their own kids in the name of helping ALL THE CHILDREN of the world end up doing nothing for anyone; by focusing on all the children, they neglect their own kids, but then, they do nothing for all the children since it's impossible; it just becomes empty pretty talk. This Elysium World of Globosphere was sharply presented in Woody Allen’s BLUE JASMINE.

All these people put on airs of being open-minded even as they live in the most enclosed places on Earth. Their residences are not necessarily gated or walled of physically, but the costs are forbidding enough to keep most people out. Now, if these people were only about piggery and privilege, it wouldn’t be so bad. What makes them insufferable and ultimately intolerable is they have a bogus and conceited air about them. Ooh lala, they are not only rich and privileged but are MORALLY better than the hoi polloi because they are soooooo open-minded and tolerant(especially of fancy-pants homos). It’s really like Marie Antoinette play-pretending to be a shepherdess. It’s like the jerks at Google and Facebook. They rake in all the money from globalism, live in their ultra-posh neighborhoods that exclude most people, and send their kids to the most expensive schools, but they act like they’re so ‘progressive’ because they are so ‘tolerant’ and into ‘diversity’.

And of course, they are into the Holy Three of Jew Worship, Negro Worship(from a safe distance), and Homo Worship. If these people were truly ideological in the leftist sense, they would favor no particular group over others UNLESS the favored group happens to be the masses of workers, the ordinary folks. Leftism was about the People against the Rulers, not about One Particular Group over Other Groups. Now, some may argue that Jews, blacks, and homos had been victimized in history, and therefore, they are deserving of leftist sympathy as ‘oppressed groups’. But if we look back in history, EVERY PEOPLE had been oppressed at one time or other. Also, blacks were big players in the slave trade and did all the capturing and selling to whites(and Arabs). As for Jews, they were as often victimizers as victims. In the 20th century, they were among the greatest victims under Nazism, but they were also among the biggest villains as communists, Zionist-imperialists, finance capitalists, and cultural subversives. As for homosexuality, even though it was repressed for most of human history(and for good reason), homos never constituted a valid social group because a homo could be BORN INTO any family, any nationality, or any class. A homo could be born into a slave-owning family or into a slave family. Also, given their vanity and natural narcissism, homos have often sidled up to the Power in its exploitation of the masses. In this, both Jews and homos have something in common as historic ‘minority collaborators’ with the Ruling Elites that squeezed their own peoples. And today, globalist homos work with Jewish globalist supremacists for World Hegemony, what with Jews as the King and Homos as the Queen.

So, all would-be truth-tellers need to stop calling the Globalists the ‘left’. As I’ve said many times before, it’s giving them too much credit. It only creates the impression that the current Globalist Elites who rule the West and much of the world are on the side of ‘progress’ when their ideology is really but the Regression to the Greed. How can globo-homo issues be ‘leftist’ when homos and trannies make up just a tiny fraction of society, especially a haughty, fussy, arrogant, and ooh-lala one at that. These homos cater to the rich and powerful. To understand homo psychology, watch THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY(with Elizabeth-Warren-lookalike Matt Damon as the homokin) or the psycho-homo played to perfection by Will Patton in NO WAY OUT.

Now, some might argue that being pro-mass-immigration is leftist because it pits the poor(or poorer) masses of the Third World against the richer and ‘more privileged’ whites of the First World. But, in fact, the Diversity of the newcomers make it impossible for them to unite as a bloc against the ruling power that remains Jewish, Homo, and white-cuck-collaborationists. Also, as the newcomers mainly compete with the white hoi polloi, the elites can exploit the tensions of the lower orders while grabbing most of the loot for themselves. The elites know that white-and-nationalist people, out of racial solidarity, will not side with People of Color against Jewish/white elites; they also know that the POC will not rise against the Jewish/white elites who are for mass-immigration. If anything, POC generally side with Jewish/white elites against the white hoi polloi. Also, even if POC,-as-new-nationals, vote for so-called ‘progressive’ politicians, the fact is they don’t get to decide policy. They only supply votes for politicians handpicked by Jewish supremacist elites who make sure their paid-for-whores shill for Jewish interests and Israel uber alles. If ideology really matters in the US, why is there no difference between the GOP and the Democrats in the mindless support for Israel and endless hosannas to Jews? While more of the grassroots Democrats may be sympathetic to Palestinians and BDS Movement, those concerns are NEVER addressed at the upper echelons of the Party where all the key decisions are made. So, the rank-and-file just supply the votes for the puppet-politicians vetted by Jewish Power to be servile to Zion and Jewish globo-homo supremacism. BDS is usually associated with the Left, but it gets ZERO protection from high-powered Democrats. Even Tulsi Gabbard supported the Anti-BDS bill.

The ‘Idology’ of Jews matter more than any ideology in American ‘progressivism’ or ‘leftism’, which is now totally bogus. Now, it may well be that many so-called ‘progressives’ are passionate and sincere in their hysterics, but they are utterly lacking in agency. They have no clue as to who really rules the world, and their minds are so easily molded by the Jewish Hand that has monopoly control of media, academia, deep state, and finance. If ‘progressives’ are so independent-minded, how did they so suddenly lose interest in the working class and become so obsessed over globo-homo issues? It’s because their silly little heads are hardly different from TV sets. Their antennas pick up signal from the Central Command System. So, if TV shows say ‘homo is holy’, the progs are thus programmed. So-called ‘progressives’ really ought to be called ‘programmives’. They are like chorus characters in a Jewish-Homo musical play. If progs lack true agency, Negroes are mostly about URGENCY; they are masterful slaves of their basest instincts for hollering and ‘twerking’. Dominance of urgency essentially robs blacks of real agency because their instincts, sensations, and emotions override any rational and/or reflective understanding of the world. Black soul is a pool of narcissism that blacks endlessly stare into to feed their junglomania. Even a fat, ugly, and stupid black woman has the diva-complex of thinking she be ‘queen of the Nile and shit’.

Now, what would be the most effective way to combat the rise of censorship? First, we must focus on the main source behind it. All honest observers will notice it is Jewish Power. Then, we must fight fire with fire against Jewish Power. We must direct all or at least most of our fire on the Jews. Next, we must ask, "What means are Jews using to shut down free speech?" It is the moral passion of combating ‘hate speech’, speech that is SO BEYOND THE PALE that it mustn’t air freely lest it poison the social ecology. As emotions override reason among many people, especially in relation to sacrosanct matters, there has been a growing number of people who are willing to sacrifice free speech 'absolutism’ in favor of Approved Free Speech(which is really free-speech-in-name-only). Especially among Millennials, a generation raised under PC in schools and pop culture from cradle to school to work, there is a willingness to shut down ‘hate speech’ that supposedly defiles the Holy Three of Jew-Worship, Negro-Worship, and Homo-Worship. Indeed, there are SPECIAL TERMS to defame any view that dares to speak truth to Jews, blacks, and homos: ‘Antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. Granted, ‘racism’ can mean any kind of racial or ethnic bigotry, but it has bite ONLY in relation to blacks because Pop Culture and PC Narrative have instilled so many folks with images of the Magic Negro. Because blacks have been presented as especially tragic and ‘spiritual’, people are more triggered by heresy against Black Worship than by negative things said about most other racial or ethnic groups. Consider how Hollywood got away with all those movies that stereotyped Arabs/Muslims as subhuman terrorists. Or, consider how it’s perfectly okay for Hollywood to stereotype Russians as vile thugs or fan the flames of yellow peril where the Chinese are presented as especially villainous. Thus, so many Millennials grew up with images of holiness that favor blacks over others. Because Millennials and self-righteous PC types(whose minds have been so thoroughly warped by TV and/or academic indoctrination) are so weepy-eyed and holy-schmoly about Jews, blacks, and homos, they would rather sacrifice free speech in the name of banning ‘hate speech’, which is to them what devil-talk was to Christians in the Middle Ages. Even the rational side of man often caves to the power of taboos that is out to snuff the blasphemous. This aspect of progs is often overlooked because of the conceit that ‘liberalism’ is secular and rationalist, therefore opposed to religious dogma. But ideology, especially when laced with ‘idology’, is just a secular variant of theocracy. Whether it was the mass reverence for Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao OR it is the virtual worship of Jews(as Shoah People), blacks(as Magic Negroes), or homos(as fairy-angels of the new era), the same psychological dynamics come into play. The emotional commitment is so powerful that the faculty of reason and true secular/liberal principles break down. Also, such emotions tend to simplify and ‘dichotomize’ any issue that pertains to their notion of the holy. Just like for the true believers of religion, there is God and the Devil, there is for the PC-indoctrinated minions a worldview where the Good is pitted against the Evil. Because of such Manicheanism, even moderate and slightly deviant views could be denounced as wicked. Just like the Pod People in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS cannot tolerate any human — each and every person must be made into a Pod Person! — , PC minions believe they are on the ‘right side of history’ and that anyone who disagrees must either be converted soon enough or condemned as hopelessly ‘hateful’. This is why even moderate ‘rightist’ thinkers like Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald have been hounded by PC loons. In their pathetic but passionate little minds, there is Good and Evil, and they are on the side of the Good. The Evil is lack of reverence for Jews, blacks, and homos. Because the Holy Three is SO IMPORTANT to them, even mildly critical or neutral feelings toward the trinity are deeply suspect and to be condemned. It’s like, for true believers in Religion, there can be no middle ground between Faith and Devil-Worship. To the true believer, the moderate non-believer is hardly different from an outright Devil Worshiper. Because he believes God is so true and holy, those who stand outside the light, even if not vociferously anti-God, must be agents of the Devil. Likewise, PC minions’ faith in Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship is so total as the fashion-passion of the moment that they simply cannot conceive of any goodness or decency outside their vision of the Light. To be on the side of angels, one must condemn any critic of Jews as ‘nazi’, any skeptic of LGBTQ nonsense as ‘homophobic’, and any speaker of truth about blacks as ‘racist’. PC isn’t merely about hostility against what it deems as evil but about rage & exasperation over any lack of requisite enthusiasm for the Holy Three. Middle-ground is not acceptable for PC. You must believe! One mustn’t let facts, reason, and skepticism color one’s views about Jews, MLK & Mandela, BLM(even though blacks usually kill blacks), and globo-homo fruitkins(who are now so holy that ‘gay colors’ now routinely adorn Mainline churches.) Just like narcissists are blind to the world in their obsessive self-worship, moral narcissists of PC are blind to all of reality that don’t conform to their self-esteem as holy-schmoly(if Jews, blacks, or homos) or properly-redemptive-and-atoning(if white and cucky-wuck). Take Ken Burns, aka CucKen Burns, an insufferable dweeb who is so into Negro Worship that he is totally blind to all the trouble blacks make for whites. But then, rich and privileged whites like him can choose to rub shoulders with the Nicer Negroes.
Also, blacks tend to treat rich whites differently from poor ones. The poor ones, they beat up and terrorize, but the rich ones, they flatter and schmooze. This is why rich whites, Democratic or Republican, have a totally different experience of blacks. Not only do they rub shoulders with better kind of blacks but blacks, even lowly ones, tend to behave better around rich ones. After all, if a black guy is a limo driver or receptionist, he is bound to treat rich ‘honkeys’ with respect he would never show to a lowly ‘honkey’. So, the rich ‘honkey’, being accustomed to being treated with respect by blacks, has a far more positive view of blacks than lowly whites do who are disrespected and humiliated. Also, the rich ‘honkey’ feels a certain anxiety complex because he is superior to the Negro in social status but below him in ‘moral status’(according to PC that posits Jews, Negroes, and Homos as the holy three); the reason why so many rich whites, including ‘conzos’, took so quickly to Homos is because homos are ‘holy’ and high-status. When a socially superior rich ‘honkey’ is served by a ‘morally superior’ ‘groid’, the former feels his ‘white guilt’ compounded because, even after all these years, he the whitey is being served by the blacky. So, he feels an added urge to be nice to the Negro and entertain friendly thoughts about blacks in general. In contrast, when a rich white guy is with a rich homo, their social parity makes things a bit smoother.

Anyway, once we have identified the main source that threatens the principle of Free Speech, we need to go on the offensive as well as play defense. No one ever won a war purely by playing defense alone. Even the toughest boxer will eventually be KO’ed by an inferior boxer if he only plays defense. This is why Jews keep winning. They play defense and offense. They defend Israel as their national homeland while attacking the nationalism of goyim. They defend their own identity, legacy, and heritage while impugning the identities, legacies, and heritages of other groups. Jews defend their own right to free speech while denouncing the uses of free speech by their enemies or rivals, real or perceived. When Jewish radicals were hounded by anti-communists in the early 50s, Jews lavishly funded ACLU to defend even anti-American and pro-communist speech(or silence as in taking the fifth) as a means to defend Jewish speech(as so many of the leftist radicals were Jews). Even as Jews were going out on a limb to defend their own liberty and speech rights in the US, many of them were supporting Stalinism in Eastern Europe even though people over there were being denied basic democratic rights and even being imprisoned or executed. Why? Because many of those Stalinist agents were Jewish, and Western Jewry regarded them as fellow tribal brethren. This is how Jews play the game. Nationalism for me but not for thee. Free Speech for me but not for thee. Jews also support gun rights in Israel because a well-armed populace means Jews with Guns. But in the US, Jews oppose gun rights because most guns are in the hands of goyim, especially white conservatives and patriots who tend to be more opposed to Jewish agendas of deracination and degeneracy. So, there you go: Guns for me but not for thee. Jews play defense and offense. They defend what is theirs but go on the offensive against what the Other has.

Now, some may argue that it’s not just the Jews. Non-whites are also opposed to Free Speech and Gun Rights, but then, ask yourself, why this is so. It’s because they’ve come under the influence of Jewish media and academia that tell non-whites that white people’s speech is ‘hate speech’ and that an armed white populace are ‘nazis’. Non-whites, just like so many cucky-wuck whites, are mental clay in Jewish Hands. The source of anti-free-speech-ism is not non-whites but Jews who mold so many minds via their control of institutions and industries. Also, Jews are especially dominant in the Democratic Party, and their main strategy for keeping the diverse and divergent coalition together has been by vilifying whiteness. And that is why so many non-whites have come to regard free speech and gun-rights for whites as problematic. Because Jews told them to see whites as the White Devil, they’ve come to regard white speech as devil-talk and white gun-ownership as the Wehrmacht or the KKK. The real source of white problems is the Jews.

Almost always, your enemy will give you bad advice. He will tell you to do what you shouldn’t do while he himself doesn’t do it, indeed does the very opposite. It’s like the British/Jews told the Chinese to use opium while they banned it in their own domains. You would have to be stupid to give your enemy good advice, which would be like feeding him key information. Now, if Jews regarded whites as allies and friends(as whites have come to see Jews), then Jewish advice might be of value. But the truth is Jews regard whites as the enemy(or main rival), and therefore, it doesn’t matter what whites think of Jews. If Bob sees Bill as a friend but Bill sees Bob as an enemy, Bob’s hospitality and trust will be completely wasted because Bill is committed to bringing Bob down. In the end, what YOU think matters less than what HE thinks of YOU. If HE thinks you suck and should be brought down, no amount of YOUR positive view of him will change the fact that he’s out to get you. Likewise, it doesn’t matter what whites think of Jews. The truth is most Jews see whites as either enemies or rivals... or at best lackeys and servants, certainly not as equals. In the present, whites are so trusting and servile to Jews that they will gladly take on the roles of servants out of their total awe of Jews as brilliant rich folks and Holy Holocaust People. For many whites, Jewishness epitomizes Materiality(money) and Morality. If you’re such a white person, you’re a hopeless and pathetic. Your message to Jews is, "Please don’t hate me, please don’t treat me like an enemy or rival, because all I ever want to do is praise, worship, and serve Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel." Such cucks are not even hoping for equality with Jews. They are happy to play the subservient role. It’s like the Charlie Kirks of the world whose big ambition is to be the next John McCain the Cuckaine or Mitt the Shit Romney.

Because the enemy will give you bad advice, indeed quite often the exact opposite of what it does, white people should always have the following rule in mind when dealing with Jews: Do as the Jews do, Disobey what They say. If Jews push ‘white guilt’ on whites, whites must push ‘Jewish Guilt’ on Jews. If Jews push ‘diversity’ on white nations, whites must push ‘diversity’ on Israel. If Jews work with non-whites against whites, whites must work with non-whites, especially Palestinians, against Jews. If Jews shut down white speech as ‘hate speech’, whites must attack Jewish speech as ‘hate speech’. If Jews say ‘antisemitism’ is just horrible, whites must say anti-whitism(the favorite pastime of vile and venal Jews) is totally terrible. Unless whites identify Jews as the main enemy and fight fire with fire, they will lose... as certainly as the Byzantines lost to the Turks. Whites need to go into Reconquista mode that took back Spain from the Moorish invaders. Whites must reconquer what is theirs, and in order to do this, they must seek White National Liberation from Jewish Supremacism.

To fight fire with fire, White Liberation(or White Emancipation or White Independence) from Jewish Supremacism must adopt a Speech Policy that is akin to the Jewish Strategy. Whites must demand a speech code that forbids the defaming or dehumanizing of whites. After all, Turkey has a law that bans insult to Turkey-ness, and Russia has a law that bans denigrating the memory of Russians in World War II. Whites must demand a speech code that forbids any insult to whiteness, any impugning of white memory. Of course, whites will be free to criticize, condemn, and disparage other groups. Whites should call for ‘hate speech laws’ that favor white identity and interests, just like Jews push for ‘hate speech laws’ that favor Jewish identity, Zionism, and their interests. From the Jewish POV, any criticism of Jewish power is ‘hate’. Harsh condemnation of Zionist tyranny over Palestinians is ‘hate’ or ‘antisemitism’, which is why Jews insist that BDS be muted, shut down, and railroaded.
What this shows is that ‘hate speech’ is never a neutral concept. ‘Hate’ is defined by those who control the law. In Turkey, those who insult Turkey-ness are labeled as ‘hateful’, which is why it’s illegal to discuss the Turkish mass-killing of Armenians following World War I. Jews mold the meaning of ‘hate’ to suit their needs. So, all their anti-Wasp and anti-white screeds are not ‘hate’. Jews can defame, dehumanize, and scapegoat whites for all the problems of the world. Indeed, Jews can smear whites much like how Nazis once smeared Jews. All that is not ‘hate’ as far as Jews are concerned. But if any white person shows the slightest hint of white pride or speaks even a bit of truth against Jewish power, that is HATE, say the Jews. This is how Jews play the game. Then, whites must play the same game. Whites must say it must be illegal to insult whiteness. Sure, whites have a checkered history, but then, SO DO ALL OTHER PEOPLES. Why single out the white race as especially guilty or blameworthy for all the problems of the world? This is bigotry and maggotry. Also, what about all the positive contributions that the white race has made for the world? Why not balance the bad with the good? Why dwell so much on white wrongs while never giving credit for white contributions? Such lack of balance goes to show that anti-white dehumanization has become de rigueur in the global debate dominated by Jews. Jews do to whites exactly what they blame the Nazis of having done to them. Jews smear whites as intolerable scum of the Earth UNLESS whites get on their knees and grovel before Jewish Supremacist Power as its cuck-servants. Then and only then are whites tolerated as House Honkeys(if members of the elite) or Field Honkeys(if part of the white hoi polloi). In other words, Jews will not accept whites on an equal basis as a people with sense of identity, illustrious history, and right of destiny. No, Jews regard whites as untermensch, a people who are tolerable only as a slave race. It’s like Nazi German plan for the Russian Slavs was as a race of helots. If allowed to survive, their existence must revolve around serving German ‘Aryan’ interests. Now, there is no need for bad blood between Jews and whites. Both groups could get along, BUT as long as Jews insist on acting the way they do at the moment, whites must push back in kind because otherwise is to risk their survival for all the future. Use the Jewish Way against the Jews. If Jews say, "We believe in free speech but not in ‘hate speech’", say likewise but define ‘hate’ in way that suits white interests. Define ‘hate’ primarily in terms of defaming and dehumanizing whites and furthermore denying the right of pride for all the great achievements made by whites. Also, define ‘hate’ as the neo-imperialist insistence that white people don’t have right of territoriality over their ancient homelands and over nations they built virtually from scratch in North America and Australia. Also, even white self-loathing must be deemed as ‘hate speech’, and the blame must primarily go to the group that did most to instill whites with self-hatred, and of course, the main peddlers of Hate-Whitey Ideology have been the Jews.

Now, some may argue that such ploy would go against the principles of Free Speech, but principles are useless when the Other Side only cares about Power and will do ANYTHING to get what it wants. Principles matter only when (1) all sides commit to the same set of rules and standards or (2) a certain group has the power to enforce the principles on all groups. But the current US is not that kind of country. It’s a nation ruled by Jews whose only ‘principle’ is "Is it good for Jews?" or more accurately, "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Jews violate both rules 1 and 2 of Principle-ism. They don’t care about principles, and they don’t use their dominant power to enforce the same set of principles on all groups, including themselves. Rather, Jews are always busy moving the goal posts to the extent that the US has become a Kafkaesque nation, and ironically enough, the goyim are now like a bunch of Joseph K’s who are toyed around by Jews who control the Castle of Power.

It is only by putting Jews on the moral defensive and threatening their anti-white speech that they will come around to defending free speech(like they once used to when their radical/communist speech was threatened and when they sought to legalize pornography). Why should Jews defend free speech when they have control over the levers of media & academia and when their anti-white speech is not only protected but part of official dogma? Generations of kids, white and non-white, have been raised to the catechism of Blame-Whitey-for-Everything. And white elites, out of craven cowardice and/or outdated sense of magnanimity, put up with all the anti-white garbage. They sense that they must go along with anti-white dogma in order to keep their privileged positions under Jews as the ‘good whites’. Also, old habits die hard. Just like it took time for it to sink in among aristocrats that their days are numbered, white elites(especially the Wasps) had been so used to having the power that many still carry on with the illusion that they are the ruling class of America. Of course, Jews like to sustain such illusions to (1) to hide their power behind the facade of Wasp privilege, thereby making whites the magnet of most criticism(as in "Hollywood-So-White") and (2) to flatter white cuck-collaborators who, having lost their power, have little left but to cling to their title as the Ruling Class. Because white cuck-collaborators still have a lot of money and privilege(if not much influence and real power), they have a bad habit of conflating their own white privilege with the condition of all whites who are NOT privileged; indeed, many whites are now suffering terribly from loss of work, drug addiction, integration with thuggish Negroes, and mass replacement by foreigners.

We need a new movement that is not for the principle of free speech but for shutting down ‘hate speech’ that defames and dehumanizes whites. The position should be, "While it's fair to criticize wrongs and abuses committed by whites, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to speak of whites as especially burdened with guilt and blame." After all, such is the Jewish line. Jews will say it’s okay for people to criticize Zionism and Jewish abuses, but it’s wrong to say everything Jewish is bad or to blame everything on Jews. (Of course, Jews even denounce mild criticism of Jewish bad behavior as ‘antisemitic’.) What’s good enough for Jews should be good enough for whites. Also, whites must put Jews on the moral defensive by decrying Zionism as ‘hate speech’ that led to the destruction and ‘genocide’ of the Palestinians by means of immigration-invasion. Whites should balance the good/great elements of Jewish history/culture with the dark side, such as Jewish role in communism, radicalism, subversion, criminality, and financial theft. And if Jews bitch about evil white history, whites should point out how Jewish finance played its part in the Western Imperialist ventures. Jewish History is inseparable from 'white supremacism' because Jews were co-partners in the Western Conquest of the World, even going so far as to play a key role in the Latin American slave trade and selling opium to the Chinese under British Imperialist protection. Also, to the extent that Jewish immigrants worked alongside white immigrants to eradicate the American Indians from the Great Plains, Jews also took part in ‘genocide’ of the natives. And to the extent that Jews and their money played some role in the making of the new empires and nations of the New World, Jews are no less ‘guilty’ of the slave trade. Despite Jewish kvetching about ‘white supremacism’, Jews have been tailing ‘white supremacists’ all over the world to make their fortunes. Jews tagged behind Anglos to make tons of money in the diamond mines of South Africa. Wherever Anglo, Spanish, Portuguese, and French imperialists went, Jews followed as financiers, merchants, and investors. Jews exploited every opportunity made possible by ‘white supremacist’ conquerors of the world. And Jews pressured and bribed ‘white supremacist’ Great Britain and Europe in general to aid in the Zionist project that targeted the brown Palestinians for destruction, replacement, and erasure. It isn't very difficult to push Jews into a morally defensive posture. And if Jews bitch about the Shoah(aka Holocaust), remind the world of how Jews played a key role in communism that led to the deaths of millions all over the world. Only when the pushy Jews are pushed back and their rights of speech are threatened, only then will Jews come around to defending free speech. When Jews defended free speech in the past, some thought it was out of principle. But it was just opportunism. When dealing with such people, we need to shelve principles and fight fire with fire.

Luke Ford disingenuously posits Alt-Right’s Obsession with JQ(Jewish Question) is grounded in Animus towards Jews Caring for their Own Kind — Ford has it Upside Down; the Real Problem is Jewish Power will not tolerate Goyim, especially Whites, caring for their own kind

Luke Ford’s comment is at 29:00 of the following Video:

https://youtu.be/6Z3ex73PA94?t=1741



Invoking John Mearsheimer’s THE GREAT DELUSION(that argues that humans are naturally tribal and, therefore, nationalism will overcome liberalism in any real conflict), Luke Ford reiterates a common theme of his. He agrees that humans are naturally tribal, and all groups think of themselves as ‘special’ or ‘superior’(at least in some ways). Before we address the main topic of JQ, are Mearsheimer and Ford correct about the indomitable power of tribalism? If tribalism is so strong and resilient, why did most cultures fade from history, essentially merging or surrendering to other cultures? Among all the cultures of the Ancient World, how many survived? Isn't Jewishness just about the only one?
Now, while tribalism is natural to all groups, the us-versus-them mechanism may not always play along tribal or national lines. Despite tribal feelings, other considerations may take precedence. For example, all people naturally want fun in their lives but may well delay gratification because they are also naturally rational & calculating and may choose to work for long-term interest than for fun-fun-fun in the moment. There are competing natures, and everyone undergoes inner-conflict because one part of his nature tells him to do ‘this’ while another part of ‘nature’ tells him to do that. It’s like humans are both naturally ‘capitalist’ and ‘socialist’. There is a part of us that wants gain for self-interest but also a part of us that wants to be belong to a community and share. Despite their ideological polarities, libertarianism and communism have one thing in common in assuming that human nature must be either totally individualist or totally socialist.
In the case of tribalism, yes, it is natural, but is it the most powerful force in the world? Or, will people readily betray tribalism for individual gain, material advantage, hedonism & excitement, worship of power, and/or self-righteous vanity? Consider the areas of sex. If tribalism is so powerful, why do so many black men go with white women over black women? Isn’t it because they find white women to be more attractive and thus more pleasurable? Likewise, isn’t jungle fever about white female desire for the Negro with bigger dong, more muscle, and stronger voice? Why have so many white people rejected their own musical heritage for rap, reggae, soul, and other black or black-inflected music? Isn’t it because they find more thrill and excitement in black stuff? Why do many Asian-American women go with white men than yellow men? Isn’t it because they find more pleasure in being with white men who are deemed more attractive? And if Asian-American men had higher market value, might not they also favor white women over yellow ones given the global tendency to idolize white beauty standards? And consider immigration. Isn’t it a form of betrayal? When people emigrate to another nation, especially for permanent resettlement, they are shifting not only their bodies but their loyalties to a new political, economic, cultural, and demographic entity. So many parents all over the world are willing to move to the US, Canada, and Australia, raise their kids with English(than their native tongues), and pledge loyalty to the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Why would this be IF tribalism is the most powerful force on the planet? Look at Japanese-Americans in the US. They are completely deracinated and racially mixed. Around the world, it’s not uncommon for the majority in certain nations to say that, given the choice, they would love to permanently move to another nation... which are usually the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and European nations. So, even if they do have a tribal bone in their body, their desire for more money, access to white people(as better managers or sex-mates), hunger for more land & property, and fascination with power(as US and the West still dominate the world) trump their sense of racial-national loyalty. Look how fast Syria and other Muslim nations emptied when Angela Merkel said EU would welcome them with open arms. All those millions ran to the West for ‘more stuff’ while forgetting all about their own people and culture. Tribalism may be natural and offer a kind of security of identity and territory, but it’s not very fun nor materially rewarding in and of itself. You can be the most patriotic person in your nation, but that sentiment alone won't earn you a dime. After all, at most times, we are looking for food, fun, and ‘more stuff’. We are not thinking about "what am I?", "who are my people?", or "what is my heritage"? We want the next good meal, the next fun movie, the next ‘cool’ thing to do. Tribalism has long-term value but offers little of use, utilitarian or hedonistic, in the moment. Tribalism is very effective as a collective force — Jews working together for Zionism or Turks uniting for Turkish pride — but means little to the individual caught up in his daily life of work/struggle(mainly for material gain) and fun/leisure(for relief from weariness of life). Also, tribalism may be weaker, at least when food is plenty, than the feeling that comes from feeling righteous. (Tribalism is most potent when people don't have much to share in terms of food, land, and resources with the Other. It is then that they instinctively come together as a community to defend 'what is ours' against THEM.)

Now, in the LONG RUN, tribalism may be more resilient than righteousness(of ideology, hysteria, or fashion) because tribalism is merely about BEING whereas righteousness is about BEING-RIGHT. Because righteousness is a stronger and more aggressive emotion than tribalism(that tends to be wary and defensive), it can override tribalism in the short-term of history, but precisely because hot passions tend to burn out, tribalism often makes a comeback after the ideological fire has gone out. (The Ideal regresses to the Real. But then, the Regression to the Real doesn't necessarily mean upsurge of tribalism that, like Idealism, requires some degree of investment toward unity and commitment. Above all, the Real favors material interest for the individual, which is why 'liberal democratic capitalism' has caught on like fire as the most effective means to either enrich oneself or to gain proximity to those with wealth.) This was the case with the so-called Russian Revolution(that just as easily could have been called the Anti-Russian Revolution). Many of the revolutionaries were not only non-Russian but anti-Russian(especially true among Jews, Latvians, Poles, and etc.) and regarded the radical transformation as a means to destroy and curb Russian Imperial power, from whose ashes a new order would arise based on impassioned commitment to ‘social justice’. Also, great many Russians joined the revolution because they figured the Bolshevik promises of Land, Bread, and Peace were more important than nationalism and loyalty to the Tsar(and then to the patriotic Provisional Government). Also, many were spellbound by communist propaganda. Thus, material interests and righteous fervor overrode tribalism and nationalism. But in the end, the revolutionary fire burned out, and while there is no more communism, Russia still remains. One may say Russian Tribalism won out in the long run, but consider the costs in the radical interim: Millions(if not tens of millions) of destroyed lives, rise of police state, mass terror on an unprecedented scale, the brainwashing of generations of youths, ideological dogmatism, and one-party totalitarianism. It’s like, even if the forest will naturally regrow again, we cannot underestimate the destruction brought upon by forest fires. The Maoist ideological madness eventually subsided and blew over in China, but consider all the damage it did to the people, economy, and culture in its rampage phase.
It may well be that the current White PC-SJW madness will blow over, but it's been doing considerable harm for nearly two decades. Worse, the harm may be permanent because of massive demographic changes. If the demography remains constant, no amount of lunacy can permanently forestall the return of tribalism or nationalism. Maoism killed a lot of Chinese, but China remained the land of the Chinese, and a kind of nationalism resurfaced. Likewise, despite the tremendous human costs of Stalinism, not to mention all the deaths from the Nazi-German invasion of World War II, the fact is Russia-Proper of the Soviet Empire remained majority-Russian, thus facilitating the re-emergence of Russian nationalism after the fall of communism and the lost years of Boris Yeltsin when Jewish globalist oligarchs ran just about everything.
In contrast, something is happening in the West along with the crazy ideological fashions that may PERMANENTLY cripple and destroy traditional American nationalism based on European Heritage. Or consider Canada. If it remains mostly a white nation as it passes through ridiculous ideological fashions(such as globo-homo madness), one can be pretty sure that there will be a return of the national-conservative equilibrium. But Canada is reveling in ideological idiocy at a time of massive demographic change. Indeed, the main goal of that ideological idiocy is to fundamentally alter the racial demographics of Canada. That being so, if and when white Canadians FINALLY realize their ideology was stupid, the damage they’ve done will be irreversible. Demographic Imperialism is different from communism. As problematic as communism has been, it did not aim to demographically change the Core Population. Whatever gripes Poles may have had against communism, it kept Poland Polish. So when communism was finally swept into the dustbin of history, Poland remained Poland. In contrast, the new mad ideology of the West, that of Diversity-Worship and Immigration-Invasion, won't merely fill up minds with stupid ideas or turn back the economy. Its aim is to permanently replace the core populations of white nations(of Europe) or white-founded-and-made nations(of the Americas and Australia) with masses of non-white globalist leeches and parasites. And for this reason, Diversinoma(Diversity as Cancer) is many times more dangerous than communism. As Diversinoma is pushed most heavily by Jewish globalist-Zionist capitalists, we need to consider the true character of Jewishness, Zionism, globalism, and capitalism.

One thing for sure, it seems the reason why so many white people have chosen to turn against their own kind is due to (1) feely-good righteous passion (2) addiction to pleasure. As they were raised by PC in schools and via Jewish-controlled TV & Mass-Media, so many white people(and this includes majority of ‘conservatives’ as well) have been made to idolize the Magic Negro, place Shoah at the center of history, bellyache over ‘white guilt’(as the highest redemptive expression open to whites), and chant mantras about Diversity(when they are not bending over backward[and forward] to Globo-Homo). But other than virtue-high that comes with self-righteous PC, there is the white addiction to black music, black-dominated sports, and black sex(either as jungle fever among white women or cuck-behavior among white men) that have turned so many whites into sensual-slaves to the ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ Masterful Negro. Considering that even many white ‘conservatives’ go out of their way to show that they really really love blacks and that ‘Democrats are the real racists(and Anti-Semites)’, it goes to prove that tribalism can be overridden by other passions that are more in-and-of-the-moment. Most people are more about Will-to-Cower than Will-to-Power. They gladly fall into awed rapture of what is deemed Most Powerful. Just like so many people are willing to ditch their own nations, peoples, and cultures and come to the US and be part of the Lone Superpower, so many whites are eager to worship the Negro as the superior race of sports, music, and sex(and of course, the reason why homos have become such an object of fashion-passion is because they are associated with creativity, privilege, and power; it's all about hierarchy, not equality).

Anyway, returning to the main issue at hand, it appears Luke Ford is consciously or subconsciously not facing up to the truth about Jewish Identity and Tribalism. JQ or Jewish Question is NOT upset over the fact that Jews care about their own kind, their own history, culture, identity, and etc. If anything, non-Jews have long admired(and even envied) Jews for their longevity and tenacity to survive against all odds. The Real Problem is that of POWER, INTENSITY, and HYPOCRISY, especially in the context of America, the sole superpower that more-or-less dominates the world.

First, let's consider the issue of Power. While it may be true that various groups in America care about their own kind, obviously the level of power will determine the implications and consequences of such ethno-centrism. For example, let’s suppose Fat Hawaiians and Jews are equally ethno-centric. The thing is Fat Hawaiians have NO power, whereas Jews have tremendous power, especially with their near-monopolistic control over media, academia, finance, and etc. This monopoly control can be direct or indirect. Not only do Jews own many top law firms, high-tech firms, Wall Street firms, and the like but they use organizations like ADL, SPLC, and AIPAC to pressure even non-Jewish owned firms to comply with Jewish supremacist demands. Amazon.com isn’t Jewish-owned but chose to bow under pressure from the Jewish Lobby. Because Jews elevated Shoah or Holocaust to the status of New Religion, they have god-like powers to issue decrees that must be obeyed by rich and powerful non-Jews... lest they be accused of ‘antisemitism’ associated with, of course, Nazism. And so, Amazon no longer sells THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE by Kevin MacDonald even though it is a very important book. Also, as Jews have come to dominate elite schools and control mass media, many goyim have been effectively brainwashed since grammar school to toe the Jewish line on just about anything; they’ve been led to believe that anything disapproved by Jews must be ‘hateful’. If Jewish power were limited to a small or weak nation, it wouldn’t matter. It'd be a Jewish thing among Jewish people. But as Jewish Power is the most powerful power in the US as the most powerful country on Earth, it makes little sense to say that Jews are no different in their ethnocentrism from other groups. After all, Eskimos can decide to be 100x more ethnocentric than the Jews, but it won’t make any difference to the rest of us because they have NO power in any of the institutions and industries that profoundly impact our lives. It’s like, even if every boy were a natural bully, the big kid’s bullying nature will matter helluva lot more than the small kid’s. While both big bully and little bully may want to bully, the big bully is going to get a lot more leverage out of bullying than the little weakling.

Secondly, there is the matter of INTENSITY, especially in the context of assimilationist America. Given that America’s emphasis, at least since the great era of Mass Immigration in the early 1920s, has been the Melting Pot, the fact is most Americans of all groups have grown markedly less ‘identitarian’ or tribal in their outlook. Most German-Americans don’t speak German and don’t care anything about Germany. They are just ‘Americans’. Same could be said for most Italian-Americans who hardly care about the mother country. Irish-Americans used to care about Old Ireland, but both Irish-Americans and Irish in Ireland have become a bunch of deracinated cucks and jungle-feverites(not least because they’ve come under the influence of Globo-Homo-Afro culture pushed by the Jewish media and globalist power). Asian-Americans assimilate rapidly into American culture. Japanese-Americans hardly exist as an identity or tribal group. Majority of Japanese-American women married white men, and Japanese-American men keep their heads low. The most famous Japanese-American thinker, Francis Fukuyama, is a tool of the Neocons and a fervent pusher of globalism, even going so far as to urge mass immigration-invasion on Japan.
Anglo-Americans, for the most part find, ‘racism’(especially among their own kind) to be the gravest of sins and spend more time pissing on the graves of their ancestors than sticking up for their own kind. Your average Anglo, even in the GOP, is more likely to be ‘triggered’ by "It’s Okay to be White" than express pride in identity and race.
Then, it’s simply not true that every group in America equally thinks itself ‘special’ or ‘superior’. By and large, most East Asians and groups from Latin America are without identity or pride. Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese in America are just becoming part of America, for good or ill. As for Latin Americans, there is a huge divergence between Latin whites and ‘Latin’ browns, though the line between white and brown is murky among those people. Also, there is hardly any commonality among Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Cubans, Guatemalans, and etc. The ONLY issues that bind all ‘Latinos’ together is the desire for More Immigration(so that more of their kind can come to leech off gringo or yanqui, not least because their own nations are so corrupt and backward) AND acting all butt-hurt as the losers in the Anglo-Hispanic struggle for hegemony in the Americas. Anglos obviously won(before they lost to Jews as the New Elites of the World Empire) and have Pride of Victory, and so, ‘Latinos’ have clung to Nobility of Victim-hood as compensation and 'moral' weapon. (It’s also a handy way by which Latin Whites can divert the rage/resentment of browns[who are NOT ‘Latin’ in race or origin] toward ‘Yanquis’ or ‘Gringos’ away from themselves despite the fact that Latin America is the creation of ‘Latin’ Spanish and Portuguese Imperialists.) Even Muslim 'identity' is far from clear in the US as it is not race-based. A Muslim can be Arab, Asian, African, white, or whatever. So, despite occasional outbursts of radical Muslim violence, there is hardly a united Muslim community in the US. Pakistani Muslims have little in common with Muslims from Palestine or Somalia. Indeed, Palestinian Muslims are more likely to feel closer to Arab Christians, just like Pakistani Muslims are more likely to get along with Hindu Americans(despite the dire Indo-Pakistan tensions that exist to this day).

So, the intensity of Jewish identity and tribalism in the US is something of an exception than the rule. The ONLY groups with identities as powerful are the blacks and the Hindus, but blacks don’t control the elite institutions and industries(and if anything, must depend on Jewish money, which is why most black elites are shuffling ho-de-doing Cuckamungas of the Jews), and Hindus, despite their success and riches, are nowhere near Jews in power and influence. On Luke Ford’s very own show, the Jewish guests Kyle Rowland and Halsey English are very ethnocentric and identity-conscious, whereas ‘Monsieur’ the ‘Chinaman’ is a deracinated yellow dog who sucks up to whites and routinely badmouths his own kind. One may argue that ‘right-wing’ Jews are more tribal than ‘left-wing’ Jews, but in the world of power-politics and power-economics, we see no real difference between Jewish Democrats and Jewish Republicans on the issue of Jewish identity, Jewish power, Zionism, and Israel. How is Chuck Schumer any different from ‘right-wing’ Jews like Bret Stephens and William Kristol when it comes to Jewish pride and Zionism?

Thirdly and possibly most important is the matter of Jewish HYPOCRISY when it comes to identity and pride. Contrary to Ford’s contention that the ‘14/88' and Alt-Right communities simply cannot stand the sight of Jews caring for other Jews, the real problem is Jews cannot abide by goyim, especially whites and Palestinians, caring about their own kinds. If Jews were fair-minded about this and said, "Okay, we Jews will prioritize Jewishness while you various goyim prioritize your own ethnicity and heritage", there would be no need for JQ. That way, Jews could push for Jewish interests, Palestinian-Americans could push for their own interests, and white Americans could focus on issues and agendas that matter most to themselves. Then, the US would be a multi-identitarian nation, with each group pursuing its own particular interests. Of course, all groups would have to abide by certain shared standards and principles. For example, all groups should have equal protection under the law, same rights of free speech & free assembly, and same access to institutions of power on the basis of ability and meritocracy.
But, is this how Jews play the game? Jews have ADL to raise concerns about anti-Jewish expressions, but would Jews tolerate a white organization that focuses attention on all the anti-white filth that comes especially from blacks, Jews, and POC(brainwashed by Jewish media and academia)? How would Jews react to a white version of AIPAC that calls on US politicians to support white security, white pride, and white survival in Europe? Jews would scream ‘Nazi’. So, Jews organize to pressure and purchase US politicians to support the state of Israel and sing hosannas to Jews, Jews, Jews, but Jews will do everything to suppress even the slightest sign of white identity and consciousness, such as "It’s Okay to be White." Then, it should be obvious that Jews are not for multi-identitarianism or poly-identitarianism. They are for MONO-Identitarianism whereby Jews and ONLY Jews get to defend, promote, and celebrate their identity, culture, history, and future.
But it’s even worse than that. Even as Jews demand that white people suppress their own identity(or identities based on ethnic pride) on account that identity-politics is ‘racist’, they also demand that whites do everything in their means to praise Jewishness and support Israel, a nation defined by Zionism that has gone from nationalist to imperialist mode. And even as Jews insist that they, as proud Jews, have every right UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to push for Jewish and Zionist interests, they deny that very same right to Palestinian-Americans who aren't allowed to use the full force of BDS to organize a movement calling for a worldwide boycott against the Occupation of West Bank and massacres in Gaza by IDF death squads. So, according to the twisted logic of Jews, it is American-as-apple-pie for Jews to enjoy rights to defend and bolster their own ethnic-tribal interests, BUT the same rights must be denied to the Palestinian-American community. So, Jews in America(in coordination with World Jewry) can organize all they want and raise tons of funds to pressure American politicians to sanction and destroy the economies of nations(such as Iran, Syria, and Russia) hated by Jews and/or Israel, BUT Palestinians are blocked from voicing views and taking actions to raise awareness of the Zionist imperialist Occupation of West Bank, the last substantial remaining Palestinian territory.
What does Luke Ford have to say about this? It should be obvious to any fair-minded observer that the problem is not Jews having Jewish-consciousness or using Jewish power to serve Jewish goals; the REAL problem is Jews have immense power and use every trick in the book, legal and extra-legal, to ensure that their own tribal interest overrides all other tribal interests(indeed, even in the hearts and souls of goyim).

Furthermore, Jewish tribalism isn't merely national but imperialist and hegemonic. It's not just about Jews caring about Jewish matters but Jews using their wealth and influence to make non-Jews support Jewish causes and interests above those of their own and other goyim. For instance, I'm sure Greek-Americans have certain interests as they relate to their mother country. So, they get together, raise funds, and do whatever they can within their own community to serve their ethnic interests. It's a Greek-American and Greek thing that do not affect the rest of us. We don't see US politicians going before a Greek version of AIPAC and pledging total obedience to Greece or spouting specious sentiments like 'Greece is our closest ally'. The difference between Greek-Americans and Jewish-Americans is that Greeks keep their ethnic issues to themselves. It's Greek stuff for Greeks. In contrast, Jews not only serve their own interests but buy off, blackmail, or otherwise pressure goy politicians, clergy, and celebrities to support Israel uber alles and praise Juden uber alles. Jews don't just take care of their own Jewish business but make it the business of non-Jews who are routinely pressured(to the point of coercion by threats and blackmail) to suck up to Jews. Most groups think in terms of "You prioritize your people, and we'll prioritize our people", whereas Jews think in terms, "We'll prioritize our people, and YOU prioritize our people."
There have been several articles of how AIPAC works as essentially a strong-arm thug scheme of Jewish Power. It goes to politicians and makes an offer they can't refuse: Sign a unconditional pledge of support for Israel or else lose the next election where massive Jewish money will go to the opponent who will also get favored coverage from the mass media that are monopolized by uber-Zionist oligarchs.

So, let's cut out the bull. Luke Ford is a smart guy, and he knows what is going on. For him to say that the JQ(or Jewish Question) is about griping over Jews caring for their own kind is totally bogus. The real problem is Jews feel free to pursue their own interests but deny that right and opportunity to others, especially Palestinians whose BDS movement has been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY blocked by government, both federal, state, and municipal. And notice the near-total silence about this injustice from both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike. Also, Jews are now in supremacist mode and are no longer merely content with tribal security/survival. They crave hegemony over all the world, and Jews know they can create and maintain such a system ONLY IF whites shelve their own identity and interests in favor of serving Jews as the Master Race. Just like British Imperialism promoted British national identity & pride but suppressed such consciousness among their subject peoples, such as Asian-Indians, the current Jewish World Power does the same to goy subjects. British Imperialists understood that the rise of Asian-Indian nationalism would inspire Hindus to ask, "Why should we serve 'Queen and Country' when we, as Indians, should be focusing on our own identity, our history, our pride, and our land?" So, the British suppressed Indian nationalism that took decades to gain independence. Likewise, Jews know they don't have the numbers to rule the world on their own. They need the support, indeed obedience, of white goyim as horse-dog-cattle, and that is why Jews forbid whites from having white identity(that is defamed by the Jew-run media and deep state as 'white supremacism') because once whites think and act like Jews — putting their own racial, tribal, or ethnic interests first — , they will no longer prioritize "Is it good for Jews?" and may even regard Jewish tribal demands to be harmful and deleterious to the white race. Just like British Imperialists feared Indian National Liberation from the Empire, Jews fear White National Liberation from Jewish globo-homo Imperial hegemony. That is why Jews, who are the real supremacists in today's world, hypocritically defame others as 'supremacist'. As far as Jewish globo-homo imperialists are concerned, whites-going-their own-way(WGTOW) is threatening because, without white cuck managers, builders, and soldiers, the Jew World Order or the Empire of Judea will crumble. Indeed, could all those Wars for Israel in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been possible IF whites thought of their own interests first? Would white Americans support the Jewish Cold War on Iran and Russia IF they really thought honestly about their own interests? Of course not. Jews have gotten their way because they suppressed white identity & consciousness and made white hearts & minds subservient to Jews as the god-race that knows best and must be obeyed at every turn.