The South in the American Civil War fought both FOR and AGAINST slavery — Manhood as Psychological Well-Being — Threat to Manhood by Other Manhoods

The Truer Narrative of the America Civil War must be…

The South fought both for and against slavery. How could that have been the case? It’s because there are more than one kind of slavery.

In the most obvious sense, the South fought to maintain the system of Social Slavery that kept the black race in bondage(though some blacks gained legal freedom). The agenda of the South was clearly unjust, especially given the founding principles of the American Republic. Many in the South invoked various rationales to justify slavery. Some invoked the Old Testament where even the laws of God allowed for owning people as chattel. Some argued slavery, though hardly ideal, was nevertheless an improvement for blacks who’d only known savagery(and crueler forms of slavery) in the Dark Continent. Others argued that slavery was just a phase that would gradually fade as the Southern economy grew and as blacks became more attuned to the demands of complex civilization. Whatever the merits of such arguments, the fact was slavery as an institution had been introduced to the New World out of greed. And given that the moral basis for America’s independence from the British Empire was liberty and freedom, the argument for slavery soured the spirit of American experiment.

One might argue that the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians was a graver 'sin', but in some ways, black slavery was less excusable. Regardless of whether the ‘genocide’ of Indians was worse or not, the fact was it was ‘necessary’(or a necessary evil). The American Enterprise simply couldn’t have happened without the removal of the native Indians from the ‘fruited plains’. In contrast, blacks were not necessary to create America. True, black labor was, for a time, hugely profitable for the white slave-owners whose economy was intricately linked with the North and Europe. But even without black slave labor, an expanding and developing America would have been possible with white immigration and reproduction. Canada and Australia developed without black labor. Though America would have been slower to develop in the early stages without slavery, its long-term prospects would have been much better. There would have been no horribly destructive Civil War.

Also, if blacks were a net economic gain in the first half of the American experience, they became a net loss thereafter. Also, fear of blacks distorted so much of white culture as well as black culture. If US had no blacks, such fears would never have materialized. Also, white manhood would have been secure and healthier as whites would have dominated all sports and wouldn’t have had to worry about black crime and jungle fever(and the attendant cuckery among white men reduced to 'white boys'). So, in the larger scale of things, the short-term greed of relying on black slave labor proved to be America’s biggest mistake and undoing... just like Europe now faces the greatest threat to its existence not from Muslims but from black Africans. (But people prefer to blame Islam and Muslims that aren’t deemed as sacred as blacks[and homos] in Western PC that is controlled by Jews.)

Also, it was bound to linger as a moral stain, paradoxically because most modern people are amnesiac. Now, if people's memories are so poor, wouldn’t they know less about the past and be less burdened with historical ‘guilt’? Yes, IF people know NOTHING about the past. Surely, if people today knew nothing of slavery, they couldn’t be made to feel ‘guilty’ about it. But, even as most people know little about the past, they know just enough from public education, TV, and movies to have a vague idea of what happened long ago. But because their knowledge is so thin, there is hardly an understanding of the past and its different sets of values and assumptions. Instead, the complex past has been reduced to a few sacred icons, pat slogans, and simple Manichean narratives. Therefore, people today find it inconceivable that those living in the past were just as sure of their ethos as current progs are of theirs. PC makes people of the Current Year feel that they are the ‘most evolved’ and their way is the only way. So, discovering that the past was a world racked with a host of ‘evils’ is shocking and triggering to them. It is no wonder that so many Current Year zealots are eager to tear down any monument that reeks of past 'evils'. Lacking empathy and imagination, Current Year progs believe that people in the past just should have known better and intuitively arrived at all the tenets of today's PC. Having morally failed to do so, the past must simply be expunged and eradicated from memory except as evil spirits summoned in annual rituals of scapegoating(or scapewhiting). In this sense, the sorry fact of American Progressivism is that people who claim to be most empathetic have no real empathy at all.

Indeed, they confuse empathy with selective favoritism of certain specially designated groups. True Empathy isn’t about feeling special affection or concern for groups favored by PC. Real empathy is about trying to understand different individuals, peoples, cultures, places, and times on their own terms(even if you disagree with or are appalled by those terms). PC is too judgmental to be empathetic. It is too busy screaming ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and etc. to understand why different peoples in different times and places thought and acted differently. So, even as so-called Liberals claim to own empathy, they really have none. Their idea of ‘empathy’ simply means they have blind faith and special affection for three special groups sanctified by PC: Jews, blacks, and homos. Also, this special sympathy is based not on knowledge or understanding of actual Jews, blacks, and homos but on trite symbolisms of black sainthood, Jewish nobility of eternal suffering, and homo angelic fruitcakery.

The fact that Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates) has gotten so much mileage with white libby-diberals is because he gives them what they crave: Lots of Purple Prose about suppressed or denied black sanctity that deserves and needs the love of goody-good white people. He is Little Orphan Nehisi. Real empathy, in contrast, is the ability to probe and understand why another people(or people in the past) felt justified and validated in their ways and means so different from ours in the present. But today’s PC dolts are so full of themselves(and so addicted to the cult of ‘progress’ as measured by adherence to every new screeching fad) that they find it too difficult to even ponder the possibility as to why some people don’t believe in nonsense like ‘gay marriage’. And don’t try discussing logic and facts with such idiots.

PC is less about ideas and values than about ‘sacralized’ identities, or the Cult of Identity. So, if a certain group or identity has been deemed ‘noble’ or ‘sacred’, its demands must either be met or championed. The right-or-wrong is decided not by morality, facts, or reason but by the simple fact that some groups are ‘more equal than others’. So, even if blacks misbehave at Starbucks or act like stupid monkeys at a college graduation, the fault is not with their behavior but with those people(especially white) who treated blacks as they would have treated anyone else. By facts and logic, Starbucks’ policy is that people who occupy a table must order something. You can’t just loiter as non-buying customers. This rule applies equally to all individuals. So, if whites or non-blacks had acted like those idiot blacks, they would have been asked to leave. But apparently, such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC deems the Negroes to be sacred. So, it makes no sense discussing right-or-wrong since PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what and anyone who displeases blacks must be wrong. And the same goes for the Florida college graduation. The rules of the graduation require all students of all races to show respect and act with dignity appropriate for the ceremony. (They can party and celebrate afterwards.) The rules apply to all students equally. But such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what. So, never mind principles and rules. If blacks feel like doing something, they have some special right or license to do so. If anyone is ‘wrong’, it is he or she who deigns to apply the same rules to blacks as to other groups. How dare he treat blacks like he would any other people? Doesn’t he know that blacks are always ‘right’ and that anyone who displeases them is automatically ‘wrong’?

And the same rule applies to Jews and Palestinians/Iranians. Whatever Jews do, it’s ‘right’. Jews can steal uranium from the US. Jews can shoot up USS Liberty. Jews can cook up lies to invade Iraq. Jews can kill bushels of Palestinians. All those actions are ‘right’ because Jews are right always. And Iran is always wrong no matter what it does. Even if Iran complies with the nuclear deal, the Jew-run US will find yet more excuses to declare it ‘wrong’. And of course, homos have always been right, even when they acted irresponsibly in spreading HIV all over in endless bath-house orgies. That is how PC really works. Its bogus ‘empathy’ is really about Emphasis of certain Favored Groups over all others. It should be called ‘emphasy’ than ‘empathy’.

Anyway, there was another side to the Civil War. While it’s true that the South was fighting to maintain slavery as a legal institution, in a profound way they were fighting against the prospect of biological slavery under blacks. White Southerners feared the specter of biological slavery that might result from black emancipation. Once blacks were freed and granted the same rights as whites, there was no guarantee that the two races would become equal and live side-by-side in harmony. Now, if blacks happened to be merely white people with black skin, co-existence might have been possible. Caste or no caste, the reason why India was able to exist as a civilization for so long was because darker-skinned Indians are not all that much different from light-skinned Indians in strength or temperament. Despite genetic separation by caste, your average lower-caste ‘dotkin’ isn’t likely to be all that different from a higher-caste ‘dotkin’. Indeed, to an outsider, most ‘dotkins’ of whatever caste look like other ‘dotkins’. But this was simply not the case between whites and blacks in the South(or in the North following the Great Migration). Blacks were not simply white people with darker skin. They were noticeably more muscular, rowdier, self-centered, egotistical, and more aggressive. Because of the fear and obedience instilled into them over several generations through means ranging from blatant to subtle, there was a chance that blacks might not immediately go jungle upon emancipation. But over time, as blacks would grow to realize that they are stronger, meaner, and more aggressive and that whites are anxious, fearful, and nervous, their attitude and behavior were bound to change drastically, and then the full reversion to Jungle would happen. The first great sign of this was Jack Johnson, the tough Negro who beat up all the white males and humped tons of white women. In one way, Johnson was a tough and resilient challenger against racial discrimination and white supremacy. But in another way, he was the template of the looming biological slavery of whites under black supremacy. Johnson-ism meant black guys would whup and humiliate white males who would be robbed of their manhood and therefore their womenfolk as well(just like bigger and taller white and black American soldiers robbed little Japanese guys of their manhood and womenfolk after their defeat in WWII. To this day, Japanese men have not recovered from their humiliation. They are a race of dogs.) As Black Pigeon Speaks argues, women have weak sense of tribal loyalty. They just go with the Power or the Winner:

And as white manhood would be humiliated by black manhood that dominates sports and street violence, there would come a time when white men would become the biological slave-cucks of blacks, and white women would lose respect for white men and surrender to jungle fever and accept ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Consider the blonde girl in the movie SPECTACULAR NOW who dumps her white boyfriend and goes with a big athletic Negro who later even physically threatens the 'pussy-ass white boy' who is reduced to giving him tips on how to make the white girl love him better. Total cuckery, but this is what the Jew-run Hollywood promotes to white kids as a moral-racial ideal.) Of course, do-goody naive white Liberals and cunning Jews(who sought the mental enslavement of the white race that was to be turned into cattle in service to Jewish supremacism) understood how these fears were a pediment to social change. If whites, especially the males, understood the full implications of black emancipation and racial integration, they would have realized the end-result would be biological slavery under tougher, stronger, and rowdier blacks. So, 'anti-racist' radicals sought to assuage white fears by presenting blacks as sexless noble Uncle Toms who were always falsely accused of raping white women. Or consider how the early interracial propaganda focused on white man and black woman when, in fact, the main threat was that white men would lose white women to black men.

Cunning Jews played it both ways, presenting blacks as both sexless angels who would never rape anyone AND sexy dancers whose performances would liberate white folks from puritanical repression. Even today, Jews play both tropes at once, and so many white people still fall for the nonsense. White kids are bombarded with both the (To Kill a)MOCKINGBIRD and the MANDINGO tropes about blacks. There is no rhyme or reason to any of this, but then, PC is less about right-and-wrong of ideas and facts than about the righteous sanctity of certain favored groups. Since PC deems that blacks are always right, the trope that makes blacks out to be sexless spiritual saints(as in GREEN MILE) is 'right' but so is the trope that says blacks are SO awesome as masterful big-donged muscled super-studs(or big-booty-shaking hot-mama skank-ass ho’s) that other races must sensually surrender to blackness and join in the jungle jive of vibrant liberation. PC warps moral logic. For this reason, PC is best understood as a neo-religion. After all, it is in religion that God is always right, even when He seems to do wrong. The idea is that God is so above us insignificant earthly creatures that He lives by a truth and logic far beyond us. It would be wrong for us to demand consistent logic from Him, as Job realized. Likewise, PC says it is futile for us to invoke reason, logic, and facts in relation to blacks, Jews, and homos. Doing so would be ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘homophobic’. We must honor, worship, and serve them on the basis of faith.

Anyway, there was no guarantee that the long-term result of ending socio-legal slavery in the South would result in racial equality and harmony. It could very well lead to white people becoming biologically enslaved to stronger, tougher, more aggressive, more muscular, and more dangerous blacks. This danger was bound to increase as America became more individualistic, hedonistic, and vulgar, not least due to black influences in music, comedy, and attitudes. If the US were a theocracy or strict ‘ideocracy’(one that metes out harsh punishment to those who act out of line, as in Cuba where blacks better behave or else), perhaps black aggression could have been held in check even upon emancipation. But as the US was a fast-changing democracy with increasing freedom and liberties in the pursuit of happiness, it was only a matter of time before blacks lost all their inhibitions and made ‘muh dick’ and 'muh fist' the central themes of their culture. And today, in the 21st century, we are living in a thoroughly pornfied culture when even kids watching Disney are really partaking of a form of kiddie porn.

Everything that D.W. Griffith prophesied in THE BIRTH OF A NATION came true. If that movie made many people uncomfortable in the past because it seemed like paranoid fantasy, it is bound to make people uncomfortable today because it now seems so factual. The movie said freedom is bound to turn too many blacks into uninhibited thugs and pimps, and guess what the main cultural expression of blacks is today? Rap music, the main message of which is ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh fist(or gun)’. And look at the state of black-run communities in Gary, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, parts of Chicago, Newark, and etc. And the movie warned about naive white cuck-politicians and cunning light-skinned Negroes who shamelessly hustle suckers into buying into fantasy of racial harmony. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION was a great prophetic work. What he warned eventually came to be. Blacks have reverted to jungle savagery. Their music is rap, their dance is ‘twerking’, and their culture is thuggery. And Pop Culture is now mostly about Jungle Fever. And not only in the US but in Canada and EU.

Anyway, the loss of manhood and cuckery is a form of slavery. The dark fact is white manhood cannot survive integration with harder-muscled, meaner-tempered, and bigger-donged Negroes. Eventually, white men will turn into ‘white boy’ cucks, and white women will go with Negroes and their wombs will be colonized to produce the likes of Colin Kaepernick whose anti-white virulence is less about Racial Injustice than sheer contempt for wussy-ass whitey. After all, his mother rejected the men of her own race and chose to have a child with a tough Negro. Even though his black father abandoned him and even though a nice white family went to the trouble of raising him, Kaepernick associated whiteness with wussy weakness and associated blackness with power and manhood. Blackness = studly power that conquers white vaginas and wombs. Whiteness = cucky weakness that raises a child of a black guy who humped a white woman and took off. Due to their wilder nature, blacks don’t much appreciate weakness, no matter how kindly and caring it is. They instinctively see it as ‘faggoty-ass’ and ‘lame’. So, all the love Kaepernick got from his adoptive white family hardly left a positive impression on him. He just wanted to get away from such wussy weakness and be accepted by the badass brothas.

When white people brought over a stronger and meaner race to be slaves in the US, they got caught in a Moral Trap. Socio-legal Slavery controlled blacks and kept their savagery in check, but it was unjust and sometimes cruel. But freeing the slaves meant eventual disaster for the white race because too many blacks happen to be built like Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, and Jim Brown. And too many black women are crazy and loud 'biatches' whose antics in music and dance encourage the most savage and trashy behavior among women of all races. Abraham Lincoln sensed all this, which is why he said, “We have to free the ‘groids’ and then ship them back to Africa, because, if we don’t, they will kick our butts and hump our daughters.”

It is time to face the truth. The South was in a bind. True, they did fight to preserve ugly social slavery. But they were trying to prevent horrid biological slavery of white race being physically and sexually dominated by tougher and nastier Negroes.
Furthermore, it is about time we understood the importance of manhood. It's time to assess the harms of Toxic Cuckery. A society can’t be healthy unless its men feel manly pride and are respected by their womenfolk. Indeed, it’s often been said that one of the humiliating things about slavery was that black manhood was trampled upon. As black men had to shuck-and-jive before the massuh, who also might enjoy some fun with a chocolate-titted mama, they could not be full men. This was especially humiliating because black slaves knew they could kick the white boy’s ass if they were to face each other one-on-one. But whites had all the guns, and the laws were on their side. Blacks had to suffer the humiliation of being ordered around by white men who were weaker than them. So, in order for black men to gain the pride of manhood, they needed to be freed. So far so good. But the problem with black freedom was that black manhood now posed a serious threat to white manhood. Due to the BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — factor, legal equality between blacks and whites was bound to lead to biological supremacy of blacks over whitse. This meant blacks kicking white butts in sports, and this was a big deal in the modern world where so much of social, communal, national, and racial pride & prestige are invested in and expressed through sports. White male defeat to blacks in sports meant whites losing their iconic status as Real Men. Is it any wonder that so many white wombs get colonized by black men while so many white guys are turning into cucks and wussies?

Indeed, Antifa is like radical cuckery. These white boys are so invested in their own inferiority and submission at the feet of blacks that they get triggered by any white guy who says NO to such humiliation. To Antifa, the rightful place for whites in the West is as biological slaves to blacks who are deemed superior both morally(due to Slavery and Jim Crow narrative) and physically(as they easily kick white butt in sports and conquer white wombs). And yet, by beating up 'nazis' to protect blacks and other minorities, Antifa guys also feel as alphas, without whom blacks would presumably not be safe. So, Antifa guys both worship blacks as their superiors(in holy victimhood and badass style) and patronize blacks as their inferiors(or a powerless people in need of white knights to defend them).

Well, if black male psychology suffered so terribly during the slavery era because black men were denied full manhood and the respect of their women, the same logic applies to whites today. White society cannot be psychologically healthy unless white men have their manhood back. But this is impossible with racial integration because biological slavery will reduce white guys into cucky ‘white boys’ at the feet of tougher and meaner blacks as their eternal biological massuhs. And the fall of white manhood will mean the fall of the white race. White women will not respect ‘loser men’, which is what white men become when integrated with black males.
There are many reasons for the decline of the white male in America, especially among the working class, and one reason has to do with loss of manhood vis-a-vis blacks. Both Abraham Lincoln and D.W. Griffith were right. They both acknowledged the problems of slavery but also understood that freedom would lead to a new kind of slavery. It is too bad that whites in the South failed to come to terms with Honest Abe and settle on some grand plan to free the blacks and send them back to Africa where the Negroes could harass hippos but not white folks.

Democrats vs Republicans? Well, How about the Imperial Party vs the National Party?

Maybe, it’d be more honest and useful if we could scrap the current two-party system of Democrats & Republicans and reorganized & restructured the American Political System with two new parties:

The Imperial Party and the National Party. Even though Democrats and Republicans are divided on a host of issues — many of them overblown trivialities or manufactured distractions — , the current political fault-line fails to address the most fundamental issue of American Power, namely the question of "Is America a republic or an empire?" and "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" Though the answers are not so cut-and-dry or black or white, the growing political gulf is about the big question of America’s role in the world. The reason why the issue is complicated is that America is a superpower and had a very important role to play vis-a-vis other nations. So, an ‘isolationist’ kind of republicanism is not possible at the present or the future. America must play a big role in the world. But where and when does importance turn into imperialism? Nationalists believe America should focus mainly on American affairs. They believe it’s good for America(especially in not getting involved in foreign wars, usually at the behest of Zionist interests) and also for the world since US intervention has led to such dire results all across the globe. America’s record in Guatemala, El Salvador, Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. have deeply traumatized those nations. Even the ‘success’ of South Korea overlooks the fact that the war killed millions of people and left the peninsula divided to this day.
Therefore, even if the US has a key role to play in the world, why must it so intrusive and destabilizing? And why have so many military bases in every corner of the world? Isn’t that imperial overreach? Would American security and well-being be threatened if all those bases were not maintained? Does anyone really believe that trade routes will be endangered if US military moves out of Europe and the Pacific? Are pirates going to take over the seas and plunder everything?

Globalists obviously want the US to be on imperial footing. They aren't content with America as a limited power even with a superpower military and giant economy. They want America to be the policeman, judge, and jury of the world. Some admit that it is a kind of empire but a beneficent one based on justice and human rights than plunder and exploitation. They point to the generosity of US aid, trade deals, and protective alliances. If only it were so. If indeed the US were ruled by wise elites with nobility of mind and soul who really care about the humanity and want to use its power to prevent horrors like the one that happened in Rwanda, maybe the US as a Tough Love Empire wouldn’t be so bad. But as things stand, the US is ruled by an ethno-oligarchy(of Zionists) that is utterly corrupt and near-psychopathic in their power-lust and contempt for dumb filthy goyim. Jewish Globalists, as the new elites, don’t care about anything but maximizing and securing their own tribal-supremacist power. So, US-as-an-empire in its current position only means a world bullied and bloodied by a superpower whose muscles are directed by the sick minds of Jewish Supremacists.

And then, there is the other question of, "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" This too cannot be answered simply. After all, America is a vast young nation, and most Americans are composed of conquerors, settlers, immigrants, and those who arrived as slaves. And even a good number of people who entered illegally were granted Amnesty, and some of them became Good Americans. So, there is no such thing as an American with ancient roots in or claim to America. Even American Indians don’t qualify because the nation-state and modern civilization of America came into being only with the vision and expansion of white Europeans, especially from Great Britain and other parts of Northern Europe.
Even so, there is a definite history of America. Even if theoretically anyone can become ‘American’, America became what it is because a certain kind of people conquered it, settled it, envisioned it, and founded it. If Chinese, Hindus, or Arabs, instead of Anglos and Germanics, had first arrived in the Northern Hemisphere of the New World and settled and expanded, the resulting civilization and its culture/laws/values would have been wholly different. If Muslims had the chance to found and develop their version of ‘America’, there would be a mosque in every town. Good or bad, it’d be a very different kind of civilization.
Also, even though different kinds of people arrived and became ‘Americans’, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was absolutely crucial. The ones who arrived first got to establish the political and economic methodology, spiritual and ethical norms, and the mores, culture, & language. If Russians had arrived, settled, and defined ‘America’ first and if Anglos had come afterward, the Anglos might have been compelled to assimilate to Russian language, culture, and political norms. After all, if an Anglo were to decide to move to Russia permanently, he will have to assimilate to Russian-ness since Russia is the land of Russian people and culture. So, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was key to the meaning of Americanism. Indeed, if Germans than Anglos had founded and settled ‘America’ first, then Anglo arrivals would likely have assimilated to what would have been an essentially German-America. Even though Jews came to dominate America, why did they master English and adopt many Anglo-American norms? Because they arrived later and had to respect and assimilate to the template established and defined by another people. If proto-Zionists had founded America, they may have established Hebrew as the dominant language and defined America as a Great Jewish State. And if non-Jews had been allowed to immigrate to work on farms and fill up the factories, they might have been regarded and treated like Arabs in Israel/West-Bank.

There’s a saying, "Finders keepers, losers weepers." In the case of America, it used to be "Founders decide, Followers abide." So, even as new people arrived and became Americans too, there was respect & appreciation for the pioneer stock and the mostly European(and African) folks who laid down, through mind and/or body, the core foundation of Americanism. Not only was there a historical, cultural, and racial acknowledgment of the main thread of America but a profound respect for the Constitution, Rule of Law, Due Process, and Property Rights that made American Democracy and its reforms possible, along with economic opportunity and growth unprecedented in human history. So, even if there was room for yet newer Americans, the understanding was that they would come with admiration and respect for those who’d been in America first or before.

Also, because Americanism was founded on the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights, the process of immigration and naturalization must adhere to clear legal standards. After all, one thing that set the US(and Northern European nations) apart from the rest of the world, especially the Third World, is that Americans have traditionally been far more mindful of laws, rules, and standards than in nations like Mexico and other Latin American nations where everyone, from elite to peon, has tended to play fast and loose with the rules for petty interests or personal gain. Even among Europeans, there is far more Rule of Law up north than in Southern nations like Italy or Greece. Indeed, there are huge differences even among whites. If Anglos had settled South America and if Latinos had settled North America, the Anglo-South would likely be far richer than the Latin-North.

For a time, immigrants came with admiration and respect for the great founders of America and the earlier Europeans who did the heavy lifting on farms and factories. But with the Jewish takeover of elite institutions, the Narrative was altered so that the Founders got stained with the ‘original sin’ of slavery(which is rather odd since white people conquered Indians before they brought blacks, and that would mean ‘genocide’ is the original sin of America, but I guess blacks are just ‘cooler’ than Indians). Because the founding of America was fraught with ethnic cleansing of Indians and slavery of blacks, the New Narrative said it was tainted for all time. Also, because immigration policy had favored Anglos and Northern Europeans over other kinds of people, it was condemned as ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’. So, the New Narrative said that America can only be redeemed by newer waves of immigrants — preferably non-Northern European and even non-white — who would arrive and start anew without the stain of ‘genocide’, slavery, and ‘white supremacy’. So, instead of new immigrants coming with respect for America’s past and its founders & builders, they would come with sneering contempt and sniveling disdain. They would come to accuse and judge than appreciate and thank. Instead of immigrants respecting America’s past, existing Americans(especially whites with deep roots in America) should wax romantic about the future. Since the past is so tainted by ‘white supremacy’, America can only be saved by its future of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’.
But argument fails here under the scrutiny of moral logic. After all, if Early America was tainted by slavery and ‘genocide’, how are the later immigrants any less tainted? After all, they are participating in and partaking of something that was created by ‘historical sins’. Those who share in stolen loot are just as guilty. If indeed all those noble Jews and non-whites were so shocked by how America was founded and built, why didn’t they stay away? If Jews abhorred the pogroms in Europe, why did they come to land where Indians were ‘pogromed’ off the land? Also, if indeed whites are guilty for the tragedies suffered by Indians and blacks, how does it follow that whites owe something to all the peoples of the world who were not done wrong by the white founders and builders of America? Just think. Since Jews took Palestine from indigenous Arabs, they owe something to those people. Most decent people would agree. But who in his right mind would argue that because Jews took land from the Palestinians, they are obligated to let in a million Chinese and Hindus? And how would that help the Palestinians? They would just be losing their lands to Chinese and Hindus as well as to Jews. It’d be even worse.
Also, all these immigrants are coming from blood-lands of their own. As every history has been soaked in bloodbaths, wars, famines, slavery, rapes, conquests, and even genocides, they all have their own ‘original sins’ and all other kinds of 'sins'. ‘Genocide’ and slavery didn’t begin in America. Both have long pedigrees. Furthermore, even if we acknowledge the historical tragedies of America, when we compare the rise and development of America with other civilizations in the same time frame, there is no denying that something great and magnificent was created in America, and this owed to the founding by Anglos. At the time of America’s founding, European Imperialism had yet to conquer all the world. If China, (what is now)India, Persia, and Russia had played their cards right, they too could have done great things. But they lacked the bigness of vision and the spirit of freedom. At one time, Russia even claimed Alaska but failed to do much with it and stupidly sold it to America at fire-sale price. China, with its vast pool of talented people, could have made great advances, but it was filled with arrogance, complacency, and tyranny. And the bloodbaths in other parts of the world equaled or exceeded anything that happened in America. Also, as Hispanics got a head start in what came to be Latin America, they too could have done great things. But like the Spanish kingdom, Latin America just got saddled with corruption, confusion, and stagnation.

But just because Jews resented the fact that Wasps weren’t so eager to invite them to play golf or bonk their daughters, their vengeful viciousness came to dominate the immigration debate into a case of "Let’s bury whitey."

Anyway, due to the change in the Narrative, the question of "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" has become greatly complicated. There are few Iron Nativists left in America. Most Americans don’t mind new people coming to become Americans. But their Americanism still maintains that America belongs to Americans: the people with deep roots in America and people who arrived legally with due process with respect for American history, culture, and laws. The idea that America belongs to the World is anathema to them. They believe the world has people who might become good Americans, and therefore, the American system should select those well-intentioned people of good character and hopefully some skills because 21st century America is not a world where any bunch of illiterates can find ready work on farms or factories. So, a broader meaning of ‘America is for Americans’ doesn’t mean that only existing Americans can be Americans and no one else. It says America is something good because of its history of culture, laws, and achievements, and from all this, a certain American civic identity and character have formed. So, to keep this fire going, America must be careful and mindful of what kind of people are allowed and in what numbers. Numbers matter. After all, assimilation becomes ever more difficult with massive arrivals of people. If Jews had trickled into Palestine, they might have assimilated into the Palestinian nation. But TOO MANY Jews came to replace Palestinians, just like TOO MANY Mexicans and Asians have come to replace whites and even blacks in parts of California. If massive arrival of ‘gringos’ changed the character of SW territories from Mexican to Anglo in the 19th century, why wouldn’t the reverse process also drastically change the character of those areas? And if Mexicans are moving to the US, it must because Anglos did a much better job in America than Mexicans did in Mexico. So, if all those Mexicans move up north and take over, won't they be spreading their own problems to America? This also goes for Haiti and Dominican Republic. Race and culture matter. If Haitians move to DR in great numbers, they will Haitianize DR into a 'shithole'.

Unfortunately, the pro-immigration people have gone utterly loco with what could only be described as suicidal will among ‘progressive’ whites and homicidal urge among non-whites who are now into parasitic colonizer mode than immigrant mode. They no longer come with any respect and admiration, especially as anti-white PC has been globalized. So, new arrivals from India, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, and etc. all come with the attitude of "racist white supremacist whitey, fuc* you, and you owe me." And they, even Muslims, ally with homos(mostly white decadents with tenuous connection to reality) who are now adored as angels and saints of America. Gee whiz, with Diversity blessing the homos and vice versa, how can any decent person object to the Color-Colonization of the West? After all, PC tells us that nothing is holier than homos and nothing is more wondrous than Diversity? The most fervent advocate for this future is, of course, Justin Trudeau, a ‘natural liberal’ who has no sense of roots or attachment and is so addicted to the fanfare of the ‘new’ that he’s willing to piss away the entire history and culture of Canada to feel thrills up his legs. But then, the majority of Canadians voted for that fool, so what does that say about the white race? It means, what with Jews controlling most of the media, academia, and entertainment, even masses of whites have been turned into mental mice following an idiot pied piper like Trudeau.

Anyway, given that the main divide in politics is about Americans who mainly see America as a nation for Americans in a world of many nations VERSUS Americans who mainly see America as an empire that should swallow and be swallowed by the world, the conventional divide between Democrats and Republicans isn’t very useful, not least because there are plenty of globalist-imperialists and patriot-nationalists in both parties.

The Imperials see America as the only nation that matters. Even as they claim to care about Diversity, they believe the world should come to America as the only nation of importance, the exceptional nation. If they really respected true diversity and wanted other peoples and nations to thrive, would they be telling the world to, "drop everything in your nation, leave your people, forget your identity, come to America, and become Americans." But then, what is so great about being an ‘American’ when these ‘progressive’ globalist-imperialists say American history has mostly been about ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’? If their argument is ‘racist’ America must be saved from itself by wonderful Diversity, then why call on Diversity to leave their own lands? If indeed Diversity is so wonderful, aren’t non-white living in paradise in their non-white ‘diverse’ lands? Why try to uproot them and bring them to America just to save the souls of whites? There are too many contradictions and absurdities in the Global-Imperial position, but then, empires have always been unstable because their combination of inequality(between the dominant power and weaker peoples) and diversity(divisions held together only by bread & circuses or porny displays of power) is difficult to sustain across vast distances over long periods.

Nationalism may be less exciting and adventurous, but it is more sound and stable over the long haul. How nice if National Socialist Germany had stuck to ‘boring’ nationalism than embarking on adventurous and exciting imperialism. Same was true of Napoleon and France. They should just minded the business of France.
In a way, the Imperial Game of America is both unnecessary and almost inevitable. It’s unnecessary because America is an empire unto itself. Few nations can claim to be both a nation and an empire(within its own borders). America, with its vast territory plus Alaska and Hawaii, has a lot to play with without meddling in or melding with the rest of the world. But then, because the US is so populous, vast with farmlands, endowed with almost limitless natural resources, and so wealthy, its ambitions and energies were itching to spread out over the bigger world. American business, military, media, academia, churches, and etc. want to play global roles to gain more markets, convert more hearts, persuade more minds, build more military bases, and etc. It’s just the nature of power. Too much power wants to break out and grab more power.

Anyway, if we were to designate two hypothetical parties as the Imperial Party and the National Party, how would their platforms differ in the most fundamental sense?

1. The Imperial Party would be bored with little old America. It would want global hegemony and to rule the whole world. Its core strategy would be Fuc*-and-Suck, that is Fuc* other nations with military power and financial muscle, and then Suck in their people as immigrants and ‘refugees’(often from war zones created by American imperialist aggression, as was the case of Libya and Syria). Also, suck in the talents(aka brain drain) for the American high-tech industry and suck in the helots for picking tomatoes and as demographic pawns to push black criminal elements out of cities. Because Imperial Party would really be about world hegemony, it’d have no qualms about interfering in other nations, messing with their political processes, and rigging their elections(but then, it might bitch about how Russians are messing up American sovereignty and democracy, an example of rank hypocrisy that betrays American arrogance as the ‘exceptional nation’ that is above the law and has the right to meddle in the affairs of all other nations, but other nations, especially if hated by Jews, better not try to meddle in American affairs. And even if they didn’t meddle, they could be accused of meddling just the same because Jews need scapegoats for whatever goes wrong with their agenda). Like imperialist forces anywhere and all throughout history, the Imperial Party would be addicted to more money, more control, more power, and more hegemony. And also to more More-Americans(endless mass immigration) as the Imperial Party's over-arching ambition and appetite would be bored and unsatisfied with existing Americans like a vain woman is bored with her existing collection of hats and shoes.

(2) The National Party would be for securing borders than complaining of boredom. It wouldn’t be bored with American history and American people. It’d want to preserve Core America that developed as essentially an extension of Western Civilization and European folks. Its main moral narrative would be about owing something to Indians and blacks(of slave ancestry) on grounds of America’s particular history. After all, American history was about particular peoples clashing with other particular peoples on a particular territory that led to particular triumphs and tragedies. When whites conquered the land of Indians, it was a particular, not a universal historical event. When whites brought blacks to work as slaves, that also was a particular story of one particular people doing something to another particular people on a particular territory, mostly the American South. Since American history was about particularities, the National Party would see no reason for America to feel that it must atone universally for wrongs that were done particularly, i.e. if a particular set of whites took a particular territory from a particular set of Indians, the moral issue has to be between whites and Indians, not between whites and Asian-Indians or Chinese.
The National Party would reject the ‘moral’ conviction that the US must serve as a dairy cow to provide milk of human kindness to all of humanity. A nation should only owe something to the peoples it has wronged. Indians and blacks have legit historical grievances. In contrast, seven billion people who want to move to America for material improvement(largely because they messed up their own nations with stupidity and corruption) have no moral justification to demand entry. They are not ‘dreamers’ but creamers who just want to slurp on the cream of others.

The National Party’s vision of the present and future flows from the remembrance of the past. It would regard the immigration waves of the late 19th century as a chapter in US history, not its template for propositional holy writ that America belongs more to outsiders than insiders.
The National Party would also object to any group trying to exploit American power to serve its narrow tribal interests. It would seriously abhor what Jews have done with their near-monopoly control of American power.

Now, there are elements of the Imperial Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are joined at the hip. Paul Ryan also belongs in the Imperial Party.

There are elements of the National Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Plenty of Democrats used to be for the American workers and immigration restriction before super-rich globalists took over the upper echelons of the Democratic party, as also happened in the Republican Party.

Anyway, even if America continues with the current two party system, things might come into clearer focus if we spoke not so much of Democrats and Republicans but of Imperials and Nationals.