Whites, Jews, and Blacks — Need for White Race-ist Unity — Whites must be like Asian Indians if they're to avoid the Fate of American Indians

https://buchanan.org/blog/the-new-systemic-racism-that-is-coming-138889

A commenter asked in reply to the Patrick J. Buchanan article:

"I still don’t get how all this happened… Whites aren’t dumb or weak… Where did it all go wrong?"

'Dumb' and 'weak' are relative terms. In relation to whom and what?

If Jews never came to the US, whites would still be on top and would be setting the narrative and agenda. Sure, there would be liberal whites, but they would be in balance with conservative whites. Both liberalism and conservatism have value, and one provided reform and novelty while the other provided stability and continuity, sense of heritage and roots. But Jews came along and used their power to tip the scale in favor of Liberalism. Thus, white liberalism came to be severed from white conservatism. (American History went from reconciliation and mutual respect between Northern whites and Southern whites following the Civil War to such condemnation of white identity & the American South that even white Southerners now do nothing to defend their heritage from feral blacks and PC radicals egged on by Jews who, at the same time, demand that white Southerners support Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. Dixie Chicks just calling themselves Chicks is typical of total Southern cuckery to Jews and the mob.) Liberalism without roots finds itself adrift. Liberals may bitch about conservatism, but liberalism without conservatism is like trees severed from roots. After all, liberalism is an outlook, and it needs a vantage point, i.e. it has to be liberal on a conservative foundation. Liberalism is like the sails on a boat, which would be like conservatism. Without the boat, the sails are useless. Or liberalism is like wings on a plane.Without the main body, the wings are useless.
Therefore, when white liberalism was severed from white conservatism, it had to serve another root-foundation, and this is where Jews made it serve Jewish Power aided and abetted by Jungle Fever/Faith & eventually Globo-Homo. As for white conservatism, it faced difficult times because Jews and their white liberal cucks said whiteness is problematic, then bad, then evil. So, white conservatism could no longer preserve white pride. For white conservatism to be viable, it had to drop the 'white' and just be conservative. Conservative about what? For some, conservatism merely meant conserving wealth(property values) or, paradoxically, the engine for change. (Consider David French whose idea of 'conservatism' is preserving the social forces that led to drag-queen story hour. In other words, American Conservatism = Conservation of forces that bring about the most rapid change.) But conservatism must conserve something other than 'muh money'. If whiteness is no longer worth preserving because of 'white guilt', then white conservatism, having dropped the 'white', had to serve another identity and culture, and again Jews made whites serve Jewish identity that was deemed noble because of Holy Holocaust Cult and its great heritage. If white liberals became subservient to Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish victim-hood, white conservatives became reverent of Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish heritage — Paul Johnson, one of the premier cuckservatives of the Cold War era, often made the case that Judaism is essentially conservative and so, Jews will eventually come around to the political right; the fool overlooked the fact that Jewish 'conservatism' is about maximizing Jewish Power by any means necessary, even by pushing deracinating liberalism on whites, which explains why so-called Neocons worked with Jewish Liberals to undermine white identity and pride. The Neo-Con-Federacy alliance didn't last long. White Southerners supported Zionists, but Zionists took a big dump on white 'racism', just like Apartheid South African support of Zionism didn't prevent most Jews from reviling white-ruled South Africa as the worst thing possible. At any rate, adopting Jewish Identity as the main theme of American Conservatism was bound to be devastating to white conservatism because the main villains of the Shoah were 'white supremacists'(though, to be sure, Nazi Germans were 'Aryanists' whose greatest crimes were against other whites, especially Slavs and Jews, if counted as 'white'). Jewish victim-narrative essentially blames whites and Christians for everything.

Now, Jews could pull this off because they are smarter than whites by one standard deviation. But what about Episcopalians whose IQs are comparable to Jews? Their religion was weak, they were more about class & privilege than blood-spirituality(or ethno-religious identity of Jews), and over time, their values just became bloodlessly following the latest fashion among trendy elites. Also, Jews have stronger and pushier personalities than Episcopalians who would rather lose a fight against feisty Jews than get down and dirty. Jews were especially effective in subverting white power because of their passive/aggressive nature. If Jews were ONLY aggressive, whites would have told them to screw off. But Jews would approach whites with sappy eyes and plead for sympathy for Anne Frank and 'muh holocaust'; and whites, out of Christian magnanimity and conscience, ceded to Jews the notion that the Holocaust was the greatest evil in world history and therefore ANY negative aspersion about Jews is 'antisemitic', therefore akin to Nazism. Whites thought they were being nice to poor pitiful Jews, but Jews were planting a moral trap underneath the white ass, especially as the history of 'antisemitism' was mainly a white European/Christian thing. Once that premise was accepted as part of Official White Morality, it meant that Jews could dump on whites all they want but whites better not dump on Jews in kind because it'd be so awful and hurt the feelings of those poor pitiful boo-boo-baby Jews. Fast-forward to today, and NYT & other Jewish-run media dump on whites endlessly but whites dare not say anything back in kind to Jews. Jews dredge up all the dark past about white history, but whites dare not do the same about Jews. If anything, both white 'liberals' and 'conservatives' compete with one another on who is more pro-Jewish. Jews kick white ass, but whites are eager to kiss Jewish ass. Kick-Ass-Kiss-Ass is the dynamics between Jews and whites. And of course, to consolidate white cuckery and submission, Jews also pushed the Noble Negro cult to guilt-bait whites for all eternity. So, Jewish-run NYT and other media outlets feature black and yellow bitches dumping on white women as abettors of white male terrorism against blacks, but white men say nothing about how countless white women had been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks. Tally up the numbers of white women robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks, and it far dwarfs the number of black thugs lynched by white mobs in a hundred years. But white men, 'lib' and 'con', are a bunch of maggoty wussy boys.
But then, there's another reason white men don't defend white women. Too many white women, being mental clay in Jewish hands, are into white self-loathing and anti-white hysteria as virtue-signaling. Indeed, consider how most of these 'Karens' who are denounced by Ugabundas and Skankishas happen to be urban 'liberal' proggy bitches. To many on the dissident right, there is a certain schadenfreude in watching these insipid whores get their just desserts, a taste of their own medicine. These deracinated slutty lowlife white traitor bitches watch TV shows and movies where white female characters go with Negro men and where white men are presented as creeps or dorks, and their worldview conforms to Jewish Hollywood propaganda. But when they are confronted with black thuggery and vileness, the first thing they do is CALL THE WHITE POLICE. Now, one may ask why did their parents raise such insipid kids? Because white parenting, especially beginning with the boomers, was 'anti-racist', but a people are finished without race-ism. Jews are race-conscious and gain in power. Blacks mess up everything but still gain in power because they are race-conscious. Whites lose and lose because they lost their race-ism. As boomer parents think there is nothing worse than 'racism', they raised their kids to worship Fartin Poother Bling. And these kids grew up to madonna the muddy skank and rap music and sexting each other photos of Negro dongs. And all they heard in schools is 'white racism', 'white supremacism', 'evil of antisemitism', 'evil of homophobia', and etc. But on some subconscious level, they grew up feeling uncomfortable because it's not natural to hate your own kind. It's no wonder the 'gay' stuff spread like wildfire among whites, even with 'conservatives', because it's like the last expression of 'whiteness'. And it's no wonder that blacks eventually caught onto this and are insisting on making June the month of Homeys than Homos. Sheeeeeeiiiit, Juneteenth be da thang.
BLM and LGBT marching together is funny as hell because, despite the outward show of solidarity, they are expressions of opposing trends. BLM is about blacks doing as they please with roughhouse reparations of looting and burning, whereas Globo-Homo is about gentrification and yuppie-regeneration of the 'inner-city', code-word for parts of the town plagued with black crime and violence. Granted, there is a connection between blackness and homo-ness as plenty of white 'gay' buns crave black dongs — the butt-cucks — , but generally speaking, homo community caters to high-earners and the fancy-pants crowd than to hood rats.

Now, the 'weak' part. Again, it's relative. Without Jews and blacks, whites would be on top of the world in the West. Mentally, whites are strong against all groups except Jews. Some may say yellows have IQ comparable or even slightly higher than whites, but the difference isn't all that notable. Also, as yellows happen to be docile and dog-like, they are incapable of gaining power and authority as a minority. Chinese are successful minorities in Southeast Asia but in a precarious than prestigious position — it's no wonder Chinese would rather settle in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the US where they face less animus and violence from the majority. If recently yellows are berating at and bitching about whiteness, it's only because they are dutiful and servile dogs of the prevailing ideology set by elite Jews. They are following orders as good little boys and girls.
So, only Jews could make whites seem 'weak' of mind. Jews have noticeably higher IQ, strong identity rooted in blood & spirituality, and pushy personalities, along with sneaky passive/aggressive strategy. The only other people who make whites look weak are, of course, the Negroes, especially as American Culture is mainly about pop music and sports. Rock music has black roots, but moreover, blatantly black rap overtook rock as the most popular musical form, and what is rap about the thuggish cult of black aggression? Also, Americans worship sports, and who dominate? Blacks do. NFL culture is rather odd in its current configuration, and it's no wonder that it is in a state of crisis. Most players are black, and the game is getting even blacker. These black guys rose up the ranks by thumping white guys in high school and college, and they hump tons of white women. BUT, the majority of the fans are white males, and many white male fans of football happen to be 'conservative'. So, you have a game that is mostly about Democratic black guys dominating the field and humping white women that is cheered on largely by white males, the majority of whom are 'conservative'. White male 'conservatives' have 'evolved' to the 'anti-racist' position along the lines of, "Look, we cheer for you awesome black guys, and you whupped our pathetic white butts and you can hump my wife and marry my daughter, but please oh please, show some respect to the red, white, & blue and stand during the national anthem." That's Rush Limbaugh 'conservatism'. But black players feel differently. They feel, "Sheeeeeeeiiiiit, we be badass mofos who be da kangs of dis here sports, and we done whup fa**oty white boys and hump white girls, and dem white boys in da stands just a bunch of punkass pussies who be begging fo' our autographs while dey's girlfriends be lustin' after our dic*s." Yep, that is how black players see the game, and why not? Suppose Germans were taken as slaves to Japan, and suppose they came to dominate the sports by beating up scrawny yellow Japanese men and were humping the yellow girls. Would these Teutonic giants feel any respect for yellow dorks begging for their autographs? Would they pay respect to the Japanese anthem and identity for long? No, they would be feeling, "We be Vikangz".
For better or worse, sports is at least 1/2 of American culture and identity. So, who dominates sports comes to shape the image of America. Without blacks, whites would dominate sports in the US, and the racial-national perception would be very different. Indeed, look at the harm done to French identity and pride as the result of black domination. Sure, the white French pretend they are all beyond race and that Frenchness has no color, but blacks notice color. They know they are kicking white French ass and France is being Africanized.

Now, one may argue that white people as a unity are more powerful than any other. After all, white imperialists took over all of Africa at one time. British fleet defeated China in two Opium Wars. Spanish took over all of what is now Latin America. This is true, but white power depends on unity of identity, and that means race-ism. Without white race-ism, there can be no white unity. Then, whites can only compete as individuals, and then they will lose mentally to Jews with higher IQ & nimbler verbal skills and lose to blacks who are more muscular and athletic. This is why 'anti-racism' is the most fatal thing to happen to whites. But with white unity, whites could easily push back against Jewish Power. And whites as a unity can kick black ass. In the movie ZULU, each black warrior is more muscular and faster than whites, but whites work as a disciplined team and mow down the savanna bunners with awesome race-ist efficiency. This is why only race-ism can save the white race or any race. This is why any white person who uses the term 'racist' as epithet is part of the problem and hardly better than fools who yammer "Democrats are the real racists."

Ultimately, the great tragedy of American History is that American Indians didn't have the personality and wiliness of Asian Indians. American Indians were a stoned-faced stone-age people who put up a fight against men with guns and wagons, then later trains. They had no hope of military victory. They fought bravely and have been honored as such, but their defeat was a foregone conclusion, and following their surrender, they just remained on Reservations and lived on bacon, tobacco, and firewater. They were 'dumb' like the big 'Injun' in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.
But imagine if American Indians were more like Asian Indians. After a few setbacks with fighting the white men, they would have put down the bows & arrows and try to deal with whites with words & wit. After all, white folks were far less likely to shoot a people who are always talking and balking than shooting off arrows or hurling tomahawks. Through incessant talk, the hindu-like American Indians might have wore down the white men on the matter of immigration. A compromise might have been reached where white Christian immigration is okay to a certain point, but come on, let's leave something for the Indians. And then, the hindu-like American Indians might even have convinced whites to send the blacks back to Africa on account of America being the land of the Indians, not of the Africans who have their own gigantic continent to themselves. Hindu-like American Indians might have argued incessantly, "Look, you white people come here and take so much. But, you built stuff and we Indians benefit too. But why did you bring all those blacks? It's bad enough we lost this land to you whites but should we lose it to blacks as well?" And hindu-like American Indians might have gotten better deals from whites with contracts. The real American Indians just trusted the white man, smoked the peace pipe, and went back to their teepees... only to discover that Pale Face was just fooling them. But hindu-like American Indians surely would have pressed upon whites to keep the word. "Look, we remember you people buying Manhattan with bead necklace. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, and no shame on me this time."

In DELIRIOUS, Eddie Murphy says you got to SING to get the girls. In SEVEN BEAUTIES, Pasqualino says, "More you pee, more you live." In our world, the more you talk, the more power you got. Even when they try to silence you, you have to keep talking and talking and talking. You have to join the conversation but not on their terms because PC is all about them talking while your side only listens or chants along or barks according to orders.




It's been observed by some that whites are like the NEW American Indians. Then, the lesson whites must learn from the fate of American Indians is that whites must act like Asian Indians to survive. American History could have been very different if American Indians fought less and talked more. Indeed, one reason why white folks in the South lent a certain ear to blacks was because the Negroes were always talking, like Jim in HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It's like the white massuh played by Chuck Connors in ROOTS has a fondness for Chicken George who always be talking. Frederick Douglas was full of talk, and of course, Fartin' Poother Bling was nothing without talk. And, you don't even need a boombox voice. Gandhi sounded like a geek, but he talked and talked and drove the British nuts like Groucho Marx with the Wasp characters.

It's incredible that Jews of all people hold such a vaunted MORAL position in the American Narrative. After all, if any people experienced something like 'genocide' and destruction on American soil, it was the American Indians, all the more tragic because they have roots here going back eons, tens of thousands of years. And yet, there is the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. than one commemorating the 'American Holocaust' of the Red Man. And even though mass immigration did in the Indians, the Statue of Liberty as symbol of immigration is so highly prized and celebrated. Also, the US has been nothing but a blessing for Jews. They didn't face the kind of discrimination they did in the Old World, and furthermore, Jews took part in slavery/slave trade and sold supplies to whites who rubbed out the Indians. So, Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust'. And yet, Jews hold the high moral ground in America. Why? They never stopped talking. In the end, talk determines 'truth'. If Bob did wrong to John, but if Bob does all the talking while John sulks and sits in the corner, everyone will go with Bob's word. He sets the narrative. It's like the scene in GOODFELLAS where Martin Scorsese's mother tells a joke about a man who never says anything.



How did Christianity became a great religion? The Early Christians faced persecution, but they never stopped talking and eventually caught the ears of some powerful and influential folks. In the end, it wasn't a case of "meek shall inherit the Earth" but "speak shall inherit the Earth". And this is why white Americans, as they face a demise similar to that of the American Indians, must not make the same mistake. Instead of being like the noble but 'dumb' Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, they must be like Asian-Indians who never shut up. They must be like Babu(of THE SIMPSONS) or Ben Kingsley as Gandhi who's always talking and talking, even when he's sent to jail time and time again. To reiterate this point, white Americans should speak with a Hindu accent. Doing so will remind them that, unless they keep gabbing like Hindus, they will end up like the Red Man.
Whites should start with the topic of creating the white leagues in sports on the basis that white athletic inferiority needs is own space from blacks who make it virtually impossible for any other race to play, especially certain positions. So, let blacks have NBA and NFL, but let there be the white leagues. And why not? Blacks got their own chess tournaments as they can't compete with Jews. Now, the Powers-that-be will say NO, but whites should still keep talking and never drop the issue and should re-package it in so many ways. After all, the US has said NO to reparations-for-blacks so many times, but it's still on the menu because blacks never stop talking about it. (Whites should demand Realization among blacks. Realization over reparations. What would this Realization be? That, even though blacks got less than whites in the US, they got so much from contact with whites than they would have on their own if left alone in their own savagery of bongo drums and chucking spears at hippos. Sure, the argument of the Realization would be condemned as 'racist', but one must never stop talking. Even if the other side says NO, you keep making your case and drive home the point. It's like even a brick wall eventually breaks if you keep picking at it. In those prison movies, inmates eventually make a hole with a spoon. Why? They never give up picking at the wall. Words wear down the opposition only if you must keep on talking.) If whites give up on certain issues and stop talking, they lose. Even if there are setbacks, one must keep talking. Like 'gay marriage' for instance. Don't just accept it as 'the law of the land' but keep talking against it. Chip away at it bit by bit by bit. If the power of words made the Roman Empire eventually succumb to Christianity, the religion of pesty Jewish heretics, it can do wonders for whites in the long run but only if they keep talking. If the idea of White Leagues is rejected and banned, should whites give up on the idea? No, they should keep pushing for it with new arguments. Did homos and Jews give up on 'gay marriage' when the courts initially said NO? No, they pushed on. Meanwhile, American cuckservatives began to say NOTHING in opposition. When one side talks while the other side remains mute, the talkers win. So-called 'culture war' was really a game of Culture Words, and Jews and the 'left' talked more. In contrast, the 'conservatives' said close to nothing or took orders from Jews and merely said, "Muh Israel" and "Democrats are the real racists", thereby undermining the need for race-ism among whites.

Say the word and you will be free. There's a song by the Bangles, "Walk like an Egyptian", but the real lesson is "Talk like an Asian-Indian". And use their dotty accent to always remind yourself that if you don't keep talking, you will end up like the American Indians. In a way, it's ironic that American Conservatism is in such sad state despite having dominated Talk Radio. They sure did a lot of talking... but about what? 'Muh Israel', inanities about 'Feminazis', cheerleading for more Middle East Wars, Russia-bashing, Chicom-bashing, and 'Democrats are the real racists'. In other words, total BS and nothing about real issues, real truths, and real needs. White folks need to speak the truth of HBD in hindu accent. Talk truth, not nonsense.

Response to "When Hollywood Rode Right: American Western Cinema as an Expression of Older Virtues" by Boyd Cathey — Dilemma of Gun & Morality in the Western — Can the Good Guy be Honorable and Win?

When Hollywood Rode Right:American Western Cinema as an Expression of Older Virtues - https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/when-hollywood-rode-right/

Indeed, most of Hollywood’s leading Western and cowboy actors have been politically conservative, and quite a few have been Southerners.

But actors serve the story, and a good number of writers for Westerns were Liberals and even Leftists. Gary Cooper may have been conservative, but his role in HIGH NOON was written by Liberals. Not uncommonly, the directors were conservative but the writers were leftist. Unless the director is 'auteur' enough to rework the material, he will be realizing the vision of his ideological opposite. Of course, the ideology was only implied in many such Westerns. A story of white injustice against the Indians could be a sly dig at the mistreatment of blacks.

Also, we need to keep in mind that, as Paul Gottfried noted, leftism in them days was not what goes by its name these days. Leftists back then dealt with real issues. Maybe their solutions were misguided or misconceived, but they addressed real world problems faced by real people.

Today, most of what goes by 'leftism' is mindless capitalist celebration of globo-homo vanity, which has NOTHING to do with classic leftism. Globo-Homo, like much of what falls into the category of 'wokeness', is about neo-aristo egomania of narcissistic homos and even trannies. It is also a proxy of ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacism. Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone: Kill both classic leftism and white pride. Jews now hate classic leftism that strove for equal justice for all. Jews don't want equal treatment for Palestinians and white goyim. Jews want to lord over them as cattle. So, Jews have no use for classic leftism, which also happens to be anti-capitalist. Why would Jews want radical socialism when they got the most money?
One may say there's a strain of leftism in BLM & 1619 because blacks are socio-economically poorer, therefore 'equity' is about making things fairer or more equal between blacks and whites(and non-blacks). But this too is bogus. BLM is about ultra-right black supremacism. It's about howling about injustice even when some lowlife black thug is justifiably killed by the police while all the hapless victims of black thugs are totally ignored by the media. There is no equal justice in BLM. It's about blacks being given carte blanche to do as they please. Blacks can carry out massive pogroms and burn down cities and loot, but BLM tells us to pretend it's not happening(or to be justified as 'social revolution'). And even though there's all this hair-pulling about black under-representation in various fields, it's perfectly fine for blacks to be over-represented in pop music, sports, and government jobs.

BLM got so much traction because ultra-right Jewish supremacists find blacks useful to guilt-bait whites. That's it. If Jews really cared about equal justice for all, why do they shut down BDS? If anything, what Palestinians face in West Bank is 1000x worse than what blacks face in the US. If anything, blacks are the one who prey on non-blacks. And, virtually every black killed by the police deserved to die as they not only resisted arrest but did so violently. Like black-on-white violence is tolerated and even justified, US power looks the other way while Zionist settler-invaders continue to take land from Palestinians in West Bank. And IDF, the Israel Death Squad, is given leeway to mow Palestinians down like animals.

So, how about dropping the BS of calling the other side the 'left'? Firstly, today's 'left' isn't the real left. Furthermore, the left did its share of creating the Modern West. After all, the default position of civilizations throughout history was conservatism, i.e. to preserve the existing power system. Then, what set the West apart from the Rest. Unlike the Rest that was mired only in conservatism, the West broke free with a new spirit of progress, change, and even revolution(at times). These energies, growing in the West from the Renaissance onward, culminated in the French Revolution where leftism got overly radical and bloody. The lesson from the whole affair was one cannot change the world overnight, as Edmund Burke explained. Burke, by the way, was a gradualist liberal, not a conservative. He only seemed conservative relative to the hot-blooded French radicals. He was actually on the side of change and progress.
This is what set the West from the Rest that only knew conservatism. Now, there is great value in conservatism because civilization, even in 'liberal democracies', must be 90% conservative in its daily operations. Even if a society is open to new things, most of what it does must be familiar and established. When you order a hamburger, you don't want to be served an experiment every time. Also, there is a great heritage in the conservation of arts, culture, philosophy, history, and spirituality. Non-Western history is proof that the concept of progress and revolution aren't integral to the rise of great civilizations. Persia, India, China, and etc. were great civilizations without the cult of progress or revolutionary fire. But it was Western Modernity that brought mankind to new heights and even sent men to the Moon, and that adventurous spirit of curiosity and daring couldn't have come from conservatism alone.

And the Western genre's appeal is as much liberal as conservative. There is surely the timeless themes of heroism and good vs evil, but there is also the thrill of breaking free, being adventurous, taking risks, and trying new things in a new land. The conservative person is more likely to stick close to home, with familiar sights and sounds. The liberal person is more likely to venture to new places, even if it means never seeing home again, which is largely the story of American Immigration. How many Americans have gone back to visit their ancestral homelands?

The very nature of the Western sub-genre has had a significant influence in attracting certain types of actors to it. Westerns traditionally expressed the purest form of “good vs. evil.” Even in the more conflicted, morally blurred years of the later 1960s and 1970s, the few Westerns that were made seemed to never lose sight of that essential conflict.

Most Westerns are not about good vs evil. That would be THE EXORCIST where noble priests battle the Devil that makes a girl masturbate and puke too much. The Southern is also about good vs evil: Rednecks are totally evil, Negroes are totally good. Certain war movies, especially with Nazis, are about good vs evil. The Germans weren't always featured as monsters in movies like THE YOUNG LIONS, ENEMY BELOW, PATTON, and CROSS OF IRON, but they increasingly became Evil Incarnate as Jewish Power grew more confident in Hollywood.

The Western would lose part of its appeal if it were about Good vs Evil. For the Western to work, the good guys need rough edges, and the bad guys must have some appeal, if only to tempt us — after all, the outlaw embodies the freedom of the Wild West more than the lawman does; indeed, many Westerns are about the lawman figuratively killing himself by killing the outlaw, the death of whom no longer requires the lawman's tough guy ways.
For the Western to really work, good guys mustn't be goody-two-shoes, and bad guys must have a certain 'bad boy' allure — it's like how Leonard DiCaprio's role as heavy in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD spices up the TV Western episode. So, even though Jack Palance casts a dark shadow in SHANE, he sure is magnificent. And James Stewart in Anthony Mann Westerns is a troubled figure. And Budd Boetticher's Westerns have the Randolph Scott character partnering for long stretches with questionable types who we aren't sure will turn out 'good' or 'bad', a kind of existential element to take shape in the journey. Shane is as much fighting his inner demons as the ranchers; he too was a hired killer. And THE SEARCHERS is riveting not only for its action-adventure but the inner turmoil of Ethan(John Wayne).

Still, many Westerns are indeed about Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and it's almost always about the Good prevailing over the Bad. However, this poses a moral dilemma for the genre. The triumph of the Good over the Bad in the Western is decided by a Single Factor: Which side has more guns and/or which side has the quicker draw. It's a matter of skill and luck, but where's the guarantee that the Good will always be better with the gun than the Bad? After all, chance is 50/50, heads half the time, tails half the time. So, logic would dictate that the Bad would win at least half the time in the Western.
But the Good or the Better almost always wins. It's as if the Good plays with a loaded dice or has an Ace up its sleeve. It has to be 'cheating' in the game of chance. We must believe that chance favors the Good like some cosmic force looking out for Forrest Gump(or Simple Jack) because he is so very good.

But, that's a childish fantasy like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If anything, the Bad should have the edge because bad types are more likely to gained experience with guns. Also, the good has more on its mind. It's like conscience sometimes gets in the way of Superman in Part II against the villains who have zero inhibitions in their fight. And, even if the Bad Guy loses, it's not the end of the world for badness because anarchy and chaos are the natural state of the world. Badness will always threaten society. But if the Good Guy loses, it feels like the End of the World because most good folks are rather timid and cowardly; they are more like herbivores than carnivores. So, if the tough Good Guy falls to the tough Bad Guys, most good folks will be like sheep without the sheep dog to protect them from wolves and coyotes. Bad is bold and aggressive. But goodness is mostly peaceable and wimpy, and it is the rare person who is both Good and Tough. So, the loss of the Good Tough guy is incalculable.

And yet, in all these Westerns, the Good almost always wins over the Bad. The Western is about tough guys, wilderness, and frontier, but it pushes a reassuring morality fairytale where
the Good will somehow come out on top because, for reasons unknown, it reliably manages to outdraw the Bad in the final showdown.

But then, how reassuring is a moral universe where good vs bad is decided by trigger fingers? Imagine if the fate of social morality, good or bad, hanged in the balance of who won the football match or boxing match? Sports determines which side is tougher or more skilled; it doesn't say what is good, what is bad, let alone evil. The shoot-out is about the faster gun winning, not about the faster gun being the good guy. While the Good Guy has courage and conviction, the moral outcome is simply a matter of who can shoot faster, which is hardly reassuring. This is why duels were so stupid. While it was ostensibly about honor, it boiled down who was better with pistol or saber. So, plenty of duels were won by people who really deserved to lose. Now, we know this about dueling, and it's one of the reasons for its eventual disrepute.

But, the Western perpetuated the myth that the Good invariably wins over the Bad even though the only determinant is who can shoot faster. When two men face off against one another over honor in a classic due, there's 50/50 chance of either winning, or losing. But when two men face off in the Western, the good almost always wins?
Sure, we get it, people want happy endings where good guys win and ride into the sunset, but it's really a child's fantasy for adults, especially as the quickdraw was the invention of Western as fiction. The real gunslingers approached gunfights more like gangsters, with caution and dread, to come out alive by any means necessary. Gunfights were more like the confrontation in John Sayles' MATEWAN, not a Western but where guns prove decisive between capital and labor. Though set up like a classic showdown, it quickly turns into a bloodbath for both sides.

To the best of my knowledge, the only Western where the good guy loses to the bad guy is in THE BIG SILENCE(aka THE GREAT SILENCE), unsurprisingly a Spaghetti Western by Sergio Corbucci. Italians were far more nihilistic or radical in their treatment of the genre. The last man standing was simply the best shot, not necessarily a 'good' guy. Or the violence was a condemnation of the brutality of the Anglo order.
The ending of THE BIG SILENCE is traumatic precisely because we've grown so accustomed to the Good guy ultimately coming out on top... even if by something akin to a miracle(just like the classic anti-hero of the gangster genre invariably is killed at the end). The upright lawman(Brian Keith) is also felled tragically in CENTENNIAL, but it's a TV mini-series, a pretty good one, than a classic Western. The leftist Corbucci was out to dismantle the myth of the Western. CENTENNIAL strove to be a historically accurate saga of the West in a state of transformation from the world of the Indians & frontiersmen to the Modern World.

At any rate, the Western perpetuated the myth that chance, which is 50/50, will miraculously almost 100/0 favor the Good over the Bad when it comes to a contest of guns. It encouraged fallacious thinking bordering on fairytale. It also explains why John Ford made THE MAN WHO SHOT LIVERTY VALANCE as his last significant statement on the West(ern).
The 'legend' in the movie is that the Good Guy Stoddard(James Stewart) killed the Bad Guy Valance(Lee Marvin), and it went a long way in taming the West. But unbeknownst to the Good Guy on the night of the showdown, the Bad Guy was really felled by John Wayne's character lurking in the shadows. The Good Guy was slipped an Ace. The dice was loaded in his favor. The 'legend' in the movie is especially remarkable because the Good Guy didn't even have a 50/50 chance against the Bad Guy, a natural born killer. All he had was a prayer, a Hail Mary that miraculously became a touchdown. But in fact, an 'angel' was watching over him, much like Tuco has Blondie(Clint Eastwood) to save his neck in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.

In the Western Genre, where good vs bad is decided by gunplay, how could it be that the good almost always wins, especially if the good guy fights honorably without cheating? Under those conditions, the bad guy has the equal chance of winning. For the good to usually or almost always win, it cannot fight fair, but that would mean good cannot be honorable. The Western formula of "Honor + Good Triumphant" simply doesn't compute. It can have one or the other but not both. This is the point of David Mamet's screenplay of THE UNTOUCHABLES. Elliott Ness tries to fight fair, but he simply cannot win that way. Sean Connery's character coaches him that you must not only fight dirty but dirtier. If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. If they beat up one of yours, you kill one of theirs. No wonder Jews won over the Anglos. Ugly Winning beats Beautiful Losing.

Especially if the Western good guy is upright and honorable(which implies he disdains cheating to win and offers an even chance to the bad guy), the main reason he always wins is because the contest is rigged in his favor by none other than the author. Of course, he is unaware of this, like the James Stewart character in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is unaware, at least initially, that Valance was actually killed by someone else. If a Western author is really fair, he would flip a coin to see who wins at the end, good guy or bad guy? But people like happy endings.

In reality, black boxers beat the white ones, but in ROCKY II and III, the Italian Stallion manages to whup the Negroes in the era of Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. But the implication extends beyond storytelling. It's about history. For all the talk of principles and meritocracy, white Americans rigged things in their favor. At one time, blacks were kept out of sports, which ensured that all the champions were white. Anglo-Americans favored one another over the ethnics. And this has been the case with every society. Jews rigged it for Jews, Italians rigged it for Italians, Japanese rigged it for Japanese.
After all, in a pure meritocracy, your kind has as much chance of losing as winning. So, for your group to win as a whole, the system must be rigged, at least in part. This is why intra-meritocracy makes more sense than inter-meritocracy. Anglo-Americans adopted inter-meritocracy and lost so much. Jews, in contrast, still play the game of intra-meritocracy, i.e. Jews fiercely compete with other Jews, but they also work together to rig the system against non-Jews. Just ask the Palestinians and the BDS movement. Incidentally, Jews use BLM as moral cover against what they do to BDS.

Indeed, the paucity of films in the genre during the last thirty years is the clearest indication that the Western as a clear-sighted vehicle for representing society’s conception of itself and its frontier past has fallen on hard times. Too many heroes in white hats and too strong an identification with a triumphant—and white—country, subduing all before it, doesn’t offer the best medium for representing the morally conflicted and self-loathing America of the 21st century.

I don't think it has much to do with Indians. After all, most Westerns were about lawmen vs outlaws than Cowboys vs Indians. Many more Westerns were like SHANE, HIGH NOON, and BIG COUNTRY than THE SEARCHERS. Even in STAGECOACH, which has a thrilling chase and shootout with the Indians, Ringo's(John Wayne) ultimate enemy is a band of white guys. And MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday vs the Clanton Gang. So, the Western can easily skirt around the Indian issue. I recall there was a popular long-running foul-mouthed TV Western series called DEADWOOD. Its popularity was proof that the Western could be revived with generous servings of violence and vulgarity.

Besides, the 'woke' community could have a field day with the 'genocide' of the Native Americans, and indeed, some anti-Westerns of the late 60s and early 70s ran on that very topic, like SOLDIER BLUE with its over-the-top scene of whites butchering helpless Indians. And there was LITTLE BIG MAN, a much better movie. Oddly enough, it was in this period that JEREMIAH JOHNSON was a pretty big hit. It was made by 'liberal' Jewish Sydney Pollack and starred 'ultra-liberal' Robert Redford, but it's really a celebration of tough white guy battling and whupping Indians. It shows the importance of the writer.

Anyway, 'woke' Hollywood has no problem making these Southerns about white 'racism', evil rednecks, angelic blacks, monstrous KKK, and etc. In a way, DJANGO UNCHAINED was as much a Southern as a Western, somewhat similar to the movies about Jesse James and Younger Gang(and RIDE WITH THE DEVIL). If Jewish Hollywood loves to rub the white nose in Slavery and Jim Crow, why not rub the white nose in the 'genocide' of the so-called 'Native Americans', though 'Pre-Americans' would be more accurate?

The reasons are threefold. Even though Jews in the past did occasionally compare the demise of the Indians with the Jewish Holocaust, it also has similarities with what Jews have done to Palestinians. Some Palestinian-American activist have made that very point. Also, Jews push the pro-immigration line of Great Replacement or White Nakba, and guess which people were 'replaced' first in America? The American Indians, of course, and the whole process was accelerated by mass immigration.
Yes, Indians are bad for the pro-immigration narrative. Plenty of immigrants arrived in the New Land to displace the Indians. Chinese laborers laid down railroad tracks that hastened the total erasure of Plain-Indians-America. Also, Jewish merchants sold guns and ammo to the cowboys to kill the Indians, i.e. Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust', and it is a sign of Jewish obnoxiousness the Holocaust Museum occupies the prominent moral space in Washington D.C. Yes, the Shoah was a horror, but it didn't happen in the US, and Americans didn't do it. In contrast, the destruction of Indians happened HERE IN AMERICA. And yet, Jews hold the vaunted position as the top victimological icons in American Politics. So vile.

A JEW IS ASKED WHY NO REMEMBRANCE OF THE HOLOCAUST OF AMERICAN INDIAN?

At any rate, the Jewish logic of Zionism is now also applied to the US, i.e. while Jewish mass immigration to Palestine to replace the Arabs was a great thing, Israel must now remain a Jewish State and non-Jewish immigration must be prohibited or kept to a bare minimum.
Guess how Jews see white goyim, as akin to Jews in Israel with the right to homeland or akin to Palestinians who deserve to be replaced?
The way Jews see the US, it's one big Palestine, and Jews welcome masses of non-white immigrants whose children are indoctrinated with 'wokeness' to blame everything on whitey and to worship Jews, blacks, and homos(as the Tri-Idolatry) over all else, even their own identities and cultures, and this madness is even exported abroad.

https://twitter.com/fbfsubstack/status/1475855433537662976

Furthermore, Indians simply don't have much market value for current 'wokeness'. While the tragedy of Cowboys-killing-Indians may be morally charged for some, it just doesn't have the kind of power of Southerners-lynching-Negroes. At the very least, the American Indians fought back and did kill and/or torture a fair amount of whites. In contrast, especially because people don't know about black thuggery in the Old South, people have this image of neanderthal rednecks randomly killing helpless angelic Negroes. But there's an even bigger factor, and it's about black stardom in sports and pop music, which makes whites feel more sensitive and sorry for what was done to 'cool' blacks than to 'cold' Indians.
Notice the Noble Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST hardly says anything, whereas mammy in GONE WITH THE WIND is always hollering up a storm. Silence may be golden, but noise takes the cake. It's like Tommy gets more 'respect' than Henry in GOODFELLAS. Tommy never shuts up whereas Henry doesn't say much. Don Rickles certainly didn't get where he did by being a stone-faced Indian.

NICK FUENTES: THE TRUTH ABOUT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

J-WOW or Jewish War on White is behind the Arson of the West — Without Naming Jewish Supremacist Power as the Cancer Afflicting the White Race, there is No Hope — Complex History vs Cartoon History — Triversity over Diversity

What is to be done?

Push back against the main enemy. Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.

This latest fiasco sweeping across the US and even EU is more of the same old Jewish War on White or J-WOW.

Naturally then, the most sensible thing is for whites to seek White Emancipation or White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. A call for White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism will be most effective in dispelling the myth of 'White Privilege'. If people scoff and ask, "White Liberation? What do whites gotta be liberated from?", one need only say, "From Jewish Supremacist Power that makes white people fight Wars for Israel, makes white people support Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, makes white people cheer on the Jewish War of Hatred against Syrians, Iranians, Russians, among others. White Liberation from Jewish Supremacist control of predatory financial looting. White Liberation from Jewish Supremacist promotion of degeneracy and decadence as the stuff of neo-spirituality. White Liberation from Jewish Supremacist encouragement of more Drugs on the populace, which by the way, led to mass white deaths. White Lives Matter, and no white life is 'white trash'."

The problem began when whites didn't only cede power but moral(and even spiritual) authority to Jews. It's one thing for power to go from one people to another. It happens all the time. And in a democracy, the power goes back and forth among various parties. But suppose one party not only cedes power to the other party but totally surrenders to it as the fount of all truth, wisdom, and nobility. In other words, the other party that now has total power cannot even be criticized. But suppose it gets even crazier than that. Suppose the other party that has the power and the moral authority cannot even be said to have the power. Even though the other party pretty much rules everything, it must be characterized as 'for the little guy and the underdog, a party of helpless victims in need of eternal protection and special sensitivity'. Suppose Tiny Tim becomes Titan Tom but we go on pretending he's tiny and timmy. This is why Jewish Power is so utterly toxic in the US(and West in general). Jewish Power is like a black hole. It wields immense power and force but cannot be seen. It sucks in the light that could illuminate it.

When white people, especially Anglo-American Christians, ruled America in the past, they were sometimes good, sometimes bad, but one always knew WHO held the power. Indeed, the so-called Wasps were proud of their power. And because everyone knew they had it, they could be criticized and corrected. They could be pushed back from within and without. Wasp reformers pushed for progress for a more just society. And non-Wasps, especially Jews, critiqued and often satirized the negative aspects of Wasp rule. Thus, white power was out in the open, and as such, could be analyzed, criticized, and reformed. Also, there was an element of self-criticism and magnanimity among Wasps. Sure, Anglo-Americans could play dirty like everyone else, but there is no denying that Anglos and Northern Europeans made the best and most law-abiding(and reformist) societies because of the cultural(and possibly racial) character of those peoples. (Compare them with the social orders created by Muslims, Hindus, Chinese, or Southern Europeans & Eastern Europeans. If some people were too hot-tempered & contentious to maintain a just and orderly society, others, especially the East Asians and Tacoans were too passive and subservient to challenge corruption and tyranny.)
Jews posed a special threat to the American Order because they were (1) smarter than Wasps, thereby on the up and up and (2) lacking in cultural character. While Jews drone on and on about Tikkun Olam, it's just self-serving BS, ethno-propaganda. After all, if Jews CARE so much about the well-being of humanity, why haven't they done anything about the Palestinian Problem? How could they blithely allow current Jewish Power to do what it's doing in Syria, Iran, and Libya? How could they cover up what Jewish globo-capital did to Russia in the 1990s? While non-Jewish minorities were also lacking in cultural character, they were less dangerous because they were either less intelligent & capable than Wasps or only equally intelligent. In contrast, Jews, being smarter by one standard deviation than whites, could rise above them. Also, being pushy and crypto-supremacist in outlook, they were going for the jugular in the American power game. Now, if Jews had cultural character, maybe they would have made decent and even better elites. But being devious and vicious like Alan Dershowitz(and he's not the worst of them as there's even bigger scum like Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler), they want all the power and all the moral authority without any accountability and responsibility. Indeed, look what Jews have made of the Shoah. A genuine tragedy, it's been turned into shameless shoah-business.

Power is always dangerous but not so much when it's out in the open for examination and criticism. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin would have been far less dangerous if they could have been publicly scrutinized. Also, power shouldn't be synonymous with moral authority. Power is only as good as it behaves. This is how democracy works. People get sick of Party A and hang their hopes on Party B. If Party B messes up, the people go back to Party A or go with Party C. So, the power has moral authority only as long as it delivers. It doesn't get to have the power and authority just because it is what it is. But that is the state of affairs with Jewish control of the US. With Wasps, we could see the good and the bad. We could look back on Wasp history and see the triumphs, the tragedies, the evils. But with Jews, we must pretend they don't have the power when they control just about everything. We must pretend Jewishness = moral authority from the beginning of time to the end of time. We must pretend everything about Jews and Jewishness is the noblest thing. Even when it's clear that Jews have wronged Palestinians, all we hear from US politicians and elites is 'Muh Israel'. Meanwhile, there is ZERO sympathy or even acknowledgement for the countless victims of Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism in Russia, Middle East, and around the world. That vile harridan Madeleine Albright, the murderess of countless Arab children, is still given the podium to pontificate about the dangers of 'fascism'. The vile Cass Sunstein, the ardent Zionist and pro-Deep-State war-monger, sounds the alarm on the coming of 'fascism' to America. Jewish Control of the US has led to Wars for Israel that have destroyed so many lives. Jewish Power acts like Judeo-Nazis, but what do we get from TV shows? Stuff like NAZI-HUNTERS and PLOT AGAINST AMERICA.

These are truly a shameless and awful people. These people who've done most to defame the white race and desecrate white monuments(via their proxies, of course) are the ones who are most revered by idiot whites. That being the case, whites DESERVE all the horrors awaiting them as monumental stupidity can't be helped. But then, in many ways, white cuckery to Jews is more the product of white elite cravenness than stupidity. Surely, many white elites KNOW who has the real power. To keep their own status and privilege, they must suck up to Jews. And since white elites serve as the brains of the white masses, their attitude serves as the template for the rest of the white population. Look how GOP's cucking to globo-homo-mania has led to so many white 'conservative' normies, even Evangelicals, embracing Lady Maga and other lunacies. Even Orthodox Christians are over 50% for 'gay marriage'. But Jewish Power, so immense in media and mass entertainment, not only control white masses through the elites but through Hollywood, advertising, and propaganda. Why are so many white youths even from working class and lower middle class backgrounds joining Antifa or marching down streets chanting Black Lives Matter? What were their formative influences? Endless TV ads showing blacks radiating with wisdom while whites are shallow shits. So many movies like 12 YEARS A SLAVE, DJANGO UNCHAINED, THE HELP, GREEN BOOK, SHAPE OF WATER, SELMA, BLACK PANTHER, and so on and so on. Meanwhile, the worst villains and vermin are whites, even more so than the 'Muslim Terrorists'. Most people are pretty shallow, dumb, or childish, and of course, most white idiots who have TV, movies, pop music, and advertising for their MAIN CULTURE will be mentally molded by Jewish Media Monopoly.
Now, certain works about the black tragic past are warranted. After all, there is a dark side to US history. But even an art film like 12 YEARS A SLAVE is suspect in the larger context because Hollywood's moral conscience and outrage are so selective and tribalistically distorted. Indeed, if Jews really care about the truth and justice for all, why hasn't there been a single movie about the horrors faced by whites in South Africa? Why not a single movie about Nakba and the plight of Palestinians? Why not a movie about the Jewish role in Communism and the deaths of millions in the Great Famine? Or the turbo-gangster-capitalist rape of Russia in the 90s? Or how about USS Liberty? 12 YEARS A SLAVE was produced by Arnon Milchan, the arch-Zionist who is totally okay with Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. He once worked to steal US nuclear material and then negotiated with Apartheid South Africa. Yet, THIS JEW dares to lecture whites on the evils of their 'racist' past. Okay, there were evils in White History, but where are the movies about evils of Jewish History? Or about black brutality that has taken so many lives in American Life? Or how Israel supports ISIS terrorists in Syria? This is why Jewish Moralism works in bad faith, indeed worst faith. It's not true morality where the rules apply to all but cheap(but effective) weaponized moralism meant to increase Jewish Power at the expense of others. If White Christians have some degree of guilt-conscience about the Other, it appears the core of Jewish Power has no such consciousness. It's really merchant-morality where Jews invoke the shackles to collect more shekels.

Jews have not only poisoned the minds of so many white youths but those of blacks as well. Now, blacks were bound to be problematic due to genetics. They evolved to be tougher, wilder, more muscular, and more aggressive. The very hunter-warrior traits that were generally weeded out among most other races were favored in black evolution. Also, hot Africa favored lean muscle and impulsiveness. In contrast, the northern savages, such as Eskimos, American Indians, and the Lapps, developed more fatty tissues and even temperaments during long cold months. As for Australian Aborigines, they evolved alongside kangaroos and wombats, animals less dangerous than lions, hyenas, cape buffaloes, hippos, rhinos, elephants, and other beasts that just couldn't stand the Negroes and tried to stomp them out, which made blacks run faster and jump higher. So, blacks would have been problematic regardless.
But Jews, with their control of media and academia, emphasized Negro Nobility and White Culpability. The new Narrative made far less sense than the old one. The Anglo-American Narrative on the Negroes was more judicious. Yes, slavery went against American Principles, blacks toiled on the farms, and the suffering of blacks must be recognized and addressed. That said, blacks did make great strides in the US compared to what they'd been in the Dark Continent: spear-chucking savages beating on bongo drums and driving hippos crazy. Under whites, blacks adopted a great religion, learned work ethic & civilized behavior, gained access to modernizing amenities. Also, blacks gained higher morality. Indeed, even when black Americans argued against oppression and for liberty, they were using the white man's values. By African 'values', there was nothing wrong with slavery. The Bantu Way was "if you kick the ass, you keep the ass." That was it. If Frederick Douglas had decolonized his mind of white influence and thought like a black African, he would have thought, "Sheeeeeeiiiiit, dem honkeys deserve to rule over us ni**ers cuz they's badass and gots da power." So, the Anglo-American view of blacks in America was balanced. Whites had clearly done wrong to practice slavery in the US and sometimes treated blacks in terrible ways, but blacks did go from savagery to some semblance of civilization in the New World under whites. But then, Jewish Power pushed the Narrative where whites were totally wrong and blacks were pure as snow. And even though the number of lynchings of blacks(most of them thugs and criminals) wasn't all that high throughout US history, Jews created the myth that just about every other Negro was hanging on a rope from a tree. Lynchings became Lynchocaust. But compare lynchings of blacks in the US with violence around the world, and they hardly qualify as among the greatest horrors in human history. In many parts of the world, many more people died in one year or even a single month than all the blacks killed by lynching in all of US history. Indeed, Jews have killed more Palestinians since 1948 than whites killed blacks with lynching. And how many Arabs/Muslims died as the result of Zionist-led sanctions on nations like Iraq, Syria, and Iran? Too many to count.

Jews have pushed a cartoon history were the Confederacy was merely about slavery. But it was much more, as any society is about much more than its economic institution. Back then, the Confederacy wasn't merely defending the slave system but their own kind of civilization and way of life distinct from those in the North. Besides, the real catalyst for the Civil War was more 'genocide' than slavery. It was westward expansion(that led to massacres of American Indians) that pushed the slavery issue to the front. As the North added another more state, the South insisted on adding another as well to balance things out. It was Manifest Destiny and destruction of the American Indians(in which the North was even more involved than the South) that made the slavery issue more contentious. But notice how we almost never hear anything about that. Characterizing the Confederacy as nothing-but-slavery is utterly disingenuous. In truth, every social order, every civilization, has sought to defend itself despite its problems of oppression or 'human rights'. American Indians were savages and practiced all sorts of horrors, but we honor their fight against the white man because they were trying to preserve their way of life, the only one they knew. True, Indians had slavery and some of them even practiced cannibalism and sadistic torture, but they had a culture of their own. When the West arrived on Japanese shores, the West was bringing lots of progress, but the Japanese still resisted and tried to maintain their independence. Should we boil it all down to 'Jappers were trying to maintain an oppressive caste system and slavery of the peasants?' When the French invaded Russia, it's true they were coming with more advanced ideas about liberty and dignity of man, but was it wrong for Russia to resist and fight back? Would it make sense to characterize the Russian defense of the motherland as merely 'trying to preserve serfdom'? Only a puritanical moralistic fool thinks like that. Even when a civilization practices slavery or things we may disapprove of, it is MUCH MORE than that single institution.

And even though the KKK degenerated into a kind of nihilism, it arose to defend whites from blacks who'd been encouraged by Northerners to act up. To merely call it 'terrorist' is hilarious coming from Jews who created Israel through use of much terror. Surely, Jews know of Irgun. Indeed, Jews revolutionized the modern use of terror as Bolsheviks and Zionists. And Jews have no problem aiding terrorism all across the Middle East to make Arabs fight Arabs, make Muslims fight Muslims. And speaking of terror, what of US military in WWII? Weren't the willful mass-bombings of civilian targets in Germany and Japan a form of mass terror? A single such bombing killed more innocent civilians than all the killings done by the KKK. And what are sanctions but a form of terror-by-disease-and-starvation? This isn't to defend the KKK, which became a sinister outfit, but it is hardly unique in having used terror to gain certain objectives. And today, blacks are even worse. Their riots, lootings, rampages, random attacks on whites, arson, and etc. are all forms of racial terror meant make others cower to their neo-savage demands. In some respects, blackkk rampage is worse than KKK violence. Whites in hoods, though violent, were trying to maintain or restore order. Black rioters and looters, in contrast, are using terror to spread disorder and mayhem as the New Normal of America. Also, KKK was closer to the truth than BLM is. It's been true that blacks are a natural threat to whites because they are more aggressive and tougher. In contrast, BLM is based on the utter BS that countless innocent blacks are being mowed down by the white police. If the KKK over-reacted to the grim truth of black thuggery, BLM lunatics are basing their actions on utter fantasy. The truth is black lives are killed by black lives, which also kill non-black lives all across America.

With American Indians, there is a more nuanced and complicated understanding. Yes, no one would deny that American Indians were proud peoples(though bloody savages as well) with deep and rich roots in the American Land. And there was real tragedy in their defeat at the hands of whites. It was especially tragic as most subject peoples of white colonization regained control over their lands. With American Indians, this became impossible as they weren't too many in number to begin with, too many were wiped out by diseases, and the mass-immigration from the Old World never ended. So, there is that tragic side to American Indian History. But there is also the other side of America, that a great rich and free nation was founded on where there had been only wilderness and Red Savagery. And in time, even American Indians benefited from the New Order. So, we can see both the tragedy and triumph of the American Indian narrative.
And such a narrative used to prevail with blacks as well. Both Northern and Southern scholars acknowledged how blacks had gained as well as lost in their American experience. But why is there still a nuanced perspective on the story of American Indians(even though they suffered 'genocide', far graver than slavery) while no such exists with blacks? For one thing, Jews gained too much from immigration to associate mass immigration with imperialist invasion that led to the great replacement of natives, especially because they pulled something similar with the Palestinians. But the main reason why Jews have promoted the cult of the Noble Negro is that their supremacist rule over the West relies on white submission and white obedience, and THIS means making whites feel shame and guilty about their own identity and interests. NO UPPITY WHITES. Whites must have their heads bowed low. In Europe, Shoah Guilt was enough to cower people's heads over there, but in the US, it was the stuff about blacks. Jews also figured that blacks are especially useful in this because whites will tend to feel most guilty about whom they look up to as 'cool', 'awesome', and 'superior'. Whites may feel bad about all those dead Vietnamese, Central Americans(killed by US-backed right-wing death squads), and Arabs, but they are, visibly at least, mediocre peoples, and whites can't get to excited over them. But whites were bound to feel a special guilt regarding blacks, the race of athletes, studs, orators, singers, and etc. And so, there could be no nuance or complexity about white-black relations. Whites could not say something sensible like, "Hey, it's too bad that our ancestors whipped your kind and made them pick cotton, and I'm sorry if I ever said 'ni**ger', but you gotta admit you blacks were a bunch of jungle/savanna savages without written word, the wheel, higher spirituality & ethics, and it was through us white folks that you were elevated from savagery to civilization." And once upon a time, prominent blacks like Zora Neale Hurston and Booker T. Washington admitted as much. While harshly critical of the institution of slavery, they also realized that the Negro was uplifted from savagery thanks to contact with whites. But such nuance has been banned over the years. Blacks are all good and were living in Edenic paradise, and it was them evil 'racist' whites who ruined black utopia. Today, many fools, blacks and whites, think all of Africa would be one big Wakanda if not for white colonialism, which is ROTFL. Righteous Negro Pastor Manning speaks the truth: https://twitter.com/RaquelM19661184/status/1277300519707516929

Lmfao, I’m crying. Who remembers this classic? He talks about the kangs. I’m dead. pic.twitter.com/gHYpelsOK6

— “R??????” ???????????? ???????????? (@RaquelM19661184) June 28, 2020

With a more nuanced view of history, whites could correct their ways but so could blacks. But once the New Narrative became Black Angel and White Devil — oddly similar to one pushed by Black Muslims, albeit with Jews included among the White Devils — , whites were responsible for everything while blacks were responsible for nothing. Even when blacks failed, the blame wasn't on them. Rather, it was said whites failed them. So, if black students failed, they didn't fail on their own, but white society failed them. If blacks rioted and looted, they were acting in the name of vigilante justice because whites failed them in justice. George Floyd likely died more from drugs than the police restraint, but never mind his criminality and pathology and just blame the white knee... and white everything. Is it any wonder that we now live in a nation where blacks rampage around like animals but are revered as angels? Blacks murder each other, but the narrative is 'whites must stop killing blacks'. Never mind many more whites are killed by blacks in any given year. When one side is totally right no matter what while the other side is totally wrong no matter what, it's not politics or morality but a demented form of theology. It's like gods are right no matter what they do because they are gods and therefore must be appeased by humans, even if gods cause terror on mankind. Nothing good can come out of this Negrocracy or Afrocracy, but Jews pushed it as effective weapon against white identity.

But then, Jews enjoy the same kind of 'spiritual' nihilism for themselves over whites. No matter what Jews do, they are right. If Jews got too much power and privilege, it must be blamed on whites as 'white privilege'. Jews can use media to criticize, condemn, and lambaste White Christians, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Turks, French, Germans, Anglos, and etc., but no matter what Jews do — spread wars, financially loot the world, mess with elections, spread degeneracy, promote drug culture, and etc. — , you better NOT name the JEW in the abuse of power, corruption, and decrepitude. Even now, many in the US don't know that it was the Jewish oligarchs who raped Russia in the 1990s. (Indeed, even Russian leaders are afraid of speaking this truth.) Even now, most Americans don't know that these crazy wars were essentially Wars for Israel.
This is why Jewish Power is infinitely more dangerous than Anglo-American power of old. Wasps could be jerks, a**holes, stinkers, and lowlifes, but you could call out on them. And many groups did. Jews, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, black-Americans, and etc. all called out on Wasp Power and, as such, pressured Wasps to mend their ways. But with Jews, it's impossible. It may partly be because Jews feel more anxiety and paranoia as a minority elite, but it's also a matter of personality. Jerry Nadler is a rather typical personality type among Jews. You see it in Abe Foxman and Neumann(on SEINFELD) as well. It's a vileness, viciousness, mendacity, and obnoxiousness beyond human imagination. All combined with utter shamelessness, the kind that led Ron Jeremy to suck his own dic*.


You see this personality type in Sarah Silverman and Howard Stern as well, but at least certain Jewish comedians, like Don Rickles, had the saving grace of brazen Jewish irascibility, which at least dropped all inhibitions and said it like it is, as with Mel Brooks. But when Jews like Nadler go into moralistic mode, it is beyond repulsive because they lack the requisite character for speaking about truth and justice. Howard Stern being trashy and vulgar in his shamelessness is one thing, but when loathsome Jews like Anthony Weiner, Jerry Nadler, and Adam Schiff pretend to be the moral arbiters of US politics, it's total pukesville, all the more so because they have no qualms about promoting Jewish Supremacist wars all over the Middle East.

So, it's about time to expose the real power behind the Wizard of Globoz. It's Jewish Power. All these Antifa and BLM riots are part of the Jewish War on White. Now, most Antifa and BLM clowns surely don't know that they are tools of Jewish Power. They really believe they are on the right side of history. But who made them feel such cartoonish emotions that reduces the world into a comic book of heroes and villains, angels and demons? Who financed stuff like GREEN BOOK and other movies that ONLY focus on white moral failings or white bigotry while presenting blacks as the flawless breed? Who were behind PC education that sanctified Jews, blacks, and homos as angels while whites were scapegoated for all that is wrong? Who funds groups like Antifa and provides lawfare to free them after new rounds of vandalism? Who controls the media that gives gushing coverage to BLM mayhem and Antifa thuggery? Who created all those TV shows and devised public education that made so many whites into sappy, silly, and stupid cucks who kneel at the feet of Negro thugs and cheer on Antifa vandals & hoodlums? Who pushed Russia Collusion Hoax? Sure, Deep State did it, but who gave the go-ahead? And regardless of how serious Covid is or isn't, who politicized it to shut down the whole economy to bring down Donald Trump and to send a message to the whole nation, "If you re-elect Trump, we will mess up the economy for all of you!!"? It's JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. (Indeed, if Hillary were president, all these panics and hysteria would have been kept under lid by Jewish Power. Though Trump is a shill of Zion, the mere perception of him as a tough-talking white guy with balls has been sufficient for Jews to smear him and humiliate him to send a loud-and-clear message that whites deserve no identity and must only kneel as cucky-wucks. Once again, Trump was caught in a vice. If he took hard action, he would be blasted as a 'fascist tyrant' by the deep state and Jewish-run Media. If he did little or nothing, he would look weak and his tough-guy exterior would be exposed for its utter hollowness.)

Trace the puppet-strings to the puppet-master, and this is yet another Jewish War on White. But idiot white MAGA-tards will cheer Trump as he declares West Bank as part of Israel. Jewish Power defames and destroys whites, but whites just can't cuck enough before the holy holocaust Judeo-Nazis. Indeed, what is the #1 rule of American Politics? Thou Shalt Not Offend Jews. Why did GOP cuck to 'gay marriage'? Main reason was it was afraid to offend Jews who wanted it. Why haven't Trump and Barr taken serious measures against Big Tech monopoly and Antifa thuggery? Because Jews would be very displeased.
Incredibly, Jews who practice apartheid and enforce Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank are lecturing White Southerners about the evils of 'racism' and the bad ole Jim Crow days. Even as Neocons call for the erasure of Southern Heritage, they call on Southern Whites to support Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. The truly sickening thing is whites fall for this Every Single Time.

If in recent years, blacks have reason to be pissed, it's because globalists pushed mass immigration that led to more competitive pressures on blacks. Also, it was urban 'liberal' Democrats and their homo allies who spearheaded gentrification that removed many blacks from big cities. And if blacks got incarcerated at higher numbers, it was because the New Democrats under Bill Clinton decided to get tough on crime. And in overwhelmingly 'liberal' cities like NY, the voters elected Rudy Giuliani twice and Michael Bloomberg three times to bring down crime, mostly black. And Jews also used globo-homo to push black issues to the back of the bus. And US police was trained with Israeli strong-arm tactics under the auspices of ADL and other Jewish groups. And it was the Jewish-run music industry that promoted and spread gangsta rap that encouraged blacks to murder each other. But now, these Jews and so-called 'progressives' try to pin all the racial problems regarding blacks on Trump and his voters. And so many whites are so cucked that they fall for this slime tactic and get on their knees. It's beyond pathetic. And it goes to show that Jewish Power is utterly shameless in its sham moral pornographics to push any narrative, no matter how false and ludicrous, to get what it wants.

Unless whites call for White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism and side with Palestinians and wave the Palestinian Flag(if Confederate Flag is banned), they have no hope. Whites can bitch about Antifa, BLM, crime, and diversity, but if they don't Name the Jew, it'd be like a cancer patient and his doctor discussing all the symptoms of cancer without ever naming the cancer. Such a doctor is useless, and such a patient is sure to die. If there's a dead rat stinking up the house, find the decaying rat. No amount of removing objects from the house will deal with the smell. And air sprays and opening the windows will only be temporary fixes. You must find the dead rotting rat.

Also, anyone who still uses the term 'racist' as an epithet is part of the problem. It doesn't matter how 'based' you are. Using the term 'racist' to mean the worst of all evils is to give into the terms of the enemy. The fact is Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Thus, yes, America is race-ist because races exist and the races are different. Blacks do what they do because they are more muscular and more aggressive. That is a race-ist truth, and it has to be addressed honestly. Against lies, only truth is the real weapon.

****************************

In a way, the current lunacy has blown the Cult of Diversity out of the water.We’ve been told on and on about the wonders of Diversity, but most groups in the US don’t matter. Blacks and Antifa have harmed so many groups, but there is total silence about their plight from both 'left' and 'right'.

In the US, only Jews, blacks, and homo matter. PC is really about Tri-versity than Diversity.
It’s been said the US has so many ethnic and national groups who should be appreciated and celebrated, but no one cares about them. They are all just extras, backdrop, or at best supporting actors in the National Drama hogged by Jews, blacks, and homos. But then, why shouldn't it be so? After all, what is post-war Americanism but an amnesia-ism(with no memory of ‘boring’ histories and cultures) and idol-worship of winners and contempt for losers. Such is the logic of late-stage consumer-capitalism. Sure, there’s the usual rigamarole about equal opportunity, but the dog-eat-dog competition produces just a handful of big winners. Jews win in finance, verbal IQ, and high tech. Homos win in fashion and celebrity. Blacks win in sports and pop music.
And so, according to the logic of Cultural Capitalism, only those three winner-groups matter, and the rest are just backdrop. Whites do win in the beauty department, but as whites are denied identity and autonomy, white beauty is now seen as a commodity that belongs to others. In other words, white women belong to Jewish men and Negro men, and white guys belong to immigrant women of all stripes. The idea of whiteness belonging to whites is anathema. (Still, it’s weird that in a world that denies whiteness as an identity and quality, most peoples everywhere still notice whiteness as most appealing and gravitate toward it via immigration or fantasy.)

So, it’s time to talk of the Triversity than Diversity. Here’s some proof. This Iranian man’s livelihood has been destroyed, but no one cares. Why should they? He’s part of Diversity, not Triversity(of Jews, homos, and blacks).

I’m in Minneapolis. First place I stop, most of the block is still boarded up. This grocery and tobacco store is owned by an Iranian, neighbor tells me. “They took everything.” Owner is deliberating whether to permanently close after the riots pic.twitter.com/RzgNrbeogv

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 28, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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