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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary on "BLACKFACE HISTORY IS JEWISH HISTORY"(esp as pertaining to D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION)

https://noirg.org/articles/blackface-history-is-jewish-history/

At the same moment the ADL began, a number of Jewish businessmen from the Boston area were plotting to finance the most degrading and hateful blackface movie ever made—The Birth of a Nation. The silent movie epic released in 1915 was the first movie blockbuster, smashing all box office records.

I can understand why black people would be offended by D.W Griffith's movie, but it's one of the most prophetic movies ever in American History. It is less a historical summary than a future warning. And its warnings have been validated by history. Indeed, the reason why that movie is now so denigrated and suppressed(despite Griffith's reputation as the first great movie-maker) is not because its contentions are false but because they ring truer than ever. But PC neo-victorianism vilifies and represses all-too-obvious truths, leading its minions to be triggered into hysterical fits of panic by any utterance that deviates from the Iron Bubble Narrative.

So, what does the movie tell us?

1. Naive white do-gooder elites have no idea what's really in store for them. Complacent with inherited power(that was originally hard-fought and won by years of war and conflict) or shoe-horned into privilege(by having the right connections and/or fashionable opinions) and imbued with Christian notion that all souls are goody-goody alike around the world, they believe that black is white and white is black, and all will get along if whites only try harder. In truth, blacks have different temperaments & souls and regard white good-will as a weakness to flatter and manipulate. The woman's father in the movie is a do-gooder white guy who trusts the mulatto... who later tries to rape his daughter.

2. Rise of mulatto as conduit between whites and blacks. As even well-meaning whites find total blackness a bit intimidating, they rely on the semi-white-ish mulatto as bridge. Back in the days, most mulattoes were products of white men and black women: symbols of white sexual advantage. Today, most are products of black men and white women with jungle fever: symbols of black sexual advantage. These mulattoes are Loki-like characters who have black aggression but white calculation. They use their white intellect to serve the black soul. We saw this with Barack Obama and now see other mulattoes taking over the Democratic Party(though, to be sure, mainly as shills of Zionist Supremacists). Notice that even proggy Democrats prefer mulattoes to outright blacks: Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Mulatto serves as the butter to soften the white bread before it is devoured by the Negro. Whites are more likely to fall for mulattoes because there is something white-like about the latter, making them appear 'less threatening', as with Colin Powell and Barack Obama. Blacks rely on mulattoes as cross-over figures... though mulattoes also fool and cheat blacks as well whites. And mulattoes manipulate both sides, white and black, to accrue more advantage for themselves. In some ways, mulattoes feel as the superior race because they got white intellect(superior to black intellect) and black soul(stronger than white soul).

3. Black political corruption. While corruption is endemic all around the world, black corruption really takes the cake(and the cornbread, grits, chitlins, black-eyed peas, fried chicken, an entire bucketful). Just look what Negro politicians have done to Detroit, Baltimore, black parts of St. Louis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Oakland. Because blacks tend to be more impulsive, more egocentric, more uninhibited, and more psychopathic, they are more shameless and unrestrained in their corruption. Furthermore, because they can get off the hook so easily by screaming 'it be racist!', they know they can get away with so much. Even though the depiction of corrupt black politicians in BOAN is cartoonish and over-the-top, the state of black politics in the US(and other black run places like South Africa) isn't much different from the movie.




4. Blacks are naturally wild and savage, and if unrestrained, will revert to their jungle nature. Anti-'racists' have been attacking such 'negative' racial stereotype forever, but then, even they have been at odds with their own narrative. On the one hand, goody-good 'anti-racist' Libs say it's wrong to say stereotype blacks and say they are wilder and more prone to ugabuga. But then, they praise blacks for having natural rhythm, dancing better, singing louder, coming up with new forms of hyper-sexual music & dance, and spreading trends like bumping-and-grinding and 'twerking'. Libs get triggered when someone says blacks are more into 'let the good times roll', but they say blacks be so fuzzy-wuzzy-funky and hot-cool-badass sassy and indeed thawed and liberated lame white people from ice-cold puritanical repression.
BOAN says blacks are naturally wilder, and it has been condemned for racial stereotyping. But how do the Jewish-Liberal-controlled media depict blackness? As thug athletes, thug rappers, sex-crazed studs whose only idea is 'muh dic*', black 'biatches' who be 'twerking' and yapping about her booty(and even be named Bootisha or Assnique). Also, ever since blacks obtained total freedom to express their true nature, their culture has turned more savage and crazy. If anything, depiction of black savagery in BOAN is mild compared to what rappers and other black thugs do in culture.

5. Black men despise white males as wussy and want to hump white women. This was one of the core message of BOAN. If left unchecked, black male lust will stalk white females. We've been told that this is just racial fear and paranoia with no basis in reality. But in SOUL ON ICE, Eldridge Cleaver wrote his own Portnegro's Complaint. Just like Philip Roth the Jew said he had endless 'boings' thinking of Aryan-blonde Shikses(and Norman Mailer wrote a very porny-horny book on Marilyn Monroe as his sex goddess... who married Jewish Arthur Miller btw), Cleaver said he not only fantasized raping white women but really did it(though he didn't serve many yrs in prison even in those days). Look at FBI rape statistics, and most interracial rape in the US is almost entirely black-on-white and black-on-non-black. And much of Rap culture is about black guys and white girls with jungle fever dumping on dorky white guys. Also, Jews control pornography and promote interracial black-man-and-white-woman as the thing. From pop culture to porn culture(though two have merged considerably under Jewish cultural hegemony), the message is black guys are the real men and want white women, and white women should go with superior Negroes. So, BOAN was proved right on that account.
Where it was wrong(hopefully naive) perhaps was that white women in the movie are shown to rebuff the advances by black men at every turn. But Griffith should have known better because Jack Johnson became champion before the movie came out. Because blacks are racially-athletically superior to whites, he easily destroyed and humiliated so many white men, but what did a lot of white women do? Stick with their fallen men out of racial solidarity? No, just like French women who ran into arms of victorious Germans in WWII and Japanese women who ran into arms of US GI's after Japan's defeat, white women ran into the arms of Jack Johnson. Since then, the sports culture has been one of black guys dominating the field, white cuck athletes serving as bench-warmers, and countless white women getting knocked up by Negro athletes and thugs. The biggest name in the movies of the 90s and 2000s, Quentin Tarantino, was raised by such a mudshark. And in the 90s, madonna or mudonna's second act was that she was passed around as an inflatable sex doll by blacks in the NBA.
So, if anything, BOAN was mostly right about the sexual dynamics of black and white but didn't go far enough. If white men lose power, not only will black guys come after white women but white women will go with Negroes. It's like Poland is turning into Simon Moland. One African goes to Poland and gets to hump over 300 jungle-feverish women.

--------------------

Today, Jews denounce BOAN and speak about those 'bad old days', but have things really changed? No. Though depictions of blacks today are 'positive', the underlying assumptions about race are much the same as in BOAN. Hollywood doesn't show that all races are equal. After all, why does it promote black male and white female pairing more than white male and black female pairing? It is on the assumption of racial differences, i.e. black men are more masculine and white women are more feminine, thus implying that white women should go with superior black men. Likewise, most white/Asian pairing is white male and yellow female, suggesting that white men are manlier than yellow men, therefore yellow women should go with white men. So, interracism is just another form of 'racism'. It is not about racial equality but racial superiority. And given that most depictions of blackness in the media & entertainment are hyper-sexual, people 100 yrs after BOAN still believe that blacks have that surplus ugabuga sexual mojo. In BOAN, it as presented negatively whereas now it is presented positively, but the underlying assumptions are identical: Blacks be wild and crazy as the People of Sex. And look at sports culture. Who watches sports such as NBA, NFL, and Track & Field and comes off thinking, "Gee, race is just a social construct." No, any honest person notices BAMMAMA, or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Now, if that is true, what is its social implications? It means tougher blacks will intimidate, threaten, beat up, and humiliate whites in schools, streets, public places, and even home invasions. It means white men will lose pride of manhood and lose their women to black men. So, if we connect the dots, the fact that blacks dominate sports should wake white people up to the black threat. But because white people are such idolatrous dolts(or idolts), they worship black athletes as 'heroes' and 'demigods'. They worship the athletic victory of the very power(black muscle advantage) that is beating up white guys and castrating them of manhood.

Furthermore, let's not forget that racial stereotypes have always been with us. Hollywood won't make stuff like BOAN anymore because blacks are now 'sacred cows' in the West. But Jewish Hollywood made so many movies about evil 'terrorist' Muslims in the 90s and 2000s(with hardly any protest from progs and Jews who, btw, funded most of them). If anything, these movie stereotypes about Muslims were far more over-the-top than anything in BOAN. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT goes so far as to suggest that no Muslim, man-woman-or-child, is trustworthy, and when push comes to shove, they must all be mowed down to the last man-woman-and-child. No wonder then that most Americans didn't care about Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright starving 100,000s of Iraqi children to death in the 1990s. (Israel has been condemned by the world community for its imperialism and tyranny, but can anyone imagine US politicians calling for sanctions on Israel to kill 100,000s of Jewish kids? Democrats and Republicans agree that Jewish lives are more precious than Muslim lives.) Jewish Hollywood remade RED DAWN as a yellow peril fantasy of North Korea(a nation with 1/40th the economy of South Korea) invading the US. And even though Jews are among the biggest sex-slavers in the world, it made movies like TAKEN where Muslims are the main sex traffickers. Yes, Muslims have been involved in sex-grooming, but who enslaved all those Slavic women in Israel to be used a sex slaves? Jews. Hollywood won't be making a movie or TV show about that anytime soon. And consider all the delirious anti-Russia movies being cranked out by Hollywood.

Also, even though BOAN was wrong about certain facts of history, globo-homo depiction of current reality is even more surreal. According to the recent Gillette ad, it is white guys who are sexually harassing 'women of color', and it is the noble black guy who comes to the rescue of the damsels. Anyone who knows real reality that black guys are the kings of 'toxic masculinity'. Rap is black. Black men are top rapists and attackers of women. Also, given that women are into 'muh pussy' and slut pride culture, it's amusing they are ones to bitch about 'toxic' anything. We live in a world where the Jew-run media would have us believe in the Russia Collusion fantasy. That's what passes for Real News. These people who can't even get current reality right dare to condemn BOAN for not getting history correct. As the recent Covington Highschool Kids incident and Jussie Smollett 'hate hoax' anti-white defamation stunt have well-illustrated, the Jew-run media have no interest in the truth. Only in their procrustean Narrative to sustain 'white guilt' and white cuckery so that whites will go on bowing down before Jews and doing their bidding.

Interestingly enough, even though Jewish Hollywood has been peddling anti-Muslim 'terrorist' tropes forever, if you go searching for "hollywood anti-muslim propaganda", the result is usually videos about 'Trump is anti-Muslim'. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hollywood+anti-muslim+propaganda In fact, it's difficult to find any video on Youtube that details the history of Jewish Hollywood's negative depictions of Arabs and Muslims. Jews spread anti-Muslim hatred and steered US foreign policy to destroy Muslim nations, but they are now pretending to be champion-defenders of Muslims against 'American racism and Islamophobia'. These are the very same Jews who use whore-politicians to push through anti-BDS laws that rob us of our freedom of speech and conscience. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-hollywood-s-muslim-portrayals-1483650479-htmlstory.html

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

The Truer Narrative of the America Civil War must be…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inversion of Prerogatives in Our Crazy World says Your Nation Belongs to Foreigners

Now, what's the point of having your own nation? To have a homeland for your people, right? If you're not going to own and defend it as such, why have a nation at all?
Indeed, why not just abandon your identity and history? Why not abandon your people's special right to the territory? And why not dissolve borders so that any number of peoples can move in and out, like animals roam the wild? If you believe that any number of people should move in and out of any place, there is no need for nations. We might as well act like animals that migrate freely from place to place. All of us might as well become like Gypsies and surrender all sense of roots.
What about Rule of Law? I have no idea how that would work out. If a nation cannot even defend its borders and decide who enters and exits, how can it enforce any kind of rule of law? And if all the world should welcome endless wanderers, nomads, and invaders who come with their own cultural norms, who's to say one Rule of Law is better than another kind? After all, Rule of Law depends on the law itself. In the Current West, the Rule of Laws says you will be financially destroyed if you refuse to bake a cake for 'gay wedding'. And Rule of Law can be used against Rule of Law. In some states, illegals who have violated American laws are given protection under the Rule of Law that favors those who break laws over those who want to defend them. Rule of Law in California and many other states protect illegals and prosecute those who take actions against the invaders. So, what is Rule of Law in a world of Broken Borders?
Indeed, this will be the big question in Europe as Muslim communities demand their own sets of laws and as African communities insist on their tribal customs and norms.
Already, Jews are virtually above-the-law in many parts of the West. Rule of Law can only be enforced within a well-defined nation with shared values and habits. But in a world where nationalism is condemned as passe and where peoples of different cultures, manners, and habits move in and out of communities that they lay to waste, what chance is there for Rule of Law?

Having a nation is like having a house. A nation didn’t just fall from the sky or grow from the ground. It had to be secured, built, defended, built some more, defended some more, consolidated, claimed, and maintained. Likewise, a house has to be built or bought. It doesn’t come into existence just out of the blue. Now, what is the purpose of having a home? To own it as one’s property. To defend it from others, especially trespassers and marauders. Worst thing that can happen to a property is for others to trespass and take it. Now, if you intend to allow just about any human or creature to move in and out of your house, why did you build or buy the house in the first place? Why did you go through all that trouble just to let OTHERS to occupy and tear it apart?
Same thing goes for a nation. Why did your people build that nation if you’re not going to defend it and own it for posterity? Why go through all the trouble of securing the land, settling the land, developing the land, building institutions, enacting laws, and growing the economy IF your final purpose is to just let others have it? If you’re going to give it all away, why did your people go through so much struggle, even great wars, to claim and defend the land? If you think OTHERS should have it, then your people should not have bothered to pour so much blood, sweat, and tears into transforming the land into a nation.
Imagine there is a wasteland that most peoples show no interest in. Suppose YOUR PEOPLE enter into the land, cut down trees, till the soil, and do the heavy-lifting to turn the land into an oasis. ALL OF A SUDDEN, other peoples now want a part of it because it's nice. (It's like people who neglected Noah's advice to build arks of their own trying to climb into the Ark when the rain began to fall.) Should you let them take it? But why did YOUR PEOPLE build up the land just to let others have it? If you think others should have the land, then your people should not have bothered to build anything on it. Let others do the hard work to develop the land. Non-white peoples had no interest in exploring, discovering, conquering, and developing the New World. They didn't even have the vision or commitment to develop their own lands that, even today, remain poor and backward(despite abundance of land and natural resources). But now that they realize that white people have nice nations, they want to claim and take for themselves what was made by whites.

Also, if any people have the ‘right’ to trespass into your nation and take over, do YOUR PEOPLE also have the right to just mass-invade any nation and take over? So, 50 million Africans have the ‘right’ to take over Italy, and 50 million Italians have the ‘right’ to move to Japan and take over... if they feel like it? And the invaders and trespassers have the prerogative and the ‘right’ over the natives with deep roots in the land? Is patriotism the biggest crime in the globalist era? Doesn’t anyone realize that losing a nation is much worse than losing a house? If you lose your house, you can build another one. But if you lose your nation, your people have no homeland to call their own. And it’s very difficult to get it back. Good luck to Hawaiians taking back Hawaii. Good luck to Palestinians getting back Palestine. Good luck to Serbians getting Kosovo back. Good luck to Greeks or Christendom getting Constantinople(now Istanbul) back. It was by a miracle that Jews got Zion back, and it was very messy and bloody, and the problem continues to this day. Kurds continue to suffer because they don’t have a nation to call their own and happen to be scattered among several nations, all of which are hostile to them.
It’s bad business to lose a house, but another house can always be built or bought. But lose your nation, and good luck about getting it back. Jews reclaiming the Holy Land was the exception that proved the rule. Also, a homeland has much greater meaning than a home. Individuals don’t live forever. A man may own a great mansion, but he will be six feet underground after several decades on earth. And the mansion will pass to some other people. But a nation can exist indefinitely as the homeland of a people. Most of the pioneers of Israel are now dead, but their children and their children’s children ad infinitum hope to keep the land for the Jews as long as mankind survives.

Now, some argue that the newcomers will just become part of the national community, but this is wishful thinking. Usually, minorities remain cooperative and respectful ONLY WHEN they’re small in number and faced with a confident overwhelming majority that also commands patriotic elite power. But when the native majority acts all apologetic & wussy and says that their nation belongs more to foreigners than to themselves, the minorities will just call on more of their kind to come invading. And as their numbers continue to swell, they will begin to smell the blood of a dying nation. They will sense they can take over and feed off it. Scavengers and leeches don’t respect weakness in the host.
But then, even if newcomers came with respect and kindness, too many of them will alter the character of the nation because a people are MORE than merely a name. Germans are more than ‘Germans’. It’s like, if you have a daughter named Sue, she is more than ‘Sue’. Even if her name was changed to Jill, she would still be your daughter. But if someone who is not your daughter changes her name to ‘Sue’ and pretends to be your daughter, she is not your daughter despite having the name ‘Sue’ and wearing similar dress as your daughter. But the West is now suffering from the Changeling Syndrome. So, Germans fool themselves that if they take in millions upon millions of Muslims and Africans and pretend that they are ‘Germans’ or ‘New Germans’, then Germany will remain Germany because all the newcomers are ‘Germans’ too. Right, and imitation crab meat is real crab meat. And cats are dogs if you call them ‘dogs’ and teach them to play fetch, which is exceedingly hard to do.

How did this Inversion of Prerogatives happen? How did people(especially whites) come to believe that OTHERS have ‘first dibs’ or primary claim on what had been theirs rightfully and ‘fightfully’(as they’d ancestors had fought to claim it)? Imagine if someone did so much to build a home but then put up a sign that said, "claim my house". Why did he go through the trouble of building a house to let others have it and push him out? That would be retarded. Or, suppose a house was built long ago by your ancestors and handed down generation after generation as special place for your family lineage. Suppose that house is meant to be more than a place of residence; it’s meant to be a place of remembrance. Then, why would you allow a bunch of marauders and squatters to trespass and tear the place apart?

In a way, the problem began with the discovery of the New World. While most parts of the Old World were settled, the New World nations came into being with conquest, settlement, colonization, immigration, and rise of new identities. (The New World template of constant migration and mobility was turned into a universal 'human right'. So, even the EU is to be seen as The Other America, a 'union of immigrants' that must take in endless 'huddled masses' from Africa and the Middle East. This template is now also being applied to East Asia as The West constantly applies pressure on Japan to welcome Diversity and Inclusion-Invasion. According to Western PC, it should be a 'human right' for millions of foreigners to move to Japan and become 'New Japanese' and take over entire communities.)
The trajectory of invasion and expansion couldn’t be helped in the New World as most of it was either unpopulated or underpopulated(by standards of other civilizations, not least due to the deaths of tens of millions as the result of lack of immunity to Old World diseases). But the New World was not discovered and founded by the world but by specific populations. Spanish and Portuguese conquered most of what came to be Latin America. And Anglos and the French to a lesser extent conquered most of North America(minus Mexico). And these peoples created their new orders as racial, ethnic, and cultural extensions of the worlds they knew back home. So, Anglo-American preferred Anglo immigrants and settlers. When the US needed More People, it preferred those who were racially and ethnically closest to Anglos: Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Nordics. As they were virtually same as Anglos in appearance and temperament(though Irish could be rough at times due to the James Cagney gene), they could easily be assimilated into Anglo-America. Also, as fellow Christians, they worshiped the same God and symbols.

The US was not founded as a World-Nation for the simple reason that the World didn’t discover and develop it. A specific population of Anglos and Northern Europeans did, just like a specific population of Spanish and Portuguese came to set the cultural template for Latin America. Their biggest mistake was bringing over all those Sub-Saharan West African blacks who were more muscular and more aggressive than the white race. The race problem between whites and blacks is testament to the Danger of Diversity or DOD. To maintain order among tougher and more aggressive blacks, whites sometimes had to use ugly and cruel violence. And once blacks got their freedom, they began to prey on whites physically, materially, and sexually as the weaker ‘wussy’ race. Another threat came from the Chinese IF they were to be ‘welcomed’ in huge numbers.
In the past few decades, we’ve seen what virtual Open Borders(or Broken Borders) can do to a place. California, which had been overwhelmingly white, is now poised to have more Mexicans than whites. And along with Asians(craven teachers’ pets of Jews and homos), whites are being squeezed out. Worse, remaining whites in California have been mentally colonized by Jews to hate their own race and to welcome the flood. Based on recent events, imagine what would have happened if the US had allowed Open Borders to Chinese immigration-invasion in the late 19th century. China, with a huge poverty-stricken population, would have taken over California and much of the West like Mexicans are doing today. Or look at China itself. As Tibetans don’t have the means to say NO to Chinese migration-invasion, Tibet itself is poised to be majority Han-Chinese if it isn’t already.

Immigration is a tool that can work for or against your people. For most of the 19th century and even 20th century, white people used immigration to boost white presence and power in America. Immigration favored white folks. Immigration is never generic. It depends on who/whom. Israel was created by immigration but of Jews Only. Suppose Israel was founded with color-blind immigration. It never would have become a Homeland for Jews. Suppose Chinese government were to allow Asian-Indians to move into Tibet. In time, Indians instead of Chinese could dominate the place. There’s a huge difference between the Russian government encouraging Russian ethnics to settle Siberia and allowing Chinese to migrate there. If the latter, the Chinese will effectively own much of Siberia. So, when people say the US is a Nation of Immigrants, it’s meaningless because it pretends that immigration is generic. In fact, the kind of immigration that formed the foundation and basis for America was genetic than generic. Back in the 19th century, Emma Lazarus’ poem was not a threat to the US because it was understood, even by Lazarus herself, that immigration would favor European whites(of whom Jews were a part). Race-ism was great for America. It made America and defined America. Without Race-ism, the US wouldn't have developed as an extension of European Civilization. Suppose upon the establishment of the US, the Founding Fathers decided to call on peoples ALL OVER THE WORLD to pour into the New Land. Anglos and whites would soon have been turned into a minority outnumbered by Muslims, Africans, Asians, Hindus, and etc with their own norms, customs, and values. And without race-ism, whites would have had no justification to replace red savages and their primitive cultures with far more advanced Western ones. (Ism means belief, and Race-ism means belief in the reality of race & differences and/or the need for racial identity and consciousness. ‘Racism’ has been willfully mis-defined by Jews to mean irrational or knee-jerk racial hatred, chauvinism, and supremacism.) Whites who settled America were aware of the importance of race. If whites were to build a modern and progressive(as opposed to the degenerate ‘progressivism’ of today) nation, they had to be racially aware. Whites had to make a distinction between themselves and American Indians whose world was savage and primitive. The biggest mistake was bringing blacks over as slaves. This is regarded as a ‘racist’ crime’, but it was really a criminal negligence of true race-ism. If whites had been truly, rationally, and sanely race-ist back then, they would have thought, "Maybe it’s not a good idea to bring over all those blacks. Just look at their muscles. That mountain-sized Negro looks like he can crush my head like a zit. And look at those black women whose main expression is shaking their booties and acting like nappy-headed ho’s. And look at the dongs on them fellers. Not only will stronger blacks whup our ass but turn our women into jungle-fevered whores who go with Negro men as the superior race and look down on us as a bunch of cucky-wucks. So, let’s NOT bring over the ‘groids’ as slaves. Slavery is cruel and unpleasant and will besmirch our reputation, which is bad enough, but furthermore, there is no guarantee that slavery will last forever. Once freed, them ‘groids’ will kick our butts in sports, turn young people wild with jiggity music, reduce us to a bunch of dweeby cucky-wucks, and colonize the wombs of interracist white women who get to thinking like Rachel Dolezal." Now, that is some Core Race-ist thought, and if white people had accepted such Race-ism, they never would have brought over those Sub-Saharan West African Americans. At most, they might have brought over some Pygmies who, being small and short, could only have looked up to white folks like Arnold of DIFF’RENT STROKES and whined, "What you talkin’ about, white man?" This is why we need proper Race-ism that acknowledges and understands racial differences. Integration between whites and blacks leads to loss of white manhood and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) because black men are more muscular, louder, funkier, and generally got bigger dongs. And the nature of women is to get sexually excited about ‘bad boys’ who act tough. This is ever more so in a culture where the main modes of expression is Rap thuggery and booty-chuggery. The main problem with blacks was not slavery; after all, black Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs. It was the fact that the races are not the same. If whites had enslaved any other people, the dynamics would have been totally different. If Anglo-whites had enslaved white Russians, former masters and former slaves would have merged into a common race after Emancipation. After all, the end of Serfdom in Russia led to a unified single people. In contrast, why did Caste divisions last so long in India? Because there was a racial element to the caste system from the master caste to the middle caste to the slave caste to the untouchable caste. Even so, even the racial-caste system wasn't so bad in India because the darker peoples there are NOT bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than lighter-skinned upper-caste folks.

Europeans fail to understand this. They think their Africans won’t turn out like Black Americans because Europeans don’t have the ‘original sin’ of slavery. Granted, some European nations did take part in the slave trade, but Swedes and Germans didn’t. And the French less so than Anglos and Spanish/Portuguese, not least because the French eventually lost out in the New World to Anglos. So, Europeans think their African arrivals will turn out so much better than black Americans. But the end result will be the same because the problem in the US between whites and blacks was racial than historical. Europe can take in millions of FREE Negroes and treat them well, but the Negroes there will end up like Negroes in the US. Why? It’s in their oogity-boogity genes to act wild and crazy. In Africa, they drive hippos crazy, and in Europe they will drive white folks crazy. Also, their generally lower intelligence will mean they will leech off whites forever. Furthermore, their egomaniacal personality makes them less reflective and self-critical. Blacks have poor grasp of modern concepts of property, ownership, contracts, and manners. Blacks think like predators. When lions, hyenas, or bears see something they want, they try to grab it for themselves. Lions don’t think, "Hmm, those hyenas are eating that Zebra. I think it belongs to them, and we should bring down our own zebra." No, lions just think, "Sheeeeiiit, let’s take the eats from the hyena mofos." And if hyenas see a lone cheetah eating a gazelle, they don’t think, "You know, I’ll bet that cheetah tried so hard to bring down that prey. It’s his and let’s get our own grubs." No, the hyenas think, "Sheeeeeeiiit, a free meal! Let’s drive that punkass cheetah away and take his meat." Negroes feel the same way. Their sense of property and ownership is based on "Gots to have me". That’s what Rap is all about. It’s about the thuggery of taking stuff just because you want it. This is why blacks are champion robbers and rapists. Indeed, blacks rape even white women who put out to them. So, when white co-eds with jungle fever put out to blacks, blacks still have to rape them by saying to their brothas, "Here’s some free white pussy for us all, sheeeeeiiit." Blacks don’t hanker for no little white mouse like the mountain-sized Negro does in GREEN MILE. They’s want white wealth, white women, white lands, white everything. They think everything white exists to be taken by them. Blacks even feel that white history should be owned by them. So, white historical characters should be turned into ‘groids’ and blackamoors.

Therefore, people need to stop blaming ‘racism’ for the black problem in America and increasingly in Europe. The problem has been due to the lack of True Race-ism. If white folks had acknowledged the truthfulness of True Race-ism, they never would have brought over all those blacks to the New World.

Unfortunately, whites were motivated by Christianity, Commercialism, and Chauvinism. One part of whites felt that they were civilizing black savages into good decent Christians. By this logic, slavery was a Leviathanic process whereby blacks would go from wild savages to good Christian folks, whereupon they would be freed. But for such process to work, slavery would have had to last over a 1000 yrs with wild and dangerous blacks being weeded out of the gene pool. It’s like it took some time to domesticate wild bulls into livestock. It took some time to turn wolves into dogs. It took some time to turn wild boars into the farm pig. But blacks were under slavery for only a couple of centuries. Also, whites stupidly bred blacks to be extra-strong to carry all them cotton. So, in some cases, white made the stronger race even stronger and ended up like guys like Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson(who looks more demented than even African Negroes).
'Racism' violated True Race-ism. Abraham Lincoln was a True Race-ist insofar as he understood the black threat. This is why he wanted the blacks freed and sent back to Africa. He had the same fears as the visionary prophet D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION who feared something closer to BIRTH OF THE CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. But True Race-ism was overlooked by those with short-term commercial interests or Christian folly that Negroes could become nice meek humble Uncle-Tom-like Christians when, in fact, the Negro soul is too wild and rough to understand the true meaning of higher spirituality. Jesus founded His religion by silently meditating for 40 days. A Negro has difficulty sitting still for 4 minutes. His jiggity oogity-boogity nature turned even Christianity into a butt-shaking foot-tapping pandemonium. If Negroes take up Buddhism, they’ll turn Nirvana into something you attain by hollering and ‘twerking’.
Other than commercial greed and Christian folly(of civilizing blacks into nice Uncle Toms), there was white chauvinism of False Race-ism, aka ‘racism’. Unlike True Race-ism that honestly explores and notices racial differences, False Race-ism or ‘racism’ led to white chauvinism and denial of reality. White ‘racists’ were full of themselves as the toughest and manliest fellers in the world. They believed in the ‘great white hope’ who would finally whup the Negroes and show the world who’s the real King of the Hill. ‘Racism’ stupidly boosted white male pride when white men should have been in alarmist mode(like honest D.W. Griffith of THE BIRTH OF A NATION) and feared the ghastly Negro. Of course, on some level, white men did fear the Negro as a threat. After all, Jack Johnson whupped all those white guys, and later, Joe Louis whupped tons of white guys, and Muhammad Ali and other blacks dominated boxing. And blacks took over basketball and football. And blacks in schools beat up so many whites. But white ‘racists’ were too filled with bogus chauvinism to come to terms with the black threat and admit their legitimate fears. Whites had been winning so much for so long against so much of the world that it seemed white superiority was a birthright. But in fact, whites were superior only in certain things while inferior in other things. In raw struggle of animal drives, white men were bound to lose to the tougher Negro men. But too many whites didn’t admit to their fears(lest they come across as ‘scared’ and ‘wimpy’) and exaggerated their manhood by calling blacks ‘niggers’ and acting nasty like Southerners opposed to Segregation. Their anti-integrationist stance would have been much more effective if, in the spirit of True Race-ism, they had laid out why blacks, being more muscular-more-aggressive-and-bigger-donged, pose an existential and ‘sexistential’ threat to the white race. But nope, they just huffed and puffed as tough white guys and acted like thugs in front of TV cameras while blacks were pretending to be marching for ‘peace’ when they were really thinking, "You honkey mofos gonna get your ass whupped once the laws be changed cuz we just pretendin’ to be for MLK’s message of peace as Trojan Horse trick and shit." Yep, the Black Rampage was unleashed on America with the passage of Civil Rights Bill.

Anyway, the point is immigration is never generic. It is about who/whom. A nation has something to gain by letting in more of their own kind. So, when Germany took in millions of Ost-Germans after WWII, Germany just became MORE German. And when Polish ethnics were pushed into Poland from Western Ukraine(which used to be part of Poland from 1918 to 1939), Poland just became more Polish. Granted, even migration of the same kind of people can be stressful and challenging. The sudden rush of millions of Ost-Germans into Germany after WWII led to a humanitarian disaster. And the rush of many Mainland Chinese fleeing Maoism into Hong Kong led to severe socio-economic stress. Even so, problems eventually faded because Ost-Germans were fellow Germans, and all those Mainland Chinese, once they found their footing in Hong Kong, were just fellow Chinese. But the millions of New Germans(from Africa and Middle East) rushing into Germany today will alter the character of the nation. And imagine if a million Hindus than Chinese had rushed into Hong Kong. There would be big tensions between Chinese and Hindus, even if they’re regarded as ‘New Chinese’. Why did Hong Kong return to China? Because of history, ethnos, and culture. If China had the right to reclaim Hong Kong(even though Brits played a key role in having built it) because it was part of Chinese territory and populated by Chinese, why don’t the native folks of Britain have a right of claim to their ancestral homeland? Chinese don’t think, "The rest of the world has first dibs on Hong Kong and any other part of China." So, why do the Brits, French, Germans, Swedes, and etc. feel that OTHERS have greater claim to their own nations? How did such Inversion of Prerogatives happen?

Because of the Inversion of Prerogatives, we now believe that white minds belong to Jews to mold, white wombs belong to black men to impregnate, white wealth exist for non-whites to filch, and white lands exist for immigrant-invaders or immi-vaders to colonize and takeover. As for whites, they must say YES to the surrender of their claims. If they say NO, they are demeaned as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘exclusionary’, ‘Islamphobic’, and ‘antisemitic’. Now, if whites were in other lands lording over others, I can understand why the natives would complain and demand that whites get lost and return to their own lands. But now, even whites in their own nations are told that they don’t own their own minds, womenfolk, wealth, and land. Not even history as White History is being darkened with non-whites(especially blacks) cast in roles of white historical characters. And so many whites serve as cucks and collaborators because they’ve been raised fro cradle to obey Jews, worship homos, revere Negroes, celebrate Diversity(of Immi-vasion and replacist demographics), and hate white patriots who say NO to their own racial demise.
Part of the reason is Western elites are now worthless cuck-collaborators of Judea. But another reason is globalism has inflated Western elitist ego with dreams of neo-imperialism. So, French, British, and German leaders no longer see themselves merely as leaders of their own respective nations but of the World. Theresa May the hideous harridan talks like she is ruler of all humanity than of her British kinfolk. Angela Merkel sees herself as big-titty dairy cow to people all over the world. And the French elites still dream that France will become like a Mini-World with all the immi-vaders turning into New Frenchmen who appreciate French culture when, in fact, most Newcomers assimilate to globo-mondo-trash culture emanating from Hollywood and Rap music industry. While millions of Black Africans flock to Europe to demand "Where the white women at?" and while millions of white women yell out, "I’m here with jungle fever, you big-donged Negro", mentally castrated white males honk out, "I’m a cuck! I’m a cuck!" Indeed, among too many white males, the only warrior passion they can muster is against their own race. So, while Antifa white males honk, "I’m a cuck!" before the Negro and the Jew, they get murderously violent against white patriots who refuse to honk, "I’m a cuck!"

It’s not enough to own something. One must feel one has righteous claim over what he owns. And this is determined by control of the Narrative. It’s like it’s not enough to possess a house. You must back it up with rightful and/or righteous claim. Without the claim, one’s possession of the house becomes iffy and questionable. One is put on the defensive against would-be invaders. It’s the Claim Game. Before Jews could gain Palestine, they had to claim it with their own righteous Narrative about how the land really belongs to Jews due to history. And after WWII, Jews added the Shoah Clause to the claim, i.e. because of what happened in WWII, the West is morally obligated to back Jewish claim on Palestine. If Jews had just tried to take Palestine by brute force, they might have succeeded but would have had no moral claim to back up their ownership. The problem with whites in South Africa is they failed to come up with a useful claim on the land, made much worse by allowing blacks to become majority in the nation.

The US was founded with a specific and special claim made by Anglo-Americans and other Europeans. But Jews resented the special role of White Christianity in claiming and owning America. Jews wanted to own it for themselves. But because they didn’t have the numbers with which to beat out white gentiles — in contrast, Jews did have the numbers to squeeze out Arabs in Palestine — , Jews sought to subvert and nullify the White Christian claim by pushing for mass non-white immi-vasion. America has been a Nation of European Immigrants, but Jews took out the ‘European’ and just made it a nation of Generic Immigration from all over the world. By pushing this Diversity Narrative, Jews terminated the special white claim to America... and that meant that Jews would be the defacto rulers and owners of America. Why would that be if the World comes barging in? Wouldn’t Jews lose out along with White gentiles? No, because Jews control the upper echelons and elite level of America. With control of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Real Estate, Hollywood, Big Media, Ivy Leagues, and much else, Jews would be the Hyper-Elite overlord class over Diversity of Gentiles who can be manipulated and controlled by machinations of Divide-and-Rule.

This is why it was so important for Jews to push Homomania as well. That too is an Inversion of Prerogatives. We know what real sex is. We know that all human life was created by sexual union of men and women. So, marriage and family are something that belong to straight and normal people. Not a single life was ever created by Homo fecal penetration or Lesbian poon-grinding. Marriage developed as a Bio-Moral institution. It understood the way of biology — the sex drive and creation of new life by reproductive process of men and women — and the way of morality — the need for a man and woman to commit to one another to take care of the very lives they produce — , and as such, it was the most important institution in human history. Now, because most people are straight men and straight women, True Marriage has valued the majority population over the homo(and tranny) minority of sexual deviants. Straight people not only got married but had a special claim on and ownership of marriage. This affirmed the power of the majority and normality. Jews figured that such a ‘majoritarian’ institution undermines minority ambitions. If a society of mostly straight men and women should be ruled by them and guided by their needs, the corollary is a mostly gentile society should be ruled by gentiles in service of gentile interests and needs... but that would undermine Jewish supremacist claim on gentile societies. So, Jews pushed the LGBTQ Inversion of Prerogatives that fooled so many PC-addled and Pop-culture-addicted dummies into believing that straight and normal people have no special claim on Marriage. Instead, it belongs just as much or even more so to Homos and trannies. Thanks to Jew-run media and Jew-run government, there is now more fanfare for homos getting ‘married’ even though it’s about guys committing to bugger each other for life.

But such degeneracy has been so sensationalized and blessed by the Jew-run media and entertainment that many vapid, shallow, and superficial straight people now get ecstatic at any manifestations of Homomania, which is now essentially a neo-religion for globalized, deracinated, and desexualized hedonist-morons.

And this lunacy has also bled into the idea of womanhood. We sane people know what real women are. They are the fairer sex, have boobs and pooters(or cooters), and can give birth. Some men used to dress up as women, but we knew they were men as fake women. But now, the Power tells us that womanhood is ‘fluid’. So, if some guy with dick and balls puts on a wig, wiggles his ass, dons a dress, and claim to be a ‘woman’, we better admit he’s a woman. He can get a fake ‘vagina’ through Frankenstein surgery OR keep his dick and balls. The thing is the Inversion of Prerogatives says he is a ‘woman’ and we better acknowledge him as one... or else we are ‘transphobic’ and to be fined for big bucks by cities like New York.

So, just like native Anglos no longer own UK and native French no longer own France, real women no longer own womanhood. The new prerogative for Brits and French is to defer to Immi-invaders and roll out the red carpet to them as having more claim to the land than the existing inhabitants with deep roots of ancestry and history. Because the core meaning of UK and France has been re-coded to define them as ‘nations of immigrants’ and worshipers-of-Diversity, the mass-invaders(as ‘immigrants’ and ‘people of diversity’) now have greater claim to nations like UK and France than the native folks do.
And if tranny men want to claim ‘womanhood’, the New Feminism(totally controlled by Jewish globalists) says women should welcome them as ‘sisters’. So, the Prerogative of Womanhood is no longer to define woman-ness according to biological truth but to the social construct of PC. (Ironically, LGBTQ that says homosexuality and tranns-genderism are biologically fixed, immutable, and unalterable says sex is just a social construct, and there is no fixed ‘man’ or ‘woman’.) So, the vast majority of women must surrender their prerogative of Womanhood to a tiny minority of tranny freaks who claim to own womanhood just as much as real women do. But because virtue-vanity in the prog community is invested in being ‘more evolved’ and ahead-of-the-curve in ideological fashions, so many people unthinkingly go along due to hype and hysteria or out of fear and intimidation, as those who don’t comply are identified and attacked by purity-spiralers.

But then, all the West, despite being majority white Christian — even nearly homogeneously White Christian in places like Hungary and Poland — has surrendered to the Inversion of Prerogatives whereby the prevailing idea is that Jewish & Zionist interests must always take precedence over White Christian/Gentile ones. Indeed, that was the beginning of the end. When white gentile majorities began to defer to Jews and treat them like a Holy People whose identity, interests, and narrative must take precedence over white gentile majority ones, Jews gained tremendous pride, prestige, and power to reprogram the core-coding of the West. The result was Inverted Prerogatives whereupon whites, even in their own ancestral lands, must surrender their title and claim to All the World that the Jewish horsemen use as cattle to stampede over the White West. If white people don’t want to be overrun by the never-ending stampede, they must circle the wagons and, better yet, build fences to keep the cows out.

If Western folks think they can appease Jews and the Invaders by being nice to the ones who have already invaded, they need to think again. Such wussy meekness and weakness emboldens Jews and invaders to push for yet MORE STAMPEDE. If squirrels invade your house, it won’t do to treat the ones-already-inside nicely. Squirrels on the outside will not think, "Humans are being nice to squirrels in the house. Let’s respect them and not invade further." No, when squirrels on the outside see that squirrels-inside-the-house are getting free food and other goodies, they will invade too and more and more will come. It’s just the Law of Organisms. Humans are organisms and naturally flock to where the goodies are. If white nations were dirt poor, corrupt, and messy and IF non-white nations were rich and overflowing with goodies, white organisms will want to move to non-white places. When people heard of gold in the West, there was the Gold Rush. When Africans and Muslims hear that Europe has Broken Borders through which millions can pass through and gain access to goodies, the Euro-Rush is on big time.

It is time to Re-invert the Prerogatives. Not only must the stampede must be stopped but those who’ve invaded the West must be kicked out and returned to their own homelands. If they resist, they must be accused of being ‘racist’ and ‘white preferist’. After all, why do these non-whites not want to live with their own kind? Do they hate their own people and culture? Why do they prefer to live under and with whites? Isn’t their preference for whiteness a form of ‘white preferism’? The invaders must be liberated from ‘white preferism’ and made to re-appreciate their own peoples and cultures. They must be sent back.

And there must be reckoning with Jews who messed with the Narrative and re-coded the West to invert the prerogatives. Something must be done with Jewish Power. Whatever happens, there must be stringent laws that prevent Jews from corrupting and sabotaging the Core Survival Code of any white nation.