What is the Most Important Moral Question of America given Its Historical Origins and Events? Regarding the Other, TO WHOM does White America OWE the Most? How Jews-as-Grinch Stole and Appropriated the Tragic Narrative of American History from American Indians.

What is the most important moral question for Americans, especially in regard to the Other, given the history of America? By 'the Other', of course we mean non-whites. After all, America has essentially been a white European, especially Anglo-American(and Celtic and Germanic), creation. For most of its history, it was founded by whites as a white nation. And why not? They risked sea voyages to the other side of the world and toiled day and night to tame the land for agriculture and built towns & cities. There's a saying, "Finders, Keepers", and white people did more than find the New World. They had the means, numbers, vision, and know-how to transform the wilderness into a bedrock of a great new civilization.
For all the non-whites and cucky-wuck whites who bitch and whine that American history has mostly been by whites and for whites, they need to ask why other peoples didn't bother to get up off their ass, build ships, sail across vast seas in search of new lands, and toil day-and-night to build a great nation out of the New World? As for Hispanic & Portuguese who settled what is called Latin America, why didn't they do as good a job as the Anglos of the US, Canada, and Australia?

But what is particularly bemusing is how the proggy-wogs gripe about how America was violently stolen from the native Indians(who were really Pre-Americans) by 'racist' whites but then whine about how these whites were reluctant to share the land with non-whites all around the world. But if it was wrong for whites to take the land from Indians, how would it have served the Indians any better if whites decided flood America with peoples from ALL OVER THE WORLD? Wouldn't Indians then lose their ancestral land not only to whites but to all peoples of the world? But then, proggy-wogs aren't known for logic or consistency. They are kind of duped morons or clever con-men(especially if they happen to be Jews) who say with a straight face, "I believe in free speech but not in 'hate speech'." (Of course, the Jews get to decide what 'hate speech' is. Apparently, Jews in Hollywood making all those anti-Russian and anti-Muslim movies is not 'hate'. But white people and Palestinians seeking liberation from Jewish supremacism is 'hate'.)

What we need is moral logic and consistency. Those who insist that Columbus Day should be renamed 'Indigenous Peoples Day' should acknowledge that mass-immigration has been synonymous with imperialism, conquest, ethnic cleansing, mass replacement, and 'genocide'. Also, Diversity has been the product of Imperialism. After all, as more immigrants and peoples from the Old World arrived in America, the more the Pre-American Indians lost their land and way of life. Arrival of people from the Old World led to spread of diseases to which millions of native Indians had no immunity, resulting in mass deaths. And mass-immigration meant westward movement of newly minted Americans whose proclaimed destiny was to replace the native Indians on their lands. In that context, the great tragedy of America has been immigration. Contrary to the official narrative, the 'original sin' of America was not slavery but eradication of the American Indians by conquest and mass-immigration-invasion. Some call this 'genocide', a problematic term given the different norms that motivated peoples back then. Still, what is true enough is that Indian Tribes who'd been on the land for tens of thousand of years were effectively wiped off most of the land in a century. Also, whereas blacks gained a tremendous amount as the result of the slavery experience, the American Indians lost just about everything. Consider that 300,000 to 400,000 blacks were brought to America, but their numbers exploded to over 40 million. And, having developed in proximity with whites, blacks had access to the most advanced people on Earth. Furthermore, when we consider where blacks had been and where they ended up, they are the people who gained THE MOST from coming in contact with whites. Most other groups already had advanced cultures or complex civilization prior to their contact with the West. Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Chinese, and etc. were all peoples of High Civilization. Even had they never come in contact with the Modern West, they would have inhabited impressive civilizations with complex arts, culture, religions, and philosophy. In contrast, black Africans were, by and large, the most backward peoples on Earth. They were primitive savages chucking spears at hippos and running like mothaf*****s when the mad hippo came running to stomp their jigger-jiving ass. Had black Africans not come in contact with the Modern West, most of them would still have no wheel, no written language, and no technology beyond bongo drums, spears, and primitive arrows.

Also, blacks not only gained materially but morally in more ways than one. Through the white man, Negroes got to know Christianity and Western Philosophy. Negroes learned of the principle of liberty and of the evil of slavery only under the tutelage of the White Man. And it was precisely because Anglo-Christian folks had betrayed their own moral principle by having enslaved another race that they went about elevating blacks to holy-victim status. So, not only did blacks learn higher morality and deep spirituality from whites but got to use the values inherent in them to judge whites, especially as so many whites got into the habit of showing off their superior 'virtue' by collecting 'white guilt' points. Furthermore, because the modern West was so thrilled with sports and sexualized pop culture, especially with the rise of electronica, the people who excelled most in sports prowess and sexual displays were bound to receive the most adulation. It was the blacks. So, no people gained as much from their contact with whites. Blacks went from zero to hero only on the backs of white achievements, management, and imagination.

Therefore, the notion of slavery as the 'original sin' of America is bogus. Indeed, such sentiment is only more proof that, if anything, blacks gained so much from whites. They are like the 'favorite race' in US and EU. Blacks were enslaved by whites but also liberated from their own savagery. (Furthermore, not only did blacks get to colonize the New World along with whites but they got to keep their own African lands. Today, black Africa is almost entirely black.) The fact that their suffering is held in greater esteem than the suffering of American Indians speaks volumes about how whites ultimately did so much for blacks but so little for the Indians.
By all rights, the 'original sin' of America would be the 'genocide' of the Indians. Unlike blacks who thrived and multiplied under white rule and in proximity to white achievements, Americans Indians were pushed into reservations to rot as wretched huddled masses. Also, while black numbers exploded in the US, Indian numbers collapsed. In time, American Indians were able to multiply their numbers again, but today, they live in among the most depressed communities in the US. Also, whereas blacks in America & Africa(and now even in Europe) can take pride in the blackness of black Africa as the Cradle of the Niggaz, American Indians have no place to call their own. The core of their homeland has been invaded and taken over by peoples from the Old World. They are truly strangers in their own land. So, given these facts that cannot be refuted, the greatest tragedy of American History was the demise and erasure of American Indian communities and cultures.

Of course, there was triumph along with tragedy. Had the white man not arrived in the New World, North America would still be the land of savages and wild animals. Some people might argue that this would have been better, and there is something to be said for such sentiment. The loss of nature was indeed tragic wherever humanity went. Even primitive folks did plenty of damage to nature. Archaeologists now credit the extinction of countless species of animals in the Americas and Australia to the spread of primitive humans tens of thousands of years ago. But modernity accelerated the destruction and exploitation of nature exponentially, and maybe, it would have been better if the New World had only belonged to nature or only to nature and its 'indigenous' folks(who arrived from what is now Asia tens of thousands of years ago). But what is done is done, and it's true enough that America became a great modern nation due to the ability and achievements of European folks, especially the Anglos followed by Celtics and Germanics. There was triumph and tragedy in the making of America.

But given the tragic dimensions of American History, the Most Important Moral Question is "To whom do White Americans owe the most in terms of historical redress and moral consideration?" To answer this isn't difficult. We only need to consider what was the greatest tragedy of American History. There is no question that the biggest tragedy and 'crime' of American History was the 'genocide' of the Red Savages by Pale Face. Furthermore, even other whites and non-whites from the Old World collaborated with Anglo whites in the destruction of the Indians. Spanish Conquistadors invaded Indian lands from the south. Geronimo not only fought the US Cavalry but the Mexicans, a bunch of Mestizos led by white Hispanics. Upon emancipation, blacks didn't return to Africa, their homeland, but stuck around with whites, and many became cowboys and took part in shooting Indians dead. And Chinese worked on railroads that only accelerated the final stages of Manifest Destiny. American Indians were set upon by 'honkeys', 'niggers', 'spicks', 'chinks', 'kikes', and all those damned new immigrants from the Old World.

If America had been taken from the World, one could make a legitimate argument that people all around the world have a right to retake it via immigration. It'd be like the Right of Return. Indeed, suppose peoples of ALL RACES had been in the US, but White Europeans arrived and drove them to other parts of the world while hogging most of America for themselves. Then, mass-immigration of non-whites into the US could be a moral imperative based on historical wrongs. But, in fact, America was not taken by white Europeans from the world. It was taken from native folks who came to be known as the American Indians or the Red Man. Therefore, white Americans have NO moral obligation to open up America, the nation that they founded and built, to all the world. North America was not taken from Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Africans, Hindus, Turks, and etc. It wasn't taken from brown natives south of the border of what came to be USA. One could argue SW territories were taken from Mexico, but then the Mexicans themselves were laying claim to lands that were inhabited by various American Indian tribes who felt no connection or allegiance to the Mexican state and society.

America was not created by taking land and resources from all the world. It was created by white folks who arrived upon vast territories that were still overwhelmingly wild and natural(at least by Old World and Meso-American standards). And if the land was taken from anyone, it was from Red Savages. If any people were historically wronged, it was the Indians. Not because Indians were angelic saints — just like Europeans, pagan and Christians alike, fought each other countless times over 1,000s of years, so did the American Indians who also belonged to various warring tribes — but because they had a deep connection to the land. Suppose a people more powerful and numerous than the Europeans arrived in Europe 3,000 yrs ago. Suppose they found various pagan European tribes warring against each other over land, women, & stuff, and suppose they overwhelmed the relatively primitive and backward Europeans and took the land. (Btw, keep in mind that Europeans were warring against each other well into the 20th century, with World War I and World War II killing up to 65 to 70 million people.) Their conquest of Europe would have been by the general rule of history where might-is-right. Still, if the hypothetical conquerors had some moral sense and conscience, they would have, at the very least, acknowledged that the vanquished Europeans do have special connection to the land on which they'd lived and died for many eons. Likewise, even if we acknowledge that White Europeans won out over the American Indians by the general rule of history, one would have to be churlish to deny that the American Indians have the most meaningful and deepest connection and attachment to the land. And to the extent that they lost their ancestral homeland forever — something that cannot be said for Asians, Arabs, Hindus, Africans, and weaker Europeans(such as Greeks under Ottomans or Lithuanians under Russians) who eventually reclaimed their homelands from imperialist domination — , it is by no means far-fetched to argue that the American Indians are the most tragic people in the world. (Of course, given the advantages they gained by living under whites, it was far from a total loss. Surely, American Indians would be worse off if America had been conquered by another race of people.)

With that in mind, one must ask, "What is the MOST IMPORTANT Moral Question of America given the history of its founding and development?" At whose expense was the great nation of America created? The answer is beyond obvious. It was at the expense of the American Indians. And that means, if the US has any moral obligation, it is to the American Indians and their communities. Meanwhile, the US has NO moral obligation to anyone else. Was the American land taken from Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Senegalese, Hindus, Kazakhs, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Jews, etc.? Emphatically NO. Also, did all peoples play an equal role in the founding and development of America? Do a mental experiment. While there are Burmese-Americans who are probably good decent people, would America not exist if not a single Burmese set foot on the New Land? Of course not. Even if not a single Burmese(or, for that matter, a single Kurd, Hindu, Korean, Assyrian, Moroccan, Filipino, or etc) ever set foot on this land, America would still be America. But if the Europeans, especially Anglos-Germanics-Celts, had never arrived on the land, there would be NO America. Then, those who bitch about the 'racism' of American History in having excluded non-white immigrants are full of baloney. As the rightful discovers, founders, and developers of the great new nation, the founding & leading stock had EVERY RIGHT to decide immigration policy to create the kind of the nation that they favored. If the Chinese had discovered North America first, would they not have favored immigration of their own kind?

The moral dilemma of America's creation has mainly to do with four entities: American Indians, Negroes, white victims of Negroes, and nature. Even though American Indians lost the land for the reason why all defeated folks lost their lands all throughout history — they were outfought and outnumbered — , the tragedy of their loss is undeniable as they'd been living and dying on the land for not only centuries or millenniums but for tens of thousands of years. American Indian connection to the lands of North America is comparable to European connection to Europe and Asian connection to Asia. They lived here for eons. Another people who deserve special recognition is the Negroes who were brought over as slaves. As they didn't choose to be here and were exploited to develop the economy, blacks of slave ancestry deserve special recognition. However, because blacks are naturally 'craaaaaazy', thuggish, and demented, they've been acting wild and nutty since liberation. As such, they've victimized countless whites with robbery, rape, assault, murder, and etc. Therefore, just as America must address the historical wrongs done to blacks by whites, it must also address biological threat blacks pose to whites. By bringing blacks over the US, American History not only wronged the blacks but wronged many future whites who'd be victimized by tougher and more aggressive blacks. Just like Harriet Tubman and the underground railway sought to free blacks from slavery, the phenomenon of White Flight(and Jew Flew) was a kind of exodus for whites from Black Blight and Fight. Whites were running from Biological Slavery under the Thug Supremacism of blacks. (Jews bitch about white 'racism', but they also ran from blacks. And when black violence got way out of control in the 90s, Jews got themselves Billy Boy Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to get tough on crime and lock up record number of blacks behind bars to bring down crime.) Finally, there is the matter of nature, the fauna and flora of the Americas. One of the dire consequences of creating a great modern nation was the destruction of so much nature. Many animals went extinct, and they are lost forever. For that reason, America has an obligation to preserve as much natural lands as possible. And that means, NO MORE IMMIGRATION. If there are towns in America that are emptying of people, then the proper thing is to restore the land back to nature. We can never have too much nature.

Given the facts of history, any fair-minded person would agree with the sentiment that the greatest tragedy of America has been the destruction and demise of the American Indian culture and communities. Indeed, it would be most obnoxious for a people other than the American Indians to hog the stage & microphone and act as if the primary obligation, duty, and responsibility is to serve them. After all, Jews get very antsy if people other than themselves claim the mantle of 'victims of the Holocaust'. Even though Jews acknowledge that Nazi Germans killed millions of non-Jews(and even as part of the campaign that came to be known as 'Shoah' or 'Holocaust'), they insist(and rightfully so) that the Shoah was mainly about the targeting of Jews for mass destruction. So, even though many Poles and other Slavs were killed in World War II(and even under similar conditions as faced by Jews), Jews do have a special claim to Shoah. Every people have their own tragic narrative associated with certain lands. Then, the 'genocide' of the American Indians is a tragedy unique to American History. Because they were the native folks of North America and were vanquished(and even vanished from most of the lands) in what became the United States, the main moral narrative of American History should be about, "What was done to the Indians in the past and what must be done for them in the future?" Even blacks, with their slave narrative, cannot compete with the American Indians whose very homeland was taken from under their feet. Also, while blacks were allowed to live and thrive next to whites — even with Segregation — , American Indians were relocated en masse and settled in reservations that were usually the least productive lands.

Given the fact of American History, only the most obnoxious, arrogant, megalomaniacal, putrid, lowdown, disgusting, filthy, shameless, and scummy people would occupy the throne of Ultimate Victim-hood, Ultimate Claim-hood, and Reparation-hood within the American Context. Can anyone imagine Chinese saying that the main duty of America is to remember all the Chinese victims of Japanese & European imperialism and Maoist communism? Therefore, the D.C. Mall must have a Chinese-Tragedy Museum, all the students must be taught about the Nanking Massacre & other horrors of modern Chinese History, all politicians must say China is the closest and greatest ally of the US, and we must allow endless Chinese immigration to redress historical wrongs? While we can acknowledge the tragedy of modern Chinese History, why should the US go out of its way to 'do right' by the Chinese? Was the US taken from the Chinese? Whatever bad shit happened to the Chinese, it happened OVER THERE, and the US was no more responsible for the mess than other nations like European powers, Japan, Russia, and etc. And yet, we have Jews acting as if they have a special claim on American History, American Morality, and American Responsibility. But why? Did white Christians take America from the Jews(like the Romans took Jerusalem from the Chosen?) Did Jews suffer a great tragedy in America? If anything, Jewish merchants sold guns, ammos, and supplies to white expansionists who took land from the Indians. Also, Jews in the South handled much of the finances of the slave economy. The truth is Jews collaborated with whites in the destruction of the Indians and enslavement of the blacks in America. (Jews were also the main sellers of opium to the Chinese, which is why Jewish historians and their shills are now trying to minimize the assessment of harm done to the Chinese by narcotics. Jews were also leading communists in the Bolshevik Revolution that led to the deaths of millions of Slavs.) As for the Holocaust, it happened in Europe, and it was carried out by Germans who went mad largely because Jews drove them crazy with support for radical communism in the East and Weimar degeneracy in the West. Thus, what is known as Shoah or the Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust, or holocaust carried out by goyim driven to madness by Jewish Bolshevik holocaust of countless Christians in the East. Just like every action leads to a reaction, a holocaust can lead to a counter-holocaust. Even though Jews were on the side of Allies in WWII whereas Japanese were with the Axis, both groups ended up facing counter-holocausts. Jewish radical madness led to so much hatred against the Tribe that it led to the triumph of an ideology as nutty as Nazism. Similarly, so much craziness by the Japanese led to crazy-mad violence against them, the massive destruction of cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If we call Shoah the 'Counter-Holocaust', we will understand history much better. While Shoah was evil and crazy, it didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. It was a deranged reaction to much deranged actions by Jews. If we call it 'Counter-Holocaust', people will begin to ask 'In counter to what?' and then we can explain how much bad Jewish behavior led to rise of 'antisemitism' that finally took the insane form of Nazism. When people are driven to anger and desperation, they become blinded by and consumed with hatred. Why are so many Palestinians angry as hell about the Jews? Some of their hatred may be deranged and even genocidal toward Jews, but why do they feel that way? It's because Jews wiped Palestine off the map and have been treating Palestinians as subhuman trash. If Americans were riled up by Pearl Harbor to attack Japan and kill millions, imagine how the Palestinians feel who were robbed of their homeland? Of course, what was done to Palestinians was far worse. While the US, along with Japan and other powers, had done much to create much of the tensions in the Pacific that led to outbreak of war, the Palestinians had done NOTHING to no one, but the great powers, US-UK-USSR, all conspired to support the Jews in their 'genocide' of the native Arab population.

How dare Jews make themselves the Central People of America? The land was not taken from Jews. And the people who were most responsible for the creation of America were the Anglos and Germanics, not Jews. When it comes to the politics of victim-hood, Jews worked with the cowboys to wipe out the Indians. Jews worked with white slavers to import Africans, and Jews in the South owned slaves and opposed Emancipation. If there was a genocide or 'holocaust' in North America, it was to the American Indians by whites(with support of Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and even yellows who built railroads). By all rights, the Holocaust Museum in the Mall should really be about the American Indians, and Jews should fess up about their own role in the demise of the Indians. But Jews act like they morally and spiritually own America. At least the nutty Mormons cooked up some bogus history about how their ilk have some special connection to the New Land. Jews readily admit they have no deep ancestral roots in America but still claim that America really belongs to them most. Sure, Jews say America is for everyone but then insist that EVERYONE all get behind Jews, support Israel, and worship the Holocaust(as if the Jewish Tragedy should take precedence in the hearts of all races and groups). Since Jews can't claim America by deep ancestry(which belongs to American Indians), tragic experience(that belongs to blacks who toiled as slaves), or vision-founding-creation(that belongs to Anglos and Germanics), they've cooked up the notion of the 'proposition nation' where America is to be defined mainly by 'what it could be' that what it has been or what it is. Since Jews control the media and have spun an Emma-Lazarusean yarn about America as a nation-of-tomorrow(to be defined by endless immigration-invasion by New Peoples) and present themselves as the most iconic and eternal immigrant-group, especially in mythic association with Ellis Island that replaced Plymouth Rock, a mentality took root in the American Mind that the main obligation of all Americans is to honor, worship, & serve Jews and do as they command. Also, as Jews have quasi-spiritualized the Shoah or the Counter-Holocaust, it is no longer limited to the history of WWII and the bloodlands of Central and Eastern Europe. It is regarded as a cosmic thing, like the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ is supposed to be to all peoples in all the world. At least Jesus cared for all of humanity. In contrast, even as Jews have universalized Shoah-Worship for goyim, all they feel for goyim is contempt, often murderous in kind, as when all these Yinonist-Zionists cackle with hideous glee about all the Arabs and Muslims who've been massacred in these Wars for Israel, which might as well be called Mass-Murders for Israel.

Why are Jews so obnoxious? Part of it could be their haggly-waggly and verbally-excessive character. After all, is it just a coincidence that another group that is as often as obnoxious as the Jews are Hindus who are also verbally excessive? As if to follow in the footsteps of Jews and even go one step further, a most foul Dotkin Suketu Mehta(or Suckasstoo Meathead) has written a book called "An Immigrant's Manifesto". Even though America was taken from American Indians and not from Asian Indians, this worthless Asian-Indian Hindu says America has a moral obligation to open its gates to hundreds of millions of his Dotkin kind or Dotkind. It's like Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA. He has this crazy notion that all of America should somehow put out to him and offer him flowers wherever he goes. (Latin American whites are another scummy group when it comes to making Moral Demands on America. They posture as 'people of color' when, in fact, they were the First White Europeans to conquer the New World, spread disease, wipe out tens of millions, 'rape' countless native women, and lord over the brown Meso-Americans as virtual slaves and peons. Now, if Latin American whites acknowledged their part in the tragic dimensions of New World history while also claiming considerable achievements & improvements, it would be understandable. After all, Hispanic whites were not the only great conquering peoples in history[and they did bring an end to human sacrifice and other barbarisms of the natives], and we can't judge the past with today's values, even though, what with all the pro-migration-invasion rhetoric of globalism, one wonders if today's values are any different. What is unforgivable about Latin American whites is they conveniently overlook their essential role in the conquest of the New World and furthermore pretend that the mixing of white and brown was some kind of happy union, a love-fest among the races. Furthermore, their cretinous selves claim to be 'people of color' and dump all blame for New World tragedies on 'gringo' or 'yanqui'. As such, they are as dirty and lowlife as the Jewsters and Dotkins.) 'Verbality' is necessary for power, but with some peoples, it's gotten out of hand. Jews and Hindus are so busy yapping and listening to themselves go on and on and on that they've come believe in their own baloney or curry.

In contrast, the American Indians, who have most to complain about, go unheard because they are deficient in 'verbality'. It's like the 'big dumb Indian', aka Chief Broom, in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He isn't really deaf & dumb but acts it out of a sense of defeatism and resignation. It's interesting that just about the only word Indians are known for is 'How'. Indians need to start talking. They need to drop Broom-ism and learn a thing or two from Jewsters and Dotkins(and of course, the ghastly 'groids', another people who 'talk too much' as Run-DMC noted). If Jewsters, Dotkins, and 'groids' need to shut up a bit, the Indians need to speak up more and loudly. They need to put forth a great chief who will assemble all the Indian Nations in the Washington Mall and give a speech called "I have a vision", one that demands no more immigration-invasion as mass-immigration led to the 'genocide' of the Red Savages hunting gophers for stew.

The truth is as follows. Spiritually, the lands of North America belongs more to the Native Pre-Americans or American Indians than to any other people. They were here for tens of thousands of years before the American colonies and the rise of the United States as a great nation. In terms of territoriality and ancestry, this was Red Man's land for eons. Even if the various Red Tribes fought and slaughtered one another, they were all members of the same race... just like even though the various European tribes and kingdoms bashed one another across the eons, white folks have a special connection to Europe. Therefore, the spiritual connection of Indians and the Land must be respected. Also, because the eradication of Indian communities(and even extermination of Indian folks in some cases) was necessary in the creation of America, the Indian Holocaust must be the central Moral Narrative of American history and politics. And since it was European Conquest followed by waves of mass-immigration that led to the Indians losing ALL their Lands, Americans must address the dark and tragic side of Immigration. Emma Lazarus the Judeo-centric Jew only cared about her Tribe. As embarking to America would be great for her kind, she didn't care one bit about the American Indians who were reduced to poor, wretched, huddled masses rotting away in Reservations. But then, Zionist Jews didn't care that Palestinians would be expelled from their lands either. Jews only care about themselves and disregard goyim as subhuman. Worse, unlike Anglo Christians who felt some degree of sympathy and even admiration for the American Indians who put up a noble fight to defend their lands and culture, Jews feel nothing for the Indians. Sure, Jews pretended to care for the Indians in the counterculture 60s but only as metaphors for Jews. Thus, for awhile, Jews sought to draw comparisons between what Anglos did to Indians and what Nazi Germans did to Jews. Never mind that Jewish merchants took part in the conquest of the Wild West. And never mind that Jews decided to play cowboy with the Palestinians as Indians. And after the Cold War, Jews even went into Judeo-Nazi mode to use the US as its cavalry to ride roughshod all over the Arab-Muslim World.

Most obnoxiously, Jews have laid claim to America as their spiritual home. By making the US out to be a 'nation of immigrants', Jews are effectively saying Pre-American History(of the Indians) and American History(of whites who built a new nation) mean NOTHING. All that matters is what JEWS say America should be. According to Jews, America should be a land where all goyim must be compelled to praise Jews, worship the Counter-Holocaust, support Israel, and obey the Yinon-ist program of hating and slaughtering whatever & whomever Jews order us to hate and kill. "Kill for Jews" might as well be the new motto of Americanism. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but this is just a ruse to use 'white guilt' about the 'Magic Negro' to paralyze white pride and unity, thereby rendering whites easier to manipulate emotionally to do as the Jews as Holy-Holocaust-People demand. If Jews really care about blacks, why do they push for mass-immigration-invasion to replace blacks, along with whites, from many communities, especially fancy ones inhabited by Jews?

American Indians need to drop the Broom-ism and learn to talk. For too long, Indians had others do the talking for them, like when Neil Young sang songs like 'Pocohontas' or when Jim Jarmusch made DEAD MAN. In FARGO, the Indian doesn't talk much, but he gets awful angry. Indians must work on that anger and learn to talk. Indians have the war dance and rain dance. They need to perfect the Talk Dance, and learn to speak loud and clear about how America is spiritually their land. Therefore, the biggest moral imperative of the US must be an end to all immigration-invasion and a sincere effort to revive Indian communities. Indeed, how disgusting that Jews and their cuck-libertarians decided to redress the tragedy of Indian communities by offering casinos, most of which are run by Jews who take much of the profit. Imagine Europeans telling Jews, "Ah, forget about the Shoah. Let's just put some casinos where Nazi concentration camps were, and let's have a good time." That would be pretty repulsive, but that was the deal that the Indians got, like in CASINO JACK about the foul Jew Jack Abramoff.

Finally, American Indians need to understand that white race-ism was a double-edged sword. In their drive to turn the New World into an extension of European Civilization, white race-ist expansionism led to the demise of American Indian communities. And yet, white race-ism also protected the New World from the Non-White world that was even more numerous in people. Thus, even as white race-ism took the land from the Indians, it also protected that land from further invasion by all the world. Given the tragic history between whites and Indians, a non-white people, it's understandable why some Indians decided to form alliances with other non-whites against whites, but what do these non-whites want? They want endless immigration-invasion from all the world, and that means American Indians will have lost their land not only to whites(who felt some conscience and respect for the Indians) but to all the peoples from all the world, many of whom are utterly without conscience, honor, decency, and shame. Take Suketu Mehta, or Suckasstoo Meathead. I mean, how demented must one be to be a Hindu making a moral claim on America, a land that was not taken from his people and wasn't founded and built by his kind.
Furthermore, can anyone with integrity say with utmost sincerity that America has improved with Jews as the ruling elites? For Anglos, morality meant 'improving ourselves', 'facing up to our wrongs', and reforming society for the good of all. It was about judging not only others but themselves. With Jews, morality is simply acting as if they're pure as snow, the fount of all truth & wisdom, always blaming OTHERS for all problems, and refusing to admit Jews also have a dark side to their history. Also, even as Jews seek to protect their own kind from deracination and total degeneracy, they push such on their enemies. Some may argue that Jewish embrace of globo-homo-mania is a form of degeneracy, but the fact is most Jews don't really get high on their own supply. Globo-homo is to Jews what cocaine is for the pusher. Jews wield it as a weapon to undermine goy communities than to really indulge in 'gay' worship.
Anyway, American Indians need to realize that white race-ism was the last best defense of America from further invasion. As long as whites remained in race-ist mode, American Indians could rest assured that their ancestral-spiritual land would, at the very least, not be invaded by ALL THE WORLD. It was the fading of white race-ism that flung American gates to all the peoples of world, to tens of millions of Hindus, Africans, Asians, Latin American whites(aka Conquis), and Meso-Americans who have no claim on the Americas north of the Mexican border. Without race-ism, a people and land are doomed. Just ask the Jews who guard Israel with race-ism. As bad as Jewish race-ism may be in the eyes of Palestinians, it would be worse if Jews lost their race-ism and opened up Israel to ALL THE WORLD. Then, Palestinians will have lost their land not only to Jews but to Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Turks, and etc, etc.

**If America is all about an 'idea' & 'proposition' and not about soil, roots, and history, then how come there are special reservations set aside for American Indians? Isn't it because they have roots in the soil and deep memory of existence on the land? If America is purely about proposition, Americanism should not tolerate special recognition for American Indians' ties to the soil and the particularity of their history. If such is recognized for Indians, why is it not recognized for whites who were most crucial in American nation's founding and most instrumental in its development? If the Indians' deep historical connection to the land overrides mere considerations of 'universal values' and 'propositions', then the white man's founding and creative relation to the American soil also merits special recognition.**

European Civilization's Great Advantage over the US was HAVING NO BLACKS, but No Longer as EU has gone Afro-maniacal — PC is Ideological Veganism & the Need for a Food Pyramid of the Mind with Ethno-Nationalism as Foundation

https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/blacks-are-13-of-london-englands-population-blacks-represent-50-of-the-murder-suspects-in-london/

Blacks Are 13% of London, England's Population: Blacks Represent 50% of the Murder Suspects in London

Prior to black immigration-invasion into Europe, the virtual lack-of-black or Black-Lack was the one true blessing and advantage that Europe had over the US. And same for Canada and Australia. Whatever was wrong with Europe or deficient vis-a-vis the US, it didn’t have the ghastly Black Problem. Nations without the Black problem have no idea how fortunate they are. If they think things are bad at home, they should take heart in knowing it could be much much worse with blacks. Things bad in Uzbekistan or Nepal? Just be thankful it doesn’t have the black problem. Indeed, "at least we don't have the black problem" should be the bright side for nations without a black population. Just when it seems things can't get any worse, it can if the nation fills up with blacks.

Despite the horrors of World War I and World War II(and tragedies associated with Communism and National Socialism), Europe could at least rest assured in having had no blacks(or just a tiny fraction that kept blacks at the level of curiosity than problem). In the long term, even horrible wars were less destructive than having Negroes. Indeed, look at the recovery of Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, and even Hiroshima soon after WWII. Tens of millions died and entire cities were turned to rubble, but in peacetime, there was breakneck construction, restoration, and return to normal. Whites and Japanese can be tremendously destructive in wartime(because their logistical and organizational skills are so impressive), but in peacetime, they are builders and maintainers. In contrast, blacks are ceaselessly destructive even in peacetime if they are afforded full freedom.

Unlike Europe(and Japan) that rebuilt rapidly after WWII, many American cities from the 1960s onward turned into cesspits of degradation and deterioration due to the BAMMAMA factor: Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. Blacks can easily overpower whites, terrorize communities, and destroy social trust & order that are so central to maintaining a good society. (Even though some American cities recovered via gentrification, the black problem didn’t go away as cities like NY and Chicago sent the blacks to towns and suburbs. Rather, rich yuppie-hipsters or yupsters just passed the buck or hot potato to OTHER communities that had less clout and resources to say NO to the Black Flood.)

So, despite Europe being engulfed in the biggest conflagrations in human history while continental US was spared the devastation of both WWI and WWII, things got bleaker in American cities than in European cities in the postwar period. The looming threat for American cities was the time bomb of black rage and savagery that was just ticking to go off. Indeed, even relatively impoverished Communist cities in Eastern Europe were nicer and safer than American cities like NY, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, and etc beginning especially in the mid-60s.

Surely, Europeans(and Canadians and Australians) knew about the American Race problem from watching the news. Their one great blessing and one great advantage over the US were HAVING NO BLACKS to run wild, terrorize law-abiding citizens, and wreck communities. Tragically, instead of feeling thankful and lucky for having no blacks, it was as though Europeans felt envy for not having them. Why? Not enough 'vibrancy'?

1. Blacks won in sports and were prominent in popular music, and whites all over the world came to swoon with adulation over figures like Muhammad Ali, Pele, and Miles Davis. So, Europeans wanted their own ‘cool’ blacks too, especially as black American athletes often beat up white European ‘palookas’. Why should the US win in all the cool events with their blacks? If Europe couldn't compete on the global level with black Americans, maybe they needed 'black Europeans' to bring home the trophy.
In time, Rap and Afro-Pop became the main music of France, and Rap and Reggae came to dominate UK pop scene. And as blacks came to own the most popular sports, European cucky-wucks found themselves cheering for blacks as their national heroes. Most British boxing champions have been black since the 80s. French soccer players, boxers, and runners are virtually all black. People are tribal but also naturally servile to winners(even of the Other Tribe). Just like French women went with victorious German men during the Nazi Occupation, white folks rejected loser white athletes and prostrated themselves at the feet of black stars. Whites pledged their cuck-loyalty to the tribalism of blacks as the superior race. Tribalism is most effective when backed with pride and victory. When one's tribalism is associated with loss, defeat, and humiliation, there is the temptation to forsake one's own pathetic tribe and serve the masterful tribe.

2. World Media were dominated by Globalists and Jews, and they spun American racial problems as entirely the fault of whites and ‘racism’. Hollywood spread the image of the Magic Negro who only knew oppression under white bigotry and the nobility of struggle for justice. Many such movies featured haloed blacks. It's no wonder that Europeans loved Barack Obama and felt envy for not having someone like him or Mandela as their own leader. Media and Entertainment made whites(and other races) look upon blacks as sacred objects as John Derbyshire has opined many times.
So, the conventional wisdom was that American blacks were just rebelling against legacy of slavery and discrimination. Black violence is always innately noble and moral.

Conceited Europeans figured that they would teach ‘racist’ America how to properly treat blacks. Europe would welcome blacks(from Africa, America, Caribbean, and etc) and treat them with love and decency, and these 'black Europeans' won’t become like American blacks who had no choice but to resort to violence against oppression. Furthermore, Europe would redeem its 'historical sins' by transforming poor African blacks into first-rate 'European blacks'.

In one way, Europeans worship blacks as the superior race with great idolic or idolatrous value. But they also doted on blacks as the childlike race in need of the guidance and beneficence of whites. After all, Europe is rich and modern, Africa is poor and backward. Blacks have become objects of both worship and condescension, as if they are almighty god and helpless baby. Fiendish blacks adroitly sensed and manipulated this delusional white psychology to squeeze ever more concessions from whitey. Blacks toyed with both the servile and maternal instincts of white folks. (Also, as white elites in affluent communities were safe and secure from social problems and rubbed shoulders with better blacks or Good Diversity, they didn’t care about the fate of poor whites who'd likely end up integrating with Bad Diversity. The rich whites get Obamas, the poor whites get Mike Tysons.)

3. In time, white women got jungle fever and white guys strapped on their cuck-shorts. A hit movie in France had a rich white paraplegic who is taken care by big muscular Negro. The message is clear. White guy is reason & riches but no body, and the black body must become the new body of Europe. Whites elites, as the head of the West, don't need the white mass as national body; blacks will take over as the new national body and colonize white wombs. And in BITTER MOON by Roman Polanski, the white guy(Peter Coyote) in the wheel chair is tormented and humiliated by his former lover who gets it on with a Negro. He can only watch helplessly. BBC TV is now all about match-making white women with black men in movie and TV roles. As for white guys, their roles are usually cucky or ‘gay’. No more white national heroes. And young white girls in Europe grow up twerking like their American counterparts. And they go to dance clubs to have their butts bumped-and-grinded by black men.



It just goes to show that the fantasy-reality of media & entertainment can override reality. The grim reality of the US since the 1960s has been "blacks + freedom = fall of civilization", along with end of white manhood as racial integration leads to black guys jumping white guys and humping white girls. Blacks cannot handle freedom like civilized people. Nature and evolution made them too wild and crazy. (Also, feminist 'liberation' has led to white women hankering to be whore-slaves of black men. Women find greatest happiness in surrender, not domination. So, women's liberation really comes down to women freeing themselves of relations with'loser' beta-males and seeking out alpha-males to submit to. As black men have tough-guy-advantage over white men, women's liberation has meant 'empowered' white women increasingly rejecting beta-white-males in search of alpha-black-males, even if only for short-lived affairs. Women's Liberation is not about women seeking equality for all people but about rejecting whom they deem to be inferior men in pursuit of superior men. Women's Liberation has made women more competitive for the limited number of winner-men.)

Europeans should have sighed with relief at their good fortune of black-free cities and towns because news depicted so many reports of race problems in America and black pathology in Africa. But, the media spun American race problems as “It’s all racist whitey’s fault” and “noble blacks are so cool”. And media spun the black African problem as either “It’s all due to white imperialism, and all the world must worship Mandela as god" or "Just a little bit more of white love and compassion can do SO MUCH for black Africans who are just brimming with limitless potential waiting to be tapped."
Also, the dogma of blank-slatism and ‘race is just a construct’ had too many whites believing anyone can be molded into anything. So, if millions of black Africans come to the EU, they can easily molded into 'New Europeans' with a bit of education, acculturation, and training.
As the result of such follies, Europe is going to hell. If Japan, which is so far away from Africa and West, is going afro-jungle with Japanese women having kids with black men and raising them to beat up smaller/weaker Japanese and take over Japanese sports and pop culture, imagine the fate of Europe where millions upon millions of muscled and big-donged Negroes are coming from Africa with only two things in mind, “Where’s the free stuff” and “Where the white women at?”

The biggest threat to the world is the vilification of ‘racism’ that prevents people from realizing the most important truth: Blacks will destroy your nations, and therefore, you must form a tribal defense system to keep blacks out of your domain. (If Ism means belief, then Race + Ism must mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. 'Racism' is the most ill-defined term in the world. As races do exist and racial differences are real, race-ism must be embraced by all peoples if they are to properly understand reality and take necessary measures to safeguard their own race and community. As blacks are superior in muscle power, aggression, and thuggery, all non-black societies must be wary of blacks coming to settle, terrorize, and take over.) Denial of race-ism is like political veganism. Without honest-to-good race-ist nutrients of tribal protein and iron, the white mind-and-body will be too anemic to change course and save Western civilization from the Ghastly Negro.
PC veganism must stop. By denying natural tribal proteins for the white soul, white people(lacking in their own red-meat tribalism) end up seeking tribal satisfaction by taking up radical ideologies or OTHER PEOPLE'S tribalisms. It’s like the vegan body, starved of necessary animal proteins, tries to absorb nutrients, vitamins, and minerals from foods that are deficient in them. It is so futile as there is no real substitute for real animal protein and iron. Women especially do much better with some red meat after menstruation.

Likewise, there is no substitute for real healthy race-ism and tribalism for one’s own kind. Jews gorge on the meat of Jewish tribalism, and look how hale and healthy Zionists in Israel are. (The problem with Zionists, as was the case with the Nazis, is that they insist on gorging on the meat of OTHER peoples as well. Jewish uber-predators aren't content with their own blood-and-soil and must feed on the blood of other volks in imperialist mode.) But because whites are denied white meat and must stick to PC vegan diet, their tribal-protein-starved bodies desperately seek substitute-tribalist-nutrients from ideologies(that never quite satisfy tribal cravings) and OTHER TRIBALISMS, e.g. whites trying to be black in attitude or taking up the black cause against fellow whites. Or, among the cucky-wucks of Conservative Inc., it’s usually about vicariously sharing in the Triballistics of Jews and Israel. As whites aren’t allowed white identity and interests(deemed ‘toxic’ as ‘white supremacist’), whites conservatives seek substitute tribalism in ‘civic nationalism'(which has become useless in overly diverse America) or Zionism(which has no benefits for whites whatsoever). Or, they seek tribal satisfaction in the atomized tribalism-of-one, aka libertarian individualism. But as humans are social animals, individualism alone never satisfies one’s needs.

Whites must learn to eat tribal and race-ist protein again.

Healthy ideology is like the food pyramid. At the bottom(the foundation), there should be tribal identity, the blood and soil thing. Above that, there should be tradition and culture. At the next level, there should be freedom and individualism, and so on.
We all need some degree of idealism. But for white folks, the pyramid has been inverted. Idealism or individualism makes for solid base for complex society. It is too abstract to serve as support system for all else. In contrast, blood-and-soil is real and tangible. It’s like existence comes before idealism. If you favor idealism over existence, it means that, when push comes to shove, you may well choose idealism & death over realism & survival. What people need as fundamentals are Blood, Soil, and Saga. The power of story is important as identity alone doesn't say much. What does it mean to say "I'm Jewish" or "I'm Irish" if you don't know the story and narrative of your people? Identity alone is like knowing your name but being amnesiac about your life story. Blood and Soil, yes, but also the Tale.

Consider the tale retold by Joseph Campbell about becoming what you really are.

http://portalofconsciousness.com/the-goats-and-the-tiger/

So the little one is getting that message; he’s picked up and taken to the tiger’s den, where there are the remains of a recently slaughtered gazelle. Taking a chunk of this bloody stuff, the big tiger says, “Open you face.” The little one backs away, “I’m a vegetarian.” “None of that nonsense,” says the big fellow, and he shoves a piece of meat down the little one’s throat. He gags on it. The text says, “As all do on true doctrine.” But gagging on the true doctrine, he’s nevertheless getting it into his blood, into his nerves; it’s his proper food. It touches his proper nature. Spontaneously, he gives a tiger stretch, the first one. A little tiger roar comes out—Tiger Roar 101…. The big one says, “There. Now you’ve got it. Now we go into the forest and eat tiger food.” Vegetarianism Is the first turning away from life, Because life lives on lives. Vegetarians are just eating something that can’t run away.

Will the Convergence of the First World and Third World Happen? Some Thoughts on Guillaume Durocher's Attempts to Debunk the Convergence Theory and How Jewish Supremacist Power plays into All of This.

http://www.unz.com/gdurocher/the-convergence-hoax/

Both Daron Acemoglu and Guillaume Durocher are failing to see the big picture and missing the point. There are more than one kind of Convergence, and it is likely to happen due to globalist pressures. And these Convergences will involve mass migration and mass miscegenation. (Or, if genetic engineering becomes a thing in the near-future, various peoples around the world could end up with 'improved' traits in areas of intelligence, temperament, strength, height, and health.)

Old models fail in the globalizing world because all borders have been rendered porous by mass communication & social networking, the predominance of the Zionist-US empire that can intervene or even invade any part of the world -- the USSR limited US expansionism during the Cold War and vice versa -- , easy mass migration of peoples by planes, boats, and even on foot(as national borders, especially in the Africa-Middle-East-Europe-America) are either undefended or have been breached beyond repair. Globalism is replacing settlement-mentality with neo-nomadism of both the 'creative' classes and the 'desperate' masses. It's no wonder that the upper elites of 'creatives' identify somewhat with the lower masses of 'desperates'. Part of the reason is, of course, the elites attend Politically Correct institutions where 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are holy mantras, but it also has to do with the fact that the elites live in their own well-protective bubble of gentrified downtown areas or college communities. For them, the masses of Third World peons have either symbolic value(for 'woke' virtue among their apologists) without having to rub shoulders with them OR economic value as cheap labor to mow lawns and change diapers, especially as elite women are too busy pursuing their careers than rearing their children. So, upper class to upper middle class have much to gain from supporting mass Third World migration. They pat themselves on the back as compassionate 'progressives' while knowing full well that their own social and economic spheres will not be negatively impacted by the newcomers. If anything, the browns from south of the border may be socially useful in serving as a buffer between elite whites/Jews/Asians and urban blacks with criminal tendencies. Why not make the browns take the lumps from the blacks or use the brown mass to push out the blacks so that the communities may later be gentrified more peaceably? In contrast, the Middle Class and Working Class haven't much to gain from globalism and mass-migration-invasion. They are replaced by cheaper H1V holders from India, or their wages are undercut by supply of new labor eager to work for a pittance, that is if the jobs haven't already been shipped to China or some other place.
As Karl Marx said, economics goes a long way to determine consciousness, and the erosion of national economies weakened the elite's sense of connection to their own national folk. In the past, US companies had to hire US workers first and foremost. So, there developed a national bond among owners, managers, and workers. But with globalism, the owners could shop for cheap labor around the world, and when China opened to World Trade, the owner class saw a golden opportunity. All those yellow peons had decent work ethic and were willing to work for fraction of the wages(and without the benefits) of American workers. So, the owner class went on a shopping spree for global labor. As the owner class was no longer economically bound to American workers, it became increasingly cut off from them emotionally as well. It was cheaper for the members of the owner class to champion the Global Diversity because it meant they could gain access to ever cheaper pools of labor. It's like a man's connection to his wife and kids grows weaker IF he could 'shop around' for new women to hump and have fun with. There used to be an economic and emotional marriage between the owner class and national folk in the West. But globalism privileged the upper-owner class in letting them sever their ties to the national masses -- let the white working class wallow in junk culture and died of opioids, and good riddance -- , and they became enamored of the cheaper and more pliable work force around the world. So, the underlying motives of globalism are the most naked kind of capitalism and profiteering ever concocted by man.
But, because it wouldn't be good publicity for the globo-owner class to bluntly admit this ugly truth -- "we dumped the national folks in favor of cheaper peons around the world" -- , they've moralized their agenda with slogans about 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Thus, we are to believe that the super-rich oligarchic class is pushing mass-migration and 'free trade' not because it's insatiably greedy but because it has a bleeding heart for all those teeming masses around the world. Of course, upper classes don't need to worry about the profound social transformations of entire nations as the result of Third World mass-invasions because they themselves live in mansions, haute gentrified areas, or elite college towns. The real brunt of the mass transformation will fall on everyone from Middle Class to Working Class to native Lower Class.
Now, one would think the masses would have the moral upper-hand against the greedy owner class that no longer cares about them. After all, the owner class is only making things nicer for itself by sacrificing the National Working Folk in favor of cheaper and more docile labor(or even oppressed and exploited labor in the Third World with hardly any recourse to legal protections). But because of the Deep State collaboration between Big Capital and Big Think, today's so-called 'progressives' offer up nice-sounding terms and slogans to tip the moral advantage to the owner class. So, you see, the owner class isn't greedily out for more profits and privilege. Oh no, they are just a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'welcome' the World, whereas the National Working Folk are 'far right', 'xenophobic', 'racist', and 'exclusive'. Never mind that no nation is viable as a people, culture, and history unless it has secure borders, emotional bond between elites and masses, and a sense of cultural & historical distinctness. After all, imagine if Israel had open borders and declared that ANY newcomer will be welcomed as a New Jew. How long would Israel or Jewish culture last under such suicidal barrage? Indeed, how was Palestine wiped off the map to make way for Israel? Because of mass-migration of Jews into Palestine, which eventually led to Jews replacing Palestinians as the main inhabitants of the Holy Land. Of course, Jews were sly and sneaky in this. For awhile, they pretended as though they merely wanted to become New Palestinians. Until the creation of Israel, the Zionists labeled many of their endeavors and businesses as 'Palestinian' to give the false impression that they just wanted to be part of Palestine than replace it with a new political template. So, much of Zionist activity had gone under the umbrella of Palestinian-ism. But when Jews began to realize they had the upperhand(not least with the backing of great powers UK, US, and USSR), they made their move to replace Palestinians and turn Palestine into Israel. Given what Jewish mass migration-invasion did to the Palestinians(who are now mowed down by IDF death squads in Gaza and suffer indignities of Apartheid-style colonization in the West Bank, their last remaining territory of any substance), how can any truly conscientious person support mass-migration? The main, indeed the ONLY REAL, reason why Palestinians lost their homeland and were reduced to the sorry state of penury today is due to mass-migration-invasion. Demography Is Destiny or DID, and Jews sure proved it in Palestine, now Israel. Given the obvious historical injustice, why do the supposedly humanitarian US and EU support Israel and Zionists against Palestinians(and other Muslim and/or Arab 'enemies' of Israel)? Because Jewish Supremacist elites control America that, in turn, controls the EU.
Another example of why Open Borders or Broken Borders pose a huge problem is Syria. If Syria had been able to protect its borders, it could have avoided the prolonged war that killed 500,000 people, maimed millions more, and displaced millions who, in turn, barged into other nations. Why did Syria fall apart? Because the nations around Syria, especially Saudi-Arabia-Israel-Turkey, all conspired with Neocons and Liberal Zionists in the US to bring down the secular modernizing regime of Assad. So, they violated Syrian borders and injected toxic Jihadi elements to wreak havoc in town after town. The wonders that befall a nation when it loses control of its borders! It's no wonder Zionist-Globalists love Open Borders for goy nations, all the while doggedly guarding borders for Jews in Israel. Israel is stable, secure, and peaceful because it gets to control who gets in and why. In contrast, Syria lost that power, and it got invaded by terrorists and mercenaries from all sides. The US, which had entered the Middle East on grounds of fighting the War on Terror against Alqaeda, made common cause with rebranded Alqaeda going by the name of Al Nusra and promoted by the Deep State and Media as 'moderate rebels'.
We can easily note the advantage of border control versus the folly of no border control in the relation between Israeli Jews and West Bank Palestinians. There are walls and tight border security to prevent Palestinians in West Bank from freely entering Israel. So, Jewish Israel is safe and secure from potential Arab invasion from West Bank. But Palestinians in West Bank have no border security against Jews in Israel. The Jewish-built walls are meant to defend Israel from Arabs in West Bank, not to defend West Bank from Jews in Israel(and from around the world). So, Jewish 'settlers' -- really invaders and colonizers -- continue to encroach upon West Bank to carve up EVEN MORE territories for Greater Israel. So, from the Jewish-Palestinian dynamics between Israel and West Bank, which side has the advantage? Jews with border security against Palestinians or Palestinians with no border security against Jews? The answer is obvious.

Now, why is the rich, advanced, and powerful West for open borders? Why do they forsake border security and choose to be like Palestinians than like Israeli Jews? Why do they want their homelands to become like West Bank(a territory with no border security for its native population that continues to be replaced by Jewish 'settlers') than like Israel(a powerful nation with security & stability and pride of identity, culture, and history)? It's because Jews have taken over the elite institutions of the West and regard the West as one giant West Bank. With their immense wealth, Jews have bought off so many goy politicians to do their bidding. Jews hate the idea of national borders and security among goy nations because it could mean erecting barriers against total Jewish penetration and takeover. Jews love the idea of Israel for Jews but hate the idea of any goy nation putting its own people, culture, and history first because it means less of a chance for guys like George Soros to take over. This is also why Jews push globo-homo stuff all over the world. It is to weaken national identity, especially among the elites. It is also useful in replacing class politics with neo-aristocratism(as homos tend to be vain and narcissistic and drawn to wealth and privilege) in Progressive Circles. Also, if people get to thinking that a man with a wig can be a 'woman', it undermines the idea of rooted or real identity altogether. If any man can become a 'woman', maybe anyone can become a New European just by setting foot on Europe and learning a few French or German words. Replace Mayday with Gayday.
But Jews don't merely buy off corrupt politicians like Chinese elite minority does in Southeast Asia or Asian-Indian minority does in Kenya. Jews gain control of academia & media and spread the new gospel of 'diversity' and 'inclusion', both of which are just weasel words for New Imperialism. After all, most diversity around the world is the product of imperialism. Latin American Diversity owes to imperialism, 'genocide', slavery, and mass immigration-invasion. Just ask the native browns there. The Soviet Union was most diverse when it had imperial dominion over various nationalities. Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire were most diverse at the peak of their powers. For Jews, diversity is useful because, as a minority elite, they fear a united goy national front against them. So, they seek to increase diversity in all goy nations to use divide-and-rule tactics. The reason why British Imperialism over India was far more effective than European & Japanese imperialism in China was because the British as one people ruled over diverse tribes in India, whereas the Chinese as one people were ruled by diverse imperialists. British rule was finally doomed when Gandhi and other inspired leaders found a way to bring masses of tribes in India together as ONE people.

Jews know that the masses of goyim will wake up to what the Tribe is really up to if it only uses bribery and corruption to buy off goy politicians and the like. So, Jewish Power works very hard to moralize their globo-homo neo-imperialist project. Via mass media(totally controlled by Jews in the US and many parts of the West) and academia -- notice how George Soros sets up gender-studies-centric universities all over the world -- , Jews seek to moralize and idealize the New Imperialism. So, even though Diversity has always been the product of imperialism, peoples all over the world have been made to chant the mantra of 'Diversity is our strength'. If so, why doesn't Israel go about changing its immigration policy so that Israel will become majority non-Jewish? If MORE Diversity is good for all the world, more diversity would be good for Israel too, right? Jewish power also has everyone chanting about 'inclusion' when it's a weasel word for 'invasion'. After all, look what happened to Palestinians because they were forced to 'include' Jewish migration. They ended up being replaced. What happened to American Indians who had no choice but to 'include' mass immigration from the Old World? They got 'genocided' and pushed into 'reservations', losing their sacred homeland forever. Should Tibetans and Uighurs celebrate the fact that they're forced to 'include' the mass-migration-invasion by Han Chinese? I suppose we should remember the British Imperialists as the good guys because they forced 1/3 of the world to 'include' them as colonizers and traders. That is if 'inclusion' is so great. What happened to Syria because it was forced to 'include' every Jihadi armed and supplied by Saudis, Israelis, Turks, and US? It got torn asunder into hell on earth. The Zionist-directed US military still occupies 1/3 of Syria illegally. Or, should we say the US military is making Syria 'include' it? Imagine that. Today's so-called 'progressives' not only support mass illegal-immigration of the West but the West's illegal military-invasion of the Middle East and North Africa. Again, to understand what is really going on and why, we have to notice the Jewish Hand in all this. The fact is Jews use the West to smash any nation hated by Israel in the Middle East. The saying, "Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you" is most apt. Consider that Israel has 300 nukes while Iran has NONE and passed all international inspections with flying colors(while Israel won't allow any inspection of its nuclear facilities), BUT the Zionist-controlled Western Narrative is the US must do something to protect Israel from nuclear Iran. It can't get any more surreal than that. Just think. Israel has nukes and won't allow inspections while Iran has no nukes and allows inspections. But we are reminded over and over that Israel needs to be protected from nuclear Iran. LOL. If you believe that, you might even believe in the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Hoax. (Yet, the very people in media, academia, and government who pushed the biggest conspiracy hoax of all time say that 'fake news' should be shut down for obfuscating the truth.) Netanyahu and Bolton, or Master and Dog.

There is a perverse logic to the Jewish globo-homo strategy of the two-way invasion. Jewish Power urges the US to act as the Lone Superpower around the world. After the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the US too could have decreased its imperial presence around the world. During the Cold War, US empire was at least justifiable as bulwark against the Soviet Empire and vice versa. But with the USSR having given up on empire and revolution, there was no more threat to the so-called Free World. And many Americans were looking forward to scaling down the US role as globo-cop(which was often like globo-gangster). But just around the time the Cold War ended, Jews took over as the New Elites of the US that was made to flex its muscles and shake its fist as the Sole Hegemon. One reason was to bolster Israel as the lone superpower in the Middle East. So, by cooking up one excuse after another and painting every other leader in the Arab/Muslim leader as the New Hitler and every crisis as New Munich, Jewish Power goaded the US into wars in the Middle East and North Africa that turned those nations upside down(while Jews in Israel observed the destruction with amused glee). The New Imperialism said the US has 'inclusion' rights in any nation. If the US power wants IN, the nation-in-question better 'include' the US military... or else be invaded the most violent shock-and-awe manner. The US could invoke 'human rights', 'WMD', 'War on Terror'(even though US was, more often than not, allied with terrorists against secular modern Arab nations), 'stopping nuclear threat'(even though it was none other than Israel that is armed to the teeth with nukes and even sent nuclear technology to Apartheid South Africa back in the day), 'saving Kurds', or any half-baked rationale to invade the Muslim World. And the Muslim World better 'include' the US military invasion because even more bombs will be rained down on the if it says NO. (Notice the US, which claims to care so much about the Kurds, never cares for Palestinians or about restoring stolen Golan Heights to Syria.) Jews love the New Imperialism because they control the West and get to use Western Might to destroy any nation they don't like. Of course, Jews would be opposed to New Imperialism IF Palestinian-Americans were the ruling elites of the US and used American Might to smash Zionists in the name of liberating the tyrannized Palestinian people. It's all about who-has-the-power. Imagine if US government had tons of Palestinian-American elite operatives that called on economic sanctions on Israel for its nuclear program, mistreatment of Palestinians, warmongering against Lebanon & Syria, and aid to ISIS. Suppose these sanctions did to Israel what sanctions did to Iraq in the 1990s: Result in the deaths of 100,000s of Jewish women and babies. Then, you bet that Jews would oppose the New Imperialism. But they are all for it because THEY get to use it anyway they want. Since Jews totally control the media and academia, they get to decide what is 'progressive'. Because New Imperialism is good for Jewish Power, the Tribe pushes it as the 'new progressivism'. And since most goy 'progressives' are mental slaves of Jewish Power, they drink the Kool Aid and go along. But then, things have gotten so bad that some conscientious Jews have said ENOUGH and quit the Deep State neo-imperialist media.



By now, people should wise up to the speciousness of so-called Jewish 'progressives' who are not true Leftists or Progressives but merely using ideology as cover for what is a supremacist form of tribalism. For example, it's so disingenuous when Jews claim to care about Muslim Refugees. Notice that Jews never mention the fact that all those Muslims(along with Arab Christians) became refugees in the first place only because of Wars for Israel in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. There would be no Syrian refugees if that nation hadn't been torn apart. It was smashed because Jewish-controlled US gave the go-ahead to Turkey and Saudi Arabia to fund and support foreign terrorists there. And Israel gleefully egged on the catastrophe from the sidelines, even aiding ISIS and bombing Syria on and off. Notice that Jews never say they want to prevent people from becoming refugees. That's because, in order to prevent such tragedy, there must be no more Wars for Israel. But Jews love these Wars for Israel, and their operatives in academia, media, and government do everything to push for more wars in the Muslim Middle East. Thomas Friedman has openly supported ISIS against Assad. So, Jews don't mind millions of people being displaced and turned into refugees. THAT isn't the moral issue as far as Jews are concerned. Instead, the moral issue is the West must take in these poor helpless refugees. Never mind it was the Wars for Israel that turned all those people into refugees in the first place. Never mind that Israel won't take in these refugees. Indeed, Saudi Arabia, now an ally of Israel, won't take the refugees either. Israel won't even offer up stolen Golan heights for respite for Syrian refugees. Oh no, Jews like Soros and Co. steer all those refugees to the West and guilt-bait white goyim into taking them in... possibly to empty parts of Syria so that Israel can take over to create Even Greater Israel. The very people who've done the most harm to the Middle East and Muslim nations with New Imperialism and Wars for Israel(and sanctions that killed 100,000s of lives in Iraq) go about pontificating like they are moral saints. Imagine Nazi Germany invading Poland, displacing millions of Poles-as-refugees, and then whining about how the rest of the world won't take in those poor helpless Polish refugees. That'd be vile, wouldn't it? It is precisely what Jews do with Western Might in the Middle East.
Of course, unlike Nazi Germans, Jews can get away with it more easily because the West is still ostensibly ruled by goyim. People fail to notice that most politicians in US and UK are mere puppets of Jewish oligarchs. And most people still don't know that Jews control most of the media in the US, which means that Jewish elites get to decide who gets to work in mass media. (Notice how the Jewish oligarchic network in Deep State and Big Tech have worked together to shut down Alex Jones. Now, Jones is a kook who said crazy things, but the real reason why they took him out is not because of his nutty statements about Sandy Hook but honest and true statements about the New Imperialism in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. And it's rich that the very people who pushed the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Hoax and Fake News from the highest levels of government and media-academia-complex are accusing others of 'fake news' and conspiracy theories. It's surreal, like Israel-armed-with-nukes accusing Iran that has no nukes. In the current order, Israel that violates all international norms, bombs Syria, steals Palestinian territory, and has 300 nukes is showered with billions of dollars in aid while Iran that allows nuclear inspections and has no nukes is crippled with endless economic sanctions. Jewish Justice. Based on all evidence, who can deny that US is governed by Zionist gangster-supremacism? Rule of Law is now a myth in America. The 'truth' is whatever Jewish Power says it is. If you disagree and speak the truth, Jews say you're engaging in 'hate speech' and must be shut down and blacklisted.)

Now, why are both Daron Acemoglu and Guillaume Durocher wrong about Convergence? They are wrong for different reasons. Acemoglu, for reasons that are opportunistic/craven or sincere/naive, rejects the Human Bio-Diversity(or HBD) explanation for Global Differences. He thinks blacks are just whites or yellows with black skin, yellows are just whites or blacks with yellow skin, and whites are just blacks or yellows with white skin. Skin Color is the ONLY difference among the races. So, all those Africans are really just Swiss or Japanese with black skin. 100,000s of yrs of evolutionary divergence of various human populations all over the world had no impact on anything but skin color. Some will argue that the evolutionary divergence of Europeans and Africans is 60,000 or 80,000 yrs, but that fails to acknowledge that Out-of-Africa was really Out-of-North-Africa. Even before Homo Sapiens left North Africa, the peoples in North Africa had already diverged from people in rest of Africa by more than 100,000 yrs. So, the evolutionary divergence between Europeans and SUB-SAHARAN Africans is more than 100,000 yrs. Now, different environments -- for most of human existence, people lived in natural environments -- favor different mental, emotional, temperamental, and attitudinal traits. If there were two rooms, and if one room zapped anyone who fidgeted too much while another room zapped anyone who sat still for prolonged periods, the result would be two groups with different temperaments. In the room where people who fidget are zapped out of existence, people who tend to be calmer will survive and breed. In the room where people who sit still are zapped out of existence, people who tend to be mobile and fidgety will survive and breed. Different environments and climates call for different skills and tendencies, and over long periods, populations in different areas will tend to have more of one kind of traits than another. Also, to the extent that cultural factors also play a key role in selective breeding, the cultural priorities of a people will tend to favor certain traits. If there are two communities and if one community favors the strongest while the other community favors the smartest, they will undergo different selection processes, especially in non-monogamous societies. As men like to hump women, the strongest guys in the pro-strong society will breed with the most women and pass down their genes, and the smartest guys in the pro-smart society will breed with the most women and pass down their genes. This can have a big impact in even a few thousand yrs(or even over several centuries; after all, the dog has been domesticated from the wolf for only a few thousand yrs, and look at the variety due to selective breeding). Is it any wonder that Jews often say, "A Jew is more likely to own a football team than play in one"? Jews culturally and genetically evolved in communities where brains were most prized among scholars or merchants/financiers. Most black Africans, until recently, lived in primitive hunter-warrior societies where one's strength as hunter, rhythm as dancer, and prowess as humper(big dong and bouncy booties) were most prized. Then, it is any wonder that Jews are renowned around the world as scientists, writers, intellectuals, professors, lawyers, and financiers whereas blacks are famous around the world as boxers, football players, basketball players, rappers, bump-n-grinders, and 'twerkers'? Black women came up with a style of dancing where they shake their booties like they're having sex with a mega-dong. Notice all TV and music industry are owned by Jews. Notice how so many sports teams and most of mass media are controlled by Jews. Big Tech and Big Pharma are also Jewish-heavy, along with Wall Street and Law Firms. In contrast, blacks are prominent in endeavors that all for strong-song-and-dong. Now, some will argue that this is all about culture, BUT culture had selective pressure on evolution over centuries and millenniums. We can demonstrate this with the Blug-and-Bleek Experiment. Suppose there is a black community in the US, and suppose we randomly divide the community in half. Roughly, the two groups are more or less alike because they were of a single community. Now, suppose we favor the black thugs or blugs in New Group A. Those blacks who are most muscled, aggressive, abrasive, and loud are favored for mating. The blugs are lionized the most, and most women try to mate with blugs. Over time, blug genes will spread far and wide, and the community will be filled with tough and mean blacks like Mike Tyson and NFL defensive linemen. Now, suppose we favor the black geeks or bleeks in the other community, New Group B. We select the blacks who are most studious, intelligent, and even-tempered. They become the most prestigious members of society, and many black women mate with them. Then, bleek genes will spread far and wide. Over many centuries, the Blug community and Bleek community will be markedly different. The Blug community will have guys who can whup the guys of the Bleek community, but the Bleek community will have guys who are more likely to excel in business and enterprise. This is how genetics works. It's how evolution works. But PC says genes have NOTHING to do with IQ and other factors, at least in an inter-group way. So, while PC admits that some individuals are smarter than others, it says no group has a greater number of intelligent individuals than another group. But using this logic, we should also say no group has faster and tougher individuals than any other group. Then, how come tiny Jamaica produces faster runners than all of China, Russia, India, Europe, Middle East, White America, and Brown Latin America? PC is the superstition of our age, and it's not really about equality but about promoting the superiority of certain favored groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks. James Watson would not have gotten in trouble if he surmised that Syrians might be more intelligent than Peruvian Indians. He wouldn't have gotten in trouble if he surmised that blacks might be smarter than whites(and time will bear this out). He got in trouble because he said blacks are inferior in IQ. This was a No-No because blacks are sacred objects in the West.

After all, why is Mandela so revered by the Jewish-controlled Western Media but Arafat is not even though Arafat also struggled for liberation of his people? It's because blacks are holier than Arabs/Palestinians. Of course, the other reason is Jews are Holy too by PC rules. Because Mandela was seen as struggling against Germanic whites(even though Jews monopolized the diamond trade in South Africa and Israel & Apartheid South Africa were the closest allies) whereas Arafat struggled against Zionist imperialists, of course the Jewish-run media will favor Mandela over Arafat. Also, Jews can use 'white guilt' about blacks to paralyze white pride and agency, but 'white guilt' about Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians would undermine Zionist agenda in the Middle East. If white people began to feel guilt about all the horrible things they've done to Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, they might stop aiding the Zionist Supremacist agenda in Middle East and North Africa. So, whites are to feel guilty about South Africa but yawn about the countless Arabs and Muslims destroyed by Zionist-controlled US policy in the Middle East and North Africa? All those Iraqi kids killed by US sanctions? All those Palestinian kids mowed down by IDF death squads? All the Syrians destroyed by US-and-Saudi collusion to support terror? Just forget about it.

Anyway, if Acemoglu is wrong about Convergence because he's too cravenly or naively PC to even entertain the possibility that there might be genetic differences among groups other than skin color, Durocher is wrong about Convergence because he still thinks in terms of the Old National Model. For most of human history, invasions were gradual and limited. Both Russia and China expanded slowly. Also, they did as much to repel foreign invasions as move into new territories. Until the Age of Empire, most of the world wasn't interconnected. And even in the 20th century, most people stayed put in their own nations. Mass migration to the US was the great exception because of its vast size and riches. As such, it attracted peoples from all over looking for a short cut to modern prosperity(and/or freedom). Also, despite the global dominance of Hollywood, most nations had national media and national culture/identity. But in the internet age, the entire world has been flooded with the same streams of deracinating junk culture and trashy fashions. The great advantage of the internet is that once neglected voices finally reach an audience(however limited), but then, given that the biggest platforms are now monopolized by Zionist-supremacist oligarchs, there are all sorts of plans afoot to shut down BDS & pro-Palestinian voices, anti-war activists, European defenders of national sovereignty, and critics of Jewish Power & its globo-homo cult as the new spirituality. In Zionist-supremacist US, nearly half the states already have anti-BDS laws that force individuals and businesses into pledging support for the Zionist occupation of West Bank and murder of Palestinians in Gaza.


Jewish Power is trying to make this law federal in the way it pushed 'gay marriage'. So, even Palestinian-Americans with memories of Zionist terror must pledge support to Zionist tyranny against his/her own people if he/she wants to work for or do business with the government. It's ironic that Jews, who've long railed against McCarthyism(that only lasted a few yrs), are now pushing for persecution, censorship, and blacklisting beyond anything conceived by McCarthy and anti-communists. But then, the very Jewish Community that said the Soviet Threat was no big deal in the 1950s -- even though Jewish-American agents sent Stalin the secrets to the Bomb -- is now trying to cram totally unfounded Anti-Russia hysteria down our throats. That is some chutzpah.

Anyway, Convergence is likely to happen because of the spread of globalism to all corners of the world... with the exception of Israel, of course. The very Jews who demand that Hungary and Poland be open to mass migration-invasion say that all the world must support Israeli borders and the right of Israel to remain a Jewish State that prioritizes the survival and continuation of Jewish People, Culture, History, and Territory. Zionism in Israel is perfectly fine and is never demeaned as 'far right'. Netanyahu is just called 'right' or 'conservative'. But Viktor Orban is called 'far right', and why? Does he want to invade other nations? Does he want Hungarians to rule over non-Hungarians? No. The ONLY thing he wants is for Hungary to remain a nation for Hungarians, but THAT is deemed a crime against humanity. And even though he has the support of the majority of Hungarians, he is accused of being 'anti-democratic' because the will of Hungarians goes against the globo-homo agenda of oligarchs like George Soros. So, 'democracy', as far as Jews are concerned, is whatever they say it is. But such twisted logic is to be expected from a people who say nuclear-armed Israel must be defended from Iran with no nukes. It is to be expected from a people who say Israel that has 300 nukes and refuses international inspections deserves to be showered with billions in aid whereas Iran that has no nukes and allows international inspections must be economically sanctioned and strangled(or even invaded and destroyed by yet another War for Israel).

In a sane world, all national leaders should be like Viktor Orban who is nationalist and anti-imperialist. Orban sees himself as a Hungarian leader for Hungarian people. So, Hungarian identity and interests come first IN HUNGARY. That's why it's Hungary. It's the land of Hungarians. Now, Orban respects the right and duty of every other nation to put its people and culture first. He's not one to tell the Japanese that Japan must put Hungary before the Japan or tell the Turks that Turkey should put Hungary before Turkey. He's for the national autonomy and independence of all nations. As independent nations with sovereignty, they can live in mutual respect and peace with other nations, trade, and learn from one another. Orban's position isn't Hungarian-supremacism. He would never argue that Hungarians have the right to invade or barge into other nations or tell other nations how to run their affairs. All he wants is for Hungary to have the right to remain a nation of Hungarians. But according to Jewish Globalists, that makes him a 'far right' and 'neo-Nazi'.
Now, anyone who remembers history should know that Nazi Germany didn't bring about the catastrophe of World War II by minding its own national business. It unleashed a massive war by invading other nations with German Imperialism. Also, all resistance to German imperialism was national. Polish nationalists resisted German invasion. French nationalists resisted German Occupation. Russians didn't so much fight for communism as defense of motherland. So, which side is really nazi-like in the world today? Viktor Orban's Hungary that wants to maintain national sovereignty and not be flooded with mass-migration-invasion? Or Jewish Globalists who inflamed the Middle East and North Africa with Wars for Israel, the premise of which insists that any number of Arabs and/or Muslims may be killed or forced into refugee-hood so that Israel's role as lone superpower of MENA(Middle East and North Africa)is assured? Who are more Nazi-like? It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power that has turned Gaza into something like a New Warsaw Ghetto. It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power with spokesmen like Thomas Friedman who says he wishes the ISIS would remain to mess up Syria even more. It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power that turned Libya into a pile of rubble. Of course, it used goy puppets Obama and Hillary. Jewish Power is now so deranged that it even made common cause with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to pull off a coup against a democratically elected government. Jewish Power acts like this but preaches to the world about 'liberal democratic' values.

Unfortunately, most leaders in the West are not like Viktor Orban. They are more like pathetic puppets like Justin Trudeau, Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel. These worthless puppets totally support the right of Israel to remain a Jewish state even as they renounce sovereignty for their own nations. They also look the other way about Zionist occupation of West Bank and mass-murder in Gaza. Granted, Orban supports Israel too, but it is on a give-and-take basis of "Hungary supports Israel's right to be a Jewish state in exchange for Israel's support of Hungary's right to be a Hungarian state." If anything, Hungary has the moral edge over Israel because, whereas Hungary is only about Hungarians in Hungary, the currently cancerous Zionism isn't only about Jews in Israel but Jews taking over West Bank and fomenting more Wars for Israel all over the Middle East.
Viktor Orban is not an isolationist, let alone a 'xenophobe'. It's just that his internationalism is founded on mutual nationalisms around the world. In other words, before anything else, the national elites should prioritize the survival, security, and well-being of their own people. Once those conditions are secured, they can work with other nations around the world. Jewish elites certainly feel this way in Israel. They put Jewish interests first and foremost. Then, why is it okay when Jews do it but wrong with Hungarians do it? Because the West is controlled by Jewish supremacists who say ONLY JEWS should have national rights while all goyim must be exposed to globalist hegemony. Jews hate the idea of a sacred bond between goy national elites and goy national folks. They want goy elites to pay heed to Jewish globalist masters and snub their own folks. This is why Jews push the globo-homo agenda. As homomania is now replacement of Christianity as a neo-spiritual cult(especially designed to appeal to fancy and haute elite members of society into vanity and narcissism, sensibilities that homos are obsessed with), goy elites who wave the 'gay' flag are more likely to be vapid clowns with heads up in the clouds than serious and mature national leaders with a deep connection to their own folk, culture, and history.

Jewish globalists fear that if national elites connect with their own folks and culture, each goy nation will be a more difficult nut for Jewish Power to crack. Jews want national elites to pledge their main loyalty to Jewish globalist hegemonists than to their own folks. This is an old imperialist trick and nothing new. After all, the British Imperialists insisted upon the local native elites to pledged their main loyalty to the British overlords than to their own native masses. As long as the local elites obeyed the British Imperialists and supported British hegemony, they were handsomely rewarded. But if they tried to reconnect with their own folk and resist British Imperialism, they were ruthlessly crushed. The Ottoman Empire worked the same way. So, if the local Greek elites did the bidding of the Turkish overlords, they were nicely rewarded with carrots. But if they tried to reconnect with their own folks, revive Greek national consciousness, and resist Turkish imperialism, they were mercilessly crushed. As so much of the world has succumbed to the US-as-sole-superpower(and because the US is controlled by Jews), the national elites around the world are pressured to prioritize obeisance to globalist hegemony(dominated by Jews) than loyalty to the national folk. ONLY ISRAEL is to be praised for having a national elite that prioritizes the sacred bond between the national elites and national folks. Nationalism has become a Jewish monopoly in the 21st century. Only Jews are praised for the national unity between elites and masses. As for goy nations, the elites better feel closer to globo-homo hegemony than to their own national folks. So, Netanyahu or any Jewish leader can say, "I'm proud to be Jewish, I love my Jewish people, my main duty is to serve my Jewish people, and our Jewish nation must live forever", and he is to be praised and admired. But if the leader of Hungary or Poland says much the same about his nation, culture, and history, the World Jewry will foam at the mouth and denounce him as 'far-right' and 'neo-nazi'.
Indeed, this is the main bone of contention between Jews and Trumpian nationalists. Most Jews claim to be 'progressives', but they are first and foremost Jewish supremacist globalist-imperialists. A true progressive should support nationalism as the best defense against imperialism. This is why real progressives in the past supported the Cubans, Algerians, and Vietnamese against European and American imperialists. They understood the need for national folks to define and determine their own identity and destiny. So, when Trump says he wants to pull US troops out of the Middle East so that the native folks can decide for themselves, true progressives should be supportive. But notice that all these so-called Jewish 'progressives' howl like mad dogs and insist that the US must remain(illegally) in Syria and other parts of the world. They mouth platitudes about 'war on terror', 'spreading democracy', 'human rights', and etc, but it's all bull. If Jews are really for human rights, why don't they make the US invade West Bank, remove Jewish invader-settlers, and restore the territory to Palestinians? The fact is Jews are addicted to supremacism, and they now support US imperialism because it really amounts to US-rael hegemony. Because Jews control the US and can steer US foreign policy to serve the agenda of Greater Israel, they are now the biggest fans of imperialism. Jewish 'progressivism' has become a mask for Jewish Imperialism, just like the British notion of the White Man's Burden was used as moral cover for British hegemony. You see, the British weren't conquering and dominating 1/3 of the world but only trying to spread the light of civilization. Likewise, if the Jewish-controlled US turns your nation into hellholes like current Iraq, Libya, or Syria, just tell yourself it's all about spreading 'liberal democracy' or 'human rights' or some other BS one hears from MSM. And if you ask why such noble-minded Jews support the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians or partner with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, just shut up and forget about it, as Rex Kwon Do would say.


Many people remain blind to the reality of Jewish supremacist imperialism because the essence of Jewish power is in the networking than national ownership. In terms of nationhood, Jews have only Israel to claim as a Jewish State, and on its own Israel doesn't amount to much as a world power. When the British ruled the world, there was obviously a British people of the British nation that gained dominance over other peoples in other continents. Same was true of the French Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, Japanese Empire, and etc. Japanese Empire was about the people of Japan gaining dominance over non-Japanese peoples and lands. In contrast, it's not so easy to discern the true depth and extent of Jewish Power. Apart from Israel, there is no nation in which Jews are majority or even larger than 10% of the population. Jews are only 2% of the US, the nation in which they have the most power. And for that reason, Jewish Imperialism uses goy fronts to serve as the Face of Power. Goyim like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump give the impression that US policy is 'goy' and 'Christian' when, in fact, most politicians are puppets of Jewish Money and Media. AIPAC and ADL use their muscle to force all politicians to support Jewish Supremacism as the cornerstone of US foreign policy. So, the US favors Zionist oppressors over oppressed Palestinians. So, the US showers nuclear-armed Israel with billions while strangling no-nuke Iran with endless sanctions. So, even as US invokes 'saving Kurds' as excuse to illegally occupy Syria, it turns a blind eye to the Jewish land-grab of Palestinian territory in West Bank. And even as the US media complex condemns Hungary for its border security to keep out migrant-invaders, it says little about IDF death squads mowing down Palestinians in Gaza who want to return to their ancestral homeland. US power is essentially Jewish imperialism, but many people fail to see this because the puppet leaders have been goys like Clinton, Bush, Obama, and even Trump. We are told that the US is a land of justice, human rights, and equal opportunity, but if so, why does it favor Zionist imperialists over oppressed Palestinians? Why does US foreign policy have one rule for Israel but another for Iran? Why did the US aid and abet Jewish oligarchs' looting of Russia in the 90s but condemn Russia's restoration of national sovereignty to prevent further foreign predatory behavior? Why are Israel and Jews around the world allowed to meddle so thoroughly in US politics and affairs, BUT there is all this crazy hysteria about Russia interference in US elections? It's all Jewish supremacism and imperialism, but because Jews are a tiny minority in the US, people remain blind to the extent of Jewish power. And of course, the fact that Jews control academia and media also means that they get to shape the Narrative and present the Worldview. So, even though US encircles Russia, we are told Russia is the aggressor. Even though Wars for Israel have done so much harm to Muslim nations, it is poor poor helpless Israel that needs to be protected. Even though Jews disproportionately hog power and privilege, we should all be alarmed by 'white supremacism'. Right, it's the KKK teeming with toothless rednecks that controls Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Pentagon, Ivy League, Law firms, and the Deep State. That's why we have Wars for Hillbillies all over the world. That's why we have renewed tensions with Russia. The hillbillies of the KKK have 'white supremacist white privilege' and force us to have another 'cold war'. Jewish imperialism is especially dangerous because Jews camouflage themselves as powerless despite being the most powerful people in the world. At the very least, British and French imperialisms were honest. Brits took pride in ruling 1/3 of the world. French Empire meant French glory. In contrast, Jewish supremacists hide behind goy fronts to push their hegemonic agenda to destroy Iran, further the war in Syria, push 'new cold war' with Russia, fan Yellow Peril against China, and stoke anti-Muslim hatred. If anyone wants to know why so many Americans came to see Muslims as subhuman scum who should be killed by the bushel, he should begin by asking, "Who controls Hollywood?" Jews do, and for over two decades, the main villains were the Muslim Terrorists, the 'ragheads' or 'muzzies'. So many impressionable White Christian kids grew up watching movies that said nothing is more glorious than to blow up a bunch of Muslims. The Jewish Way is to stoke White Christian hatred against Muslims and use Americans soldiers to destroy Muslim nations AND THEN to bring Muslim refugees to the West and hug them as poor victims of white 'Islamophobic racists'. Notice how Jewish moral logic twists and turns depending on the context. When Muslims are OVER THERE, they deserve to be blown up with US bombs and mowed down by white Christian soldiers. But when the Muslims come OVER HERE, they are coddled and hugged as part of the Diversity Coalition that must stand against White Christian America. Moral logic can't get any more surreal than that.

Anyway, with globalism wreaking so much havoc -- militarily, economically, and/or culturally -- all over the world, uprooting entire communities, and steering Third World masses into the West, the result is Convergence by Migration and also by Miscegenation, not least because white males are being feminized and castrated by PC and globo-homo propaganda. Especially because national elites of goy nations are now such spineless puppets who prioritize serving Jewish globalists instead of defending and representing their own national folks, they push policies designed to replace the native or national folks with newcomers, much like how Zionists came to replace the Palestinians. Jews are said to be white but don't identify primarily as white, European, or American but as Jewish(and supremacist). So, the number one priority of Jews is not European power, American power, or Western Power. It is Jewish supremacist hegemony. As far as Jews are concerned, it is the fulfillment of the Covenant. Even though most Jews today are secular, they feel great ethnic and historical pride as the people with the longest continual history, resilience, and tenacity. And especially because they are, pound for pound, the richest and most powerful people in the world, Jews feel that it's a matter of cosmic justice and design that they must secure permanent supremacist hold over the world. Jews are now so addicted to supremacism that merely being a normal people getting along with other peoples is not enough. Jews must rule over other peoples and make them do what Jews demand. Jews see gentiles as horses to break, tame, ride, and make obey. Jews think in terms of "We must secure the supremacy of our people and the hegemony of Jewish children."

So, how are Jews to secure their supremacism and hegemony, to which they've become addicted? First, of course, Jews had to succeed in business and other elite fields. Thus, they gained domination of key elite institutions and industries in academia, media, finance, law, entertainment, gambling(and other profitable vice industries), real estate, and etc. In controlling the academia, media, and entertainment, Jews have been able to mold the minds of goyim, from elite to masses. So, even though the Jewish Agenda is terrible for goyim, so many goyim just go along because their views of history, morality, and justice have been largely molded by Judeocentric interests. Granted, some goy elites do know what's really going on, but they fear speaking out because the combination of Jewish power and goy-collaborationist machinations will destroy them. Other goy elites go along with the charade because they are rewarded handsomely if they do. Take weasels like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and so many others. By serving as barking dogs of Jewish globalists and Israel, they've gained so much wealth and/or privilege.
Be that as it may, Jews know that carrots-and-sticks only go so far. Carrots are expensive, and loyalty lasts only as carrots can be offered. As for sticks, they are effective but only as long as goyim can be beaten down. But a people who'd been subjugated by the stick will eventually look for vengeance when the time is ripe. Money and Fear are not enough to maintain Jewish Power. So, Jews pushed the Holocaust as a new religion. It is supposed to make Jews seem holy as new messiahs who suffered the 'greatest crime in human history' and to instill guilt in ALL GOYIM as either having killed Jews or not having done enough to save them. Holocaust-as-new-religion has done wonders for Jews as it allows Jewish Power to destroy anyone not only with money or violence but morality. So, if anyone says anything critical of Jewish power or Israel, he can be denounced as an 'anti-Semite' and 'neo-Nazi', and 'It's holocaust all over again', even though it's been the machinations of Jewish Power that led to WWII-levels of destruction in the Middle East and North Africa, all for the benefit of Israel. And never mind that current Gaza is like the Jewish ghetto under Nazi terror. And never mind that no people are as filled with supremacist arrogance and tribal hubris as the Jews are. Indeed, it's insane how we are all supposed to bitch and whine about 'white privilege', 'Russian aggression', or 'Iranian threat', but no one dares to mention the 800 lb gorilla in the room, i.e. that if any people in the world own disproportionate wealth, wield disproportionate power, and create disproportionate havoc(especially in the Middle East and Muslim nations), it's the Jews. The Middle East is in the current state of chaos mainly because of Wars(and sanctions) for Israel, which in turn are the result of Jewish supremacist control over the US. With Jews having so much power, how come no one says anything about it? Again, there is the power of money, threats/violence, and morality-as-hammer. Jews buy off lots of goy politicians. With Jewish money comprising 60% of funds to Democrats and 25% of funds to GOP, most politicians are essentially whores of Zion. But Jews also control the media that can make or break anyone. So, if there's someone Jews don't like, the media go into lynch mob frenzy to tear that person down as fast as possible. Just ask Marc Lamont Hill. And because Jews have elevated themselves as the neo-messiahs-of-the-Holocaust, it is so easy to smear any critic of Jewish power or Zionism. Why, he must be an 'anti-Semite', which must mean he's a 'nazi'. Or, Jews will even resort to outright violence by unleashing antifa and other crazed mobs. If you belong to antifa or some 'far left' gang, you can attack people and cause mayhem but be tolerated, forgiven, or sprung from jail with Jewish money and lawyers. Indeed, Jewish power operates much like a gangster operation. Was anyone arrested for the attack on Tucker Carlson's home? If a 'right-wing' gang did that Rachel Maddow's residence, we know there would be a major investigation and non-stop coverage. But when antifa gangs attacked Carlson's home, the response of Jewish supremacist mass media was ho-hum or even supportive. But then, Jews treat the Palestinians the same way. If an Arab in West Bank thinks he can get equal justice from IDF or Zionist court of law, forget about it. It's like Israel not only gets away with everything but is showered with praises and money, whereas Iran is vilified and punished even when it does everything right with the nuclear issue. It's the kind of 'justice' one must expect in a world governed by Jewish Supremacism.

So, is Jewish Supremacism secure for all time due to their control of Carrots, Sticks, and Sacraments? Money, Threats, and messiah-hood(via Holocaust as neo-religion)? Jews don't think so. Now, Jews have a lot of money, and they don't have to worry about buying off goy whores. But, wielding the Stick is risky. Even as it may intimidate people into silence and compliance, anyone who's suffered the Jewish Stick will hate Jews even more and want vengeance. Indeed, look at the attitude of Muslims in Europe. They've been beaten and humiliated by the Zionist stick in their home nations, and they are now raging with vengeful hatred against Jews. And even white people in Europe and America are getting sick of being insulted and destroyed by Jewish Power. They are beginning to feel, "Why should I support Israel and praise Jews when so many Jews are insulting us whites 24/7 and blaming us for everything?" Also, the internet has made it more difficult for Jews to totally own the Narrative. Voices on both the Left and Right are asserting themselves in strong criticism of Zionism and Jewish Corruption. Alternative Media have highlighted the injustice of anti-BDS laws and the hypocrisy of Jews who, though claiming to be 'progressives' on the side of underdogs, use their influence in both Political Parties to push through legislation that curtails free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of economic choice. They are waking up to the fact that Jews are trying to force ALL OF US into supporting the ongoing Zionist imperialist land-grab and tyrannical apartheid policies in the West Bank(and IDF death squad mass murder in Gaza). Indeed, consider how the Jewish Media Monopoly in 2018 suppressed the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that destroyed Palestine once and for all in 1948. Jewish control of media ensured that most people in the West wouldn't even realize that they were complicit in aiding and abetting the destruction of the Palestinian people and culture. As far as Jews are concerned, 'white guilt' or 'Western guilt' must be manipulated and programmed to mainly serve Jews. This is why Justin Trudeau, the crybaby who apologizes and weeps about everything, never expressed remorse for Canada's role in Zionist tyranny over Palestinians and various Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East. Naturally, Jews still need Western animus against Arabs and Muslims IF they are to use the US and NATO to pound on any Middle East nation hated by Jews. Sadly, so much of globalist news is non-stop Jewish Hate Campaigns against Syria, Iran, Palestinians, Russia, Hungary, Poland, or whatever people or nation that happens to be on the Jewish globalist shit-list. Incredibly, Jews, the people who bitch most about 'hate speech', demand that all of us hate whatever they hate. Most of us have no reason to hate Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, and European nationalists(who only ask for border security and national sovereignty), but we must hate them because Jews hate them. This suggests that Jews see us as dogs than as humans. We are not to have agency in deciding who is friend or foe? We are not to decide for ourselves whom to love, whom to hate. No, Jews will decide for us, and our emotions are supposed to rubber-stamp the Jewish decision. Jews say they themselves are so lovable, so we better love them no matter what they do. If we don't obey, we are 'anti-Semites' or 'nazis'. And we better hate whomever Jews hate. Currently, Jews hate Russia, so we are supposed to hate Russia. Jews hate Iran, so we have to pile on Iran. Jews hate Syria that survived the regime change agenda of the Jewish-controlled Obama administration, and that means we better hate Syria too. And of course, Jews hate Palestinians, so we have to hate them too. Never mind Iran has no nukes. More sanctions on Iran. Never mind BDS is about justice for Palestinians. Shut it down and support Zionist takeover of West Bank. Love Jews and hate Palestinians. It's hard to think of another people so consumed with hatred and paranoia.

Anyway, because people are beginning to wake up to the true nature of Jewish Power, Jews now believe that even Holocaust-as-new-religion is no guarantee for permanent Jewish supremacy. As more and more people realize the discrepancy between the image of Holy Jews as wholly innocent victims of Evil Nazis AND globalist-supremacist Zionist-Jews who use their financial-media-military muscle to wreak so much havoc around the world, the trick of guilt-baiting goyim with Holocaust Sanctimony is wearing thin. Indeed, every time Jews invoke the Holocaust, a lot of people are more apt to be reminded of the distance between what Jews say and what Jews do. So, there's Madeline Albright writing a book about the dangers of fascism while ignoring the fact that she said killing 500,000 Iraqi kids was 'worth it'. There is Thomas Friedman bitching about Assad the tyrant while supporting the truly psychotic ISIS. There are Jews who call Putin the 'new hitler' but allying with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. There are Jews telling ludicrous lies about Russian meddling in US elections when, in fact, the nation that meddles most in US politics is Israel, a tyrannical state that terrorizes Palestinians and works with evil Saudis to mess up Syria.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis




Anyway, because more and more people are waking up to the true nature and extent of Jewish Power -- that it is supremacist, imperialist, mendacious, murderous, hateful, and insane -- , Jews feel that the ONLY way to secure their supremacy is by Diversity that allows for divide-and-conquer and Mass Miscegenation. A united people can eventually come together and overthrow minority-elite-tyrants. This happened in India, Algeria, Vietnam, and many other Third World nations. Indians finally came together to throw out the British minority elites. Vietnamese eventually regained their country from French and American imperialists. The British eventually left Singapore as well. This is why it's important for Jewish supremacist power to increase Diversity among goyim and then pit goyim against one another. This is NOTHING NEW as imperial strategy. It's as old as power itself. And this is why Jews are pushing for mass-migration-invasion of non-whites into the West. If Jews really believe that replacement of national folks with foreign folks as 'New Nationals' is such a hot idea, why don't they push it for Israel as well? Jews have become the majority national folk population of Israel, and it seems Jews want to keep it that way. That's why the ONLY kind of immigration that Israel allows is Replenishment-Immigration, or More Jews for a Jewish Nation. More Jewish immigrants mean more Jews in Israel. Thus, the Jewish state is replenished with more Jews. Israel also has pro-natal policy for Jews. So, Jews like the idea of Israel as a Jewish majority state. Jews appreciate the fact that there is unity of Jewish elites and Jewish folks in Israel. They are one people, united and indivisible. But notice Jews push Replacement Immigration in the West. Jews say white nations should accept more non-whites and call them New Europeans. Jews say whites should welcome being replaced by non-whites. Why would Jewish globalists support only Replenishment Immigration in Israel but push Replacement Immigration for nations like France, UK, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and etc? Why are Jews so eager to turn US, Canada, and Australia into white-minority nations? It's all about securing Jewish supremacist power. By bringing non-whites to the West and then using PC to make non-whites hate and blame whites for everything, Jews are trying to create a permanent culture of dissension and discord among the goyim. Because whites are still the majority in the West, they are the main targets of the Jewish-controlled media, but the real trick is to turn everyone against one another. So, even as Jews urge Muslims in the West to join in the intersectional war against whites, Jews also use media and entertainment to spread anti-Muslim images and messages so that white people will support more Wars for Israel and anti-BDS measures. One bunch of Jews urge browns from Latin America to flood into America, and another bunch of Jews tell whites to focus mainly on the dangers of Illegal Immigration when, in fact, the main power behind the mass deluge of the West by the non-West is Jewish globalism.

Anyway, it is this mass-influx of non-whites into white nations that will lead to Convergence. While browns on their own in Latin America and blacks on their own in Africa may never reach levels of Convergence with the West, they will converge with the West by demographic takeover. Also, eventually, demographic takeover leads to race-mixing, and that too is a weapon of Jewish supremacism. Jews know that a racially mixed populace will be more confused and disoriented, thus unable to form a united front against the elite class. We can see this by comparing South Africa and Vietnam with Latin America. In South African and Vietnam, most of the native populations were unmixed. So, in South Africa, it was essentially black majority vs white minority, and in Vietnam, it was yellow majority vs white minority. This allowed blacks in SA and yellows in Vietnam to form huge national blocs to work against elite minority power. In contrast, the extensive Hispanic rape of the brown natives in Latin America led to the vast population of mestizos. Mestizos, being part white and part brown, have never been sure what they are or with which side to ally with. On the one hand, they felt resentment about the white elites who ruled Latin America. But, being part-white, they didn't identify with native browns either and, if anything, looked down on them as inferior. And so, even to this say, Latin American nations are still ruled by the white Latino elites of Conquistador background. Now, Jews have read a lot of books and know history. They've thought long and hard about Power and how to keep it or lose it. And being in supremacist mode in the West, Jews aim to secure permanent domination over goyim by pushing for massive Diversity and massive race-mixing. Jews look to Latin America as the model for all the West. Given the backwardness and problems of Latin America, one might say such prospect would be bad for US, Canada, and Europe. And most Jews would privately agree. But, Jews don't really care because their MAIN PRIORITY AND OBJECTIVE are securing supremacism for themselves, not doing what is good for the West as a whole. All said and done, Jewish power is virulently Judeo-centric. It's like many globalist corporations know that 'free trade' has had such a negative impact on so many people in their nations. So, why do they keep pushing it? Because their main priority is corporate profit above all. So, all said and done, they don't care about the wider repercussions of 'free trade'. What matters most to them is maximizing profits, increasing market-share, and fattening the portfolios of top shareholders. This is why capitalism, useful as it is, cannot be the defining core of any nation. And it suggests at why Jews make poor elites in the West. Because Jews feel so little connection with the goyim of any nation, they never ask, "What would be best for the national folks?" Jews ask that question ONLY IN ISRAEL, a Jewish state. In goy-majority nations, Jews see goyim as the Other and don't much care what happens to them. Jews really only care about themselves and their power, and from that premise, they think, "What can we do with goyim so that they can be made to support and serve Jewish supremacism?" Of course, Jews will say they're for Open Borders because they care for all of humanity and want them to enjoy the fruits of the modern West. But if Jews really care so much about non-whites and identify with them, why don't most Jews emigrate to non-white nations and use their talents to develop the economies of Africa, Latin America, and the like? Why did Jewish Immigration patterns always favor white, especially Anglo-Germanic, nations over non-white ones? It's because Jews know that whites make and maintain the best kind of societies. So, they want IN into the white world. If Jews have it so good in white nations, why don't they just get along with whites? It's because, being smarter, more ambitious, and more arrogant, it's never enough for Jews to get along with whites as equals. They must rise to the top and gain control over whites. This makes Jews nervous because they fear that whites may eventually grow sick and tired of Jewish power that grows increasingly abusive, corrupt, and tyrannical. So, what can be done about goyim when they turn against Jewish Power? In Palestine, Jews used massive pogroms to expel the majority of the Arab goy population that finally woke up to the Zionist agenda and resisted. But obviously Jews can't do that to whites in Europe and America. There are too few Jews and too many whites. So, to preempt the possibility of White Rage against Jewish supremacist corruption and abuses, Jews push for massive migration-invasion, the aim of which is to replace whites in Western nations. Once whites become minorities in the nations of their own making, Jews manipulate the various goyim to go at each other's throats. Just consider how Jewish Power exploited ethnic and sectarian diversity in Syria to make the various sides fight one another. Diversity easily succumbs to devious machinations. Jews use Diversity to further their own supremacism, not out of any real compassion for people of color. Consider Jewish Power Politics in the UK. For a long time, Jews in UK pushed for mass-immigration and used non-whites against whites. But when Jeremy Corbyn sided with Muslims and Palestinians against Zionist Power, Jews of all stripes shrieked with rage. But wasn't Corbyn merely siding with the underdog against the topdog? After all, Zionists oppress Palestinians in the West Bank. And in the UK, Jews are immensely rich and control media and banks, whereas most of the Muslim population ranges from poor to lower-middle class. So, didn't Corbyn do the right thing by sticking up for Palestinians against Zionists and for siding with Muslim underclass against the Jewish-globalist ultra-capitalist overclass? Apparently not. Jews shrieked in horror and hurled abuse at Corbyn as an 'anti-Semite'. So, as far as Jews are concerned, it's okay for Jews to side with People of Color against whites, but it's wrong for whites(even a lefty one like Corbyn) to side with People of Color against Jewish supremacists.

Now, how will this race-mixing happen? Will it be even-mixing or uneven-mixing? By even-mixing, I mean equal number of men of one race mixing with equal number of women of the other race. So, if there are 100 Green People and 100 Red people and if 50 Green men hump 50 Red women and if 50 Red men hump 50 Green women, that would be even-mixing. Uneven-mixing would be if 50 Green men humped 50 Red women but if only 10 Red men humped 10 Green women. It appears there will be Convergence by Interracialism, but it will be uneven-mixing among the various races. Why is this? Part of the reason is that the great majority of Migrant-invaders coming to Europe from Africa and Middle East are men. Naturally, these African and Muslim men will seek out white women to hump. Also, as Western PC has spread homo-and-trans-gender cult among white men who are warned of 'toxic masculinity'(that is never invoked to denounce stuff like Rap where black guys yammer endlessly about how they can kick butt and every 'ho' should 'suck my dic*', female Pop Idols who act like they got nothing on their minds but sex 24/7, and Jewish-operated Porn Industry), so many white guys have been turned into wussy castrated 'soyboys'. Due to emasculation of white men, naturally more white women in Europe will go with more masculine men from Africa and the Middle East. But there is another reason why there will be uneven-mixing between whites and blacks, with mostly black men humping white women. Despite all the PC tripe about 'race being a social construct' and 'all races being equal', the very message sent by Mass Media and Entertainment is that black men are superior in manhood to white men. People get message from what is shown as by what is said. So, if people are shown a big cake and a small cake and told that both cakes are of the same size, they will HEAR that the cakes are the same size but SEE that they are of different sizes. It's the Ear-Eye Dissonance. PC sermons TELL us that All Races Are Equal, but Sports and Pop Culture SHOW us that races are different. Sports show us that blacks are better than other races in running, jumping, and punching. Pop Music shows us that blacks can sing louder and shake their bodies faster. And one of the running tropes of Western Culture from youth culture to erotica is that black men have bigger dongs and black women are butt-crazy. And even though the media and entertainment are controlled by globo-liberals who TELL us of racial equality, all they actually SHOW us in sports and entertainment is that black men are more macho than white men and that black women are more lascivious than women of other races. We hear one thing through our ears but see something else. So, the dominant image of manhood and male prowess in BBC and Hollywood favors black men over white men. And of course, sports show that races are not equal in athleticism. Even European heroes like Achilles and Lancelot are now presented as blacks in European TV on the premise that black men are the real men while while white men, at least when stacked against black men, are a bunch of sorry losers and wussies. Look at our sports and pop culture, and the message is clear based on what is SHOWN. Black men are the real men, and white men should accept their defeat as a bunch of dorks. So, what is the effect of this message on the white race in Europe? It means white women should abandon white boy losers and go with black men, the real men. And since white guys are a bunch of saps compared to black men, they should gracefully accept their inferiority and worship the superior black men. This trope has become so widespread that a Daily Beast article says that sexual 'cuckolding' is now the number one fetish of white liberal intellectual men.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cuckolding-the-sex-fetish-for-intellectuals

On the one hand, white liberal men are supposed to believe that 'race is just a social construct' and 'all races are equal', but then, why do they feel a need to have black men hump their white wives or girlfriends? And why do white women want to take part in this? It's because they are turned on by the taboo of racial differences. PC indoctrinated them to believe that RACE isn't real and that all races are equal. And they will say that over and over in polite discourse. But in terms of what they SEE as opposed to HEAR & SAY, they can't help but notice that there are racial differences, and that black men are tougher and have bigger dongs than white men. And this taboo element(that disproves PC dogma) turns them on.
And, this is why Convergence in Europe will mostly be black guys conquering white wombs to produce mulatto babies and white guys accepting their own racial-sexual defeat as happy 'cucks'. Indeed, Hollywood and Western Media(and advertising) promote the black male and white female pairing as the New Ideal. But why black male and white female than white male and black female? It's because of the general consensus, by images if not by words, that black men are superior to white men and therefore deserve white women as the ultimate sexual trophy. So, all this interracial stuff is about uneven-mixing than even-mixing. It's about the black male dominance over white males, and black men taking many more white women than white men taking black women. And statistics prove this in Europe, America, and Latin America. In the past, it was usually white men who humped black women because white man had the whip and gun. But all things being equal, black guys can easily beat up white guys, and this means that white women want to 'go black' because women, especially in our over-sexualized age, like macho winners over 'nice guy' losers. And so, that is how the Convergence will happen in the West. Because most European elites no longer represent and connect with their own national folk and instead serve the Jewish globalists, they will condemn nationalism and push for replacement-immigration, mostly from Black Africa where birthrate is 5 or 6 children per woman. Black African population is exploding, and these blacks now have smartphones and TV. And they see from the Western Media that white men are wussy cucks and white women are slutty skanks,and that both white boys and girls worship black rappers, black athletes, black leaders, black orators, black everything. Furthermore, European leaders like Merkel, Macron, and May say there is no such thing as 'distinctly European'. They say Europe must be remade and reinvented by mass immigration and migration of literally hundreds of millions of Arabs and mostly black Africans. Also, because blacks dominate Pop music and sports, white boys and girls in the West worship blackness as 'cool' and 'badass', the stuff of demigod awesomeness. By Macron's choice of photo-ops with half-naked blacks, his image-message or imessage to Frenchmen seems to be that Frenchmen must be good cuckoisie and welcome the Africanization of France because blacks are so awesome in sports and singing, and because French women, once going black, will never go back. And that is also the 'imessage' of BBC where, so often, black men are placed in roles symbolizing manhood and toughness while white men are relegated to roles of saps, wussies, and dorks.

Another reason why Convergence will happen is due to feminism, elitism, and individualism in the West. Feminism means lots of white women will take good jobs from men. This means fewer white men will have the means to get married and have kids. Elitism has made too many white people value only good jobs and look down on Labor. This is a bigger problem in East Asia but a problem in Germany and such nations as well. Elitism means too many white people will get married and have kids ONLY IF they can be sure to raise 'successful' kids. They don't want to have 'loser' kids with working class jobs, and that means lower birthrate. And that means the West has to import labor from other places. Germany, with the lowest birthrate in Europe, has to rely on non-Germans, so far mostly from Eastern Europe. This means that Slavs and other Europeans will converge with Germans. But as all of Europe has low birthrates, Germany will have to take in non-white immigrants from further away. Already, Germany has lots of Turks but also close to a million black Africans, and many more will be coming. Also, Germans think that promoting race-mixing with blacks and turning Germany into another Morocco will absolve them of guilt of Nazism. Another reason for cratering birthrates is individualism. As most Western people prioritize short-term happiness above all else, they live for fun, fun, fun and don't think of the future and duty to the past. So, by the time white women reach mid 30s, they are often without marriage and children because they spent most of their youth whoring around. Also, elitism undermines marriage and childbearing. As so many people grew up with glamorous images of Pop Culture, every woman wants to meet Mr. Perfect who are actually few and far between. And this means European populations will crater, and the aging white population will figure that SOME OTHER PEOPLE should inherit the West. Since white people are not producing enough kids to inherit the West, it is to be handed to Africans and Muslims who will gladly take it since people like to get stuff for free. And the dwindling number of whites will mate and genetically converge with Africans and Arabs, with most of it being black men taking white women while white men are reduced to wussy beta-male-ism. Europe will resemble North Africa or even sub-Saharan African in 70 to 100 yrs.

Now, we know Convergence is happening between the US and Latin America. As Jews control the US, they use all sorts of legal, financial, media, and political means to prevent restoration of border security and drastic decrease in Replacement Immigration. So, already, the entire SW territories are being Mexicanized. It's 'reconquista' by demography. Even something so basic as border walls to keep out illegals is near-impossible in the US because Jews and their goy puppets have most of the control. Jews regard white Americans like they regard Palestinians: A people to be conquered, humiliated, and replaced. And of course, non-white immigrants side with Jews because they prefer to come and settle in white or white-made nations than in their own nations that are poorer, more corrupt, and dirtier. Because so many non-whites have been unable to transform their own nations up to Western levels, their ONLY chance of enjoying Western-style modernity is by running from their own people, land, & culture and starting over in white or white-made nations. They feel that they must go to and be with whites to enjoy Western standards of living. Deep down inside, they prefer whiteness over their own kind, which is why they want to drop everything and leave their own people/culture behind and start all over in the West and raise their kids to be 'Americans' or 'New Europeans'. They may bitch about how 'racist' whites won't welcome or accept them in sufficient numbers, but the fact is they themselves prefer to live with whites in white nations than stick around with their own peoples and cultures. In their preference for whiteness over their own kind, they are closet-white-supremacists in some twisted way. We know black African men prefer to leave Africa and go live in Europe and have sex with white women. And Asian women prefer to leave Asia and go live in the West and have kids with white men. Yellow people are obsessed with whiteness and want to move to white nations, marry whites, look white, and have white-looking kids. The high rates of out-marriage among yellow women in the West points to Convergence. The white-yellow mixing, like black-white mixing, is of the uneven-mixing kind. It is generally about white men taking yellow women as the general impression is that white men are more manly than yellow men. There used to be something like a Japanese-American community in the US, but it barely exists anymore because so many Japanese-American women mixed with white men while many Japanese-American men died childless. So, that is another kind of Convergence.

Now, what about East Asia itself? Perhaps, because China is still ruled by a patriotic nationalist elite, something can be done to bolster Chinese identity and culture. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are all puppets of the US, and their elites are little more than lapdogs of Western elites who, in turn, are lapdogs of Jewish supremacist elites. So, globo-homo stuff has spread like wildfire in East Asia to turn the men into a bunch of super-wussies and 'herbivores'. Also, globo-culture via the internet has turned yellow women onto ever stronger doses of Western Pop Culture that, of late, has pretty much come down to black guys yapping 'suck my dic*' and white girls with jungle fever imitating black 'biatches' who 'twerk' all night long. Needless to say, Media and Entertainment in the West are mostly owned and controlled by Jews.

In terms of elitism, individualism, and feminism, the East has all the social malaise of the West. Furthermore, just as globalism has emasculated white men vis-a-vis black men, it emasculates yellow men vis-a-vis white and black men as both whites and blacks are bigger than yellows. This means more yellow men will lose heart and withdraw into their own spaces, and it will mean more dissatisfied yellow women. And with cratering birthrates(more severe than in the West), the East will have to rely on foreign labor from lower-IQ nations. That means more Japanese women will have kids with manlier foreign men while more Japanese men die alone. And it will mean Japan will eventually be demographically colonized by lower-IQ people from other Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations. And this pattern will likely be followed by Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. It all spells Convergence.

Won't this kind of Convergence lead to degradation of civilization and decline of the Modern World? What will happen to Europe teeming with 100s of millions of black Africans and Muslims? It will likely be hell. And what will happen to Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan with plummeting populations and loss of manhood and virility to produce new generations? It will mean the native populations will grow old and die out while more and more foreigners come to take over and gain more power. In 100 yrs, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will more likely resemble Philippines or Indonesia. And it spells Convergence.

So, Convergence will likely happen but by mass-migration and mass-miscegenation than by the Third World finally figuring out how to run things to catch up to the First World. The fact is the First World, in West and East, learned to use their minds and talent to create wealth and build lots of things, but they lost the human element, a sense of heritage, and feeling for folk and kin. They just became atomized individuals and consumers of electronic blips and blaps that offer them entertainment but no deeper meaning. People who put 'materiality' before 'organicity' will eventually die out. The West and East may have an edge in IQ and ingenuity, but they created inorganic pleasure-inducing gadgets that took the place of organic life. Imagine someone invents the perfect dildo vibrator that pleasures women in the most intense way. Suppose women prefer it over real penises that produce life. There will be pleasure but no life, and that will eventually spell doom. The current West and East are just high-tech dildos that feel good but produce nothing of meaning and purpose. That is why the West and East will be overtaken demographically by the Third World that, for all its stinking problems, hasn't forgot how to produce life. That is how convergence will happen.