While we should all condemn the grisly violence carried out by Muslim lunatics, is there anything worth saving in current France? It chose Globo-Homo-Mania over Catholicism. It has 'gay marriage' like the rest of EU that is under Jewish Supremacist control. Also, what is secular France? Is it about philosophy, science, arts & culture, and reason? No, it's all about pop culture, mostly of dumb Hollywood movies and savage black jungle jivery. Pornography is the ONLY domain left for 'free expression', and it's controlled by anti-white Jews. If the choice is between Jihad and the Jungle, the former is better as the Muslim World is at least civilized whereas blacks turn more places into New Detroits and New Haitis.
Steve Turley foolishly praises Emmanuel Macron for his sudden hard-line stance against Islam, but what is globo-boy or globoy defending? Is he being nationalist? No, he's the same globalist. He wants more immigrant-invaders to replace white Frenchmen. He is denouncing aspects of Islam because they give a bad name to Diversity. He seeks to suppress the most violent aspects of Islam but only to increase mass immigration-invasion and hasten the Great Replacement. "You see, apart from the few bad apples, most are good and more than welcome."
MACRON CRACKS DOWN ON ISLAM IN FRANCE IN A MASSIVE TURN TO THE NATIONALIST POPULIST RIGHT
And on occasions when the likes of Macron defend French or 'Western' values against 'Islamo-Fascism', they are not defending Europeans and their civilization. They denounce aspects of Islam as too conservative and antithetical to open sewage pornification of culture that they promote as 'empowering' and 'liberating'. It mainly means celebration of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs and BAMMAMA or blacks-are-more-muscular-and-more-aggressive, i.e. because blacks kick white butts in sports, whites should cuck and worship blacks as the superior race of heroes who deserve to take white women. When Macron and such ilk denounce Jihad, they are defending the Junglization of the white race. (Muslim acts of beheading, cruel and grisly as they are, affect only a tiny number of people. In contrast, black 'bewombing' is affecting millions of white women. White women who could be using their wombs to create more white babies are now creating more blacks, the natural enemy of the white race as black males have the power to emasculate white men into a bunch of fa**oty-ass wussy-boys. Every time a white woman is 'bewombed', a potential white child is being pre-murdered in favor of creating a black child. A Muslim sicko beheading a 70 yr old woman is less threatening to the West than a bunch of Simon Mols 'bewombing' millions of white women in the West.)
In a way, Jews love the presence of Muslims in the West. Sure, there are downsides. It means more attacks on Jews and their property. But this very fact makes whites side with Jews against Muslims. So, Jews get to kill two birds with one stone. By pushing for non-white mass immigration-invasion, Jews undermine white power and white majority. But because Muslims are seen as hostile to Jews, whites become ever more protective of Jews. Now, in a sane world, whites would hate Jews for pushing mass-immigration. Whites would connect the dots and say, "Jews are increasing diversity to play divide-and-rule among goyim." But whites cannot say or even think this because of the cult of the Holy Holocaust. Whites have been inculcated to feel that it's 'antisemitic' to be critical of Jews in any way. One mustn't believe Jews can be wicked or have hostile intentions. One must believe in JEWISH POWER KNOW BEST and LEAVE IT TO BEAVEROWICZ. Also, whites have been so brainwashed with the wonders of 'diversity' and 'inclusion' that they can't say NO to mass-immigration and the Great Replacement, supposedly a 'far right' conspiracy-notion.
Goy Dog John McCain and His Jewish Master Joe Lieberman
Then, the ONLY option left for whites is to find a way to oppose mass-immigration that might flatter and please Jews. And that, of course, is anti-Islamism on account that Muslims are 'antisemitic'. So, the likes of Tommy Robinson can't say NO to more black immigration-invasion even though blacks cause the most problems in the UK. He can only oppose too-many-Muslims because... uh... they hate Jews and, of course, homos. So, never mind white identity and white interests. (Using his logic, More Muslims would be welcome if they were pro-Jewish and pro-homo.) Robinson and his crew don't oppose mass-immigration to save historic Britain of white folks. No, they oppose certain features of mass-immigration, mostly of Muslims, because nasty 'Muzzies' hate the Jews(and homos and feminists too). This is why Jews actually value Muslim Immigration. More Muslims in the West means more whites cozying up to Jews and saying, "We want to protect you Holy Holocaust Jews from those nasty Islamo-Fascists." Of course, Jews feel contempt for such white toadies. Jews go on pushing for mass-immigration to reduce whites into minorities throughout the West. But they play both sides. So devious and cunning. Jews feel as gods over whites. Whites must make offerings to Jews. Jews take the offerings, but there's no guarantee of appreciation. After all, gods feel entitled to be served by humans. A master doesn't feel much appreciation for what the slaves do for him. He feels entitled to be served whereas the slaves are obligated to serve. Jews and white 'conservatives' are like a glutton and the cook. The cook makes lots of dishes for the glutton who gobbles up everything but pays nothing and doesn't even leave a tip. As far as Jews are concerned, white 'conservatives' who oppose mass-immigration and rag on Muslims are merely variations of the Old Anti-Semite, and Jews aren't entirely wrong about this. White 'conservatives' have merely transferred their ancient distrust of the Jew as the Other onto other groups, such as Muslims. And yet, Jews also encourage such hatreds as they foster white support for Wars for Israel. Jews loathe anti-Muslim whites as arche-Anti-Semites(archetypal anti-semites) but also value them as useful attack dogs for Zion against Muslims as the 'other Jews'.
As for Free Speech and Muslims, I side with the Muslims. They have every right to call for curtailment of denigration of Islam and Muslims. Now, I prefer a world of total and unfettered free speech. If the West were genuinely committed to free speech for all, I would side with free-speechers against the Muslim hotheads. Back when the West stood for the right of Salman Rushdie to write a controversial book, I was on the side of free-speechers against Iran and Muslim firebrands. But the notion that the current West is a 'liberal democracy' committed to free speech is a joke. Europe and Canada trample on free speech all the time. And Jews, once the biggest defenders of free speech(to say their say and gain power), are now the biggest enforcers of censorship(to defend the immense power they've accumulated). Jews killed free speech along with white identity and Christianity. So, the real dichotomy is NOT liberal West that respects free speech VERSUS atavistic Muslim dogmatists. The real situation is Muslims calling for respect for Islam on par with enforced respect for Jewish Supremacist Power, globo-homo vanity, and the Jungle Cult of the Noble Negro(and maybe feminist bitchery). In current UK where people are fined and/or hauled off to prison for making a mocking tweet about Nelson Mandela, exposing the dirty machinations of Jewish Power, questioning aspects of the Shoah(as the iron-clad 6 million figure is more numerology than history), making fun of homos, and positing honest questions about racial/sexual differences, where is the commitment to Free Speech? France and Canada are notorious for fining and imprisoning people for offending Jews. It began with the criminalization of denying the Holocaust, but now one can end up in the can for offending Jews in any way. Macron even supported a measure that would criminalize condemnation of Israel for its near-genocidal policies against Palestinians. Given this context, Muslims have just as much right as Jews, blacks, and homos(and other groups) to demand respect and call on the state to ENFORCE the respect. Muslims are not going against the prevailing wind of Western Values. As the current 'Western Values' are about PC, 'wokeness', and the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, blacks, & homos, the Muslim demands are very much in sync with existing currents of 'Western Thought'. Even in the US, the so-called 'liberals' are supportive of silencing voices, censoring alternative news, and denying basic services of finance to thought-criminals. They are not for more debate, more discussion, more controversy, and more contention of opposing views. They think along doctrinal lines and insist that their 'values' of the Current Year are canonical and cannot be questioned. So much for 'liberalism'. They are 'doctrinals', not liberals. Notice how these mobs are in the habit of chanting slogans together than thinking and speaking as individuals.
In such a climate, Muslims are only conforming to the current 'Western' trend of demanding respect for certain groups and damning all those who don't comply. How many people have been 'canceled' in the West, not least in the US, by institutions and industries for refusing to 'take the knee' before the Negroes? How many people have a chance in business or politics in the US or EU were they to stand up to the power of Zion and dare name the evil of Jewish Supremacism? The new church puts up 'gay' flags and signs that say "All Are Welcome", but of course, you are NOT welcome if you are a moral traditionalist and refuse to accept the 'sodomization' of Christianity. In an illiberal West that worships the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, homos, and Negroes as the new holy trinity, Muslims have every right to demand that they too be included in the canon. Besides, if black violence is always excused in the name of fighting 'systemic racism' and if Zionist violence is always rationalized as Israeli self-defense — you see, Israel must continue bombing Syria and giving aid to ISIS Jihadis to 'defend' itself, the only nation in the Middle East with nukes — , why shouldn't Muslims use violence to get what they want? Is black and Jewish violence okay but Muslim violence isn't?
Finally, all this Jihadi business is the product of Western support of the worsts elements in the Arab-Muslim world. Following World War II, the Arab World did try to modernize and even secularize. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and etc. all sought modernization and some degree of secularization. While some of the regimes were repressive and cruel at times, the last thing they wanted was Muslim rule. The main reason Iran went with the Islamic Revolution was not because most Iranians were opposed to secular power per se but because it became associated with the Shah puppetry to the Americans. Prior to CIA's installation of the Shah, Iran had a national secular government that could have developed into something decent. Gaddafi who came to power in Libya in 1969 was an unapologetic Muslim but not a hothead. If anything, he did everything to suppress Jihadi elements while modernizing much of the country; he also secured basic rights for womenfolk. Same was true of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The regimes there could be cruel, but they were NOT pro-Jihadi. Also, even when Iran became a Islamic republic, it didn't support Jihadi violence but usually fought against it. The main support for the Jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan came from US and Saudis. Indeed, Saudi Arabia and other arch-conservative Muslim states in the Gulf were backed by the West. The so-called Liberal Democratic West had more cordial relations with theocratic and/or monarchic Saudi Arabia and Gulf States than with the modernizing and secularizing Arab/Muslim nations. Whereas most secular Arab nations were friendly if not allied with the USSR, the arch-conservative Muslim states remained close to the US. When Jews gained dominance in the West, the 'Arabists' were purged and US foreign policy became even more hostile to secular Arab nations and friendlier with arch-conservative Muslim nations that support Jihadi violence. Jews figured Jihadis are most useful in undermining stability in nations like Libya and Syria. When Syria was on fire, Western Europe did NOTHING to stem the flow of Jihadi types from Europe to the Middle East. European policy was "Let Muslims in Europe go to Syria to mess that place up and create a refugee crisis that will lead to more mass-migration to the West. It will please Jews, and we white cucks have no higher value that appeasing and pleasing the Holy Holocaust Jews who have so much money and carrots to dole out to the biggest cucks like us." So, all this Muslim-bashing is disingenuous on so many levels. Truth is 'liberal democracy' is dead in the West, which is really under Jewria, Gayria, & Negria Law that are as stringent as Sharia Law. Also, Jihadis are to the Middle East what BLM and Antifa are to the West. They've been recruited, enabled, and funded by the proxies of the Jewish-controlled West. Saudis are happy to support Jihadis in Syria to appease Zionists and the West for favorable deals. And which power nudged the Muslim radicals to attack the US on 9/11? Look at the fingerprints. Zionists knew what was up and nudge-nudged the Jihadis to complete their mission. But all we get from the likes of Tommy Robinson and the Trumpkins is 'Muh Israel'.
In a Memorial Day editorial, the ignorant, white-hating editorial board of the New York Times wrote: “Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold – and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values.” The ignorance in this statement is extraordinary. The South left the union because the South was being economically exploited by the North. The South fought because the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South, as President Lincoln said repeatedly, to “preserve the union,” that is, the empire. Lincoln said repeatedly that the South could have slavery forever if only the South would stay in the union.
Notice the selective moral outrage at the New York Times.
For true moral outrage, we don't even need to dwell on the distant past. Since the end of the Cold War, the US military has been involved in Wars for Israel that destroyed entire nations on false pretexts. Judeo-Nazis, aka Neocons and other Zionist swamp creatures, were behind this. And the US military backs Israel, the actions of which against Palestinians would count as 'genocide' by UN definition.
And what of US imperialist wars? We've been told over and over that all those US soldiers died defending US freedom. By dropping bombs and killing millions overseas? Apparently, those US imperialist soldiers in Philippines were dying(and killing the Filipinos by the bushel) to defend freedom at home!! US has a strange idea of defending freedom. America cries out in pain as it strikes other nations. It surrounds Iran but accuses Iran of aggression. Its navy confronts China in Chinese water but China is accused of belligerence.
Because the US was never invaded, most fallen US soldiers either died killing one another(in the Civil War) or killing foreigners in imperialist wars. They had NOTHING to do with defending US territory or US freedom. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a prelude to some grand plan to invade, let alone defeat, the US. It was to forestall US naval power in the Pacific so that Japan could secure its dominance over Asia.
The vile cliche or trope about US soldiers having given their lives in defense of US freedom must be laid to rest. US soldiers did NOT die defending US freedoms. US role in Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with defending freedom at home. Was American democracy threatened because China fell under communism? No. Then, why would it have mattered what happened to Korea and later Vietnam? Also, by dividing those nations in the first place, it was the US that planted the seeds for horrible civil wars there.
When the US attacked and invaded Iraq on bogus grounds, we heard the mantra yet again. Oh say can you see, those American boys and girls with bombs and missiles were defending US freedom! Or, we were told the US had to fight terrorists over there so it wouldn't have to fight them over here. Except that Iraq, like Libya and Syria, became infested with terrorists ONLY BECAUSE of US intervention. Looking further back, who'd done most to create the lunatics who did 9/11? It was US allies, especially Saudis and Pakistanis. And, US and Israel had been encouraging and using Jihadis, directly or indirectly, to undermine the region for dominance. And there should no longer be any doubt that Israel covertly egged on those Muslim radicals to attack NY and DC so that the US military could be used to fight more Wars for Israel. As most Americans have been dumbed down by Hollywood movies where ALL Muslims are 'terrorists', most Americans couldn't distinguish one bunch of Arabs from another bunch or one sect of Islam from another. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but he was a 'muzzie' too, and that was good enough for so many Americans to support the invasion. Clever Jews exploited goy ignorance and apathy on foreign affairs. Indeed, US and Israel continue to play this game to keep Syria in a state of war and destruction.
Because soldiers believe in patriotism & did as ordered and because so many young men died before they could start families and fulfill their dreams, every nation should honor their fallen, even if those soldiers fought in unjust wars. This goes for Japan and Germany as of the US.
But let's face facts. Majority of US soldiers died in imperialist wars, some of which were almost genocidal in nature. Why does NYT focus so much on the Evil Slavery Narrative when the US military carried out imperialist or semi-genocidal wars against the American Indians, the Mexicans(who lost the SW territories), Asians, Arabs, and etc.? The body count is in the millions, and no, those wars had NOTHING to do with 'defending freedom at home'. So many idiot Americans thank US soldiers for defending American democracy, but just how did the US military do that by bombing and destroying impoverished or developing nations thousands of miles away? Did Americans lose their freedom when the US withdrew from Vietnam? Would US democracy been endangered if US didn't invade Iraq in 2003? Actually, if the US has become less democratic and more oligarchic over the years, it's because goy America lost the civilian war of institutional power(and the culture war) to Jewish supremacists, Zionist-globalists, or Judeo-Nazis. The war that really must be fought is OVER HERE, and the best weapon is Truth and Courage. But clever Jews still have so many dimwit goyim believing that US freedom can only be preserved by US soldiers marching off to war to destroy and degrade whomever Jews hate. Jewish Hate is the driving force behind US foreign policy and belligerence.
Of course, NYT is run by Jewish supremacists who now fully endorse US imperialism, as most wars in recent yrs have been Wars for Israel. Who cares if all those Arabs and Muslims died? There's no moral outrage about any of that in the Paper of Wreckage. Precisely because Jewish supremacists at NYT need whites to remain as servile cucks, they keep cooking up this 'white guilt' BS about the special evil of the South. But if the South is guilty of slavery, why isn't the North blasted for its 'genocide' of the American Indians? Isn't genocide worse than slavery? (Of course, as mass immigration and eradication of American Indians turned out great for Jews, never mind all that.) And it was the dominant North that led US into imperialist over-reach that piled up so many dead bodies around the world. And recently, Jews have lots of blood on their hands as they've led US into Wars for Israel. And sanctions are a form of war too, and they've destroyed countless lives, mostly Arab and/or Muslim, to quench Jewish supremacist blood-lust. So, in observations of future Memorial Days, let us shame the Jews who've turned and abused the US military as a semi-genocidal war-mongering machine for Zion. JKK or Jew-Klux-Klan is the real terrorist power of the US. Or, at the very least, Americans should thank US military men for being such stupid whores of Jewish Power. Such gratitude would at least be honest in spelling out what the American War Machine is all about.
On Memorial Day yesterday, Americans were called upon to remember the American soldiers who have been killed in America’s many foreign wars. U.S. interventionists should have also used the day to apologize not only to the families of those veterans but also to the families who lost loved ones as a consequence of U.S. interventionism in their countries.
We have seen how the material political power of Islam declined very rapidly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Did it decline or fail to keep up with the West? Maybe the Muslim remained where it was while the West advanced technologically. If someone stands still while you walk forward, he's not moving backward even though he will increasingly fall back behind you.
Hilaire Belloc:
Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe; the decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it – we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today. The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines – the very structure of our society is dissolving.
But the real benefit of Christianity was not that Western culture sprung from it but that the culture had something to fall back on when things went south. Christian moralism has stood in the way of cultural inspiration and creativity. Even though Renaissance artists created many religious works, the true spark and inspiration were neo-pagan. But paganism has a way of becoming decadent, nihilistic, and idolatrous, a narcissism of power and beauty. Christianity provided some balance to such tendencies. The main creative source of Western Civilization is Greco-Roman and even Germanic imaginations. But creativity isn't necessarily moral; it is also elitist and belongs to a few. As such, it can't for long serve as the basis of a stable civilization. Morality must be the core values of a people, and that is where Christianity proved most valuable. Not because culture sprung from it — Western Civilization was already great and accomplished before its conversion to Christianity. As for the Reformation, it was a response to the corruption and decay of the Catholic Church that came to overly rely on rituals and idols than on creed and conviction. For awhile, Reformation restored Christian passion.
Hilaire Belloc:
In the place of the old Christian enthusiasms of Europe there came, for a time, the enthusiasm for nationality, the religion of patriotism. But self-worship is not enough, and the forces which are making for the destruction of our culture, notably the Jewish Communist propaganda from Moscow, have a likelier future before them than our old-fashioned patriotism.
But patriotism is not about self-worship. It's not about worship at all. It's about pride and preservation of heritage. It is not a religion in and of itself. Also, spirituality can be made a part of patriotism and nationalism. This is most evident in Judaism and its Covenant that fuses tribalism with spiritualism. In a similar vein, Christianity can be made part of national heritage, i.e. while Christianity is for all the world, each people can stress their own story of how they came to the Faith, and that particularity within universality should have been stressed. Consider the Russian Orthodox Church. It is Christian and Nationalist. Likewise, Buddhism has a nationalist element among Tibetans, Vietnamese, Burmese, and etc.
In the end, Jewish capitalism turned out to be far more damaging to Western Man. Though Jews were heavily involved in communism, its triumph came to suppress Jewish power that relies on individual enterprise, tribal networking, and meritocracy to realize its full potential. In all communist nations, the Jews eventually lost out to the non-Jewish majority as communism is about The People and Mass Mediocrity.
The reason why nationalism came more naturally to Europeans is because European societies developed from agriculture. In contrast, Arabs were nomadic and generally didn't put down roots in any part of the desert. They were movers, traders, and raiders. Of course, in time, Nationalism began to fade among Europeans with increasing urbanization and globalism that made it easy for Europeans to move abroad and for non-Europeans to move into Europe. Nomadism is intrinsic to globalism. Wings rule over the feet.
Steve Sailer:
History often turns upon unexpected personalities. The West has been fairly lucky that no outstanding man has arisen in Islamic world. Since 1936, probably the two most remarkable personalities have been Nasser, who was more of a Bonapartist modernizer demagogue than an Islamist, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
This may be true of past history when Muslims had a chance of literally conquering the West like the Mongols also nearly did. But in the modern era, why would the emergence of a great Muslim leader be bad for the West? Did Ayatollah call for invasion of the West? No, all the stuff about 'great satan' was mostly rhetorical. Kemal Ataturk wanted peace with the West and Westernization for Turks.
The main reason why Gamal Nasser and other notable Arab/Muslim leaders lost out is because Jews gained power in the West and used West as a proxy against the Arab/Muslim World. Israel was a Western creation of Jews and whites who supported, defended, and supplied Zionism at every turn.
The West, under Jewish Power, also crushed Saddam Hussein who, though a horrid person, did much to modernize Iraq. Living standards for most Iraqis were pretty decent prior to the Gulf War. For all the problems among Arabs, their societies would be far more accomplished if not for Jewish control of the West and use of Western power as proxy of Jewish agenda. Iraq today would be formidable if not for the Gulf War, semi-genocidal sanctions, and the invasion. Iraq was also building nuclear power plants before they were bombed by Israeli jets with US support. Syria would be in much better straits if not for Neocon agenda of sending and aiding terrorists. Gaddafi made real gains in Libya before Jewish-ruled West destroyed it. And Iranian economy would be much stronger if not for sanctions forced by Jewish-controlled US. If it came down to Jews vs Muslims, Jews would not necessarily win even though, pound for pound, they are smarter than Arabs/Muslims. The real secret to Israel's success and Muslim world's failure is that the Jews control the West that does the bidding of Zion. But suppose a Muslim-controlled West sanctioned Israel for its war crimes and dropped bombs to kill Israel leaders and figures. Where would Israel be?
Hilaire Belloc, Muslims, Arabs, Muslim World, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Steve Sailer, nomadism, Western Support of Zion,
If white people have chosen to relinquish their ownership of America, who shall the United States belong to? By historical rights, the United States should be a White Nation. While, in the 'spiritual' sense, we can acknowledge that the American Indians have the deepest and most special connection to the land — as they'd been here for many eons prior to the arrival of peoples from the Old World — , the nation that came to be known as the 'United States' or 'America' is almost entirely the creation of the Anglo-Germanic founders and settlers. Even acknowledging the key role of black labor in the development of Early America, it was the vision, skills, rules, values, and the culture of whites that made possible the rise of a nation that wasn't only distinct from those of the Old World but those of Mexico, Central America, and South America, the so-called parts of Latin America. The simple fact is No Whites(Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Europeans[non-Anglos who became Anglo-ized as white immigrants in the US]), No America. America as a modern nation is simply inconceivable without white Europeans, especially those of Anglo(and Dutch, Irish, and Germanic)stock who laid down the foundations and supplied the labor guided by Protestant Work Ethic(that, in time, came to affect the Catholic Irish as well). Only a churlish moron or liar would dispute the historical fact of No Whites, No America.
Granted, it's likely another kind of nation might have arisen in North America if it hadn't been for the Anglos(and Germanics, Irish, and Dutch). If Anglos had kept out of the New World, the French might have settled North America and built an impressive Franco-American civilization. Or if the French had also remained out of the picture, perhaps most of North America would eventually have been settled by Russians from the Northwest(via Alaska) and by Spanish from the South. Or, if the Chinese and Japanese had been more adventurous across the seas, they might have settled parts of the West Coast. Those are all maybes, but what actually did happen is that the Anglos and the Germanics(that would include the Dutch and Scandinavians along with Germans), two of the most accomplished and talented peoples on Earth(apart from the French) at the time, managed to settle most of North America and in time gained overwhelming preeminence over it. As such, the main credit for the creation and development is with them.
But, it is true enough that the land was taken from the indigenous natives who, though wild and savage, were proud warrior folks with deep and even 'sacred' connection to the land. Also, as Northern Europeans couldn't produce enough babies fast enough(and in time, birthrates would precipitously fall among their kinds) to settle the vast territories of North America, the American colonies brought over black slaves. And then, to put down railroads and man the factories, the US brought over lots of immigrants from other parts of Europe, south and east. Blacks would long remain a problem, not so much because of the color of their skin but because they're naturally stronger, tougher, more aggressive, and more pathological(as well as having lower IQ, but then it is a good thing that blacks are inferior in intelligence because black psychopathy + black thuggery + high black IQ would have led to even more problems; the last thing we need is blacks with the IQ of Jews as well as the muscles of simians; after all, animals are stronger than humans but thankfully dumber, and only a fool would wish gorillas, lions, and bears were as smart or smarter than humans as humans would be threatened not only physically but intellectually by the beasts). Chinese arrived to work on railroads, but their number was limited, not least because of immigration restrictive laws that came to regard mass Asian immigration as 'yellow peril'. (White Americans feared mass yellow immigration like Palestinians feared mass Jewish immigration. Back then, white Americans were able to stem the yellow tide from Japan and China, the most populous nation on Earth, whereas Palestinians weren't able to put a stop to the Zionist tide that eventually overran the Arab population. Today, Jews in Israel are able to prevent the Right of Return by Palestinians, but white Americans aren't able to do much about the endless non-white immigration that threatens to reduce whites to a minority in the very nation they founded and built.)
As for non-Anglo and non-Germanic immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, they proved to be white enough and more-or-less easily assimilated into Anglo-Americanism. ANGLO-Americanism was the crucial glue(the Anglue) that made it possible for various ethnic groups to become ONE people. If in Europe, the various ethnic groups clung to their own identities against the others as NO single European identity or culture could rightfully claim itself as the Essence of European-ness, Anglos in America could make such claim because they'd been most instrumental in founding and forging a new nation; furthermore, non-Anglo immigrants came to America with appreciation of Anglo achievements and express purpose of becoming a part of the New Nation. Without the Anglue, the diverse ethnic groups that arrived in America could not become ONE people. Even as various ethnic groups clung to something particular to their own peoples and history, they could form common bonds with other ethnic groups(and even with other races) only because all groups adhered, in varying degrees, to ANGLO-Americanism. (Jew-Glue is less effective as a national bond because Jewishness is far more exclusive and particularist than Anglue. While Anglos had racial consciousness, they believed non-Anglos could partake of Anglo culture, ways, manners, and of course language. Anglo-ness could serve as the connective glue even for non-Anglos. But Jews never envisioned their culture in the same way. Jewish ways, values, and language were for Jews alone. Jews never dreamed to use Hebrew or Yiddish as a 'universal language'. Some Jewish guy came up with Esperanto, but that was something entirely divorced from Jewishness. Anglue became like Christmas. Even non-Christians could convert to the Faith and join in the celebration. In contrast, something like Passover is for Jews alone. In the West, there is a kind of Jew-Glue in that all American, Canadian, and European politicians make a show of worshiping the Holocaust and supporting Israel, but they are honoring and paying tribute to Jewishness as the Great Other. They are united in their obedience to Jewishness as a unique and superior quality. In contrast, applying the Anglue meant that YOU, even as a Non-Anglo, could fully partake of the culture even if you could not be racially Anglo yourself. Even a Hindu or African could become something like an 'English gentleman' even if he couldn't become racially English. Or anyone could partake of Anglo-American manners, attitudes, work ethic, and values even if he or she couldn't become Anglo by blood. In contrast, Jewish culture and Jewish race were inseparable. Goyim couldn't become even just 'culturally' Jewish. Jews forbade it as Jewish culture was meant to be practiced only in relation to Jewish identity. So, Jewish assault on Anglo-ness is as disingenuous as the Hindu assault on whites. Both Jews and Hindus have been far more exclusive and particularist in defining their own identity and culture than Anglos ever were. Even as Anglos kept Anglo racial identity for themselves, they allowed and even encouraged Others to partake of Anglo culture in language, values, ethics, and laws. This wasn't the case with Jews[or Hindus]. It was the willingness to take part in Anglo-ness as the essence of Americanism that made it possible for the various ethnic groups to coalesce into One People over time. Without the Anglue, the various groups would have fractured along tribal/ethnic lines[as in Europe] because there would have been no common culture that all groups could acknowledge and adhere to as the founding & defining essence of America. Likewise, Latin American nations have been able to form their own Common Culture because the founding stock[of Hispanics or Portuguese] insisted that the various immigrants participate in the established culture and language to become full members of the nation. Thus, Italians and Germans in Brazil learned to speak Portuguese and became 'Brazilian'; in Argentina, they learned to speak Spanish as ticket to becoming 'Argentinian'. No one disputes that Hispanic/Latin culture has been the defining bond for the peoples in what is called Latin America, but somehow, it's now become unfashionable for Americans[and Canadians] to emphasize the Anglue as the key cultural substance to hold the nation together. This is all the more confusing because even those who are most invested in denouncing Anglo culture are, in more ways than one, taking part in that very culture in terms of language, customs, and adherence to Rule of Law. Furthermore, one could argue that Anglue-as-connective-bond in North America is less offensive than the Spanish Glue of Latin America because, whereas Anglos and Northern Europeans were indeed the majority-dominant folks of the American Foundation, most Latin American nations remained majority Indio or mestizo, which meant that an alien European culture had to be imposed on the brown majority population whose indigenous cultures were destroyed. Anglue was mostly for a white America made up of Anglos and other Europeans, whereas Hispanic culture was imposed on non-European natives. Anglue still exists to the extent that everyone who comes to the US must learn English. Also, its influence and impact are to be found in just about every facet of Americanism: Laws, contracts, property rights, individualism, empiricism, pragmatism, work ethic, literature, moderation, and etc. But it's been turned into Invisible Glue so that Anglo-Americans now almost get NO credit for all that they've contributed to the nation. The only visible glue in regard to Anglo-Americans is the Guilt-Glue that makes everything bad stick onto whites, esp those of Anglo origin. According to shows like HAMILTON, America is really about Junglue, and we might as well pretend Hamilton was a Negro. Oddly enough, the musical is not the work of a Negro but a resentful Hispanic who seeks to degrade and demean Anglo culture[that put Latino culture to shame in terms of achievements and power] by implying that it can only be redeemed by Historical Miscegenation, also a feature of BBC that now often feature European historical figures as Negroes or some Other. KKKrazy Glue is the very opposite of Anglue. It seeks to bind people with pathological animus toward that very thing that was most instrumental in the foundation and creation of America. It's like using anti-glue as new glue. It spreads paranoia and hatred that everything white must be KKK or 'Nazi'. Sadly, most of today's Anglo-Americans suck up to the very people who are most invested in selling KKKrazy Glue.) Most Eastern Europeans, especially Central European Slavs, were almost as pale-faced as the Anglos and Germanics. Southern Europeans, in contrast, especially from places like Southern Italy and Greece, were swarthier and less white, but they were still white enough to gradually assimilate into Anglo-America. Also, despite their fallen status in modern times, Greeks and Italians had tremendous cultural capital as Western Civilization would have been inconceivable without Hellenic and Latin roots. In a way, the United States was like the final culmination of what had begun in the democracy of Athens and evolved in the republics of Rome. Even though the once barbarian-northern Europeans grew to greatness whereas the once advanced-southern Europeans fell on hard times, there was a deep historical and cultural connection between them. In time, even Southern-European Americans became more-or-less Anglo-ized and in effect became Anglo-Europeans of the New World. Also, as Southern European Americans were outnumbered by Northern-European Americans, the majority of them were mindful to fit in with the Northern-European-American models of behavior, manners, and work. Thus, they soaked up aspects of the Northern Protestant Work Ethic and respect for the Law, something that was absent in Latin America where, in most cases, Southern European Latinos set the template for majority populations that were Mestizo and/or Indio. Despite Italian-American criminality, most groups that arrived in the US came to admire the vision and achievements of Anglo-Germanic Americans and sought to be a 'credit to their race' by living up to the American Model as forged by the Founders and Settlers.
And the fate of America might have been a happy or happier story if not for the fact that many of those 'Eastern Europeans' were actually Semites, the Jews who arrived with a different mentality and attitude. Even as the poor immigrants from places like Poland, Italy, Russia, and etc. were grateful to start anew in America, they still fondly harked back to their nations of origins as spiritual homelands. They appreciated the freedoms and opportunities in America, but there lingered a sentimentality and nostalgia for the nations whence they came. They'd left for America out of ambition, not out of hatred for their own nations and peoples. There may have been narratives of disgruntlement with the poverty and backwardness of their ancestral nations of origin, but they still felt an attachment(especially as personal bitterness ebbed away, especially over generations), and many of them tried to recreate the Old World in the New World, as in German-towns and Polish-towns. In contrast, many Jews left Old World Europe for New World America with something bordering on real hatred for the departed lands. Whereas most white Americans felt, "Even if nothing works out here in the New World, there is my homeland in the Old World, the one I might return to", the Jews came to the US with a "Don't Look Back" attitude. It was the attitude of the ancients leaving Sodom or Egypt. They weren't leaving their homeland but the land of hostile strangers. While many Irish-Americans were haunted by bitter memories/stories about poverty-stricken Ireland, it was still their beloved homeland. In contrast, Jews never felt that way about Poland or Russia. John Ford made THE QUIET MAN as tribute to lovely green Eire, but the typical Jewish movie about the Old World was something like FIDDLER ON THE ROOF; there is no love for Russia. (Even the Coen Brothers are more sentimental about the Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING than about Jews in their other films. Because the Irish have a homeland, they feel home away from home. Even when things go badly for them in America or elsewhere, they can at least say, "There is a place called Ireland where MY PEOPLE live" and hum to "Danny Boy". It's the difference between Steve Martin and John Candy in PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES. Even when everything goes wrong, Martin's character knows he has a home and family that waits for him whereas Candy's character is forever a wanderer with no place to call home, no place to return to. THE SWIMMER is ultimately tragic because it turns out Burt Lancaster's character no longer has a home, unlike Odysseus who still had a loyal wife and son waiting for him. The Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING feel at home even away from home because they know Ireland exists even if far away. In contrast, the Jews seem more restless in MILLER'S CROSSING and BARTON FINK, especially as the stories take place in a time before the creation of Israel. Having a homeland can even sweeten the worst tragedies. Irish remember the Potato Famine with great angst, but they still love the land on which their ancestors perished. In contrast, Jews feel no such attachment to the killing fields of Eastern Europe upon which Nazis and their collaborators mowed down countless Jews. Irish tragedy and territory are one. In contrast, the Holocaust that has become so holy to modern Jews happened on the lands of goyim. Irish died in their homeland, whereas Jews died in strangers' lands. It's more comforting to die in your own home than in a hostile stranger's place.) And this is why Jews became especially covetous of the United States. If most white groups felt that they still had a dear homeland to return to(or at least dream about) even if nothing good came of them in the New World, Jews felt they better make it in the New World because they could never feel truly at home in the Old World, especially as the rise of modern nationalism across Europe made things difficult for Jews who were marked by various ethno-national groups as alien, disloyal, parasitic, and rootless.
Jews appreciated the blank-slate aspect of America, the idea that it was a land where arrivals could start anew without the old baggage. It was like a criminal having his tainted record wiped clean. The hope was that Jews would be regarded merely as fellow Americans and free individuals without the deep-rooted prejudices of the Old World. And yet, Jews were bound to be problematic because, even as they enthused over the blank-slate aspects of Americanism(whereby anyone or at least any white person could become 'American' and judged on the basis of meritocracy than identity), they insisted on clinging to their own ancient identity, heritage, and even hatreds. Even as Jews were relieved that America was less 'antisemitic' than the Old World, they themselves remained nasty, hostile,and contemptuous toward the goy population, often animated by bitterness, resentment, and envy.
Furthermore, Anglo-Americans had contradictory reasons of their own for having welcomed in all those Jews. On the one hand, it was that very ancient pedigree of Jews that made Anglo-Americans romanticize them(in the way that bohemian types romanticized Gypsies and the way that Counterculture types in the Sixties did with Hindus and Eastern Mysticism). Especially because America broke free from the British Empire, there developed the conceit of a New Civilization. In fact, United States was essentially a continuation of British(and Germanic) Civilization, but the narrative of Independence & clean break from the Old World made Americans eager to gain cultural credentials. Without the myth of 1776, the American colonies(remaining part of the British Empire) would have regarded themselves as continuous in terms of history and heritage in its loyalty to the Motherland of England. But 1776 became for America what Anno Domini was for Christianity. The vision of a New Beginning. Never mind that Christianity grew out of Judaism and that America grew out of Britain. To validate the New Idea or New Nation as legitimate and even superior, the breach had to be emphasized over the bond. But this was easier said than done as America, in contrast to Old World Europe, was indeed 'shallow' in history and culture. It couldn't boast of Athens, Renaissance, Shakespeare, or Mozart. Also, many white goy immigrants who came to the New World came without much culture or learning. Many were barely literate and were hardly in a position to contribute much to the development of American Culture. They came mainly to supply manpower to build a new nation by working on farms and factories. But Jews were different. They were more educated, literate, urban, and cultured. Also, more of them were involved with ideas, philosophy, and history. Thus, Anglo-Americans came to appreciate Jews as the instant-bringers of Culture/Heritage to America. Paradoxically, precisely because of America's conceit of rupture from the Old World, it craved something of depth and heritage. It's like a man who breaks free from home may exult in newfound freedom but soon finds himself hankering desperately for a new sense of home. (Replicants in BLADE RUNNER are psychologically unstable because they have no sense of past, no prior memories.) As America broke with Old Britain, it sought cultural sustenance in connection to something with even deeper pedigree. No people were as ancient as the Jews.
In a way, this was rather ironic because the US was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism. And yet, the very enterprising, adaptive, and venturesome ways of the Jews struck a chord with Anglo-Americans who entertained the Ideal of the New Jew. The idea was that Jewishness had been warped and distorted in the Old World because of repressions and prejudices, but the New Jews of America would become wonderful Good Americans in the open and healthy air of freedom and liberty. (And Jews flattered Anglo-Americans for harboring just such delusional sentiments about the Tribe. Much later, American Conservatism would similarly romanticize the Neocons as Jews who would finally see the light and become Good Americans via baptism by Conservatism Inc. In fact, Jews cynically toyed with naive Conservative minds to take over the movement to push Jewish Supremacism in cahoots with Jewish 'Liberals'.)
Another reason why Anglo-Americans developed a certain feeling for Jews had to do with the rootless nature of Americanism. After all, if the vast continent had to be settled, it wouldn't do for too many Americans to put down roots in any single place. They had to keep moving, especially Westward to take land from the Indians and even Mexicans. Thus, unlike Greekness or Polishness, Americanism wasn't defined by vertical roots but horizontal movement. Americanism had to be defined in a portable manner. One wasn't American because he was tied to a particular territory in the New World but because of the portable bag of ideas he carried within his heart and mind at all times. So, even if he left Pennsylvania for Ohio and then for Iowa and then for Idaho and then for Oregon, he was an American because what really defined him was the Narrative, Outlook, and the Constitution. In a similar way, the Jews, especially following the great Exile from Jerusalem, survived as identity and culture in the Diaspora because Jewishness came to be identified with the portability of their Narrative and the Law. Of course, the difference between American Mobility and Jewish Diaspora was that whereas white Americans felt 'at home' even as they moved from home to home across the great spaces of America, Jews had always felt away from home even as they settled in various parts of Europe, Arabia, and North Africa. A Jew in France wasn't really French, a Jew in Poland wasn't really Polish, a Jew in Germany wasn't really German, and etc. And yet, Jews were promised that a Jew in America could truly become an American and as such was truly 'at home' no matter where he lived in the United States. For a people who hadn't had a taste of homeland for nearly two millenniums, the American Dream was intoxicating for Jews. Just like a famished person over-eats upon being presented with food, Jews gorged on the idea of America as 'homeland'. And yet, there was the paradox. America could be a homeland for the Jews precisely because it wasn't the homeland for a particular people. A nation like Poland or Russia couldn't really be the homeland of Jews because, even if Jews there were allowed to live in peace and prosperity, there would be the constant reminders that Poland really and mainly belongs to the Polish and Russia really and mainly belongs to the Russians. In contrast, if America belongs to no particular people, then it belongs to all the world, and that means Jews could claim it as much as any other people could. There was certainly an aspect of Americanism that suggested as much, at least as a Dream, but the American Reality was something else. In fact, America was a specific racial and cultural creation, and it couldn't have been created by any other people. Pete Buttplug(aka Buttigieg) says 'white supremacism' will ruin America, but America wouldn't exist in the first place if not for 'white supremacism' and 'racism'. And this would become a great contradiction of Americanism. But there is another contradiction, that between Jews seeing America as belonging to the whole world(including the Jews) AND Jews seeing America as belonging to themselves to own as their empire.
Is there any way White Americans can reclaim the United States as essentially an extension of European Civilization? Maybe, maybe not, but it seems unlikely. If things continue as usual, the US will become a giant California. As Texas is poised to go Democratic in a matter of years, the GOP won't be able to win elections again UNLESS it becomes just another Democratic Party. But then, it's been useless on the issue of immigration and demographic Replacism for as long as anyone can remember. After all, the mantra of both parties became DIOS or Diversity Is Our Strength, a suicidal chant programmed into white minds by the Jews. But then, once US loses its core identity and meaning, most peoples, white and non-white, will lose their sense of identity, heritage, and history. If Americanism is defined merely as a futurism, most Americans will have little or no sense of the past and just look forward to the latest fad/fashion or trend. They will be like kids who, having no sense of the past, just look forward to new thrills and excitements. Kids are born with blank slate memories. Unless they are taught of the history of their own people, they know NOTHING. Historical memory isn't passed down genetically. This is why kids are mainly fixated on the next meal, next prize, next cookie & candy, next thrill, next excitement. And Americans, even in adulthood, have become like kids. Instead of turning into grownups with a sense of history and duty, they become 'growndowns' as their mentalities are focused on new razzle-dazzles: New sports seasons, new blockbuster movie, new pop song release, etc.
While those who ONLY look backward will be mired in the past and fail to make progress, those who've mastered the art of looking forward-and-backward(like the Roman god Janus) will have a decisive advantage over those who only look forward(or backward). The Amish won't amount to much because they only look backward. But those who only look forward will lose out to those who look forward/backward... and eventually even to those who only look backward(as ultra-traditionalists at least have something of depth to cling to). While those who only look forward may succeed as talented individuals, they have no deep theme to bind them with others of their kind and with their ancestors. A white 'forwarder' thinks and feels as an individual. If smart and talented, he may do remarkable things in science/technology/arts. If untalented and stupid, he will likely wallow in insipid thrills of the moment. But in either case, he can only succeed or fail as an individual. He isn't part of a history, culture, or heritage(that serves as the great equalizer and uniter of the successful and unsuccessful within the race). Even if successful, his money is only about himself. Or, lacking a sense of belonging and history, he will likely donate his money to the latest fads and fashions in 'social justice', like Fund the Magic Negro or invest in Globo-Homo.
In contrast, if you're backward-looking as well as forward-looking, then you not only work towards individual success in the future but feel a powerful sense of connection to the past(with its deep history and line of ancestors). This is why Jews and Hindus are now favored over the deracinated whites who only look forward as Futurist Americans. Looking only forward, whites have forgotten where they've come from and who their ancestors are. Also, under Jewish control, the only thing they know about their own past is now associated with 'white guilt' and 'white shame' for all the wrongs. In contrast, even as Jews(and Hindus) push forward in science/technology and etc., they also feel a powerful connection with deep roots of history, culture, and heritage. They understand that a tree, in order to grow higher, must rely on roots to draw water and nutrients deep in the soil. Also, it is the roots that provide balance and stability so that the tree can remain standing against the wind and other forces. This is why Jews and Hindus want the power of History(backward-looking) only for themselves while they urge whites to look only forward to the Great Future... of atomized individuality and divisive Diversity — Jews would have us believe that Diversity, the main agent of division, is the best bet for unity in American, which is like saying water is the best drying agent. If whites had a powerful sense of history, they would object to Diversity. They would feel proudly white and struggle to keep their domain as white as possible. But under Jewish mind-control, whites have either forgotten their glorious past or been told that it was all shameful and evil, therefore requiring the smashing of White Idols and erasure of White Icons to make way for the redemptive symbols of Diversity(and oddly enough, Globo-Homomania, as if celebration of homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting has the magical power to wash whites of 'guilt'). If White Guilt won't do the trick with all the whites, Jews employ White Flattery to make whites welcome the world as an act of globlesse oblige, i.e. whites are so great, noble, awesome, and 'more evolved' than rest of humanity that, of course, they wouldn't stoop to 'petty tribalism' & 'racist' greed but instead generously and compassionately share their wealth & wonders with the all of mankind. Fools like David French seem to have fallen for this bait, but there has always been a self-righteous save-the-world element in Christianity that could be manipulated in such manner.
This is why Jews and Hindus live in the past, present, and future, whereas the great majority of whites only live in the future. And if the future is anti-white or less-white, whites don't mind because their lack of white-past-ness has failed to instill them with the requisite sense of identity, glory, and pride that would want to make them defend what they're about. Suppose Jews only looked forward and never backward. Why would they care about Israel or the Holy Land? Why would they care about the meaning of Jewishness? Why would they care about what happened in the Shoah? Furthermore, suppose Jews allowed non-Jews(especially those who are hostile to Jews) to rewrite Jewish history so as to selectively shape the Narrative to make Jewish History look pretty bad. Then, most Jews will look only forward because looking backward would be pretty depressing OR will look backward only to feel guilty about their shameful past, which would only embolden them to make amends to rest of humanity by doing all that is possible to erase the evil Social Construct of Jewishness that has done so much harm to the world. But in our world, Jews have the upper-hand over whites because, whereas Jews, like Janus, look backward to look forward, white folks only look forward for atomized success/thrills or look backward only to wallow in 'white guilt'. Of course, there are plenty of whites, especially libertarian-types, who look only forward without much in the way of 'white guilt', but having no sense of roots or past-ness, they have no compelling theme with which to link up with other white folks to form a united racial front like the Jews(and Hindus) have done for themselves.
The great fatal mistake of White America was to trust the Jews. Why did Anglo-Americans so miscalculate the Jews? It was because they imposed their own ideal of the Dream Jew onto the Real Jew, and the psychological savvy Jew read the White Mind and, at least partially, played the role of the Ideal Jew just enough to hoodwink whites. It's like whites also had this ideal vision of the Noble Negro as a credit to his race. This had little to do with the Real Negro. It's like some people have this romantic view of Gypsies as free spirits and soulful wanderers when, if anything, most Gypsies are a bunch of petty crooks and idiots. It's like boomers of Counterculture had this rosy view of Hindus and Eastern Mysticism when, in fact, too many Hindu gurus and the like were egotists, frauds, charlatans, or madmen. Also, contrary to the notion of Asian-Indians living in harmonic-karmic relation to spirituality and cosmos, most dotkins were a petty, stupid, nasty, greed, and materialistic bunch whose main wishes during prayer was More Money. The Counterculture fools also idealized the American Indians as the children of nature who'd communed peacefully with animals and trees before the arrival of Evil White Man. While one can acknowledge the deep 'spiritual' connection between Indians and pre-Columbian America, the fact is the Red Savages were brutal folks(like the ones in Michael Mann's THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS) running around with tomahawks and scaring gophers half to death.
Generally, the powerful are more likely to weave idealized misconceptions about the Other. As they got the upper-hand, they feel free and secure to romanticize weaker groups. And as they control the information and narrative, they can create myths of the Other and then prefer the Myth over the Reality. Having all that power and security makes them feel magnanimous, a noble trait to be sure(but only when not delusional). Such illusions aren't particularly dangerous IF the Other has little or chance of gaining real power. White Americans can idealize and even idolize American Indians or Eskimos all they want. The fact is the Indians or Eskimos are never going to amass the kind of power to threaten whites. But when whites came to prefer myth over reality in regard to Jews and Negroes, it was a fatal mistake as Jews had the will, talent, and means to gain great power; and blacks had the numbers, muscle, and arrogance to do real harm to weaker whites. Of course, powerful white elites initially idealized Jews and blacks when the latter groups were much weaker. There was a time when blacks were indeed slaves or second-class citizens in the US. Also, as blacks feared white power and reprisals(that could sometimes be very violent) back then, they tended to behave better, and this made certain elite and/or reformist whites to feel special sympathy for the Tragic Groid. Likewise, there was a time when most Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe looked like a pitiable lot, the kind lamented in the Bob Dylan song, "I Pity the Poor Immigrant".
There are two realities. Reality as it really is and 'Reality' as one sees it. The latter may be called 'Seeality'. This is why so many marriages go wrong. Suppose one person idealizes his/her partner as the most wonderful lover. He/she becomes so besotted with the idea of love and being wedded to the other person that he/she ignores all the hints, clues, and signals that, maybe just maybe, that person is NOT the dream-partner or ideal soulmate. One's dream, passion, illusion, hope, and/or compassion blinds his/her vision as to the Real Person. Such illusion can exist between humans and animals too. Why do some people end up dead mauled by animals? Because they insist on seeing certain animals as their 'friends' or even 'family members'. One person convinced himself that the alligators he'd raised regarded him as a 'friend'. He projected his humanness onto the mega-reptiles that, in time, killed and ate him. And there was Timothy Treadwell.
Just like American Indians who aided early white settlers had no idea of the true nature of white folks, Anglo-Americans had no sense of the Real Jew, not least because white minds were clouded with the vision of the Ideal Jew. When Jews washed ashore poor and powerless, Anglo-American elites were blinded by compassion and idealism, the notion that America is so wonderful that even Jews, who had a long troublesome history with Christendom in Europe, would become Good Americans and get along as capital fellows with white Christian folks. Instead of trying to figure out the Real Jew, they imposed their idealized view of the Ideal Jew on the Real Jew. Later, as Jews gained in power at the expense of Wasps, Anglo-Americans concocted new hopes that, once again, ran counter to reality. Liberal Wasps saw Jews as committed crusaders for justice for all mankind while Conservative Whites hope that Jews would eventually come to realize their own deep conservative roots, learn to bury the hatchet with white Christians, and invest their great wealth & influence for the good of Western Civilization. Neither bunch of whites had the clarity of mind to see the Real Jew for what he really is. White folks will remain hopeless unless they come to See the Real Jew at last. Likewise, Europe will become Africanized and turned into a hell unless white people there See the Real Negro at last. Due to Jewish control of media/narrative and black success in sports/pop-music, too many white folks have this notion that blacks are tragic-magic, the redeemers of much tainted white civilization, i.e. the white world can only be redeemed if white lands, white wombs, and white everything are touched and healed by Black Magic. The end-result will be the biggest human tragedy ever, what with savage black Africans rampaging through Europe and Africanizing everything they see and touch... just like the Siafu African ants in THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLE lay waste to everything in their path. Black destructiveness is so obvious that one would think white folks would have woken up by now, so why are so many of them still asleep? One reason is Jews and privileged cuck-whites(who are are sheltered from the racial reality) control the media and spread the image of the Magic Negro that became the 'seeality' for countless whites. Another reason is the song-and-dong factor. So many whites are addicted to black music and so many white women are into jungle fever that they mainly associate white surrender to blackness as pleasure in dance and sex. Another reason is 'guilt' and fear. Even whites who know the truth about blacks are nevertheless infected with 'white guilt' and feel paralyzed to saying anything negative or alarming about the ghastly 'groids'. They would rather face total demise than commit the 'sin' of 'racism'. And there is the Fear Factor as anyone even slightly associated with 'racism' will be fired, destroyed, blacklisted, and even physically attacked(with full blessing of the Power).
At any rate, if indeed White America is lost(because white folks just don't have the requisite will, courage, unity, confidence, pride, organization, or good sense), then... to whom should America belong? To all the world, what with the US as Immigration-Nation? If whites relinquished the title of the rightful owners of America, then it seems the only 'fair' and 'just' outcome would be America as free-for-all for all the world. Suppose a pack of wolves bring down a moose and claim it as their own and gorge on it. But then, suppose the wolves figure, "We had enough, and the remaining moose meat isn't simply ours but for all of you", the 'you' being all the other creatures who've gathered around the mass of meat: Coyotes, badgers, eagles, hawks, buzzards, weasels, raccoons, foxes, Gila Monsters, carnivorous turtles, cougars, bears, wild pigs, and etc. If the wolves no longer claim it, then the feast should be a free-for-all for all creatures great and small. It would make no sense for wolves to give it up to all the other animals ONLY TO have one particular species make special claim on it. Ideally, the wolves should have kept it as they'd brought down the moose. But if wolves lost their good sense and decided to share the meat with all the creatures, then it should belong to all equally. But suppose weasels come forth and say that THEY should have special claim to it... even as weasels argue that it was only right on the part of wolves to hand it over to the other animals in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice'. But if so, why should the weasels have special claim on the moose meat, taking the choice parts for themselves while doling out only second-rate and third-rate meat and innards for the other creatures? Indeed, IF one particular bunch of creatures must have claim over the meat, it should be the wolves because they brought down the moose. If the wolves give up their claim to the meat, then NO OTHER particular bunch of creatures should lay special claim to it. They must all share the meat equally. Then, how ridiculous it would be for the weasels to insist that the meat belongs especially to their own kind.
Such is the dilemma facing Future America. There used to be White America that was founded, made, and claimed by whites as their great domain. It was the America of THE BIG COUNTRY, the magnificent William Wyler Western. Whites were takers of the land and makers of the nation. They had every reason to lay special claim on it. But, especially under the influence of rising Jewish Power that pushed the Immigration-Narrative over the Founder-Settler Narrative, there developed the idea that America must be the land for all the peoples of the world. Apparently, America is too big, bountiful, blessed with over-abundant resources, and filled with potential for it to be greedily hogged by one bunch of people; come to think of it, John Wayne said as much as to why Indians didn't deserve to keep America for themselves. Apparently, something that magnificent, wonderful, and incredible has to be shared with all the world. Of course, the difference is that, whereas whites came to a wilderness to build a nation that wasn't there, non-whites come to partake of what another people built(and without much in the way of gratitude as their children are instructed by Jewish Media/Academia to hate Whitey). White Immigration was the story of capitalist enterprise to build what wasn't there; Non-white immigration is the story of socialist entropy to take from others who built it.
A most repulsive Dotkin
For whatever reasons — idealism, magnanimity, generousness, compassion, gullibility, fear of rising Jewish power, wish for buffer against blacks, madness, stupidity, & apathy, naivete, greed for cheap labor, etc. — , whites decided to forsake their special claim to America and re-brand the nation as a Proposition Nation of Immigration and Diversity(and 'Inclusion' too). This was a terrible decision on the part of whites, but what could be done about madness of such magnitude? Whites had the power to be stupid, and they chose stupidity. It's like when the lord made the rash decision to relinquish his power to his sons in Akira Kurosawa's RAN, there was nothing to stop it. He had the power to give it up, and he did. He willfully ignored all signs that his sons could prove to be treacherous and favored the myth of Loyal Sons over the reality of Suspicious Sons. There was once a time when white folks could have kept the title as owners of America, but they made the fatal decision to open America to all the world. Imagine if some rich guy is persuaded to withdraw all his money from the bank and hand it over to the People. It'd be most retarded, but if he's going to do it, then the fair thing would be for him to throw all that cash into the winds from a high tower so that everyone below has a equal chance of getting some. But what if the very persons who goaded the rich man to give it all away also convinced him to hand over most of the money to THEM so that THEY would get to decide who gets what. What would be the purpose of surrendering one's own money in the name of the People IF the bulk of the cash actually ends up in the hands of a tiny cabal of shysters who claim to work for the public trust but hog most of prizes for themselves as personal loot?
If White People give up their special claim to America, then America should belong to the world. I'd pity such an America of endless immigration and deracination all around, of whites and non-whites alike, a nation that has no majority but is made up of minorities of various backgrounds whose only common bonds are Money, Individuality, abandonment of culture-of-origin, and vapid Pop Culture. But such a prospect is still preferable to an America claimed especially by a particular group that has no historical rights to it. While Jews have made great contributions to America, they were not the founders, settlers, or builders who made it possible. They were mostly late-comers who benefited greatly by taking advantages of the system already in place. Furthermore, it is especially wrong for Jews to make special claim on America because the very essence of their argument against America-as-White-Nation hinges on the New America being a Global Nation equally open to and representative of All Mankind. If such was the 'moral' and 'intellectual' argument that finally convinced White America to give way to New Global America, then Jews have no grounds to demand special privileges. They should be like everyone else in the New America that no longer plays favors to any single group. But, if Jews insist that New America must especially be sensitive and obedient to Jewish and Zionist agendas, then the Jewish argument against White America would have been just an elaborate hustle. Jews persuaded whites to give up special claim to America to hand it on a silver platter to the whole world, BUT, when the moment finally arrived, Jews snatched the platter mainly for themselves. It's so much like what Facebook and Google did to become monopolies. They gained the trust and participation of EVERYONE, 'left' and 'right', on the promise that they would not be biased toward any particular group. After all, if Google and Facebook had revealed their ideological agendas and/or tribal biases from the very beginning, many people would have refused their services and sought out alternatives. But precisely because Big Tech companies promised impartiality and fairness, EVERYONE regardless of race, creed, or color signed up to use their search engines and platforms. But once the Jews at Google and Facebook gained monopoly positions, they rigged results and gamed algorithms to favor the views and agendas of their Tribe and ideology. It was all just a hustle. Terms of Service mean nothing to Google and Facebook Jews. They know that with monopoly power, they can change the Terms as they wish, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, especially as they've bought up so many whore politicians. Furthermore, the Jew-dominated media have their back, and most top judges and lawyers are either Jewish or controlled by Jewish money and power. How lowdown and dirty.
Because the US is the lone superpower, it can do great harm as well as great good around the world. While Anglo-American history is checkered with the bad as well as with the good, the so-called Wasps have not been without some sense of honor, decency, nobility, and rectitude. Also, as white elites of an overwhelmingly white-majority and white-dominant nation, there was a clear sense of American history, American reality, and American interests. There was a good deal of correlation between the American People and the American Way, its diplomacy around the world. Today, things are so confused. While there are plenty of Anglo-Germanic Americans in upper echelons of business and government still, they are no longer the ruling elites. Even the richest and most powerful of them must look over their shoulders at Jewish Power that can make or break anyone. But Jews won't step up to the plate as the New Elites of America. They still hide Jewish Power behind the drapery of 'white privilege'. Even as the owners and managers of America, they still insist on using mostly white goy politicians as their puppets and buffers. Thus, even though New America is obviously all about "Is it good for Jews?", we are not supposed to notice that Jews are pulling the strings. We are supposed to believe that so many cuck goy politicians chant "We Stand with Israel" spontaneously out of their own volition as American as Apple Pie. We have a situation where so many white/goy politicians still hold nominal positions of power but actually have no power as they do little but the bidding of Jews. They are out front but have no will or agenda of their own. They are puppets. As for Jews, they remain behind the scenes or pretend to even though some of them are so prominent in American Power and Global Affairs. We are not supposed to notice that the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Hollywood Jews, Las Vegas Jews(like Sheldon Adelson), Google Jews, and the like are the real movers and shakers of America that, in turn, shakes the whole world. Just ask the Palestinians.
As the US is the lone superpower with the means to destroy entire nations, why should Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, wield the hammer and have the ultimate say on how American Power is to be used around the world? The only people with a rightful historical claim to America are white Christian Americans. As they gave up their title in the name of America as Proposition Nation for all the world, Jews have no right to claim special ownership of and privileges in America. Indeed, recent events especially following the end of the Cold War have powerfully illustrated the dangers of America-as-lone-superpower being controlled and manipulated for the narrow, supremacist, and hegemonic interests of a tiny minority. Just consider the Wars for Israel that have devastated and/or displaced millions of people. Look what Jewish-Americans, in cahoots with Russian Jews, did to the Russian economy in the 1990s; Jews could pull such a massive scam because they took the Big Stick from the Wasps. Look how Jews made the plight of Palestinians even worse while Israel has been indulged without limit despite its increasingly arrogant and aggressive policies. Consider how Israel is rewarded for having 300 illegal nukes while Iran is economically strangled despite having no nukes and complying with international inspections. And if the New America is all about equality for all, why have so many Jewish crooks, thieves, and gangsters been able to get away with so many crimes and abuses? Where is equal justice in all this? Jews even have special prisons for their own kind.
Consider America as a gun. There was a time when it was a gun held by whites. But Jews told whites that it's unfair and dangerous for whites to own the gun, thereby having unjust power and advantage over other groups. So, whites put the gun on the table so that it could be owned by all, and the only way such sharing would be possible is if the gun is disassembled whereby every group would get a piece of it. That way, no single group could hold the gun to his advantage over others. It would have just a piece, like all other groups. But that didn't happen. Jews grabbed the gun for themselves while handing a toy gun to whites to give the impression that whites still have the gun that has yet to be dismantled and shared equally among all groups. But in fact, the real gun, the real power, is with the Jews who press it on the back of cuck-whites who now have no choice but to do the bidding of Jews. If America were a poor and weak country, it wouldn't matter who owned or ran it. After all, who cares about who owns or runs Burma or Botswana. But the US is the lone superpower and has the power to destroy entire worlds. Thus, American power must be held by a good people. A decent, sane, and responsible people. Even though White America was far from saintly or even all that good, it was still better than most nations around the world, many of which were downright tyrannical, crazy, or evil. Also, with Anglo-Americans at the helms of power, the world got to more-or-less understand, anticipate, predict, and even appreciate what Americanism was all about. There emerged a certain pattern of Wasp attitudes and behavior around which others could adapt themselves.
But with the demise of Wasp rule and rise of Jewish Power that remains behind the curtain, it's been very confusing to the world as to what America is really about. Sure, plenty of people around the world know that the US is Jew-ruled, but because Jews go out of their way to punish anyone or any nation deemed 'antisemitic'(that now means any honest assessment or noticing of Jewish power), even powerful nations like China, Russia, India, and Iran dare not say the JEWS are behind American Power. As for America's obnoxious expressions of obeisance to Israel, Zionism, and Jews? Isn't that evidence enough that Jews control America? But you better not say so. We are to believe that all the politicians, celebrities, and cucks who sing hosannas to Jews and Israel do so purely out of the goodness of their noble hearts because, after all, there is nothing more inspiring in life than to love the Jew, revere the Jew, worship the Jew. "Oh no, Jewish Power didn't make me play fetch and roll over before Jews. I did it out of my own free will because Jews, oh the Jews, are the Chosen, the Holy, the Awesome." This game is very dangerous.
If Whites won't retake America as their special creation and nation, then the only two honest options are (1) We all demand that Jews admit that they are the new elites and take full responsibility on those grounds, i.e. Jews must be fully accountable as the New Rulers of America, taking credit when things go well but taking blame when things fail. It must also be understood by all that the American Proposition is NOT equality but Jewish supremacy. (2) Jews give up their dominant position in the US just like Wasps have done and then sincerely work to ensure that America will really belong to All peoples and will not favor any particular group. In other words, the US will not favor Israel over Palestinians and Iran. It will not favor Jewish globalists against Russia. It will not consider Jewish interests as of paramount importance in decision-making. While Jewish interests will be heard and considered, NO MORE SO than the interests of other groups. It's like the US plays it fair between Greeks and Turks on the issue of Cyprus. If US were truly a World Nation, then it must handle the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the same manner. It must stop insisting that "Israel is America's greatest ally", a supremacist sentiment if there ever was one, while being hostile toward Palestinian concerns. And if white goyim are to be hounded for their over-representation in many fields, the same criticisms must be leveled at preponderance of Jewish wealth and power in so many higher institutions.
Since the end of the Cold War, Arabs and Muslims especially know about the dangers of the Lone Superpower being controlled by one single group. Jews are only 2% of the US population, but they took the steering wheel of the American Battleship and have been using their position to make American superpower to favor Zionists over Arabs and Muslims EVEN WHEN Israel is clearly in the wrong. When we look at the devastation of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen due to Jewish control of America(and when we consider the economic tragedy visited on Iran due to Jewish-controlled US foreign policy), we can understand why Arabs and Muslims would like to see the US belonging equally to all the world. They'd feel much safer in their homelands IF the US were no longer the warship of the Jews. They probably wouldn't mind who owned or controlled America IF American Might wasn't used to bring about so much agony and suffering to the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East. And Arabs and Muslims know that things are the way they are because the US, despite its growing diversity, is firmly controlled by Jews. Indeed, the burgeoning Diversity has, in some ways, emboldened Jewish Power even more because Jews have been able to use Diversity to undermine white power(as potential balance against Jewish Power). As most of Diversity doesn't have the brains, will, and/or guts to rise to the top, Jews will continue to hold most of the power. And Jews play Diversity against whites and whites against Diversity while they themselves are served by both whites and Diversity as Jews who, as high priests and high financiers, control both the Money and the 'Morality'.
America used to be a White Nation. And then, we were told it is to be a World Nation. And in the current year, we are supposed to believe that America belongs equally to all the world and rejects any kind of 'racism' or 'bigotry'. And yet, this is all just a ruse because the US really went from a white-owned nation to a Jewish-controlled nation. Even though its increasing Diversity lends the outward appearance of a World Nation, its inner-workings of power leave no doubt that it is a Jewish supremacist colony, the jewel in the crown(or yarmulke) of the Empire of Judea. And that must end for there to be balance and lasting peace around the world. America should belong to whites, but if whites give up the title, then it must belong to the world. It must not belong to Jewish hustlers who yammer about the America as a World Nation but only really care about World Hegemony by the Tribe.
