Power is about the Mindful Leading the Mindless — No wonder then that Power in the US is about Mindful Jews leading Mindless Goyim... and Jews want it this way because it's easier to lead the mindless fallen under your spell

Power is about the mindful leading the mindless. This explains why the Power wants the young and the status-driven to be so 'woke'. Mindless minions are far more useful than thinking and questioning individuals. They can be led like hounds whose emotions come before reason, whose faith comes before doubt. But as 'wokeness' is disseminated in colleges, it comes with the veneer of higher knowledge. But then, educational institutions throughout the ages have been more about indoctrination than real intellectual curiosity. And to many 'woke' students, what they are taught may indeed seem 'intellectually' and 'critically' stimulating because they are the products of simpleminded religious upbringing, milquetoast middle class values(mostly bland), idiotic pop culture, silly peer pressure, or the like. Thus, even though PC has only the veneer of intellectual pedigree, so many young ones are fooled because college was the FIRST TIME they encountered any 'intellectual' idea. There is also the 'revenge of the uncool' factor. From kindergarten to high school, most of the positive attention goes to the 'cool' or 'popular' kids, the ones who do better in sports, making friends, and the looks department. The smart kids, loners, nerds, wallflowers, and outcasts get little love. But in college, the more cerebral, eccentric, deviant, and/or dweeby types finally begin to feel they matter; so, they dominate and set the agenda, and they just love the power. They feel like Bolshevik Jews unleashed on post-Tsarist Russia.

Now, when I say power is about the mindful leading the mindless, 'mindful' doesn't necessarily mean being thoughtful, mentally sound, contemplative, and/or intellectually honest. Rather, it means to be in-the-know about the cold, calculating, and ruthless nature of power. Also, it especially applies to those whose First Emotion is tribal as one's identity and roots are the most crucial foundation of power. It's like Russian-ness and Chinese-ness have outlasted the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism, and all those Jews who once used to be socialist, communist, anarchist, or libertarian have gravitated back to Jewishness. Real power is about ideology serving, not sacrificing, identity.

Power cannot be about the mindless leading the mindless. The mindless of their own accord will go nuts, drive off the road, and self-destruct sooner than later. Can anyone imagine Antifa leading anything? Or BLM? Or insane feminist wenches? On their own, they'll end up like the morons of the Jim Jones Cult, a case of the mindless leading the mindless, and it soon turned into a total disaster.
Also, the mindless cannot lead the mindful, especially those who are mindful in a good way that is thoughtful and critical. The mindful ask too many questions, are too skeptical & rational, and critically demand the evidence to be carefully weighed.
How about the mindful leading the mindful? This is possible ONLY IF the elites are mindful in a positive way. Imagine an enlightened and principled elite that is concerned with truth, justice, and fairness and is imbued with humility, sense of limits, and healthy dose of realism. Such a positively mindful elite can use its power of academia and media to foster a generally mindful society where the populace is encouraged to know more, think harder, and ask serious questions. Such an elite wouldn't be obsessed only with power, wealth, and privilege. They would want to be good leaders than misleaders.

But what if the elites are negatively mindful, much like today's Jewish Supremacist ruling caste whose worldview is (David)Mametian. Mamet is profoundly Jewish in that his First Emotion is Jewish This, Jewish That, Jewish Everything. His 'libertarian' shtick is just that, shtick. He's a conman through and through(yet sufficiently honest as an artist to explore the ways of power, though he doesn't really spell it out and dabbles in esoterics). According to people like Mamet(and Alan Dershowitz), Jews are the master race and deserve to rule. Why? They got the combination of covenant, chutzpah, and sense(especially in intelligence). Now, the master-race perspective can still be enlightened, i.e. Jews can believe that their higher intelligence obligates them to use their smarts responsibly for the betterment of all mankind, like what Peter Parker's uncle told the kid who would become Spiderman. But, Jewish master race worldview is closer to the Nazi-kind though Jews hide it better. It is based on arrogance, contempt, resentment, and even murderous genocidal hatred. It's like what a certain Israeli rabbi told his flock: "Goyim only exist to serve Jews who should have all the power and wealth and eat like effendi." Now, not all Jews think this way, but the Jews of Power, or JOPs, most certainly do. It's like that piece of turd Jerry Nadler who used his influence to get a terrorist Jewess sprung from jail but lying through his teeth about Russia Collusion and calling it the worst thing since Pearl Harbor. Imagine that, a lie upon a lie. Charles Schumer, being a Democrat, is supposedly a 'liberal', and his ilk whine about 'white supremacism', but his agenda is to maintain white servitude toward Jews to ensure America's total support of Zionist supremacism.
So, the US is certainly not about the positively mindful leading the mindful, or the mindful promoting mindfulness among the masses. Rather, it's about the negatively mindful Jews(who are in-the-know and mainly obsessed with tribal power, privilege, and wealth) turning the people into mindless minions who make ideal suckers. Their #1 goal is Jewish supremacism, and it doesn't matter if it's so-called 'neo-conservative' Jews or 'liberal' Jews. Scratch the surface of both Jews, and what you find is Jewish tribal supremacism. Unlike idiot white libby-dibs and white conzo-wonzos who really hate one another because they think in terms of 'ideology'(or worship different idols), Jewish 'conservatives' and Jewish 'liberals' are simply two arms of the same person. They work together in a quasi-fascist understanding that REAL POWER is the fusion of left and right, not the opposition of one against the other. Of course, Jews inflame animus between goy left and goy right, and it is to weaken them. Keep the goy house divided unto itself. If Jews feared fascism the most, it was because certain goyim finally figured out that the proper formula is "right + left in service of blood and soil". But then, white fascism failed because the cult of personality around Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler encouraged mindless servility among the masses willing to do the bidding of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer without asking questions. Zionism is smarter in that it doesn't ask the Jewish masses to become sheep in blind obedience to some Jewish super-leader. It doesn't say the Jewish masses should turn off their minds in total obeisance to the great leader with the one true mind.

Just think. Why would the negatively mindful Jewish elites(into Mametian power games) want to encourage and support a positively mindful population? It wouldn't be good for Jewish Supremacism. After all, people who are taught and trained to be skeptical, rational, factual, and critical cannot so easily be fooled and manipulated. They are likely to be curious and listen to all sides. They are likely to be doubting thomases who question the narratives dropped from above. They are prone to oppose dogmatism and fanaticism. They'd be wary of sacred cows and taboos. They would ponder how the power really works and wonder as to who really controls the most influential institutions and most powerful industries.
Such a positively mindful educated populace wouldn't be very useful to Jewish Power. Indeed, they could be downright problematic on the matter of supporting the Jewish globalist agenda that is often slanderous, hateful, contemptuous, perverse, corrupt, demented, murderous, and even close to genocidal.
It's like kids begin to question parents and adults in general once they get over Santa Claus and the Bogeyman. They aren't so easy to manipulate anymore. If adults try to put one over on the kids, the kids want to know, "Where's the beef?" Therefore, the power tends to reinforce certain infantilizing tendencies among the populace. On certain issues and topics, control them through mechanisms of magic, dreams, hopes, taboos, and superstitions that aren't all that different from a child's starry-eyed faith in Santa, fairies, demons, and superheroes. It's been the same with the Catholic Church. Even though the Church did much to further learning, thought, arts, culture, and science, it also controlled the faithful through myths and miracles. But that is to be expected of religion as its primary foundation is faith and the supernatural. But when it comes to the modern world and secular education, a truly positively mindful society requires people to be rational, thoughtful, skeptical, and critical. A truly free mind mustn't be clouded with flaky mumbo-jumbo or stricken with rigid dogma or demented fanaticism. But Jewish Power promotes such idiocy because it controls the academia, media, and the state. Of course, such nuttery could be bad for Jews IF anti-Jewish elements controlled the state, media, and education. In National Socialist Germany, the anti-critical cult of Hitler as god-man and savior of the nation was controlled by Josef Goebbels and the like. So, irrationality was to the advantage of anti-Jewish elements. And of course, the Christian Church long relied on mysticism and dogma against the Jews. As Church doctrine was sacrosanct, it couldn't or wasn't questioned by many people. Against such unquestioning power of devotion/faith, Jews(as 'Christ-Killers') could find themselves in precarious situations. This is one reason why Jewish intellectuals came up with Critical Theory. Initially, there was promise in the project, not least because Jewish intellectuals not only questioned the shibboleths of the Goy Right but raised questions about the problems of Marxism and why things weren't likely to turn out as Karl Marx had prophesied. As Paul Gottfried said, certain members of the original Critical Theory were genuine intellectuals. As long as Jews lacked dominance in societies still burdened by unquestioned power and unexamined customs, habits, & attitudes, Critical Theory could do some good. It could contribute to the conversation, and it did. But over time, Jews became the most powerful group, and unsurprisingly, Critical Theory went from an acute questioning of the structures of power to a means of safeguarding and expanding the newly dominant power of the Tribe. It went from being critical of power to being critical of those questioning the power; it effectively turned into Censorial Theory.
It's like Franz Kafka's works read differently today. Back in the early 20th century, Kafka's writings represented the neurosis of the Jew in a dark, hostile, and bewildering world. Today, the writings come across more as a Power Manual for the Jewish elites. Look around, and it's especially the dissident-rightists and Palestinians who are made to feel like Joseph K's. Meanwhile, Jews, flush with power, concoct some of the weirdest (il)logic to defend and expand on their mechanisms of information, law, finance, and the state to supplant reality with their brand of surreality. Consider the Covid hysteria and the utterly Kafkaesque 2020 election. Medicine and Law, once highly respected, have turned into Games-Jews-Play. BLM and Antifa that have led to burning cities and more dead people are promoted as 'justice'. When a man says he's a 'woman', that is 'true', but if you correct him and say he's a man, you are 'misgendering' him. Legal logic, moral logic, they no longer make sense because the premise of current American Thought is "Is it good for Jews?" than "Is it true?" Jew-over-true. Indeed, why would Jews want us to think honestly with transparent access to facts and figures? People might finally realize that Zionism is acting evil and that Jews are the biggest hypocrites.

Consider the current illogic. The Jewish Way is to berate whites about 'racism' and make whites feel sorry for having discriminated against blacks. This would indicate 'racism', the favoring of one race over another, is bad. But do Jews allow whites any moral agency? If whites had any, they'd think, "It was wrong to favor whites over blacks, that was 'racism'. So, against the injustice of 'racism', we whites must use our moral agency to not favor one people over another." Of course, such consistency of moral logic would mean it's wrong for whites to favor Jews over Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and/or Iranians, that is IF whites had moral agency as free-thinking people of principle. But Jews don't want that. Jews preach against 'white racism' not to change and elevate white moral agency but to rob them of it in shylock manner. In other words, guilty whites must hock or hand over their 'moral agency' to Jewish justice-pawnbrokers. Thus, Jews get to decide how white morality shall operate. It's like Donald Trump hocked much of his authority to Jared Kushner to placate the few Jewish bigwigs on his side. Now, what do Jews do with their possession of white morality? Do they use this outsourced material in a good way? No, they pervert, corrupt, and use it to serve Jewish supremacist ends: Hatred against Russia and Iran, support for Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, more Wars for Israel, endless hosannas to Jews, and NO noticing whatsoever of Jewish Power and its vile agendas. Of course, sucking up to Jews-and-Israel per se isn't sufficient to appease Jewish Power. Tucker Carlson is a cucker dweeb who sucks up to Jews and Israel all the time. Still, he is positively mindful enough at times to question the globalist agenda pushed by Jews. This is enough to trigger the nasty Jews at ADL who work hand-in-glove with other powerful Jews to suppress and censor free inquiry and thought. ADL wants the US to remain a shlomocracy, not a democracy.
When whites hocked or outsourced their moral agency to Jews, they pretty much lost everything. After all, it's not the end of the world to be criticized and judged. If Jews were sincere in their moral criticism of whites and if whites freely used their moral agency to do good, things might have turned out rather well. But Jews didn't want this because a self-improving white morality would not only criticize what is bad about whites but what is bad about Jews, blacks, and any other group. A truly moral person is both self-critical and critical of badness everywhere and in everyone. True morality doesn't turn a blind eye to certain bad things and certain good things. It praises goodness of all kinds and condemns badness of all kinds. Jews didn't want this. Jews wanted whites to see only the good about Jews and only the bad about Palestinians and Iranians. On the matter of Russian history, Jews demand that whites see Jews only as innocent victims and see Russians only as baddies; Jewish attitude toward Russia is not unlike Hitler's insane animus toward the Slavs, but then, it's only natural as both Nazi 'Aryans' and Jewish 'Semites' share the vile conviction that inferior backward Slavs should be ruled by the Other. Even when Zionist soldiers beat up Palestinian kids struggling for independence, Jews insist that whites see Jewish victims and Palestinian 'terrorists'. It's like, even though blacks beat up whites and non-blacks, Jews insist that we only see poor innocent blacks being terrorized by 'white supremacism'.
Of course, Jewish Power knows all of this is bogus. No mindful Jew ever believed in Russia-gate. That was for the goy birds, the suckers and chums. It's like Mamet's con-men know exactly what they're doing. They are mindful, mindful of the game where the players know while the played don't know. To Jews of Power or JOPs, it's all a House of Games.
But they are negatively mindful as they're like gangsters than gentlemen. They got the power and money and want more, then more and more. So, what Jews now push as 'critical theory' is the biggest 'punching down' operation in history. It's Jews punching down on whites but with whites propped up as Goliath. Imagine a boxer who's down for the count. Suppose this boxer is lifted up and tied to a pole to create the illusion that he's still in the fight. And so, it's game to keep punching him. Of course, the real champion in the ring is the vicious Jew, but he tells others that the propped up white palooka is still the Evil White Supremacist Champ who must be punched and KO'ed. At this point, whites might as well be scarecrows. Jews use Critical Theory to defend their power and to attack its critics, but the very notion of 'critical theory' lends the impression that it's about 'fighting the power'. It's rather like a human making dogs chase a fox. It's the human who has power over the dogs, but the dogs fixate on the fox as the biggest problem in the world that must be snuffed out.

Now, one wonders how so many people could have gotten suckered over the years. Aren't there more college graduates than ever? But perhaps, larger college bodies led to dumbing down of the curriculum and replacement of intellectual pursuit with easily digestible nonsense. Quantity isn't quality. Still, the core real problem is Jewish Power. Jewish monopoly of the media and dominance in the academia(that also trains people to work in media) led to all information, idols, icons, 'facts', and narratives being molded by Jews.
Still, it wouldn't have been so bad IF people could at least discuss Jewish Power. After all, there was once a time when Anglo-Americans dominated most things, but people could still name the power, blame the power, and shame the power. If anything, Jews led in this exposure and criticism of WASP power. At the very least, Anglo-Americans didn't make themselves out to be sacrosanct and above criticism. But Jews have been different. With increasing power, they pathologized any honest discussion of Jewish Power and influence as 'antisemitism'. Look around today, and Jews throw the label 'nazi' and 'white supremacist' at anyone. If anyone notices Jewish Power, he is said to be spreading 'antisemitic tropes'. In the minds of the ADL and SPLC, there's hardly any difference between Adolf Hitler and some normal person who notices Jewish Power.

Jewish supremacist pathology pathologized ANY view that is critical of Jewish Power as 'antisemitic'. This has been the crux of the problem. Not only did Jews gain monopoly in media and dominance in academia BUT used the power to forbid honest discussion of the extent of Jewish Power and its abuses and corruptions. Why, any such talk would be 'nazi' or 'antisemitic'! So, that means Jews in media and academia(and the state) were able to push narratives, promote idols, and spread dogmas with hardly any opposition. Over the years, the accumulative force of such lies fed to generations of goyim led to the current state of mindless 'wokeness' among whites. They are mindless because they don't play the game but are played by the game. Indeed, they don't even know the game exists. As mindless minions in the game, they see themselves as the 'resistance' fighting Nazi dragons and 'white supremacist' goblins in defense of the race of Anne Franks, the race of Emmett Tills, and people of tutti-fruity. They are terribly easy to activate and manipulate because they are easily triggered by a handful of signals. Jews only need to push a few buttons, and the 'woke' mobs pour into the streets in the name of globo-homo or Noble Negro, just like Mao needed to flash a few signals to bring out millions of Red Guard youths on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. The mindful leading the mindless. If whites weren't so mindless, would the negatively mindful Jews be able to control them so easily? No wonder Jews spread mindlessness as the New Normal in 'thought'. With the 'woke' idiots, Jews only need to yell 'racism', 'white supremacism', or 'nazi' to get them barking and running wild for another fox hunt. Those signals don't induce thought among whites. Rather, they trigger certain emotional responses that fuel 'woke' rage. Much of 'wokeness' owes more to idolatry than ideology, and as such, it's more like a cult or quasi-religion than a thought system. It's like the Catholic Church never proved that God is real or Jesus is the Messiah. There is no factual basis for such claims, but so many people came to believe because of the emotional responses stirred by the combination of storytelling, magic, music, ritualism, and spectacle. All those whites who grew up weeping over the mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a little white mouse(and may indeed be god hisself) in THE GREEN MILE have been rendered incapable of rational thoughts about the Negro.

In a way, the current mindlessness is appealing because of its three-chord narrative. Just like people prefer pop songs over symphonies with their range and depth, most people prefer a few potent themes that ring loud and clear. It's amazing how many hit songs were composed of mere three chords, outselling the far more complex musical works. Pop songs are mostly mindless, but that is the appeal. One need not invest oneself in a pop song. It's all there, the essence of melody, harmony, and beat.
And 'wokeness' is structured that way. The three narrative chords are Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. For all the talk of diversity, the main chords in the same old/new song is Jews, Negroes, and Homos... Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The holy trinity of PC.
As for the villains, they are 'anti-semites'(anyone who notices Jewish Power), 'racists'(anyone who notices black crime and thuggery), and 'homophobes'(anyone who says sodomy is ewwww or that a tranny isn't a woman). The three evils are like 'lions, tigers, and bears' in THE WIZARD OF OZ, an apt movie in our age when fools are indeed being played by hidden forces. (Come to think of it, was Trump really anything more than the Cowardly Lion in a Duck-Soup-like musical orchestrated by Jews? All growl, no bite.)

If domestically, the villains are 'anti-semites', 'racists', and 'homophobes', around the world the usual baddies are Russia, Iran, and China(if only as a distraction from Jewish Power).

PC may be stupid, but it's easily digestible and uncomplicated. To be 'woke', you need not think. Just chant along, march along, and tag along. All you have to do is suck Jewish pud,, kiss homo ass, and wash black feet. And in 'lions, tigers, and bears' fashion, all you have to do is shudder about the dangers of 'antisemites, racists, and homophobes'. And such mindlessness might as well be manna from heaven for Jewish Power. The negatively mindful leading the hordes of the mindless whose buttons are so easy to push.

THE MYSTERY OF JUDAS by Brother Nathanael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lost Connective Links of Our Decadent & Degenerate Society — The Only Remaining 'Value' is Nihilism and Blind Worship of Power & Privilege — There is No Moral Core, just Moral Covers — The Lost Ideal of Virginity and the Rise of Whore-Moms

Civilization is turning into a trash heap because the connective links have been lost. Consider the cells in our bodies. Why are we different from single-cell organisms? A single cell organism like an amoeba lives only for itself. In contrast, all the cells in the human body must coordinate together. No cell in the human body can exist or live alone. It only has meaning in relation to all the other cells in the body. A single brain cell is nothing. It only has meaning in relation to other brain cells, and the cells in the brains have meaning in relation to cells in the heart, cells in the lungs, cells in the bloodstream, and cells throughout the nervous system.

Civilization is like a vast organism. Each person has meaning in relation to the larger society. Without such link, his life lacks meaning and larger purpose. What is the difference between a thug/criminal and a soldier? Both commit acts of violence. The difference is the thug uses violence only for self-gain. He is like a lone animal that attacks only to serve itself. In contrast, a soldier fights for the good of the team, the army, the society, nation. Ideally, he fights for a just cause or for the survival of the community. He is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others with whom he identifies. Even in death, he hangs his hope on the larger community commemorating the heroism of people like himself, and in a sense, something of him lives on as long as the memory is kept alive. It’s like the Toshiro Mifune character in Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI gains larger meaning by using his fighting skills to defend a village of farmers under attack by bandits. He could have been a petty thief serving only himself, but he chose to fight and die for something nobler and worthier. And the thief in KAGEMUSHA gains new meaning through attachment to the Takeda Clan. Prior to his role of service to a higher cause/power, he was just some lone thief with nothing to live or die for except petty interests. It’s like the outlaws in THE WILD BUNCH(by Walon Green and Sam Peckinpah) gain a bit of redemption when they put their lives on the line for the principle of loyalty. Prior to their awakening and resolve, they’d been little more than killers and thieves. So, the difference between thug violence and soldier/policeman violence is the thug only thinks of himself whereas the solider or police officer thinks of the larger community and higher ideals and/or just cause.

Unlike animals that live for brute survival and most primal needs, humans have developed complex morality, values, and organizations. Being part of something bigger, our lives gain meaning in terms of morals, values, duties & obligations, legacy, and posterity. Moral civilization is about posterity, whore culture is about the posterior.
What goes for violence also goes for sex. Sex is animal drive and natural act. But humans are more than animals. Non-black races can be more than savages. So, they have found deeper meaning and purpose in sex. They learned to devise rules and laws to tame and control the biology of sex. Animals don’t know sex leads to new life. They just go into heat and hump one another. Negroes do know sex leads to new life, but Negro men don’t care to take care of their kids. They just want to go around and bang as many ho’s as possible and leave it to OTHERS to raise their kids. (And Cuck Christians and Prog-Whites, by indulging bad black behavior as the White Man's Burden & Blame, encourage more blacks to act nasty and crazy.)

Unlike blacks, the civilized races(at least those who haven't fallen to decadence and degeneracy fueled by demented popular culture) don’t see sex as mere animal horniness or wild debauchery. They see it as a natural drive/process that leads to new life and all the attendant blessings and burdens. Also, sex is seen as part of something bigger: Search for love, courtship, marriage, new life, parenting, acculturation, and etc. So, sex isn’t just for sex but part of something broader, deeper, and more meaningful. Without such mindset, civilization is impossible to create or sustain. Civilization isn’t about petty individuals indulging themselves obliviously to the larger needs of society. It’s about building links between various facets of life and society-as-a-whole to construct and preserve a system of meaning, worth, and higher values. Society links a warrior’s violence with duty, cause, heroism, and sacrifice. Civilization links sexual desire with love, marriage, parenting, children, and posterity. When such links are severed, warriors are reduced to thugs and mercenaries. And sexual desire just turns animal and crude. It is just for the pleasure of the moment. When things fall apart, the morally-minded seek to do the right thing to restore order whereas the nihilistic take advantage of the chaos to do as they please. While some people have an innate sense of morality, others are naturally prone to nihilism. Notice how blacks tend to riot and loot whenever the chance arises. It's almost as if they feel most at home in a savage state-of-nature. And then, there are lots of people who can go either way. They have good in them but also some bad. In the short story RASHOMON, a man finds himself without a purpose in a collapsing world. He teeters between morality and nihilism, finally choosing the latter. As most of us have both good and bad in us, we can go either way, though most whites and Asians will tend toward the good whereas most blacks will choose the bad under trying circumstances.

Matters are all the more dangerous today because the hubris of animal drives is no longer checked(at least immediately) by the nemesis of consequences. By the ruthless laws of nature, a woman who fools around too much will become pregnant or become diseased(and die). Being pregnant, she will have to sober up and take care of the kid. But in modern society, a woman can rely on artificial means of the Pill, condoms, and abortion to free herself of the consequences of her behavior. So, she can act wild and excessive without nature's check on her thoughtlessness. If she gets a disease, she can be treated with antibiotics. And even if she does decide to have the kid, the state will pay for child care and provide her with everything. So, female behavior can get totally out of control, and it’s gone totally nuts in the black community, what with black mothers even raising their kids to 'twerk'. Advanced technology enabled people to act even wilder and more savage than they would in the jungle wild. And this craziness is spreading to white and Asian communities too.

It should be no surprise that Homomania made huge gains in recent times. It is due to the de-linking of the natural drives from morality, culture, and nobler themes of society. There was a time when marriage linked together nature, morality, culture, family, spirituality, and children. But as the links have been cut, there is only the hedonism of the individual. So, everything is judged according to what kind of pleasure it brings to the Individual. So, if vain homo individuals demand their 'happiness' with ‘gay marriage’, then they must be allowed to ‘marry’ too. This is what happens when ‘marriage’ is de-linked from nature, morality, & culture and is, instead, regarded merely as a jolly 'choice' or 'right' of individuals in pursuit of hedonistic ‘happiness’ as vanity and 'pride'.
Worse, a disconnected society will come to favor power and privilege as the highest goods. As nature is no longer restrained, controlled, and guided by morality, integrity, and truth, it runs wild in pursuit of unfettered power and domination. The post-moral West is all about power and money. As Jews have most wealth and influence, they can rewrite the rules and even bring about something like 'gay marriage'. Why not? Jews got the most power, and a nihilistic society worships power. If Jews want it, they get it. (Notice that so-called Conservatives, so worshipful of Jewish Power, did NOTHING to stop Homomania. It's telling that the main donor to the GOP is Sheldon Adelson, the sleazy casino oligarch.) And as homos are the favorite ally of Jews and have plenty of power & privilege themselves, they can do as they like and demand that we follow along. And so many people go along because, deep down inside, the only thing they worship is power and privilege. And why are blacks allowed to do as they please and run wild and act crazy? Because a nihilistic society worships naked displays of power, and so many people in the West now worship Negroes as athletes, rappers, and studs. Just like black college athletes are protected from legal issues for their prowess on the field, the West indulges whatever blacks do because blacks are deemed 'badass' and 'cool'. Of course, Jews, homos, and blacks don't publicly claim to be about nihilism and power-worship. If anything, they make a lot of moral-sounding noises about 'antisemitism', 'racism', and 'homophobia', but their arguments are not true morality but distortions made possible by an excess of power and corruption. Globo-Homomania cannot be true morality. It can be a form of sham-morality only in an utterly degenerate society where the Good is determined not by genuine understanding and conscience but by deceptions & decrees of the ruling class that only really cares for power and privilege. The current US is not about having a moral core; it's about using moral covers to excuse the vile and vicious behaviors of Jews, blacks, and homos. Consider what Jussie Smollett was allowed to get away with, and consider how Google algorithms undermine the search for truth about his 'hate hoax', really a hateful crime against white Americans. And consider how the Media and Academia have made 'pride' nearly synonymous with homosexuality and trannies. Now, I'm sure those into Globo-Homomania sincerely feel themselves to be 'good' and 'moral' people who are all about 'tolerance' and etc., but such delusions only go to show how the Power can distort and deform hearts & minds of people who, under normal conditions of sanity and sobriety, would know better. A society that forces people to say "I love Big Brother" is bad enough. At least those saying it would know they're being forced. But a society where people are made to say "I love Big Brother" with heartfelt sincerity has truly gone over the cliff where decency and integrity are concerned. The existing Power would be such that it can not only force people to say or do the insane and demented but convince them that they are doing something sane and moral, even 'spiritual', what with so many churches being draped with the 'gay rainbow' flag.

So many women are now sexually degenerate, utterly corrupted by the Power that now equates whore-behavior with empowerment. (No wonder the Power used Camille Paglia to push the idolization of the skank.) They no longer see sexual desire as a link in the chain of love, courtship, marriage, family, parenting, children, and posterity. It’s just a Lady Gaga or Lena-Dunham thing where it’s just about momentary orgasms, howling like morons at nightclubs, dancing by sticking their asses to be rubbed by male groins in public, and etc. And there is no shame… or shame has been repressed because Mammon decrees that nothing is more shameful than to feel shame about surrendering to debauchery. Shame the shame and de-link people from the larger themes and meanings of a moral community. Just tell them that what matters most is the individual’s pleasure of the moment.
Or worship whoever has the most money or power. Consider how the current 'leftism' is all about corporate power and wealth. It's about the supposedly 'progressive' support of global corporations that monopolize everything and just get richer and richer. Today's supposed 'leftists' are more likely to champion Mark Zuckerberg and Google oligarchs than Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, the whistleblowers against the power. They are more likely to support oligarchic suppression of free speech that speaks truth to Jewish Power, exposes Globo-Homo degeneracy for what it is, and frankly discusses black problems of crime and mayhem.

Of course, moments pass, and people grow old. And when all their moments were lived only for the moment, they have nothing to call their own. Moments are like bricks. If you can see the bigger picture, you stack each moment like a brick in the building of a house. Over time, all those moments come together to constitute a meaningful house of purpose and memories. But, if you see each brick as just something to toss into the air for the fun of it, all those bricks become strewn and lost, without rhyme or reasons, and there is no house at the end.

The de-linking of natural drives from culture, meaning, morality, and posterity will be the undoing of civilization.

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

Ideally, people shouldn’t throw away their virginity on some punk or floozy.
It should be lost with or offered to the right lover/spouse. It used to be the norm that virginity was prized and highly regarded as something precious. It was something you guarded and kept, especially if you were a woman, and finally offered to the one you truly loved.

But then, virginity came to be seen as something like a disease, a plague. It had to be gotten rid of as fast as possible. It was like the cooties.
So, we have teens eager to lose it as fast as possible with someone they don’t even like, often while they're drunk and semi-conscious... just so they can say "I lost it" to their peers who are similarly brainwashed with degenerate Pop Culture. So, some teen guy will roll in the hay with some fat ho’ just to brag that he's now some kind of stud. Or the teen girl will lose it with some half-wit moron and make a fuss about how she lost it.

How did this happen? How did we go FROM a society that prized virginity as something precious that should be offered to the one you love TO a society that regards virginity as social disease, something one should be ashamed of? Pop Culture?

For most of human history — at least outside Negro-verse of wild jungle-bunner behavior in Africa and America — , the ideal was to hold virginity as something special to finally offer to the one you love.

Take the concept of ‘deflowering’. So, the virginal poon was like a pretty flower and it was to be offered for deflowering only to the worthy gardener. But now the only concept is ‘plowing’. A guy will say he met some ho’ and ‘plowed’ her fat arse.

I compare the generation of my friends’ parents and my friends, and there is no comparison. Whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Italian, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, the parents all got married, raised families, and grew up. But so many of my friends are immature infantile degenerate tards forever. Also, among my parents generation, it was often the case that their husbands were the first and only man the mothers did it with. There was special bonding and loyalty. But among the daughters, I see a lot of whore behavior. And some of them got ugly tattoos, and they dress like hoors. Now, what kind of mothers will they be to their kids? It will be like kids growing up with prostitute moms. Most of my friends had moms whom they respected. They saw their moms as having been respectable women before they met their hubbies and had kids. But when their daughters become moms, their kids will grow up seeing their tattoo mom-whores as someone who banged tons of guys before they finally settled down with some husband who might not even stick around. It’s all shudder-worthy. What degeneration of society. It’s like the world is becoming Negro-globalized or Neglobalized.

White American Elites represent the Worst Template for All the World — The Fable of the Gulping Hippo — When Elites no longer lead the Masses of their own kind, it’s Game Over for that People... unless Another Elite rises to represent, defend, and lead the Masses to Independence and Sovereignty

The Fable of the Gulping Hippo

The World Beware. White American Elites are the worst elites in the world, and all nations should be wary of the ways of such an elite. It’s a historical truth that a people are like a shapeless mass and can’t rule themselves. As the Founding Fathers knew, concentration of power may be evil but it’s a necessary evil. The power is like the watchtower. Its elevated and vaunted position allows those on top to see, hear, know, and reach more than the masses of individuals who make up the People. Imagine a village where most people are at ground level. In contrast, a few have access to the top of the tower and can see further than most people. Seeing more and knowing more, those atop the power can warn the people below of the dangers or fortunes far yonder. If an enemy tribe is coming toward the village, those atop the tower can see the threat before anyone on the ground. If a herd of deer or other prey animals appear in the horizon that can feed the village, those atop the tower can spot the good fortune before anyone on the ground.
Indeed, if not for the vision afforded by the tower, the people of the village may not even know of the herd that had passed by near the village. Also, those atop the tower can see everyone in the village, and everyone in the village can see in unison those on the top. At ground level at a gathering or rally, a villager can only see those in close proximity, and these people block all the others behind them. But from the tower, one can see the whole crowd. Those on the tower feel a sense of authority and privilege. And those below are likely to see those on top with a certain respect, even awe.
Now, those atop the tower can try to use their advantageous position for their own self-aggrandizement, and many elites have been like that through the ages. Or, they can be mindful of others in the village and use their elevation and greater reach in vision to serve the community. Thus, they become like the eyes, ears, lips, and brains of a the community that is the body. They speak to the community, they speak for the community, the listen to what the community has to say, and they plan for the community. After all, whatever special gifts those atop the tower may possess, they didn’t build the tower alone. All the community took part in laboring to erect such a tall edifice. And they surely didn’t do it just so the fortunate few could enjoy the cool breeze up above.

In the past, the American elites understood how much their good fortune depended on the people. After all, the elites alone couldn’t chop down trees, plow the fields, reap the harvests, lay down roads, build towns and cities, and etc. The fortunes of the elites relied on the labor of the masses. Of course, this was true of all societies around the world, but the ideal of the Modern West was that the elites must be mindful of those who do much of the hard work. When American economy was mainly agricultural and/or industrial, the elites understood the value of Labor and the Working Man. But as globalism changed so much of the US economy into a game of finance, high tech, and information-sharing(or intelligence-gathering), more and more of the American Labor force became obsolete, not least because (1) globalism could use cheaper foreign labor by outsourcing or mass-immigration (2) much of American Labor degraded under Union corruption, hedonism, & degeneracy(from drug use, family breakdown, feminism, declining white birthrates, and youth culture) and (3) rise of yuppie vanity & homo narcissism led to loss of respect for entire sectors of the economy as suitable only for ‘losers’ or ‘Mexicans’.
But perhaps, most crucial of all, the White American Elites came under the power of the Jewish globalists. Some might say the Jews are now the New Elites of America, but this isn't really true. While it’s true that Jews constitute the most powerful force in the US, they can’t be characterized as ‘American Elites’, no more than the British were really Indian Elites(in British ruled South Asia that once incorporated India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) or Chinese Elites(in Hong Kong) for that matter. Rather, the British Elites in India and Hong Kong were Imperial Elites who ruled over the native masses via local ‘comprador’ elites who willingly collaborated with foreign overlords for self-gain. (To be sure, there could be mass support for foreign rule IF such was deemed far saner and more productive than native rule. It appears most Chinese in Hong Kong preferred British rule to that of Mainland China ruled by madman Mao.) In a similar vein, Jewish elites in the US are not really American Elites as they’re part of a vast worldwide network of power that could be called the Empire of Judea or EOJ. Jewish overlords and elites in the US don’t feel primarily as Americans. They feel as Jews, and they feel closer to fellow Jews around the world than with fellow Americans of non-Jewish stock. Jews in NY and LA feel closer to Jews in London, Paris, and Tel Aviv than to non-Jewish Americans in Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, Iowa, Tennessee, and etc. Indeed, the very fact that Jews want to flood the US with endless immigration-invasion goes to show their outlook is global than national. Jews don’t value any population that could be deemed as Core America. Jews don’t care about the history of Core America that was white, European(non-Jewish), and Christian. If they feel any sense of connection to that America, they would try to defend and preserve it. But they not only feel no love for it but feel much hatred and resentment. For Jews, Wasps will always be associated with better-looking and taller Anglos who didn’t let their grandpas into Golf-n-Country Clubs or didn’t let their pretty shikse daughters marry Jewish boys. And Jews will always associate White Ethnics with the big Polish Catholic lunkhead who called Jewish kids ‘Christ-killer’ and maybe stole some lunch money from nerdy neurotic kids named Isaac.
Of course, Jews see Mexicans as just losers who should pick tomatoes and shut up. Jews do prize blacks to the extent that blacks are lucrative in sports and music, two industries controlled by Jews, but Jews don’t worry too much about the Negroes because most Negroes can’t rise very high, even with ‘affirmative action’ wind behind their backs. (The main black threat to Jews is that Jewish girls are creating a new ‘covenant’ centered around their vaginas on the basis of ‘what does my pooter want’, and for many Jewish girls, it’s big Negro dong. So, perhaps, Jewish power will really be brought down by black dongs. As Jewish girls turn into wild skanks chasing after Negro dongs, Jewish boys will go with more Asian women, and their kids will be born with mellow yellow genes that are lacking in the chutzpah that's been so integral to Jewish power. After all, intelligence alone without the rocket boosters of pushiness lacks motivation to go very far. Indeed, consider the fall of the Episcopalians who had the intelligence but not the pushy drive to have it all and crush all competition.)

Jews never really became Americans. They never assimilated into the Core America as founded and developed by Anglo-Americans. It was too ‘gentile’ and too ‘Christian’ for the Jews with their strong individual egos and ethnocentric identity. Indeed, if later whites from Eastern and Southern parts of Europe came with sense of ethnicity, Jews came with a sense of ethnocentrism. Ethnicity can dissolve into the Larger Identity of a nation, but ethnocentrism resists being absorbed into something else. So, if most white ethnic groups were digested into White Anglo-America, Jews remained apart as a people and culture. If white Christians had long ago adopted a religion that arose in the Near East, Jews have always had a direct cultural and genetic link with the Near East. If whites adopted a heretical variant of Judaism, Jews founded a community 1500 yrs before Christ. As far as Jews were concerned, Christianity was the biggest ‘cultural appropriation’ of all time. It is a Stolen Religion as far as Jews are concerned. (It is no wonder than Martin Bernal the Jewish scholar goes even further and says that even the pagan core of Western Civilization was stolen from Africa and Near East in his book ‘Black Athena’, which was originally titled ‘African Athena’.)
Also, if whites have genetic roots in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews have been half-European and half-Semitic. So, Jews have always been somewhat ‘Zeligish’ and dualistic about their racial identity. They were both whites and Semites, a perception shared by Jews and all-whites alike. Then, it is not surprising that Jews didn’t feel like assimilating like other white ethnic groups in the US. Granted, some Jews did become racially and culturally mixed with whites. They Anglo-ized their names and took on Wasp manners and attitudes. But as more and more Jews arrived, especially from Eastern Europe, a distinct Immigrant-Jewish-Identity formed that overtook the earlier mode of Jewishness that leaned more toward assimilation. Yet, Jews knew they couldn’t get very far with mere isolation in their own ghettos. To rise in wealth and power, they had to work with whites and peoples around the world. So, Jews developed a powerful ethnocentric core and an adaptive cosmopolitan shell. For a time, certain Jewish scholars were especially fascinated with the Japanese who seemed to handle modernity in a similar way: Acting Western with foreigners but keeping it very Japanese at home and within their own community. But if Japanese could remain meaningfully Japanese only in Japan, Jews managed this even outside as minorities in other nations. After all, Japanese-Americans are utterly deracinated and deculturalized; they are cucky-san like Francis Fukuyama. Paradoxically, Jewish ethno-centrism strengthened Jewish cosmopolitanism and vice versa. Because cosmopolitanism tends to weaken and erase identity and culture, secular Jews felt they had to make an extra-effort to preserve and pass down their Jewishness. (In a truly inspired scene in A SERIOUS MAN by the Coen Brothers, it’s the Jewish ritual that keeps the community together and the culture intact because, without it, the formative culture for the children would be TV shows, drugs, rock music, and etc. Despite all such deracinating and degenerative forces, the father manages to pass down something ethnic, cultural, and spiritual through the ritual of the Bar Mitzvah.) And because Jews were so ethno-centric, they had to make an extra effort to be ‘liberal’ and ‘open-minded’ with other peoples. Because Jews needed both modes for success and power(and sometimes for survival) and because the modes were opposites, Jews had to work against ethnocentrism for cosmopolitanism(in dealing with goyim) and work against cosmopolitanism for ethnocentrism(in their own hearts). Granted, Jews eventually managed to persuade a lot of Americans that Jewishness-Zionism-Israel is as American as Apple Pie. Therefore, Jews can now be openly ethnocentric and cosmopolitan at the same time. But how long can this serious contradiction last?


To better understand the Jew, consider The Fable of the Gulping Hippo. Whatever the Gulping Hippo eats turns into the Hippo. This shouldn’t surprise us as this is true of all of organisms. When we eat carrots, we don't turn into carrots, e.g. our fingers sprout into carrots and our skin turns orange. When we eat beef or fish, we don’t turn cow-like or fish-like. We can eat 100 fish over several months, but we remain human. We don’t develop gills or scales or want to live in water. We can eat lots of steaks, but we won’t suddenly go ‘moo’ like cows or grow horns or develop an appetite for hay. Instead, whatever we eat turns into us. The proteins and vitamins are broken down and absorbed into our body. They become digested and processed into our bodily systems. And it’s the same with the Gulping Hippo. Whatever the Hippo eats turns into it. Now, this Gulping Hippo is an enviable beast. It is big and strong. And other creatures admire the Hippo so much that they want to be part of it. So, one day, the Gulping Hippo tells the other creatures that they are welcome to enter its mouth to its stomach. The Hippo’s melting-pot stomach will digest all of them and turn them into parts of the hippo. Other creatures like this idea of becoming one with the hippo. So, when the Gulping Hippo opens its mouth wide, other animals come onboard. Rabbits, badgers, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, lizards, frogs, skunks, opossums, gophers, ducks, sparrows, and etc. all head into the Hippo’s mouth. The Hippo chomps on all of them and gulps them down. Its stomach processes and digests them, and they are absorbed by the hippo’s body. So, it doesn’t matter how many kinds of animals the hippo eats. It remains hippo while growing larger. Just because the hippo ate a dozen rabbits doesn’t make it rabbity. Just because the hippo ate a bear doesn’t make it a bear. To be sure, there is one creature the hippo has failed to digest all these years, and it’s a gorilla. Yes, sometime back, the Hippo had this idea of swallowing a gorilla thinking the ghastly ape would be nutritious, but indigestible simian has been stuck in the digestive tract since. But the Gulping Hippo has been able to eat other creatures and process them in its melting-pot-stomach into nutrients for its body. So, Hippo eats all sorts of creatures and uses them as nutritious building blocks to grow bigger and stronger as a hippo.
But one day, the Hippo came upon the hook worm. Hippo thought, "this doesn’t look very tasty", but the hookworm told the Hippo, "You should eat me. I would be most happy to be processed by your melting-pot-stomach and become a part of you... just like all the other creatures." But the Hippo eyed the hookworm and thought, "But this fella looks rather odd." The hookworm asked the Hippo why it’s so afraid. After all, the hookworm is smaller than other creatures that the hippo ate, such as racoons, rabbits, owls, wombats, gophers, bears, and hogs. I mean, what is a tiny hookworm? Is the big and mighty hippo too chicken to try a little hookworm? Thus assured, the Hippo decides to swallow a bunch of hookworms. The hookworms went into the stomach of the hippo, but instead of being digested like earlier creatures, it sank its hooks into the stomach of the hippo and began to suck on its blood. The hippo thought the hookworms were digested and became part of the hippo, but the hookworms refused to surrender their hookworm-ness and be digested by the Hippo. Hookworms clung to their hookworminess and, if anything, felt that the Hippo existed to feed the hookworms, the best organisms in the world. The hippo began to feel strange. It felt more drained of strength. Also, it began to notice blood in its stools. Because the hippo felt weaker, it felt the need to swallow more and more creatures, but its digestion was no longer working like it used to. So, the new creatures the hippo ate were only half-digested and caused all sorts of stomach-aches. Also, the hookworms released certain viruses that traveled to the brains of the hippo and began to take over the functions. The viruses told the brains to just lay the hippo body down and not defend itself from other creatures. Until then, the hippo was a powerful beast that devoured other creatures but made sure no other creature was able to devour it. So, the hippo digested other creatures to turn them into part of hippo-nes but wouldn’t allow other animals to take a bite of the hippo. If anything, when a Japanese monkey chucked a spear at the hippo’s butt once, the hippo got so mad that it stampeded over the hapless monkey and turned it into a pancake. Indeed, the hippo’s hide was thick and tough, like a wall between Israel and West Bank. But the viruses in the Hippo’s brains whispered that it’s wrong for the hippo to be hostile to other creatures that just want to play with the hippo. The hippo should stop fighting or fending off other creatures that seem to have a taste for hippo meat. If anything, the hippo should be flattered that such creatures love hippo flesh. The hippo should be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ of the would-be-eaters-of-hippo. Also, the hookworms release certain chemicals that agitate the gorilla in the Hippo’s belly into acting wild and crazy. So, the Gulping Hippo increasingly feels weak from loss of blood to the hookworms, increasingly perturbed by some crazy-ass gorilla beating its chest, and increasingly deluded that it should stop defending itself from predators & scavengers and just lie down and rest. So, what happens? Lions, hyenas, jackals, wild dogs, leopards, weasels, fire ants, badgers, and etc. move towards the Hippo and begin to devour it like a helpless beached whale. And that’s how the Gulping Hippo died. What happened to the Hookworms? When the other creatures at the hippo’s innards, the hookworms entered their stomached and caused new havoc.

So, you understand how Jews destroyed America. Until 1965, the US mostly took in assimilate-able fellow whites. Though Southern and Eastern Europeans posed some problems, they were fellow whites and once they adopted the American Way, they were more or less like the original white Americans. They were digested into Anglo-Germanic America. But Jews were different. They remained Jewish first and American second. They didn’t see America as something to melt into. They saw America as a trove of goy treasures to be melted down into gold for Jewish pockets. If Anglos thought Jews would be digestible like Poles, Lithuanians, Slavic Russians, Greeks, French, and etc., they were dead wrong. Jews were like hookworms that resisted digestion and, if anything, sucked on the blood of the host. Also, Jews took over the Anglo-American mind and reprogrammed Core Americanism into some ‘propositional’ and ‘open borders’ ideology whereupon White America would no longer have the right or means to defend and preserve itself. Thus, America went from a strong white hippo that pushed away invaders to a hapless hippo(as beached whale) that welcomes all manner of creatures to come and devour it in the name of ‘diversity’. (Whites have been told that Diversity is good because of More Restaurants, but the real menu of globalism is white nations fed to non-whites of the world who are steered into white nations by Jewish globalists.)
The Hippo once used to devour digestible creatures to make itself bigger and stronger. The creatures were digested to add to Hippo-ness. But now, the hippo is devoured by others to become parts of other creatures. It’s like the American Southwest is now being devoured by Mexicans to make it more Mexican. And parts of Minnesota and Maine are now being devoured by Somalians to make them more like Somalia. This is what happens when you swallow Jewish hookworms.

In the Current US, the white elites are not only useless but dangerous as a template for the rest of the world. White elites no longer exist to represent, lead, serve, and defend the white masses. They no longer play the Moses-role and David-role for whites. As power and means are concentrated in the elites, a people cannot do anything without them. It’s like a military cannot function without hierarchy and chain of command. A good army has generals who remain loyal to their own side and care about the men. If generals just go off the play golf and tell the soldiers to fight on their own, the army will lose. Individual soldiers may be tough, but they cannot coordinate battle plans as individuals. They need leaders and chain of command that allows for larger strategy, communication, coordination, and logistics. Take the film SEVEN SAMURAI. The seven swordsmen on their own cannot defend the village from 40 bandits, some of whom have guns. The battle will ultimately have to depend on the peasants learning to fight and showing courage. So, why do the peasants need the samurai so much? Because the peasants, though numerous, don’t know anything about organization, leadership, fighting, and strategy. So, in hiring samurai, they hired elites to lead them. In the Old Testament, the Jews are initially without kings. But as their numbers swell and their enemies multiply, Jews are in need of more organization and strategy. They need kings and ruling elites. This is why a people cannot do without elites. It’s like a headless chicken. And today, white people are like a headless chicken. Jews took over America, but they feel no great unity with white people. Indeed, Jews see themselves as globalist supremacist masters. If they feel any real love for any nation, it is Israel. If anything, Jews are hellbent on destroying Europe with massive African and Muslim immigration-invasion. Only Israel is given Pass-Over rights from the plague of Afro-Islamo Mass Invasion, just like only Jewish sons were protected from God’s Wrath when Moses returned to Egypt.

White elites are no longer the ruling class in America. Many of them still have lots of wealth, but they morally cuck out to Jews, blacks, and Diversity because of the change in the Official Narrative that made whites mainly responsible, indeed ‘guilty’, for the ‘sins’ and problems of America. Jews not only have wealth and power to out-match those of white elites but they occupy the ‘sacerdotal’ positions of society. As the Holocaust People, they strut around and sermonize as if each and every Jew is the new messiah. If white elites are cursed with the sin of ‘white guilt’, it means their wealth and advantages are morally illegitimate due to ‘crimes’ of their ancestors or their ‘white privilege’. Therefore, they mustn’t be proud or positive about their identity, heritage, and culture. Since white consciousness is out of the question, white elites cannot be the leaders of white people or the white race. If anything, they must cut ties to fellow whites on the political and cultural level. To justify their white wealth despite the burden of ‘white guilt’, they can use their power and wealth to lend aid or support only to non-whites. It’s like Bill Gates Foundation offers NOTHING to whites, no matter how poor, needy, and lost they are.
If white elites don’t particularly want to do favors for blacks, browns, or Diversity, they can partially redeem themselves by sucking up to the Jewish Globalist Overlords of the Empire of Judea, of which the US is now a colony. How things have changed. There was a time when white elites ruled the US, felt positive about whiteness, and represented, led, and defended white Americans(from foreign threats and from the tougher and stronger blacks). But today, white elites don’t rule the US, feel negative about whiteness, snub & insult fellow white brethren, only offer comfort to blacks & non-whites, and suck up to Jews(and even homos).

Such being the status of the White Elites in the US, The Way of the American White Elites is the most terrible template for national elites of any nation. Take Turkey. Suppose Turks decide to follow the American White Elite Way. Suppose Turks allow Jews or some minority to gain dominant power in Turkey. Suppose Turks allow this new elite to emphasize only the darkest and most tragic aspects of Turkish history and instill Turkish elites with guilt and shame about being Turk. So, no matter how much wealth and privilege a Turk gains, he feels shame and rejects the idea that Turkish elites should defend Turkishness and represent/defend fellow Turks in the middle and bottom. So, there is no unity and connection Turkish elites and masses. If anything, Turkish elites they must care more about non-Turks like the Kurds and even welcome massive immigration-invasion of non-Turks into Turkey with the hope of turning Turks into a minority in their own nation. And the Turkish elites shower praise and adoration on the non-Turks while heaping abuse on Turkish patriots who call for the demographic, cultural, and territorial preservation of Turkey. Indeed, the patriots are caricatured as the 'far right'. And, most of all, the Turkish elites don’t see themselves as the rulers of Turkey but cuck-collaborators to the globo-minority overlords who’ve gained real power in Turkey through control of finance, media, entertainment, education, vice industries, and much else. And the Turkish elites allow the globo-minority elites to replace Islam with Homomania and to teach kids from a young age that nothing is more sacred in the world than the homo anus, the Negro booty-and-dong, and Jewish soul. Well, what would happen to Turkey in a matter of decades? The total fading of a civilization from history, that’s what.

Now, let’s apply the White American Elite Template to Vietnam. What would happen to that country if the Vietnamese Elites were to emulate White American Elites? They would allow a foreign globalist elite to take the real power in Vietnam. This minority would take over Vietnamese banking, media, academia, and government(by buying up all the whore politicians). And this minority will change the Narrative and instill Vietnamese with ‘yellow guilt’. Feeling guilt and shame, the Vietnamese elites would no longer believe in the feasibility of promoting Vietnamese pride or self-respect. Indeed, Vietnamese identity and consciousness would be seen as ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘ugly’, and ‘reactionary’. So, even though Vietnamese can still get rich and gain elite status, the Viet elites can no longer feel pride in their identity or feel a sense of unity and solidarity with their own people. Indeed, the elites come to see the Vietnamese masses as ‘deplorables’ for clinging to their Vietnamese identity. And then, the Vietnamese elites believe their own ‘deplorable’ people must be replaced by Diversity from all over the world. Since Vietnamese-ness is associated with ‘guilt’, the only redemption is for Vietnam to De-Vietnamize itself. And Vietnamese elites must see themselves as ‘global citizens’ than as Vietnamese patriots and leaders. They no longer represent, serve, and defend their own people. They only care about their own wealth and privilege that, under the New Narrative, can be morally justified ONLY BY the Viet support of mass immigration-invasion and Homomania. The Vietnamese masses feel lost as there is no longer an elite to lead them. And many of them come under PC brainwashing as the elites, taking their cue from globalist overlords, replace patriotic education with PC, anti-national self-hatred, and Homomania. How long would Vietnam last as a nation? Not long.

Indeed, if any nation’s elites follow in the footsteps of the white American elites(who are putty in the hands of Jews), it will spell doom for their nation. There are lots of great things about America, but by far the worst element of Current America is the Way of the White Elites. It is the worst kind of Elite Behavior in the world, but it has become the template for nearly all Western European nations and even possibly nations like Japan that remain under the thumb of the US. Whatever may be wrong with China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, they still have national elites who feel a direct connection to their own people, feel pride and self-respect about their identity and culture, and believe the main duty of the national elites is to serve and defend their own people. Typical members of the US elites are Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, Bill Gates, John Brennan, Mitt Romney, Jeff Bezos, Andrew Cuomo, Anderson Cooper(the Pooper), and etc. Now, what do all such goy white elites have in common? They feel no positivity about whiteness or European-ness. They have no connection with their own race and culture. They suck up to Jewish globalist overlords. Their definition of ‘American’ has more to do with ‘New Americans to shop for from around the world’ than with Historic White Americans who founded and built the nation. And they care more about Homomania as new religion than about Christianity. And they repeat the mantra, ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’ to justify their total abandonment of their own race and ethnic kin. Of course, they are all zealously committed to Israel being a Jewish state, but then, such hypocrisy is to be expected from decadent, degenerate, corrupted, and craven elites who, having lost moral legitimacy in terms of identity, believe they can keep their loot only by baptizing their whiteness in a tub of PC and Diversity.

It is precisely because the White American Elites got so useless that Jews thought they won for all time. Jews figured that the white elites would cuck out to Jews. And the white masses, being no longer represented and defended by white elites, would lose heart, lose their minds, lose their senses, become addicted to drugs, race-mix with Negroes, and be replaced by endless tides of Diversity that would make any united humanity against Jews nearly impossible. Indeed, Jewish globalist elites believe that the ONLY thing standing between Jews and total-eternal power is the white majority. Even if most white Americans weren't anti-Jewish, there is the possibility that they could be, especially as Jews get richer, nastier, and more supremacist. With Jewish power in hyper-drive, the ONLY guarantee for permanent Jewish supremacy is Diversity because a people divided along ethnic and cultural lines cannot come together to form a united bloc. This is why Jews also pushed Diversity on Europe. But Donald Trump won.

Now, Trump may very well fail in the end, and Jews may get what they want. But what Trump and the Alt Right represented was the awakening realization that the White American Elites are utterly useless to White People, many of whom are hungry for a true elite that can inspire and lead white people into Emancipation from the Tyranny of the Empire of Judea.
This is why Jews are so committed to stamping out the Alt Right and destroying Donald Trump anyway they can. Jews fear the emergence of a Real White Elite that believes in leading and defending white people. Such White Unity would mean the end of Jewish Supremacism because white head would serve the white body and white body would serve the white head. Mind and body would be one. In order for Jews to maintain their supremacism, they must make sure that the white mind serves the Jewish super-mind and that the white body has no white mind to lead it, thereby growing weak and dying.

Jews fear that Trump is secretly using Putinism as his personal template. What is the Putinist template? It is that Putin as son of Russia and leader of Russians must put the interest of his people, culture, and land above all else. Such nationalism is threatening to Jewish globalist supremacism that says all nations exist to primarily to serve Jews as the superior god-like race.