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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NICK FUENTES: THE TRUTH ABOUT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

New 'Civil War' in America Will be White vs White — Civic Imperialism is Possible but not Civic Nationalism — US was a Race-Nationalist Republic — US Power as Headless Emperor

 https://counter-currents.com/2020/10/yes-we-are-headed-for-violent-civil-war/

Will there be a civil war in America? Of course, this means an intra-white war. There won't be a civil war within the black community. Not one in the brown community. Not one in the Muslim or Asian community. Not in the Jewish community. While there are Liberal Zionists, Neocon Zionists, and some radical Jews, Jews are not into Jew-vs-Jew conflicts. Jews usually circle the wagons. Will there be a war among the various groups? Blacks vs browns vs Jews vs yellows vs Hindus vs Muslims vs etc? The only states where such is remotely possible are California and SW territories, Florida, New York, and few others. They are very diverse, and various groups don't see eye to eye. Still, it's unlikely because most non-whites EXCEPT FOR BLACKS mostly get along, co-exist quietly, or at least tolerate one another. Also, as Jews control media and academia, they've directed most non-white ire and animus toward Bad Whites. Anti-whiteness is the political glue among non-whites. It is the one that nominally maintains the alliance of Jews, white cucks, non-whites, and blacks EVEN THOUGH the group that ALL GROUPS have the most trouble with are blacks by far. But due to mass media manipulation, mass education/indoctrination, and the cult of black cool, there is a tendency among Jews and non-whites to at least symbolically associate themselves with blackness that represents both natural supremacy(in sports, rap, and sexuality) and historical victimization(as slaves and marchers for Civil Rights).

Of course, if all whites were to vanish into the thin air in the US, the main conflict will be among Jews, non-whites, and blacks. Without anti-white animus as the unifying glue, it could be hell for all involved. It's like US and USSR became bitter enemies once Germany and Japan lost out in the game of global hegemony. In a US without whites, Jews and Muslims would be serious rivals, especially as white cucks wouldn't be around as cheerleaders and foot-soldiers of Zionism and Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, Jews aren't going to fight their own battles, and they'll have a hard time persuading non-whites and blacks to side with Jews against Muslims. Also, without whitey to blame, most blacks and non-whites will mainly feel resentful about Jewish wealth, privilege, and power. Without whites to scapegoat as the perennial villains, Jews will have a difficult time in deflecting the rage, resentment, and envy of blacks and non-whites. I suppose Jews can try to scapegoat other groups. Make blacks and non-whites resent Asians as too successful. Or try to set Muslims vs Browns vs Blacks. Or try to forge an alliance with Hindus against Muslims. But it will be a tough sell without whites as the all-purpose bad guys and always-reliable-cucks. 

But whites do exist, and if there is a 'civil war' in the US, it will be a whites vs whites affair. It will mainly be between white priders and white guilters. Between white shucks and white cucks. White Priders will be animated by either overt white pride or refusal to succumb to the cult of 'white guilt'. Even if civic nationalist than ethno-nationalist, they will reject the notion that whites are especially to blame for the wrongs of the world. Also, they will believe that, in the final equation, whites did far more good than bad in world history. 

In contrast, White Guilters will believe that whites are uniquely to blame for what is wrong with the US and the world. Even so, as their minds are molded by Jews, they won't particularly care for most peoples around the world, no matter how much they've been harmed by whites(as foot-soldiers of Jews). After all, most proggy types feel hardly any guilt about or sympathy for Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims whose lives were utterly destroyed by the US empire under Zionist control. They never utter "Palestinian Lives Matter", "Arab Lives Matter", "Syrian Lives Matter", "Iranian Lives Matter", and etc. They feel nothing for Russians who perished in the gangster capitalist 1990s dominated by Jewish globalists. As their minds are mushy clay toyed with by Jewish Hands, their main passion boils down to 'white conservatives are nazis', 'blacks are so awesome and cool, therefore especially tragic for having suffered', and 'homos & trannies are the angels of new spirituality'. Clearly, the white 'right' is far saner than the white 'left'. Still, what is most tragic is neither side will understand why there is this rift within the white race. Why did so many whites come to hate their own kind, especially in service to Jews and blacks(and really no other people)? And why did they come to believe they are Good Whites on account of celebrating Sodomy while others are Bad Whites because they don't believe Bruce Jenner is a 'woman'? Because people on the white 'right' are relatively less mind-controlled by Jews, they are more independent and balanced than the morons on the white 'left' who are truly pathetic puppets of Jews who control academia and media.

But the problem is 'white 'conservatives' are too stupid and/or ignorant to realize that the main reason for this white-vs-white hatred is Jewish Power. Even as they rant about the 'left', they hardly say anything about Jewish Power that has driven the wedge between white people, dividing them between 'right' and 'left'. That Jewish Power has a hand in both the 'right' and the 'left' is easily proven. Why is it that, even as the 'right' and 'left' berate and insult one another, they go out of their way to prove that they are supportive of Israel and happily servile to Jews? Donald Trump and his minions are supposed to represent populism and the 'right', but there's hardly any talk of white identity/interests but instead endless gibberish about "Muh Israel". In that sense, the white 'right' is only relatively more independent-minded than the white 'left'. Sadly, it is beholden to Jewish Power even as Jews do everything to dump on it. Things are screwier yet. Jews are dominant in American Liberalism, and that means progs and 'leftists' are beholden to Jewish Money. Also, Jews have funded blacks and non-whites as allies against whites. But this also means that, at least on the grassroots level, there are many on the 'left' who sympathize with Palestinians against Zionists. And such numbers seem to be growing. But at the upper echelons of Liberalism, the power is entirely with Jews and their cuck-progs and toadies who grovel at the feet of Zion. Still, even if muted and muffled, the most vocal anti-Zionist voices are found on the American 'left' at the grassroots level. BDS is dominated by grassroots left and totally crushed by Jews. 

In contrast, given the Jewish animus toward the American 'right', one would think most conservatives and the like would be anti-Jewish. But sadly, many on the 'right' are even more supportive of Jews and Israel than those on the grassroots 'left' are. In a sane America, both white 'right' and white 'left' should unite in a 'civil war' against Jewish Power, the real supremacist force in American Politics and foreign policy. But in Crazy America, the Jews, the most insanely tribal and supremacist people, have convinced idiot white 'progs' to revile and attack other white people as 'supremacist' on account of them saying "It's Okay to be White." White 'progs' seem to believe that Jews suppress 'white supremacism' for the sake of equality and social justice. In truth, Jews suppress white identity/interests to make whites cuck to and serve Jewish Supremacism. Are white 'progs' really this retarded? If they are truly about justice and morality, why have they been silent about Wars for Israel under Obama and Hillary as puppets of Jews? For all their yammering about justice for all peoples around the world, their political perspective is so provincially centered on the US Big Media Narrative spun by Jewish oligarchs. They never question the education or information pushed on them; they just mindlessly believe on faith on account of being told that people who adopt such-and-such viewpoints are 'woke' and 'progressive'. But in truth, the current 'left' and 'right' are fluid, both manipulated by those above. Today's 'left' is about globo-homo vanity over working class interests, and today's 'right' is about 'gay marriage is okay but trannies in washroom is not'... but wait a few years and 'trannies in washroom' will be the new 'rightist' value while the 'left' finds some other kooky issue to foam at the mouth over. The 'left' is retarded, but the 'right' is dumb. Haven't white 'rightists' figured out that the Jewish agenda for them is White Nakba? Jews are using Diversity-Inclusion to bring about the Great Replacement of whites by non-whites in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US. Given such an agenda, when will whites wake up and begin to identify with Palestinians? But these idiot white 'rightists' go on supporting Jewish Supremacism EVEN AS Jews never tire of accusing them of 'white supremacism'. Morons.

Now, there have been elements on the Right that have been critical of Jewish Power, but too many turned out to be Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Denier cranks. Richard Spencer is a prime example. Instead of arguing against Jewish Supremacism and neo-imperialism/globalism, he just wants Anglo-Germanic supremacy to gain dominance and mess up the world in some Nietzschean game of chess. What's the point of opposing one supremacism to push another? What's the point of vilifying Jewish supremacism if one is going to extol Nazi-German supremacism? It's utterly idiotic. 

The American Civil War was not a white-versus-white war, at least not thematically. Sure, it was mostly a war fought among whites, but the driving force behind the conflict was not anti-white animus. It wasn't as if Northern whites were anti-white 'ni**ger-lovers' who decided to kill bushels of Southern whites. The war was over preservation of the Union vs Secession. While some Northern Whites were inspired by abolitionism, most supported the war to preserve the Union. Abraham Lincoln felt the same way. And in the years after the war ended, Northern Whites and Southern Whites came to an understanding, and they saw the need to control the blacks. 

In contrast, many whites today are truly mentally deranged in their anti-white lunacy. But there is no logic or consistency to their worldview. The cult of 'white guilt' is purely selective, usually decided by Jews who push the mental buttons via their control of media and academia. After all, if indeed white progs are surely anti-supremacist, anti-tyranny, and anti-injustice, why were they so silent about or even supportive of Obama-Hillary puppet regime's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why weren't they supportive of efforts on Trump's part to end US entanglement in Syria? Why are they silent about all those dead Iraqis and suffering Iranians as the result of US pro-Zionist policy? Why didn't they march in support of Palestinians in the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms of 1948? 

One thing for sure, the white 'left' is not motivated by true sense of justice but vain opportunism of virtue-signaling. Iraqi lives mattered when Evil Bush II was invading Iraq, but Libyan lives didn't matter when Obama destroyed that country. Progs whine about 'nazis' but were silent about Jews working with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine. They claim to abhor supremacism, but they are okay with US foreign policy favoring Jews/Zionism over Palestinians. They've done nothing about blue cities/states banning BDS. They express outrage over 'sexism' when it comes to Trump but feign ignorance when it comes to Bill Clinton, black athletes, and homo degenerates. There is no rhyme or reason to their moral logic. When illegals were detained under Obama, they were silent. When they are detained under Trump, it's the New Holocaust!!! They didn't care about all the dead Muslims caused by Obama-Hillary's wars(guided by Jewish supremacists), but they suddenly made a big fuss about all those poor-poor Muslims travel-banned by Trump. They talk about history and 'white guilt', but they say almost nothing about American Indians, the most tragic people, the only one that suffered something like genocide in the New World. Even though mass immigration finished off the Indians, progs celebrate mass-immigration. So, what is prog mentality really about? It is just childish parroting of whatever is fed to stupid white minds by Jewish control of media and academia. If Jews say, "Be outraged about this", white progs are outraged about 'this'. Russia Collusion!!! If Jews say, "Be outraged about that", white progs are outraged about 'that'. Black Lives Matter!!! Never mind these urban progs supported stop-and-frisk, mass-immigration, and gentrification that pushed many blacks out of rich cities. The prog mind is all about fashion. It's about flavor of the month. It is the product of political advertising. It is so shallow that it lacks any sense of real history, memory, and moral logic.

But then, the American 'right' is only slightly better. Even as it chooses pride over guilt, it shares basically the same premise as that of the 'left', which is why it keeps losing the debate. The premise is, "Jews are especially wise and wonderful", "blacks are holy and noble", and "the greatest evil in the world is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'." So, the American 'right' agrees with all that but only argues that America isn't so bad because it redeemed itself with progress and wealth-creation. But didn't anyone realize that favoring Jews and blacks uber alles is a form of 'racism'(defined as racial supremacism)? Just ask the Palestinians. And why is it a matter of justice to pay special heed to blacks even when they act like savage apes while ignoring the plight of other groups harmed by blacks? It's one thing to redress historical wrongs but quite another to endow certain groups with the license to cheat, lie, steal, rob, rape, and murder on account of 'muh victimhood'. It'd be like making excuses for American Indians who go from state to state to scalp people and hack them to death on account of 'muh suffering'. 

One thing for sure, the notion of 'civic nationalism' is total bull. There can be 'civic imperialism' but never 'civic nationalism'. Many have a false impression of the US as a 'civic nationalist' republic for most of its history because of the Constitution, but in fact, the US has mostly been a racial-nationalist republic(if not a ethnic one). The facade of 'civic nationalism' was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was a solidly white majority nation, one that was founded and built by Anglos who then Anglo-ized the Germanics. Later, Anglo-Germanic America compelled all Europeans, from South and East, to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic norms. As most Europeans were racially close, they could blend into this new identity called 'American', which upon closer inspection was really Anglo-Germanic American. That was the essence of American Nationalism. It was race-nationalism. The solid white majority of Anglo-Germanic norms became the spine of American Nationalism. Unlike in Europe where each ethnic group maintained its separateness in their distinct territories, the understanding among various European immigrants to America was they would adopt the Anglo-Germanic norms as the main characteristics of Americanism; that gave them license to move, live, and settle anywhere in America. This was why US didn't end up like Yugoslavia. This Americanism was passed off as 'civic nationalism', but it worked only because most immigrants were white and could blend into Anglo-Germanic America in their willingness to assimilate. And many naturally wanted to assimilate as they readily realized that Anglos and Germans had created a superior order of productivity, relative liberty, and opportunity in the New World. 

Would 'civic nationalism' have worked in the US if most immigrants from the beginning were from Africa, Asia, Middle East, brown parts of Latin America, and etc? No, it would have been much more difficult for non-whites with strikingly different cultural backgrounds to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic America. Even after all these centuries, the color lines remain notable in Latin America even though Latin American nations officially make big noises about civic nationalism and people not seeing color. US worked as a race-nationalist republic. All this talk of 'muh constitution' misses the point. Latin America had constitutions nearly identical to that of the US, but things turned out differently because the racial demographics and dynamics were different. Indeed, Canada didn't rebel against the King, and Australia started out as a depressing penal colony, and yet, isn't it odd that US, Canada, and Australia turned out more alike in many respects than with democracies in Latin America inspired by American Independence?

Now, 'civic imperialism', though problematic, is a possibility, as it was in the era of the Roman Empire. With no racial, ethnic, and/or spiritual core to unite all the people, Roman citizenship was a matter of the law and loyalty to the state. And Civic Imperialism seems to be the general direction of the globalist enterprise with the US as metropole. But unlike the Roman Empire where the Romans ruled, any people can come to the US and climb up the ladder to elite status. And whites, whose ancestors founded and built this country, are not only supposed to tolerate and accept this transformation but welcome and celebrate it as 'progress' based on 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. 

But then, this model in some ways resembles the Roman Empire in that the ruling elites will not be chosen purely on meritocratic or ideological basis. There will be meritocracy in that smarter ones will rise higher, and there will be ideology at work in that 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will mandate the promotion of blacks and browns with lesser credentials. But at the very top will be Jewish Power that shall go unchallenged. Jews have the most money, control key institutions and mass media, dominate popular entertainment(that shapes so many minds), and etc. Also, Jews know that MOST PEOPLE are apathetic and disengaged. So, all they have to do is buy off the 'elites' of various communities. It doesn't matter if most blacks aren't keen on Jews. As long as Jews control the black 'leaders', black politics won't stand in the way of Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Same with 'Latinos' and Asians. Even Muslims, especially those from nations like Pakistan who feel little affinity for Arabs. Still, to the extent that all peoples are allowed to emigrate to the US and climb up the elite ladder, the globo-homo US empire will be more like Byzantium where the leadership was far more varied than in the Western Empire. 

While Civic Imperialism is doable, it's extremely expensive. Unlike Civic Nationalism that can exist on a humble level, Civic Imperialism requires tremendous power and expenditure. Empire is about over-reaching. It is about power at the epic level. It's like the mega Hollywood Epic must spend lots of money and make lots of money. There is no other way. Nationalist loyalty isn't based on super-power or super-wealth. A person could be living in a middling nation or even a poor nation. But he may still have a deep sense of nationalism and loyalty to country and folks for reasons of tradition, sentimentality, and sense of roots. It doesn't require much for nationalism to operate. Rich nation or poor nation, nationalism is possible. Strong nation or weak nation, nationalism comes naturally. 

But empire means stretching power over vast distances and diverse peoples, many of whom have little in common. Empire demands that these diverse peoples pledge allegiance to ANOTHER power that would play the role of center-of-the-universe. But the ONLY way to persuade various peoples to obey a foreign power is through the combination of big sticks and big carrots, both of which are extremely expensive. The various peoples must be threatened with force and/or bought with bribes. They must be made willing partners or unwilling partners. It is the ONLY way an empire can be maintained. It requires extra-exertion of power and wealth. 

For those in the metropole, it is both exhausting and exhilarating. The empire must always scramble for more lands and peoples to control. It's a 24/7 enterprise of more wars, more markets, more peoples, more agendas. And yet, those in the metropole feel the power and importance. They become addicted, just like the Romans did. And even though the peoples of other nations who become subjects to this neo-imperial power feel resentment, they also long to be a part of it. And as long as mass immigration is allowed, they would rather take part in the empire than resist it, especially as immigration to the US means a better material life. Also, PC gives the impression to non-whites that they are on the rise, on the cusp of taking power. Even as they are submitting to and taking part in the empire, they feel that they are serving 'social justice' because they are rising at the expense of whites who are being diminished demographically, politically, and economically. 

Thus, if old Western Imperialism was about white rule over non-whites, the American neo-imperialist globalism is about maintaining an empire that facilitates the takeover of the West by the Non-West. At the twilight of the Age of Empires following World War II, the Non-West took up National Liberation against Western Imperialism. Today, the idea is that the Non-West should take part in the Neo-Imperialist Enterprise, a kind of mutual imperialism where the West and Non-West invade one another and merge into one. 

Or so it seems. Because behind all this is Jewish Power that is determined to remain at the very top. No matter who rises and falls in the elite hierarchy, they are to serve the Jews and support Zion. And why? Jews got the money and power; they get to play thumbs up or thumbs down as to who joins the elite ranks and who doesn't. Jews know that whites are too castrated and cucked to disobey the Jews. But Jews are taking no chances. They sniffed pitchfork populism in the candidacy of Donald Trump and intend to crush it for good. As for non-whites, Jews know that the diverse bunch can never come together to take on Jewish Power. Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups forever. 

Can this Civic Imperialist enterprise succeed? It may for some time because the US is so vast, rich in resources, & plentiful in food, and have so much talent. Past empires had an Achilles Heel in the size ratio. The imperial center was far smaller and poorer in natural resources than the imperial possessions. Thus, more stick had to be used as there wasn't enough carrots to go around to bribe the subjects. But the US is an empire unto itself, especially with Alaska in tow. It has vast riches all on its own and generates excess food, fuel, and resources. It has a big stick but also lots of carrots to go around. So, unlike the Italian peninsula, Spain/Portugal, Britain, Holland, and France, it is better able to meet the demands of expenditure necessary to maintain the empire. (It also has Dollar Supremacy.)

Still, there are so many contradictions in the American Way. How long can Jewish Power remain hidden? Also, as long as it remains hidden, it's hard to tell who is ruling America? If Jews, the top power in America, won't declare themselves the ruling elites, who is the captain of the ship? White people? But white people have been so discredited morally, racially, and historically that this isn't workable. Notice that white political candidates NEVER talk about white interests and instead try to justify their careers on what they've done for Jews, homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. Are blacks in charge? The problem is blacks are too much in victim-complaint mode to take over as ruling elites. The mode of black politics isn't "We have the broadness of vision and magnanimity to rule" but "blackity-blackness". Their focus is too narrow to represent all of America. Black political mindset isn't about "what is good for all Americans" but "what all Americans owe us blackity-blackity blacks." So, we have a strange situation. America is the most powerful nation on Earth, but it looks like a headless emperor. Jews are really the head of America but won't show it. If the white head shows up, it is egged on as 'white privilege' or 'white supremacism'. If the black head appears as the godhead of Americanism, all it says is "We da victim, gimme gimme gimme", which isn't exactly dignified or 'presidential'. Obama did seem to introduce a new kind of black politics at a higher level, but he turned out to be a worthless puppet of Jewish Power and then ended up torching America with another round of black rage politics. It's hard to tell the future under such circumstances. 

TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY by Brother Nathanael

Jews are Hypocritical as Universal Moralists but Consistent as Tribal-Nihilist-Supremacists — Jewish Supremacism = Black Supremacism — Palestinian Nakba = White Nakba

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/hypocrisy-thy-name-is-zion/

Jewish Behavior is hypocritical or consistent depending on how one looks at it.

IF Jewish attitudes claim to be anti-supremacist and if Jews contend that they are championing the cause of downtrodden blacks against White Supremacism, especially as embodied by White Police Brutality, then they are indeed hypocritical, not to mention anti-factual, as there is no white supremacist 'genocide' being carried out against blacks and, furthermore, the racial violence and animus in the US is mainly black-on-white, black-on-non-black, and yes, black-on-black. Still, supposing that most Jews in the US are indeed 'liberal' and 'progressive' and that they're truly invested in the well-being of blacks as a historically oppressed group, one would think they'd have similar sympathies about other unfortunate groups all around the world. You'd think Jews would oppose the West's cruel sanctions against Iran and Syria that have cost so many lives and livelihoods. You'd think Jews would call on the West to distance itself from Saudi Arabia's truly genocidal war in Yemen.
But we don't see or hear any such. Though there are Jewish individuals who condemn Jewish/Zionist abuses, the bulk of Jewish Power and Population are indifferent or even downright hostile to the aforementioned nations and groups that are being destroyed by machinations of the West. Also, most Jews seem oblivious to or totally supportive of Zionism's cruelty and violence toward Palestinians. How could this be IF INDEED most Jews are 'liberal' and 'progressive', for the little guy, the underdog, the wretched of the earth? How could Jews claim to care so much for blacks in the US but then be so uncaring about other non-whites around the world who are truly crushed by the weight of Western Neo-Imperialism? How many unarmed blacks are killed in the US every year? A mere handful, and most of them provoked the police. By comparison, how many Arabs/Muslims have died in the Middle East and North Africa due to Western invasions, occupations, sanctions, and unconditional support for Israel? Too many to count. According to Madeleine Albright, even killing 500,000 Iraqi children was 'worth it'. Where is the Jewish sadness and despair? So, on those grounds, Jews would seem hypocritical. If indeed we conflate the Palestinians with blacks while conflating Jews/Zionists with whites(as the privileged and powerful folks), then Moral Logic would dictate that Jews condemn both White Supremacy over blacks and Jewish Supremacy over Palestinians. The Jewish hypocrisy should be most blatant and blaring.

And yet, Jewish attitude and behavior are consistent if seen within a different context. If we regard Jews as supremacists, then they are being totally consistent, even if publicly dishonest(as they claim to be 'liberal' — in a way, Jewish Liberalism, even where it exists, is founded on a basis totally different from White Liberalism. If White Liberalism is an outgrowth of white power, privilege, security, generosity, conscience, and magnanimity, Jewish Liberalism is an outgrowth of Jewish insecurity, anxiety, paranoia, defensiveness, and tribalism. White Liberalism is based on, "We whites are secure, powerful, and rich enough to make things more equal and fair with other groups", whereas Jewish Liberalism is based on "We Jews must stick together and work to undermine the solidarity of OTHER groups so that we Jews can prosper and gain more power." White Liberalism is about letting go of 'too much' white power, whereas Jewish Liberalism is about accumulating and consolidating more Jewish Power, which is never enough. Same goes for so-called Black Liberalism. Jews and Blacks are fixated on "What's in it for us?" whereas White Liberalism is about "What's in it for OTHER groups?" Now, this was understandable at one time as Christian White Power was truly dominant and there were discriminatory policies, often official in nature, for non-whites. Ideally, the powerful use liberalism to be more fair-minded and generous whereas, naturally, the weak look to liberalism to get a larger share of the pie. But things aren't so simple in our world where Jews are the MOST POWERFUL group in the West and when blacks enjoy so many legal favoritism and are nearly worshiped as a god-race. Indeed, White Liberalism went from one of generosity to one of obeisance. Jewish Demands destroyed whatever had been noble-if-naive about White Liberalism. It used to be White Liberalism tried to be fair to ALL non-white groups, and that included not just blacks and Jews but also Arabs, browns, yellows, and etc. There was a time when America tried to be fairer with the Palestinians. Even though the US fatally threw in its lot with Zionism in 1948, there were attempts by John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton to broker some kind of deal for Palestinians. And there was a time when whites were as concerned about the plight of American Indians as about blacks. But as the Power in America shifted from whites to Jews and their main political allies, blacks and homos, the New Dominant Liberalism was less about white fairness to all than white/goy obeisance to Jewish demands, black megalomania, and homo vanity. Liberalism went from ideology based on principles to idolatry based on special identity. As Nancy Pelosi said, even if Washington D.C. burns to the ground, US will be there for Israel. As so many GOP cucks have pledged to AIPAC, they eat, drink, and think for Israel, Israel, Israel. And even as Jewish Power rams Donald Trump in the ass, his main plea is, "Can I suck your dic* that's been up my arse?" It's truly a sad state of affairs.) The CONSISTENCY of the Jewish position on BLM becomes clear when we regard Jewish power as supremacist. What fails as moralism succeeds as nihilism. Indeed, what Jews value about BLM is not that it is a genuine movement for black justice, which it most certainly is not, but that it is a black supremacist position partnered with the supremacist positions of Jews and homos.

Jews control the media and invert the truth into lies. Even though Blacks and Antifa minions, as allies of Jewish Power, destroy the cities, the Jew-run media and outlets push the Narrative of 'White Supremacist' Violence. It goes to show that Jewish Power is ugly and has no sense of honor or integrity. Jews as like gangster-lawyers.

Now, what do all three groups have in common despite their great differences? (Jews and blacks are very different, and if the two groups were placed on an island, they would not get along.) The commonality is their dependence on White Submissivism for them to get their goodies. Without white submission and support, Jews cannot use the West as the vessel for Jewish Hegemony. Without white submission and support, blacks can't have it so good. Indeed, compare blacks in the US with blacks in Africa. Why do all those blacks intend to move to US or EU? Because living with whites is an instant-ticket to a better life. But if, in the past, blacks just hoped to live UNDER whites, they now love lording OVER whites. Even though majority of blacks are economically below that of majority of whites, they enjoy superiority over whites in key ways. As top athletes, they are seen as 'heroes'. As music stars, they are seen as 'divas'. As sexual objects, they are seen as super-studs or super-ho's. And the historical narrative of black slavery, Jim Crow, and etc. makes blacks out to be the only equals of Jews in the White Guilt sweepstakes. (Of course, one could argue that blacks gained more under whites in a few centuries than on their own through the eons and, furthermore, other groups suffered even more under whites — especially the American Indians who lost their homelands forever and experienced something like 'genocide' — , but 'narratives' are not objective accounts but subjective and highly politicized storytelling to push a specific agenda.) So, both Jewish Supremacism and Black Supremacism are invested in belittling, berating, insulting, degrading, threatening, intimidating, and attacking any sign of white identity, white interests, white consciousness, white pride, and white okay-ness as UPPITY.

In a way, the current Jewish-Black attitude toward whites is not unlike that of white slave-masters over black slaves. Blacks were not supposed to be assertive; any black with a noticeable sense of self was deemed 'uppity'. At one time, Jews and blacks may have hoped for white kindness under white domination. Then, they may have hoped for equality with whites. But over the years, they've grown accustomed and addicted to supremacy over whites. In the past, Jews and blacks denounced white supremacist attitudes. Today, they demean ANY kind of white consciousness as 'nazi' or 'supremacist' or something to do with 'white fragility' borne of 'white privilege'. In other words, it's not enough for whites to call for equality among the races. Instead, whites must accept an inferior role vis-a-vis Jews and blacks(and homos). This is why even "It's Okay to be White" or "All Lives Matter" is threatening to Jewish and Black power. (One thing for sure, even most 'liberal' Jews do NOT want white Americans to be equal in their feelings toward Jews and Palestinians or toward Israel and Iran. For Jews, Zionist Lives Matter infinitely more than Arab/Muslim lives, as Madeleine Albright made so clear so eloquently.) Even white call for equality-for-all is deemed as 'uppity' from the perspective of Jewish/Black master-mentality. Whites must accept and celebrate their INFERIORITY before Jews and blacks.

Of course, it's complicated by history. Many Jews and blacks may sincerely believe they are for 'progress' and 'justice' because they'd been historically wronged by the White Christian/Gentile community. Even though things are so different now, the official narrative colors how people see the world around them. It's like Christians took over Europe and did horrible things to pagan heretics, but they kept with their official narrative of Christians being fed to the lions by the Roman pagans. The moral narrative of pagans killing Christians made Christians morally blind to their killing of pagans. (In our time, Antifa goons are blind to their own 'fascistic' behavior because they hunt down 'nazis'.) And even though Christian Europe often kept Jews down, the official Christian Narrative fixated on Jesus, the Son of God, murdered by Jews as a bunch of Judases. People live in the present but 'feel' in the past, or the Official Past as kept alive by the Narrative.
Indeed, this was also why whites in the past were more accepting of black slavery. Even though they knew that slavery went against American Principles, the official narrative of blacks-as-savages-being-elevated-by-white-stewardship sweetened the existence of the ignoble institution. It wasn't merely a case of People A enslaving and exploiting People B but a case of People B being elevated by enlightened enforcement by People A who knew better. Even in the 1960s, the National Review and William F. Buckley opposed the Civil Rights Movement on those grounds: Blacks were NOT READY for full participation in US power because they still had some ways to go in social and cultural advancement. Because Christians fixated on their own history of victimization under Jews and Romans, they became blind to their own supremacist oppression of others. And because of the American Narrative that white folks were creating a new and better world, even the 'genocide' of the American Indians and slavery of blacks seemed partly justified as contributing to the creation of the City on the Hill. Ends would justify the Means. Sure, the Indians had to be pushed aside and blacks would have to pick cotton, but all would benefit from white triumph in the end as, on their own, non-whites would be mired in their own savagery, backwardness, or childishness.

Do white goyim have minds of their own? Jews lead, goyim follow. To be 'educated' and 'informed' in a world of Jewish academia/media control means your minds are just clay to Jewish Hands. So, if Jews say 'gender' is 'fluid', and anyone can be anything, all these rootless and deracinated whites just go along like a bunch of kids believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. We laugh at the Middle Ages for ignorance and superstition, but the current era is truly ridiculous. Education = Indoctrination into Jewish Fantasies. 

Incidentally, the power-neuroses of Jews and blacks are different vis-a-vis whites because Jews got too much power whereas blacks feel they got too little. Paradoxically, Jews are more anxious and paranoid especially because they are richer and more powerful than ever. In some ways, such power makes Jews arrogant and confident, but it also makes them fearful that they will be found out and seen(and criticized) as the New Ruling Elites of the US and Empire. Jews want the dominant role but want to remain behind the curtains, much like Jewish Hollywood moguls run the place but use mostly goy actors as the Face of Hollywood. Most of Washington D.C. is like Jewish-run Hollywood with goy politicians as 'actors' reading scripts written by Jewish handlers. The excessive power of Jews has made them both paranoid and arrogant or 'parrogant'. Jews got so much money, control media and big tech, dominate finance, own Las Vegas, and control much of real estate. They dominate elite academia and think tanks that mold both elite minds and mass mentalities.

In contrast, blacks are especially bitter because they feel they don't have the wealth, power, and privilege that should be rightfully theirs as the superior race. Blacks don't care about equality and justice for all. If they did, why would they burn down the businesses and properties of immigrant groups, many of whom are not white, whenever "there's a riot going on"? Why do blacks join the US military when it invades and destroys other nations? How many blacks are like Muhammad Ali during the Vietnam War when he said, "Viet Cong didn't call me no ni**er"? Most blacks don't mind serving in the US military as long as they get money and promotions. Blacks don't care about non-blacks, and blacks don't care for socialism. Blacks make 'socialist' noises not because they want equality but because they are resentful that not all blacks can live like Obama, Oprah, and rich rappers. Blacks feel that they be the kangz, and therefore, everything should be given to them-as-natural-royalty. Blacks got the Meghan Markle Mentality. Even as she makes noises about 'justice', she married a prince and lives like a pig. If blacks are truly socialist, they should be denouncing rich blacks, but they can't get enough of other blacks having all the blings, mansions with swimming pools, limos, and the like. The problem is blacks succeed most in fields where ONLY A FEW can win. Sports is winner-takes-all. In pop entertainment, only a handful make all the dough while the rest barely make a living performing at small clubs. For every successful rapper or actor, there are countless others with nothing. Blacks have done well in government, but at the uppermost echelons, they serve as tokens to Jews, homos, and even white cucks.
The childish black mentality, being fixated on song-dong-strong-wrong, feels that blackness is the greatest thing in the world that should be revered and served by all other races, but black weakness in brainy fields keeps them far behind others who succeed in science, math, law, technology, medicine, business, and etc. ('Song-dong-strong-wrong' or SDSW refers to black fixation on rappers, sex, sports, and the narrative.) Now, the reasons for black failures in certain key fields is due to genetics and culture. Blacks are generally less intelligent and more impulsive. Also, black culture emphasizes acting the fool. But, black egotism or Negrotism makes it difficult for most blacks to be like Jesse Lee Peterson and reflect on the possibility that maybe not all black problems are due to 'dem honk*y-ass mothafuc*az'. So, even though most blacks die from black violence, everything is blamed on whitey. And of course, Jews encourage this by coming up with terms like 'systemic racism' — never mind the biggest form of 'systemic racism' in US is the unconditional support of Israel and turning a blind eye to every black degeneracy; black problem is more endemic than systemic, i.e. blackity-ness is inherent in blacks and makes them more impulsive, aggressive, funky, and jivey in a manner that isn't conducive to modern society. Something in the black gene pool makes them feel more along the lines of 'sheeeeeeeiiiiiit'.

In the Current West, the group that is most criminal and destructive, the blacks, are revered as paragons of  justice. The group that is most vapid and vain, the homos, are worshiped as 'spiritual' agents. And the group that is most supremacist and corrupt, the Jews, are praised as wise men. But then, in a world when men can claim to be 'women' and where marriage is a celebration of homo-fecal penetration and tranny-penis cutting, what else is new? 

Now, why do Jews encourage such blackity-ness? Why do Jews tell blacks to blame it all on whitey? Is it because Jews really care about blacks? Now, some Jewish women got jungle fever, and some Jewish guys make big bucks off black sports, music, sex, and comedy. But, privately, many Jews fear blacks and know the 'schvartzes are crazy'. But Jews go along with the Jewish-Black alliance charade because it's good for the Narrative and Maintenance of Jewish Supremacism over whites. While there is the Holocaust Narrative, which is mostly about 'white guilt', it is bolstered by White Guilt about Blacks. Besides, having blacks as symbolic allies gives moral cover to what Jews have done to Arabs and Muslims. As Jews love to say, MLK was pro-Zionist and friends with Jews. So, that settles it! Ironically, the more Jews treat Palestinians the way whites once treated blacks in the past in the US South and South Africa, the more they cling to blacks as symbolic allies. Jim Crowitz in West Bank and neo-imperialist violence in Gaza are given moral cover by Jews emoting about Emmett Till for the umpteenth time.

Though the Narrative is victimological in nature, it is to give moral support to Jewish Supremacism in the Present. By making Jews and their black allies into Eternal Moral Paragons who suffered under 'antisemitism' and 'racism', it has become nearly impossible to criticize those two groups and put them under any kind of fair-minded scrutiny. Why, that would be 'antisemitic' or 'racist', the two greatest sins in the present(along with 'homophobia')!! Just like the peons couldn't criticize kings and noblemen, whites as neo-peons cannot criticize Jews and blacks. When a group cannot be criticized, it is enjoying a supremacist position in society. Of course, Jews get richer while many blacks become even poorer, but Power isn't about most people but about the elites exploiting symbolism to gain more power for themselves. It's like the communist 'dictatorship of the proletariat' didn't mean the actual proles got the power. They remained peons while the intellectual class ruled as representatives of the Workers of the World; they were like the pigs in ANIMAL FARM. So, Jews don't care about most blacks. Deep down inside, most Jews know that black problems are intractable because of black genetics. The only thing that matters is Jews preserving their own supremacist power by radicalizing the politics of 'white guilt'. By blaming 'systemic racism', Jews make blacks and white cucky-wucks fixate on White Evil as the source of all problems. This means blacks(and Jews and homos) get to make more demands on whites while whites must keep groveling and wash/kiss the stinking feet of Negroes. Jews and blacks make-believe that Fentanyl Floyd was some kind of a saint, and white cucks get on their knees and go boo-hoo-hoo and cry like babies while babbling, "Saint George, I wish you were alive so I could kiss your sacred black ass."

In the Current West where Jews control the media, whore-politicians, think-tanks, and internet platforms(that censor people for speaking the truth), 'reality' is whatever Jews say it is. We are all like Palestinians trapped in a Jewish Supremacist version of Alice in Wonderland.

Of course, unlike the situation of Palestinians, blacks in the US are not facing any kind of racial violence. If anything, the police, especially white ones, are extra-mindful not to mistreat blacks lest there be another riot. Also, if blacks are getting gunned down, it's by other blacks who are into gangsta culture, egotism, and drug trade. As blacks know they are stronger and tougher than other races, the interracial violence is usually black-on-non-black, even against Jews, but Jewish Power overlooks black-on-Jewish violence to maintain what they deem to be far more crucial to the perpetuation of Jewish Supremacism: White Obeisance fueled by 'white guilt', especially regarding blacks. So, it's the Jewish Gambit: Indulge black stupidity and destructiveness, which even harms Jews on occasion, to make blacks blame Evil Whitey, therefore keeping whites morally ashamed and browbeaten(and redemptive and 'saved' ONLY WHEN they revere and serve the Other).
If Jews and whites were to pool their resources to be honest about the Black Problem, blacks might come under pressure to behave better and wreak less havoc, but it would also mean the ebbing away of 'white guilt', and that would mean whites would be more assertive of their own identity, leading to whites asking, "Why should we whites be subservient to Jewish identity and interests when we have our own?" That is what Jews fear most, and so, they carry on with the politics of black lunacy and stuff like 1619 Project, Emmett-Till-Forever, and BLM propaganda to keep whites feeling morally paralyzed with 'guilt'. Of course, such has the added advantage of steering black rage from Jewish Power to 'white privilege'. It's like Jewish Power pushed the Russia-Russia-Russia Narrative to distract Americans from the fact that the main 'alien' interference in US politics is Jewish Globalist Power.

Many on the Real Left tend to think in terms of Blacks = Palestinians / Whites = Zionist Jews. But most Jews in supremacist mode see it differently: Whites = Palestinians / Jews = Blacks.
Just like the existence of Israel as a Jewish-Supremacist State depends on Jewish domination over Palestinians and Arabs/Muslims cowering in fear or accepting of inferior roles, the continuation of Jewish Supremacism in the West depends on white submission, obeisance, and inferiority.
In the Middle East, Jews send a clear message to Palestinians that the latter is a subject people who must do as the Jews say. Jews constantly bomb Syria and threaten Iran. And Jews use their control of the US to pressure key Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and UAE to suck up to Israel. And of course, the Arabs/Muslims are too divided among themselves to unite against Jewish Supremacism. Saudi Arabia is anti-Iran, not anti-Israel.
In the West, Jews use their media, legal, financial, and political power to send a message to whites, "If you don't kiss our Jewish ass, you are toast." Also, Jews use the 'spiritual' power of the Narrative to tag whiteness with forever-holocaust-guilt and forever-slavery-guilt. Whites who strive for individual success and status play along and go along. And their children come under Jewish influence via media and academia. No wonder then that so many young whites are going boo-hoo about Fentanyl Floyd as one of the greatest saints of all time. And like the Arabs/Muslims, whites are so divided along 'liberal' and 'conservative' lines, though to be sure, the feckless and craven 'conservatives' are useless while the 'liberal' ones, for all their anti-supremacist rhetoric, seem invested in the elevation of only three groups at the expense of all else: Jews, blacks, and homos. Has any bunch of 'liberals' painted their streets with 'Palestinian Lives Matter' or held up placards with 'End Wars for Israel and Say NO to Zionist Genocide of Palestinians'?

Of course, in the Age of PC, to be 'educated' means to be indoctrinated in the superstitious voodoo of Holy Jew-Worship, Globo-Homo Celebration, and Magic Negro Idolatry. Critical Thinking is dead in media and academia. There is only mindless regurgitation of 'woke' cliches.

Jews and blacks share in their supremacist attitudes toward whites, and that's why, despite essential differences between them, they are natural allies AS LONG AS they live in a white majority nation. In an island with only Jews and blacks, they would NOT get along. Jews feel superior for being brainier than whites, blacks feel superior for being brawnier than whites. And both have staked their collective identities on the Narrative of Evil Whitey. Polls show that for most Jews, the Shoah is what defines them most in the 'spiritual' sense. And blacks, increasingly even in Europe and Africa, center their identity on the American Experience(as if savagery, slavery, and other horrors didn't exist in black Africa). Black African Immigrants in the US immediately adopt the Black American attitude of victimization(even though their own ancestors captured and sold black slaves to whites and Arabs); black African actors take up roles as historic American blacks. Black Africans listen to rap and pick up Black American attitudes about Whitey. And blacks in Europe assimilate less to European values and culture than to Black American ones based on rap music, gangsta culture, and the evil of 'white racism', esp of the KKK kind. But then, even white European values of late are parallels or reflections of white American cuckery to blacks, homos, and Jews. The current Irish are like a bunch of globo-homo 'whiggers' invested in remaking Ireland into Afro-Homo-Diversitopia. They have little sense of Irish history, culture, or values except for being lame. U2 songs might as well be anthems of New Ireland.

So, when Jews feel that both whites and Palestinians must be morally browbeaten and even physically beaten to keep them intimidated and submissive to Jewish Domination, there is great consistency in the Art of Jewish Supremacism. The truly outrageous hypocrisy and even greater stupidity are with whites who are treated like Palestinians by Jewish Power but identify far more with Jews than with Palestinians. Likewise, so many white 'conservatives' are so anti-socialist and pro-capitalist when it is the Jewish-dominated capitalist class that is so heavily invested in anti-white vitriol, anti-white campaigns, anti-nationalism, anti-populism, anti-tradition, anti-morality, anti-normality, and etc. While whites should reject communism, it would make more sense than ever for whites to adopt a nationalist version of social-democracy. White 'conservatives' are so dumb because they (1) abandoned all socialist principles and (2) were abandoned by the capitalist class that is for LGBT, BLM, ADL, and SPLC. If at least white conzos gave up all vestiges of socialism in exchange for support from the capitalist rich, it wouldn't be so bad. But whites gave up social-democracy and state power only to be insulted, demeaned, deplatformed, and blacklisted by Big Capital also. Given the nature of Jewish Power and its influence on Big Capital and Elite Institutions, the vast majority of whites would have done better with a nationalist version of social-democracy — without the nationalist element, Social-Democracy turns into worthless cuckery of Sweden and Minnesota — and with identifying with Palestinians who've been resisting Jewish Power since the great tragedy of Nakba. But even as whites face White Nakba, the great majority of them from Donald Trump to some MAGA-hat wearing 'white trash' are into "Muh Israel" and "Socialism sucks".

Behind the facade of Jewish Moral Hypocrisy, there is the consistency of Jewish Supremacism. And it plays it smart, which is why it wins against the Great White Stupidity that still favors capitalism over socialism and favors Jews/Zionists over Palestinians/Syrians/Iranians.

Jews as moralists are a total fraud. Jewish morality, unlike white morality, is almost never about "Did we do something wrong to others?" but invariably about "How OTHERS wronged us." True morality is about both being wronged and doing wrong. Jews only fixate on being wronged, all the while fixating on what wrongs whites and Arabs/Muslims did to Jews. Same with Russian History. Jews will go on and on about the pogroms and 'antisemitism' but hardly discuss Jewish role in Bolshevism and 1990s pirate-capitalism that destroyed countless Slavic and other lives. True morality requires consistency. If group A does something and if it is bad, it is also bad when group B does it. But according to Jewish morality, apartheid policy was wrong in South Africa but is A-Okay in West Bank. Israeli Police can use any amount of brute force against Palestinians, but the US police is to be condemned for 'racism' even when blacks are in the wrong. Also, when Stop-and-Frisk was used in Jewish-dominated NY to bring down crime rates, Jews were hardly outraged. But the same Jews were throwing fits about what happened to Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, even though it was 'gentle giant' Brown who attacked the white police officer. Jewish morality is that of crooked lawyers and card sharks. It is worthless.

But Jews aren't realists either. Realism has problems, and some see it as a form of gangsterism in its Machiavellian extremes. But in a world where so many nations and peoples, the West included, often overlook or violate the rules(or where agreed-upon enforceable rules hardly exist), people must be pragmatic and realistic on grounds of "what's in it for us?" For example, US foreign policy should forsake utopian dreams for the world, especially when US itself has tons of failings and problems. But to play this game of realism, the US must be honest with itself and the world. Honest, that is the saving grace of realism. Oftentimes, a honest gangster is easier to deal with than a hypocritical sermonizer. But even that isn't possible in the US because national interest and the majority no longer matter. The question is never about what is good for America as a nation or for Most Americans because US is Jewish Supremacist and Jews make up only 2% of US population. Just like India under British Imperialism could not be about "What is good for most Indians?" as the priority was "What was good for the British Empire?", the US cannot hope for any kind of realist policy as the politics, finance, and military are all fixated on "Is it great for Jewish Supremacist Power?"

Under this conditions, any white person, even if on the Dissident Right, is useless UNLESS he makes White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism the primary goal of white folks, especially by exposing the true extent of Jewish Power and condemning all forms of Jewish supremacist hatred, arrogance, and murderousness, especially against Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians. What has cucking to Jewish Power ever done for White Americans? "Cuck! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing." Denazification will end when whites push for De-Zionazification. Whites must push back and dig into all the dirty laundry of the Jews and their history. Fight fire with Fire. Against White Nakba, whites need the policy of White Mitzvah. Hunt down Jewish criminals, Jewish gangsters, Jewish supremacist killers. And expose all that is evil and dirty about Jewish Power.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1LjdeEnFOt1b/

Without Race-ism, Your Nation, Race, and Culture will NOT survive — It's really that simple, and that is precisely why Jews have vilified white race-ism above all else

We've been told by the Jewish-controlled and cuck-managed media and academia that the greatest 'sin' is 'racism'. Now, if by 'racism', they mean blind and mindless hatred and hostility toward other races based on ignorance, arrogance, and contempt, I would agree. But we must ask why Race + Ism has been defined in such manner. 'Ism' means belief, therefore Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences and/or the need for Racial Consciousness. Race-ism should mean belief and conviction in certain facts, ideas, and principles associated with racial realities. It shouldn't mean the worst possible extreme and radical manifestation of that particular belief system. After all, being a Christian means one embraces the Faith and accepts Jesus as one's savior. Christianity has ranged from extreme theocracy to something approaching New Age flakiness. There have been hardline Christians, moderate Christians, tolerant Christians, and progressive Christians who reinterpret the Bible in startling ways. So, there is no single way to be Christian. But suppose someone defined Christianity by its most extreme expressions and actions. It'd be ridiculous. It'd be like defining 'socialism' by pointing to Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer-Rouge-ism. But in fact, there have been other forms of socialism that weren't tyrannical and ruthless/murderous. Then, how does it make sense to define 'racism' or 'race-ism' only by the extreme actions of the KKK, Nazis, or Nation of Islam? (By the way, the longest radical racism of contempt, paranoia, and hostility is probably certain strains of Judaism and Jewish World View.)

Anyway, I will use the term 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and/or the need for racial consciousness. And by 'race', I also mean sub-race or ethnicity. There is the broad white race of Europeans and then ethnic groups or sub-races such as the Germanics, Slavs, Anglos, Celts, Italians, Greeks, and etc. Now, what do I mean by no race or nation surviving for long without race-ism? I obviously don't mean the people of a nation must act like Nazis and 'invade Poland' and commit mass-killings of the Other. Instead, a people must know that they are unique and particular by blood & genetic inheritance and/or culture & history. Even if whites and blacks were to be raised and instilled with same language and ideology, they would still be different races with unique features, temperaments, and styles. They might learn from each other and borrow ideas from one another, but if either group is to survive as a unique people, it must maintain a general separateness, sovereignty, and autonomy over its own territory and affairs.
Next, even if two peoples are genetically nearly identical, they could have different histories, cultures, customs, and legends that distinguish one from the other. There isn't much genetic distance between Anglos and the Irish, but they have different histories and cultural consciousness. Same is true of Southern Chinese and Vietnamese. Many Greeks and Turks are similar in genetics and blood, but they are culturally and historically separate groups. Same goes for Germans and Swedes, even more so between Norwegians and Swedes. Just because Finns and Russians are both white Europeans doesn't mean that they don't have rich and varied differences in language, culture, and historical narratives. And those differences are what makes the world fascinating. For the world to be colorful and diverse, there must remain distinct nations of peoples and cultures who maintain borders, identities, and territorial integrity.

And that's why no nation, people, or culture will survive without race-ism and culturism: A belief in their racial and/or cultural uniqueness and the conviction to preserve such distinctions. It is by race-ism and culturism that people get to LAY CLAIM to their bios, ethnos, mythos, cultos, and terros. Without such claim, your people own nothing; they have nothing to call their own; everything about them, their lands, their wealth, their culture, their history, and etc. are all toss-up objects for sale at the global flea-market and meat-market. The entirety of your people, culture, land, and history has been turned into mix-and-match items in a Jewish pawnshop. They may continue to exist physically but no longer as the property of your people. Everything about your people now exists to be raided, auctioned off, looted, and passed around the world. Just like cattle exist but don't own their own bodies and therefore are slaughtered, chopped, and sold around the world, your people-culture-and-land will be turned into meat-and-dairy products under globalist hegemony. Cows can't say NO to being slaughtered, butchered, and sold because they don't own their own bodies. They belong to humans-as-either-sellers-or-buyers. They are mere economic units to be bought and sold on the global marketplace. Beef from Argentina may be sold to Mexico, the US, India, China, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Cows are organisms like we are, but they have no racial consciousness, no culture, no history, and no means to lay claim to anything. They are clueless creatures that eat when fed and don't know they are to be killed, cut up, and cooked for humanity. They cannot connect the dots. If they had human intelligence and means of speech, they would be able to assert themselves.
But then, maybe not. After all, so much of humanity are being turned into faceless & mindless consumers and even commodities(especially as sex objects to be marketed by Jewish shysters) and their identities, cultures, and territories are being robbed from them right under their feet, but they are either unaware of what is happening or deliriously supportive of this process of dehumanization, de-nationalization, and de-culturalization. And even though Jews do the very opposite for themselves while pushing commoditization on the goyim, so many goyim praise and honor Jews as their masters — it's like how the animals on the farm all praise the vile and vicious Pig Elites in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM where the promise of equality caves to the ruthless logic of IQ hierarchy, art of cunning, and Will to Power. It goes to show that human intelligence and consciousness are malleable. Rationally or irrationally, mini-minds and weak wills are warped and manipulated by big minds and strong wills. While all people think and feel, most people 'think' and 'feel' as the elites direct them to. And the big-minded and strong-willed elites of the current West are heinous and hideous Jews.

Possibly, the most effective means by which Jews robbed white goyim of their claims to blood, soil, culture, history, and morality is by using the Jew-run media, academia, and deep state to spread the notion that there is no greater 'sin' than 'racism'. Paradoxically, Jews suppressed white race-ism in order to bolster their own racial supremacism. Jews attack even the slightest show of white identity and interests as 'white supremacist' while compelling whites to mindlessly support what is clearly Jewish racial supremacism as it's quite obvious that Jews aren't content with Jewish national sovereignty in Israel or expression of Jewish interests(among other interests, some of them counter to Jewish interests) in the US. Instead, Jews insist on Zionist imperialist tyranny over Palestinians and use their control of the US to destroy perceived enemies and rivals in the Middle East by sanctions, invasions, and support for terrorism. In the US, Jews will not tolerate Palestinian-American support for BDS or a foreign policy that balances Zionist lobbying with counter interests of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others. Instead, all of US must be for Jews Uber Alles, Israel First, and Zionic hegemonism over the Middle East and North Africa. And of course, Jews have done everything to destroy or desecrate Christianity with globo-homo Queertianity. Despite Zionists having turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive homo 'pride' parades, the christ-cucks in US churches praise Jews and Israel in the most embarrassing way. As for principled Christians like Rick Wiles who refuse to kneel before Satanic globo-homo Zion, they are censored, banned, and denied service by Jew-monopolies like Youtube and Paypal.

Incredibly, Jews have gotten away with forcing all of us to support their supremacism, imperialism, and hatred by pushing the pretense that they're combating 'white supremacism' and 'antisemitism'. According to Jews, even the slightest sign of white consciousness is 'white supremacist'. Even "It's Okay to be White" must be shut down and investigated by the FBI. And if you call out on Jewish imperialism and Zionist tyranny, you are smeared and destroyed as an 'Anti-Semite'. They are truly a vile and vicious people, the biggest hypocrites and arrogant scoundrels in the world. As far as Jews are concerned, White History has been nothing but one of 'white privilege', 'white racism', 'white supremacism', and etc. And because White History is so tainted with evil and guilt, Jews insist that even a smidgen of white consciousness, let alone pride, is reason for alarm. In other words, whiteness = disease = evil. Whiteness is so toxic and noxious(and apparently infectious to other whites) that it must remain fumigated and quarantined at all times. Even if just a tiny bit is allowed to escape and assert its worth and autonomy, it might spread like a virus and threaten the Jew World Order as all those 'infected' whites will want to burst out of the Jewish-made PC bubble. Whites must be made at all times to believe that they are ACCURSED with whiteness. They were born with a sickness and, as patients infected with evil, they must listen to Jewish social science doctors who tell them that they must show no pride or unity in their whiteness. If anything, whites must welcome mass-immigration-invasion, the Great Replacement or White Nakba, and massive race-mixing. Whites must all be turned into brown people like those of Latin America or North Africa. Having mixed blood, there shall no longer be proud white consciousness that may stand up to Jewish perfidy. And Jews figure that even if anti-Jewish sentiments may linger among browned folks, they will be too confused in identity to ever unite against Jewish Power. After all, the mixed-race populations of Latin America have been extremely ineffective in overthrowing the white Latin elites who've ruled South America since the days of the Conquistadors.

Whites no longer own their own history. White history has been doctored by Jews who associate whiteness with evil and guilt. Of course, if one does the same with Jewish History, Jews cry 'anti-Semite'. Jews have an effective moral and polemical shield against those who rummage through Jewish History for various evils, but whites have no comparable defense mechanism(and they need to develop it against Jews). Also, Jews covered up the fact that some of the darkest 'evils' of white history have been inseparable from Jewish History. Much of the slave trade that sold Slavic whites to North Africa and Near East were done by Jews. Jewish bankers financed much of Western Imperialism. Jews took part in the Atlantic Slave trade, especially in Brazil that brought over the greatest numbers of slaves. Jews of the British Empire sold opium to the Chinese. Jewish merchants worked with whites who wiped out the American Indians. Jews dominated much of organized crime in Europe and America. And Jewish communists played a key role in the Russian Revolution that ended up destroying millions of lives. So, the evils of genocide, imperialism, brutality, and slave-trade done by whites were also done by Jews who acted as merchants or financiers. But clever, cunning, and nasty Jews make us focus ONLY on the WHITE aspect of those evils. Also, Jews spread the notion among non-whites that WHITES AND ONLY WHITES were guilty of all the wrongs done to them. Indeed, Jews even pretend to be allies and fellow-victims of the so-called People of Color by selectively pointing to events where Jews were attacked by whites while failing to mention that, more often than not, Jews in Europe worked with the European Imperialist elites in the conquest and exploitation of the world. Imagine if the French selectively pointed to periods when they were attacked by the British and claimed to be fellow victims of the British Empire while totally ignoring the historical fact that the British and the French competed and cooperated side by side in their conquest of the non-white world. Jews are fiendishly sneaky that way.
One thing for sure, the Zionist project came to fruition with backing not only from British, Soviet, and American imperialists but even from Nazi imperialists. But then, Jews do a number on naive and stupid non-whites as well. By creating the impression that nationalism in white nations is 'racist' and 'xenophobic', Jews persuade non-whites into thinking that Nationalism = White Supremacism, and therefore, all goyim must reject this Nazi-like nationalism and embrace globalism. But in truth, whites didn't conquer the world through nationalism but through imperialism, and if non-whites eventually regained autonomy and sovereignty, it was through native nationalism and national liberation from Western Imperialism that had been thrust upon the world not only with white arms but with Jewish money. Jews sure are cunning and crafty. By conflating Nationalism with White Supremacism, Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone. They mean to destroy nationalism not only in white nations but in non-white ones. Of course, there are people who know this is BS, but as those in elite circles are mostly fixated on status and as the Jew-run US rules the world, they dare not stick out their necks and speak the truth; instead, they just hunker down and go along with the globalist project on the basis of "I got mine."

Without race-ism, there is no racial consciousness. The only kind of racial consciousness that Jews allow for whites is negative-consciousness or anti-consciousness, i.e. whites are to denounce consciousness of white identity, white history, white culture, and white territoriality as either evil, ill-gotten, or misconceived. Whites must not feel pride and a sense of ownership to what they are, where they live, what they've done, and what they believe. The great achievements of whites must be attributed to ALL of humanity. White history must retroactively be made 'multi-racial' and 'multi-cultural' so that ANY people can lay claim to it. The media put on historical programs where Past Europe has lots of blacks and other non-whites. Even the great white leaders and heroes must be made black or non-white. Jews say there was no WHITE History. Europe was never white but always 'multi-cultural' because NOT EVERYONE in Europe was white. (Using this logic, Japan and China weren't yellow because whites like Marco Polo and other came to visit.) Apparently, the Middle Ages weren't white and European because there were some Arabs and blacks in Europe at the time; therefore, Middle Ages were just as Arab and black. Of course, this isn't really about blacks or Arabs but about Jews. Jews hate the idea of white consciousness that thinks in terms of "we white Christians" and "those Semitic Jews". Such might lead to white consciousness that seeks White Liberation from Current Jewish Supremacism. So, Jews not only push a Diverse Future on the White West but try to fool whites that this Diverse Future isn't a break with the White Past but a merely natural continuance because the White World was always Diverse and into Multi-Culturalism. (Never mind that most of these white relations with non-whites were violent and bloody: Moorish invasions, Mongol invasions, and European Crusades and incursions into non-white territories. If anyone wants to celebrate Ottoman Occupation of Greece and Moorish conquest of Spain as wonders of Diversity, he or she is a mental slave of Jews. I suppose Jews should celebrate Roman tyranny over Judea.)

There are two kinds of histories. Factual history, which should be left up to professional historians who pore over records, documents, data. But for most people, the kind of history that matters isn't factual but mytho-narrative. While this kind of history should stick close to facts and truth as much as possible, its real objective is to fashion a story of a people and imbue it with meaning, significance, and purpose. It's like a biography isn't merely a collection of data on someone. It is a lively tale and summation of his life and what it has come to mean. Thus, certain facts must be selected over others. Certain details are emphasized over others. Necessarily, if you want to portray a man as a villain, you will focus the bad sides of his character and deeds to drive the point home. On the other hand, if you want to portray a man as a hero, you will focus on facts and details that would support such an image. Of course, no man is all villain and all hero. Everyone is a mix of both, and all biographies and all histories should dwell on both the light and the darkness of any person or people. Still, the main purpose of mytho-narrative is to defend, glorify, and romanticize the story of your people. Take the Old Testament. While there are passages that show Jews to have been unworthy of God's love and blessing, it is ultimately a narrative that justifies the story of Jews as a special people with a sacred contract or Covenant with God. This is why it is necessary that mytho-narrative history must be owned and controlled by your own people and its champions. Such historians are essentially word-warriors. They master the power of words and knowledge to fashion a narrative that honors, defends, and justifies your people. While it's possible that a foreigner may be sympathetic to your people while one of your own may be hostile to his own kind, there is a greater likelihood that the history of your people will be sullied, befouled, and condemned in the hands of the Other.
Tragically, white folks outsourced their mytho-narrative to the Jews who selectively spun a tale that made whites out to be the Devil, Cancer, and Virus of human history. Would Jews be so stupid as to out-source their mytho-history to Palestinians, Iranians, or those deemed 'anti-Semitic'? While those hostile to Jews may tell a compelling and convincing story of Jewish Perfidy and Evils through human history, Jews themselves would be stupid not to own their own history and narrative. While it would be good for Jews(and any people) to face up to the dark chapters in their own history, ultimately their narrative must be more of light than darkness. Otherwise, the people will end up like whites under Jews who turned White History into one of exceptional evil that can be redeemed ONLY BY cucking to Jews, ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) , and White Nakba(aka the Great Replacement).

Now, consider race-ism and the ownership of homeland. Any territory without the stamp of race-ist claim will be lost no matter how rich and powerful a people may be. American Indians lost their lands to whites because they were outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-fought. In contrast, whites are losing their lands in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe not because they are weak and poor but because they've lost race-ist claims on their nations. Despite dire demographic trends, the White West is still the most powerful bloc in the world. Then, why is it so helpless against preventing White Nakba or the Great Replacement brought about by Mass Immigration Invasion? It is because whites have rejected race-ist claim to history and territory. The claim of history and claim of territory are interrelated because, after all, territorial claim is justified by historical narrative. "We Hungarians own Hungary because it's the land bequeathed to us by our ancestors." "We Jews founded the Jewish State in Palestine because it was our land in ancient times." "We whites deserve to own and rule the US, Canada, and Australia because, even though we took it from other peoples, we founded and built great new nations in ways that ONLY WE could have." Such race-ist historical claims serve as basis for race-ist territorial claims. These claims say THIS is OURS, and NOT yours: Either the land belonged to our people from time immemorial OR our people built new nations out of the wilderness. But once a people reject race-ism, they lose racial consciousness. Their sense of story and territory becomes merely individualistic. 'My Story' and 'My Property' but no sense of 'Our Story' and 'Our Property'. Once whites rejected race-ism, they rejected the very concept of white people with white history on white territory. So, while whites-as-individuals have personal stories and private properties, they have no sense of collective narrative(except one that emphasizes 'white guilt') and collective ownership of territory or national property. While individualism is useful and productive, the question is what must it ultimately serve? As no individual lives forever or is a god, it makes no sense to put oneself at the center of existence and meaning. Every individual must realize he is part of a link, an inheritor, and that after he dies, what he'd been a part of shall be bequeathed to others whose obligation is to keep alight the torch of identity, history, and territory. The problem with libertarian individualism is it has no sense of life beyond 'me, me, me'. Furthermore, the fact that so many libertarians nevertheless suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos indicates that even for hardcore libertarians, liberty and individuality aren't enough. Even as they denigrate and negate white identity in the name of individuality, they feel this craving to serve something-bigger-than-themselves, and it's usually 'muh Israel', 'muh Magic Negro', or 'muh holy homo'.

Anyway, despite the greatness of white power and wealth in objective terms, the White West began its slide into oblivion because it subjectively abandoned race-ism, the consciousness that had once united whites in white nations into proud peoples with a powerful claims over the lands on which they lived and their ancestors fought for and died. Without race-ist consciousness, they could no longer felt united as members of a white race in a white nation. Without racial solidarity, they lost their sense of racial history and racial territory. If they no longer cared for white identity, it meant they no longer made white claims over white territory. Indeed, the new dogma was that whiteness is just a social construct or, worse, a disease/cancer, and therefore, the greatest evil is for whites to identify proudly as white or European. Lacking such consciousness, how could white people say WE WHITE PEOPLE OWN THIS WHITE LAND? How could a particular land belong to whites when whites no longer have white identity? Without white identity, there is no claim of white territory.
Thus, it doesn't matter how many white people there are in a certain nation; it doesn't matter how much wealth they own or how much power they have in objective terms of guns, tanks, and bombers. As long as they have no race-ist or racial consciousness, they no longer believe that their territory belongs to them as a race and people. So, even as tons of non-whites pour in as immigrants, whites cannot say NO since their anti-race-ism tells them that it's wrong for whites to think, feel, and react collectively(except in denouncing white unity). Indeed, white nations have been rendered defenseless even against rag-tag illegal migrants because, as whites no longer believe in white identity and territory, who are whites to tell non-whites, legal or illegal, that they don't belong in white nations that are no longer deemed WHITE nations? And so, we see the sorry sight all over Europe. Europe is so much richer and stronger than African and Muslim nations, but they are also helpless to stop the invasion.
Worse, while white identity is taboo, white anti-identity is all the rage among the neo-puritanical progs whose minds have been infected by Jewish Propaganda. So, not only are whites defenseless against the invasion but they are hastening the invasion and Great Replacement with enthused aid to non-white marauder-migrants. Some do it in the name of humanitarianism, but if they truly care about justice, why don't they call out on the factors that have turned so many people in the Middle East into refugees in the first place? Why don't they condemn Jewish Supremacism and Wars for Israel? But then, how could they since, even as they reject white identity, they've embraced Jews-as-Deity, and that means Jews cannot be condemned for their foulness. Why, it'd be 'antisemitic'. So, even as Jews mess up the Middle East, whites cannot condemn the Jews but must suffer the cost of the mess created by Jews. Imagine if I burn down someone's house and force you to take in the family that is now without a home. Naturally, you should be condemning me for burning down the house, but you dare NOT do that as you've come to see me as your master and god; so you feel YOU must bear the burden of what I have done.

It doesn't matter how powerful you are objectively if you're weak and cucked subjectively. Suppose you live in a home with lots of guns and bullets. You have strong walls and lots of food and supplies. Objectively, you are well-protected and secure indeed. But suppose you subjectively believe that you have no special claim to the house. As such, when trespassers arrive and ask to be let in, you just let them in. You have the guns but dare not use them against the invaders because you don't believe the house belongs especially to you and your family. Same logic applies to nations. If you lose race-ist consciousness, you've lost the race-ist claim on your land. Then, it is open to invasion from all the world... which is what is happening to the West. Next time Jews tell you to lose your race-ist claim on your land, you ask them why they maintain a powerful race-ist claim on Israel? The damned buggers.

One of the most important assets a race or people have is possession of the women. A people are effectively finished when the women of the race lose respect for the men. Such women are likely to forgo wifehood and motherhood, thereby failing to produce the next generation. Or worse, they might go with the men of another race, even the invasive and colonizing race because it is the nature of women to go with winner-conquerors(even of enemy races). Always, the conquering race takes the women of the vanquished race. When People A conquer People B, the men of People A don't go to the men of People B and say, "Hey, come and hump our mothers, wives, daughters, and etc." No, it's the winning side that conquers and colonizes the wombs of the losing side. When Turks ruled over Greece, they took Greek women. When Mongols invaded China, Iran, and Russia, they took the women of the conquered. When whites were masters over blacks as slaves, white men humped black women. When Zionists took nearly all of Palestine and carried out Nakba, they raped Arab women as sexual trophies. When Soviet Troops entered Germany, they raped countless German women. When US defeated Japan, they used Japanese women as whores. When the Spanish Conquistadors took over South America and Mexico, they took native brown women.
Now, not all conquering folks were enthusiastic about race-mixing. The British Empire was far less into race-mixing than the French Empire and Spanish Empire were. National Socialists discouraged race-mixing whereas Soviet Empire encouraged it. At any rate, the fate of the brown natives of what is called 'Latin America' goes to show what happens when men lose possession and the respect of their own women. Brown men were defeated by white Spaniards who took brown women to produce a neo-race of 'mestizos' who became confused in identity and, to this day, have no real sense of what they are. While race-mixing of any kind always weakens and dilutes the identity of the conquerors as well as of the conquered, it is always far more damaging psychologically and culturally to the conquered side. It was painful for Russian men to see their daughters taken by Mongol barbarians. It was painful for Vietnamese men to see their women turned into a bunch of whores by US military. It was shameful for black men to see their women be taken by 'honkey-ass mothafuc*as' in the Old South. Consider the trauma of French men who were helpless to stop French women from running into the arms of German occupiers. (Granted, some of these French women weren't necessarily treasonous in spirit. They might have regarded pre-Occupation France as a Jewish-dominated tyranny and therefore welcomed German victory as liberation of France from the Juif.) Without women, there is no future for the race. And while men can produce kids with women of any race, if they want to perpetuate the aesthetics, soul, and temperament of their own Volk, they should have children with women of the same race. Spanish men had children with native brown women, and the results were rather Guillermo-ish(of the dreadful Jimmy Kimmel Show). Guillermo may be a nice guy and all, but he doesn't look quite like a Spaniard. Nor does he look like a proud Mayan warrior. He looks like a human burrito.

In our time, the biggest threat to white ownership of white women and white beauty comes from 'anti-racism' and Jungle Fever, a kind of double whammy. Political Correctness is the colonization of white minds by Jewish propaganda, and what might be called Biological Correctness is the colonization of white wombs by black seed. In a way, both PC and Jungle Fever are 'natural' insofar as smaller minds cuck to bigger minds and wussier men cuck to tougher men. When whites began to practice inter-meritocracy, they were bound to lose out to the 'best man'. White Power could only be sustained with intra-meritocracy that rewarded the best among the whites AGAINST non-whites. But once whites adopted universal inter-meritocracy, white minds lost out to Jewish minds that are higher in IQ and stronger in will. And white muscles lost out to tougher black muscles, and white dongs lost out to bigger black dongs. Now, why did whites forsake intra-meritocracy that had served and sustained White Power so well and instead go with inter-meritocracy, a universal call for 'may the best man of any race win'? Part of the reason was the rise of rationalism and its concept of universal justice. Another reason was rooted in Christian ethos. Also, the radical racists such as the National Socialists gave racial consciousness a bad name. Ironically though, even as Jews reviled racial consciousness among whites on grounds of Nazi Evil in World War II, they revamped their own racial consciousness in pushing through the Zionist project and in making whites submit to Jewish Supremacist Power. (Also, let's remember that the Pacific War was pushed by both Conservatives and Liberals alike as a race war against the yellow 'Japs', and Jews did their part in dehumanizing the Japanese like the National Socialists had dehumanized the Jews.)
In any case, when white people gave up on racial consciousness, each and every white person was encouraged to be a mere individualist, consumer, hedonist, celebrity-obsessed idol worshiper, and etc. White women felt 'liberated' and no longer 'owned' by white men, the evil patriarchs. But most of them being stupid or dumb, they just came to be mentally owned by Jews and sexually owned by blacks. They went from women of a race, history, and heritage to mere commodities of Jews and playthings of blacks. And white men, instead of waking up and fighting the Jews and blacks, were too brainwashed themselves with 'white guilt' and too gushy with 'white fever'(for black thrills in sports and rap) to unite and fight to defend race, homeland, heritage, and honor. And at this point in history, it all looks hopeless. The great lesson, at any rate, is that a people will lose their identity, history, homeland, and women when they abandon race-ism. While sane people need to forsake extreme race-ism(like religious people should reject theocratic fanaticism), they need to realize that there is nothing more precious and valuable than race-ism in the preservation of a people and culture on their sacred land. If whites want to reclaim their land and culture for their posterity, they must say NO to Jewish Supremacism and regain white race-ist consciousness.