Black Racial Problems run deeper because Blacks Not Only Lag but Drag Civilization into the Dirt — Black Nature prevents Blacks from working in good faith with Whites and Non-Blacks toward a More Harmonious Social Order

Discussions of black racial problems overlook the most crucial factor. Blacks don't just lag but drag, as in dragging society down to the ground. If the problem was simply a matter of lag, the problem would be far less dire. Blacks would simply trail other groups in achievement and productivity.
Or, if blacks failed miserably but in their own manner and space, that too would be tolerable. After all, the social failures of American Indians and Australian Aborigines(or the issues of alcoholism related to Eskimos) are hardly threats to civilization and order. They are depressing and even self-destructive but not particularly destructive to others. The harm is implosive than explosive. In contrast, blacks don't just lag but drag and drag everyone and everything down with them. The recently arrived black African immigrants in Australia have caused far more harm than the native Aborigines who remain below but don't blow up society.

This is why the issue of Reparations fails to address the most important problem. Now, suppose blacks were doing their share to catch up but remained behind due to past disadvantages. Under such scenario, offering aid to blacks might go some ways to help them catch up more. It wouldn't be money wasted.
However, in the current reality most blacks not only make NO EFFORT to improve their lot but go out of their way to waste everything provided for them, with zero understanding/appreciation of where the goods and services come from. Consider the amount of money spent on educating blacks. What do black kids do when bestowed with such advantages denied to most children around the world, especially in Black Africa? They act like apes and baboons in schools, which might as well be called zoochools.

Suppose a child is shorter than another child because he was fed less. So, while he's still growing, it might make sense to offer him extra food and nutrients so he could grow up faster and catch up with other kids. This would be a case of lag.
However, suppose the shorter kid is given food and vitamins to grow faster, but instead of dutifully taking advantage of them, he throws them everywhere and goes into endless tantrums. He drags the whole thing down to the dirt.

If blacks are behind due to past injustices and were at least making an effort to catch up, added social programs might be of some benefit. Even if blacks are less intelligent and innately deficient in some areas, their goodwill and effort would still lead to some positive outcomes. But too many blacks don't make any such effort. Indeed, they seem totally bewildered by requisite standards of commitment and cooperation. At once, they want everything to be done for them but want all the credit for what others do for them. All too often, even once well-meaning whites become jaded or cynical, though they reliably remain too cowardly or 'nice' to acknowledge that black problem goes deeper into the realm of genetics. It's not just a matter of lower IQ but wilder personality, egotism, psychopathy, and lack of empathy. Their advantage in muscle power made it worse as wild/aggressive personality + muscle power = thug arrogance toward the weaker races. Blacks have much to gain from respecting whites and appreciating white achievement, but thug arrogance looks upon whitey as sorryass mofo who done deserve no respect.

Imagine two groups of tower-builders. One group got a head start and built 50 stories already. The other got a later start and managed to build only 25. Even so, it built something. And somewhat later, the first group made it to 75 stories while the other made it to 50. Even though they aren't equal, both groups are making progress. Even if the second group doesn't catch up with the first, it too is rising higher and higher. Under such circumstances, one could argue for extra help for the second group so that it may rise to parity with the first group in the tower-building.

But it'd be a wholly different matter if the second group, upon finally having the chance to build its own tower, hardly makes an effort. Worse, even when the first group lends a hand and builds some stories for the second group, the latter expends most of its energy to tear it down! Just look what blacks have done with St. Louis(not to mention East St. Louis), Baltimore, parts of Milwaukee, Newark, Detroit, Birmingham, and so many black-majority places. They don't just lag behind(like Mexicans for example) but go out of their way to drag everything down to the mud. If whites achieve more while browns tend to lag, blacks tear down what others make. Look what black Africans have done with foreign aid and investment. When it's given to blacks, they squander it all on bling or whatever. Look what blacks did to Zimbabwe once whites were kicked out. Look what blacks did to Uganda after kicking out the Hindus. Now, whites and Hindus were no saints in Africa, but they built things and made something out of nothing. The black problem isn't a matter of taking something and achieving less but turning something into nothing with their wild and savage ways. So, what use would reparations be when blacks will just take the money and blow it on nonsense? And then, they'll be back to bitching and saying, "We need mo', sheeeeeeiiiiit."

Why are blacks like this? It's genetics. Some will acknowledge black pathologies but blame them entirely on the historical trauma of slavery. But is black behavior different in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, or South Africa where they weren't slaves of whites? No, we see the same patterns. Whites(and Hindus) come and build stuff, achieving some degree of development. Under white rule or Hindu management, blacks gain access to modernity. But once blacks begin to bitch about inequality & injustice and demand to take over everything, they drag everything into the dirt. And even when do-goody whites shower blacks with more free stuff, it isn't long before blacks squander those as well and keep demanding more free stuff.

So, the dominant narrative where whites are ahead and blacks are lagging behind and in need of extra help to catch up is a false one. No, the reality isn't that blacks are merely lagging behind. They are dragging civilization in the opposite direction. They are wasting most of what is handed to them, the kind of stuff that blacks on their own would never have attained. It's not like a fast-walking white guy is roped to a slower-walking black guy. While the slower-walking black guy would slow down the white-guy, he would still be doing his part in the march forward. Thus, the white guy would need to make an extra effort, but he wouldn't be doing all the pulling. But, suppose a fast-walking white guy is roped to a black guy who pulls in the opposite direction and jerks violently. Look at recent events in South Africa. Blacks have totally reverted to their jungle-jive nature. How can white and Asian minorities pull the black majority into modernity where so many blacks are pulling in the opposite direction of wanton savagery?

When whites are with Arabs, whites achieve more, Arabs achieve less. Still, many Arabs are doing their part to make things work. Arabs lag and burden whites somewhat, but it isn't anti-civilizational. It's much the same with whites and browns(mestizos from Latin America). But when it's whites and blacks, the dynamics is whites pull one way while blacks pull in the other way. US has managed so far because blacks are a minority, but the situation in South Africa is proof that black nature is antipathic to the white one: It is anti-civilizational. But because blacks excite whites so much athletically, musically, and sexually, the white race sees the black race as one big Orb(or Negrorb) and just can't let it go... and the rot has spread to Japan and elsewhere.

If blacks seemed to be making progress until the 1960s, it was because they were still under the domination of whites. While this could take the form of prejudice and injustice, it nevertheless had the effect of curtailing some of the more destructive and wilder tendencies of black nature. Also, as the culture was, by and large, more family-oriented and hierarchical, black men and women had some inhibitions about sexuality and black youths had some notion of respect. In the 1960s, Black America threw out the baby with the bathwater. While blacks got freedom and equality, they lost much in social discipline and culture of shame that had provided a measure of stability to the black community. Also, mass immigration meant blacks would have to compete with newcomers for manual jobs & small businesses; and, the welfare state encouraged single-motherhood among young black women who could always look to the federal check. And youth culture got dumber and more vulgar. Pop culture not only turned to trash but became the main culture. Academic freedom and genuine liberalism gave way to Political Correctness and now 'wokeness' that have no room for free thought and discussion. Without a culture of integrity and honesty, how can anyone address the real problem?

The 2020 BLM riots should have made it clear beyond a doubt to any honest person. The problem with blacks is not that they lag behind or simply have less. The problem is they burn what others build. They unmake what others make.

The history excuse isn't very convincing. Consider Europe. For many centuries, the aristocrats had it all. They learned to read and write while the masses of serfs or peasant folks toiled from dawn to dusk. Most people had little time for learning. Many remained illiterate all their lives. Such were the conditions over the millennia. And even though people associate East Asia with education, the great majority of people there were dirt poor, illiterate, and ignorant until late modernity brought about by Westernization. For thousands of years, the only reality for most people was waking up to work all day long on the rice fields, like the peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI. A large share of the population were slaves or something like serfs. But when the caste/class discrimination ended, the children of the lower classes made rapid gains in schools and professions and ably competed with the children of the former aristocracy. When the communists came to power in China in 1949, the majority of adults were illiterate. And yet, when China finally got its act together and provided universal education, great strides were made. China still lags the West in many areas but has caught up considerably(and may even surpass the West in certain fields, as Japan has done). The problems of lag can be dealt with and managed.

But it's entirely different with blacks. Blacks in Africa inherited so much from European Colonialists but destroyed them. Black Africans with some ability and talent opted to move overseas, especially to Western nations, because their skills could hardly be applied in a world where most people are stuck in ugabuga mentality and look upon modernity as just something to grab and loot.
The problem with Detroit isn't that blacks took over and did less than whites because of disadvantages stemming from past discrimination. If that were the case, Detroit would have remained a functional city, only less so than if whites managed it. The problem is Detroit is a total wreck because blacks have a jungle-approach to white-made things.

And black destructiveness isn't the result of resentment and envy for what whites have achieved. If, at the very least, blacks had a fuller, deeper, and richer understanding of West's contribution to World History, they might appreciate the true value of white-made stuff. But most blacks have no understanding of the origins of white achievements. They just think it be like bananas that grow on trees. Things just be, and blacks feel they deserve more of it just because. It's like one bunch of chimps angry that another bunch of chimps got more bananas. Now, if indeed modern goods all grow on trees, blacks would have a point. Why should non-blacks have more of the bananas when bananas just be growing naturally? Recent events in South Africa attest to this. Whites and Asians go through the labor of production and commerce, but the simpleminded black mentality just can't process any of it. It just thinks, "Why whites and Hindus got more bananas?" Their apelike appetites hunger for more bananas and uses any excuse — the imprisonment of Jacob Zuma — to go apeshit and grab all they can.
As for blacks who do understand that modern goods are man-made, they believe they should have the most because Jewish-run PC education and Afrocentric fantasies pushed the nuttery that Egyptians were black and invented everything in the Ancient World, which was then stolen by the evil 'racist' Greeks. Or, it's a case of PC nonsense taught in schools that convinced not only blacks but plenty of whites that American Wealth owes mainly to black slave labor and that even whitey-on-the-moon was made possible by three black women more advanced in math than Einstein. With ignorance such as this, is it any wonder that blacks think they should have the most, if not all?

It is really time to do away with this charade. It's not like blacks are making an effort to catch up but lagging due to past wrongs. If that were the case, regardless of whether blacks can catch up or not, the racial problem would be far less because, at the very least, white efforts at amelioration would be appreciated and used constructively. Even if the extra help doesn't have the desired effect of closing the gap, there would be mutual amity in white good-will and black striving.
But what is really happening? Blacks wasting most education dollars in schools that have come to resemble zoos. Blacks using any excuse to rob, loot, and burn down cities. Black enmity dead-set against honesty & self-criticality and instead blaming whitey for everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. Granted, it's made been far worse by the toxic venality of Jewish Power whose main interest is to manipulate white-black relations to maximize Jewish supremacist power. Jewish priority is to perpetuate and bait 'white guilt', which has been so effective in suppressing white identity/interests and goading sorry whites into seeking Jewish advice and counsel on redemption. Of course, Jews tell whites to kiss Zionist ass and say a million 'hail martins' or 'hail mandelas'. As long as Jews control the West and covet 'white guilt' about blacks as the surest means of controlling white hearts-and-minds, the official narrative will have whites believing that well-meaning and striving blacks are held back ONLY BECAUSE of past 'racism'. In truth, blacks are free. They are free and wild and doing everything to drag white civilization into the ground. Too Many Blacks result in Detroit, Baltimore, Haiti, or South Africa.

In Mexico, whites ruled over browns, and browns still lag behind. The reasons could be genetic(higher white IQ), cultural(backward brown culture), historical(browns were disadvantaged), emotional(browns are more passive and resigned), or whatever. But the white-brown problem in Mexico and Southwest America is one of lag. Browns don't rise to the level of whites, but they do their part to maintain civilization(and do make some progress). But it's a very different matter with blacks outwardly hostile to the very idea of modern civilization and the norms required to sustain it. Blacks are a total drag on modern civilization, but as long as they serve as the Orb or Negrorb of silly whites mind-altered by Jewish media & academia, blacks may well succeed in dragging everything down to the level of Africanery.

THE JOLLY HERETIC EXPLORES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BIG LIE - Dr Edward Dutton: The Jolly Heretic

White Americans Are Not Free Individuals but Mere EXTENSIONS of Jewish Supremacist Power, mere Tentacles to the Jewish Octopus Mind and Will

Jews understand a crucial truth. People are Extensions than Individuals. As social creatures, people are more like ants than lone animals like tigers or bears. People constantly pick up signals, all the more so in our age of electronic media and gadgets. Every time someone uses 'my' device, he or she is being tuned to signals emanating from a center of power/influence. He or she thinks, "I'm a free individual with 'choice'", but in fact, the possible 'choices' are fed into his/her mind through electronic signals. In some ways, people became less individualistic with the rise of radio and TV. Prior to such technology, everyone in the US did something different on any given night. Some read books(countless different titles) and magazines, some went for social gathering, others went for a walk, some stared at the moon, and etc. If ANYTHING unified people in the US and the West prior to Radio and TV, it was the Bible. But with the TV, just about everyone in the US could be watching the same show at the same instant. Despite the 'participation' of countless millions, the shows were created by just a handful of people. As Jews gained control of the media, they were filling our minds with 'control' signals. A the guy in A SERIOUS MAN(by Coen Brothers) messes with the TV antennae, he senses the TV is exerting serious influence on his children, not all of it good. Still, Jews needed to worry less about TV & Radio as Jewish Media Masters were careful not to send signals that would be negative for Jews. Instead, signals instilled the mass public with the message that one's moral character is a measure of his/her 'philosemitism'. If animus, hostility, and hatred were spread by the electronic signals, they were aimed at whites because Jewish supremacist power needs white submission and obedience, the product of white shame, moral paralysis, and self-loathing. Jews need whites to be in forever-redemptive mode for their history of 'racism', 'antisemitism', and etc. because then they can exploit the white need for atonement by directing white actions toward Judeocentric goals. "Jews are so good and holy, whites are so vile and loathsome; therefore, in order for whites to cleanse their souls, they must look to Jews for wisdom and guidance."

In a way, libertarianism, especially the kind pushed by Ayn Rand, has been of great use to Jews. Libertarianism served as a loosening agent. It's like you must first weaken the bonds that hold a structure together; then, the structure can be dismantled brick by brick. But do you break things apart to keep them apart indefinitely? No, you take them apart to use as building blocks for a new structure based on YOUR blueprint. Libertarianism promised individuality, freedom, and choice to everyone. It was especially useful in disassociating the White Right from its bonds of conservatism. White Conservatism championed bonds to the past & heritage and bonds among white folks(and Christian folks). While Americanism(and Western Culture in general) had long been more individualistic than others, it rejected radical individualism. If one had to make a choice between unity/community and division/individuality, the former was prioritized. So, while American Conservatism wasn't anti-individualist, it put unity before the individual. Libertarianism was poised to reverse the formula. Among the more moderate libertarians, it was individuality and choice before unity and tradition, but they weren't hostile to latter. Ron Paul belongs to this school. (His is the school of Virtue Libertarianism, the idea that more freedom and individuality will mean more choice and means by which people can make better, saner, more rational, and sensible decisions. More freedom means more opportunity to be good and moral. In contrast, there is the school of Vice Libertarianism that looks upon traditional virtues as 'square' & 'lame' and argues that vices will cancel each other out and lead to a kind of balance. This might as well be the Anton LaVey school of individualism.) If moderate Libertarians placed individuality before unity(but still valued unity), the radical libertarians were opposed to any sense of unity and heritage. It was all a matter of 'me and my choice'. It's no wonder they oppose nationalism, which is about the consensus that favors policies thought to be good for the organic whole. Radical libertarians see such policies as standing between the individual and choice. The GROUP representing National Interest prevents individuals from acting freely vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Anyway, unbeknownst to most goy libertarians, Jewish elements pushed libertarianism as a means to an end, not as the end itself. Consciously or subconsciously, Ayn Rand and other Jews would have sensed that Jewish Power will grow immeasurably if whites could be made more individualistic while Jews are made more tribalist, more pro-unity. Unity creates a gravitational core whereas individuality scatters force in all directions. The universe is filled with stardust, but stardust remains adrift in the dark. Bright suns are created by the unity of stardust into great concentrations of matter that generate tremendous energy. No wonder cities rule over the countryside. Cities concentrate power, countryside scatters it far and wide. Even Mao Zedong, who called for 'surround the cities from the countryside', got his education in the cities and, when his side won the war, made sure that the communists controlled all cities with a tight grip. Paradoxically, city life is more rootless and individualistic, yet power is concentrated into a singular unity. In contrast, country life is more rooted and communal, but people are smaller in number and separated across great distances. Perhaps, city folks could be more individualistic because they can take their systemic unity for granted. They live in such an elaborate and elevated form of social order that they don't have to work so hard at basic survival. Anyway, dimwit goy libertarians thought that individualism was for everyone. Everyone would become deracinated and come to regard himself or herself primarily as an individual, as a 'me' or 'myself'. Everything else — national loyalty, racial identity, religious affiliation, kinship, or etc. — would be secondary or nonexistent. All groups would move in this direction. Not only whites but Jews, blacks, browns, and the rest. But just when whites were moving toward an identity based solely on the individual, Jews were playing up the Holocaust Cult, Zionist Ideology, and Yiddish sensibility. Jews were reminded to never forget their Jewish history and unique ALL-TOO-JEWISH suffering. So, even though Jews prized individualism, it came AFTER unity. Philip Roth, for example, could be an individual and write 'porny' stuff, but all said and done, he was praised for his Jewish pride and Zionism. Jews were JEWISH individuals, not generic individuals, which is what Jews urged whites to become. For non-whites, Jews had a different agenda. Jews did everything to weaken the identities of Muslims, Asians, Hindus, Latin Americans, and Africans. After all, mass immigration is about the Melting Pot. Jews pushed for more immigration and in order for all immigrants to get along, they must put aside their identities/loyalties of origin and become 'good Americans'. And yet, if non-whites were urged to be just like whites, 'generic individuals', they wouldn't be of much use to Jews. Indeed, whites and non-whites as 'generic individuals' might come to see eye-to-eye on lots of things. But Jews needed to use non-whites against whites. But what kind of identity could non-whites have if they were urged to become part of the melting pot? Jews pushed Negative Identity on non-whites, an identity based on hostility toward whites. Thus, being non-white, be it black, brown, yellow, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever, is less a matter of positive connection to one's racial or cultural background than a matter of being AGAINST whites. Blackness is essentially about 'victims of white supremacist racism'. Brownness is mostly about resentment at the Gringo. And yellowness is about proving one's credentials that Asians are not a 'model minority' and also 'victimized' by whites on a daily basis — I mean, it could be a micro-aggression! While Jews also have a powerful sense of Negative Identity — "Evil White goyim did pogroms on us and threw us into gas chambers" — , they also have a powerful sense of Positive Identity rooted in history, heritage, and remembrance. In contrast, as most non-white goyim have weaker cultures and identities, all they have left as identifier is the 'moral pride' of being wronged and victimized by White 'racists' and 'supremacists'. It's like Jews tell Muslims, "Forget about Islam, let your daughters grow up to 'twerk' & act like sluts, let your sons ape black rappers, and wave the 'gay pride' flag." So, what would be the meaning of being a Muslim in America? It would be as a member of People of Color who are forever 'victimized' by nasty 'white supremacists'.

So, at the end of the day, Jews got positive and negative identities, non-whites got negative identities, and whites got generic identities. Jews have a sense of history and unity(separate from whites) and a sense of moral outrage(in negative opposition to white 'Anti-Semites'). Non-whites, in their amnesia, lose all sense of who they are independent of whites, and as such, their only identity is in relation to whites: "White racists did us wrong." And whites have no sense of who they are and where they came from. Whites are discouraged from looking into their racial, historical, mythical, and spiritual roots. Whites are now utterly post-cultural. If the European past is invoked, it is to willfully misinform whites that Vikings and Romans were black and that Europe was ALWAYS about mass immigration and 'diversity'. (If so, why do Jews say Europe was so 'racist'?) So, can whites at least be free individuals who are left alone to do as they please, like the fellas in Richard Linklater's DAZED AND CONFUSED? No, not even that. Whites too must have an identity that operates on a reverse moral dynamics as the non-white Negative Identity. If non-whites define themselves with Moral Pride vis-a-vis whites, whites must define themselves with Moral Shame/Guilt vis-a-vis non-whites(and Jews of course). Non-whites see themselves as "people who were always wronged by whites", whereas whites are to see themselves as "people who always wronged non-whites". Thus, both non-white identity and white identity lack autonomy and independence. Jews have a sense of who they are apart from their relations with whites, but non-whites, having far weaker memories, only have a sense of 'victimization' under whites. It is a Negative Identity of Moral Pride. Whites have a Negative Identity of Moral Shame. As whites have no sense of who they are independent of the rest of humanity — the mantra of 'Diversity Is Our Strength' across both North America and Europe has made it taboo for whites to conceive of a world unto their own, past, present, or future — , whites have been conditioned to always think of themselves in relation to the Other. According to this logic, there is no whiteness independent of non-whiteness. White Identity is always a function of its relational dynamics with Jews and non-whites. Now, can one say that whites sometimes did wrong to others and vice versa? After all, whites were invaded by Huns, Moors, Mongols, Arabs, Turks, and etc... and they are being invaded today by Third World hordes. And weren't whites victimized by Jewish money-lenders and weren't countless Christian Slavs killed by Jewish communists? No, such thinking is taboo and forbidden. Whites must only focus on the wrongs they did to others, that is unless whites did it for Jewish Supremacists. Whites need not dwell on the guilt of having supported Zionist wars on Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, etc. Of course, when the 'refugees' from the Wars for Israel end up on European and American shores, THEN whites must feel shame and guilt for not taking in more of them. When it comes to smashing Arab/Muslim nations, Jews urge white military men to be like ruthless and heartless Nazis. But when, the 'refugees' come knocking on the doors of the EU and US, the faceless victims suddenly take on the aura of 'New Jews escaping the holocaust'.

In the 1960s and 70s, when Jews were preaching Free Speech and youth culture, it seemed as though most of them just wanted all Americans to be freer and less hung up about race, culture, and identity. And yet, what Jews were really doing was using libertarianism to loosen white bonds from white heritage and white unity. Once loosened and taken apart, there was no way Jews were just going to let whites remain as independent bricks. And they sure as hell weren't going to become like whites and turn generic and 'white bread' as rootless individuals. (If Jews seemed rootless to goyim, it was because they refused to become rooted to goy conventions. They insisted on being rooted to the much deeper history and identity of their own Tribe.) Once white unity was dissolved and whites were turned into atomized individuals, Jewish Power planned to construct them into a new sense of whiteness, the Negative Identity of Guilt & Shame. And this was to be realized through PC permeating not only education but entertainment, advertisement, endless crusades, new purges, and ceaseless public announcements. In a way, Jews did it to mold whiteness into a useful tool for Jewish Power. But it was also because Jews sensed that arch-individualism is not natural to humans who are social creatures. Indeed, there were signs of a Christian Revival and counter-revolutionary Conservative tide in the 1980s after the tumultuous Sixties and the Me-Decade of the Seventies. It was a high water mark for Evangelicals in the post-war era. Against them, Jews concocted Political Correctness, Magic Negro, Globo-Homo, Diversity-mania, and Holocaust Cult as the new secular religions. Jews figured that whites would feel too lonely as mere individuals and would want to coalesce into some kind of 'spiritual' community. But what kind of community? The kind that is about white pride, Christian values, conservatism, family values, and nationalism? If whites were to be steered away from individualism toward some kind of unity and identity, it had to be one where white sense of goodness derived from their atonement scorecard. Whites feeling good about being white was absolutely unacceptable. Whites could only feel good about atoning at the feet of Jews and blacks, celebrating Diversity, cheering globo-homo, and praising white female race-traitors who go for Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Over time, this mentality even spread to once conservative American suburbs and small towns. After all, no matter where you live, you have a TV set that emits signals from Jewish-controlled centers of news, information, and entertainment. As Joe Biden said, Jewish media made America accepting of 'gay marriage'. All those electronic signals beamed into the eyes and ears of Americans made them regard homos, the proxies of Jewish Power, as 'angels' while despising anyone opposed to the 'gay agenda' as a subhuman 'homophobe', the face of which became the Greensboro 'church', which might as well be a Jewish Front(just like all those phony Neo-Nazi groups led by Jewish hucksters).

As such, all those white people became mere EXTENSIONS of Jewish Power. Even though they feel themselves to be free and independent, they are bombarded by Jewish electronic signals on a daily basis. The airwaves are essentially mental whips, rods, and leashes. They tell us what is 'true' and 'false'. They work on our emotions. Consider all the stupid white people who were led to believe it is 'Nazi-like' to support or enforce border security. Getting their news and opinions from Jewish-controlled sources, they're like dogs on a leash. They are like horses with blinders on, constantly goaded with cracking whips. They consider themselves to be free individuals who seek out the news, but most of the news they absorb comes from a handful of Jewish-owned-or-controlled conglomerates that work hand-in-glove with the Deep State. Instead of them seeking out the news, it's more like Jewish Propaganda and Mind-Control seeping into them through the devices that they own. (Those devices are like crack pipes. You may own the pipes, but the drugs are supplied by the pushers. You own the crack pipes, but the drugs own you, and the drugs are sold by the kingpins.) If they're truly free and independent, they would be for Free Speech and more options, but having been so brainwashed and conditioned by Jewish Power, they support speech control and censorship lest they see or hear something that runs counter to the Official Narrative that they've been fed. Because PC dogma makes them feel good for parading their 'white guilt' but feel bad for being critical about Jews and non-whites, they'd rather have censorship than be 'triggered' and psychologically threatened from their 'safe spaces'. It's funny how these idiot whites oppose border security that makes for physical safe spaces but support speech restriction to maintain their psychological safe spaces. They confuse mind with matter. But as the recent BLM riots have shown, what makes for psychological safe spaces makes for physical danger zones, which eventually destroy the psychological safe space as well. So many whites feel psychologically 'safe' with the conceit of Magic Negro and struggle against 'white supremacist racism'. They scream and shout at those who object to such fantasies. They feel psychologically threatened by the truth and demand their mental 'safe spaces'. And yet, what did the ideas emanating from their psychological safe spaces lead to? It led to 'defunding the police' and blacks acting badly with the support of Antifa thugs. The end result has been many more actual dangerous spaces and zones for both blacks and whites. Ideally, psychological safe space should be in sync with physical safe space. Indeed, that's how the suburbs grew and expanded. Whites knew that moving away from blacks would make for safer neighborhoods. They knew it in their minds and felt it in their feet. But over time, the Jewish media-control filled white minds with the notion of Magic Negro vs Evil White 'Racist'. So, blacks were always good and true, whites were always bad and false. Saddled with such PC notions, even whites in white communities came to regard Diversity and Blackness as holy while feeling disgust at whiteness. So, instead of trying to defend and preserve their communities, they chipped away at the foundations of their own physical well-being in subservience to the demands of psychological safe spaces deluded with PC soma. Consider white idiots in the suburbs holding rallies in honor of Fentanyl Floyd. In a way, it's fitting that the druggy Floyd has been 'canonized' by secular progs in search for new gods. In a way, psychological safe space is like addiction to opium. Someone sucking on an opium pipe is in his la-la land. He thinks he's in heaven, and even though his habit is actually ruining his physical and material well-being, he prioritizes mental bliss over physical reality. Of course, it's only a matter of time before deteriorating material reality catches up to him and drags him down to the gutter in the most unceremonious way. So, in the end, white people didn't become individuals but mere EXTENSIONS of Jewish Power. Of course, they are too ignorant or stupid to realize they're being thus manipulated and led around by the nose. Or, having been instilled with Jew-Worship, Homo-Mania, and Magic Negro Reverence, maybe they feel virtuous in being so servile and obeisant to the Power. But then, are American 'conservatives' any better? The essence of current 'conservatism' can be found in Chris Christie's groveling at the feet of Sheldon Adelson, Mitt Romney shuffling before his massuhs at AIPAC, or Marco Rubio playing his turn as the wooden dummy of The Lobby. They are mere Extensions. Now, it's natural to be an extension, but of what? Of white identity/interests or Jewish interests/identity? It's like the Bob Dylan's song(during his Christian phase) called "Gotta Serve Somebody". It could be the Devil or the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody. Ants on their own are nothing. But then, the queen ant would be nothing too if not for the fact that all the other ants are essentially extensions of her role in the order. They protect and feed her, and she produces the offspring that keeps the species alive. In the case of slave-taking, the ants of one colony can be made to serve another. The raiding ants take the larvae of another ant colony, and the baby ants are raised to serve the former. Of course, they don't know it, even as they dutifully serve as the Extensions of the colony that raided and/or destroyed their colony of origin. Whites brought over black slaves to serve as Extensions of whites. Because whites were far more advanced, blacks(even as slaves) had much to gain, but the fact is they were no longer serving their own tribe but working for the white tribe. And even as a free people, blacks in the US military continue to serve as Extensions of the US Empire, now controlled by Jews who are most hellbent on Wars for Israel and Judaic Hegemony. Still, if blacks always knew they were slaves because their subjugation was so visible and physical, most whites don't know that they are essentially mental slaves of Jewish Massuhs(who use blacks, Diversity, and Antifa Janissary idiots as overseers to attack and intimidate the white masses). If whites enslaved blacks physically, Jews stole the hearts and minds of Jews. Jews stole the white soul. In a way, what Jews have done to whites is worse than what was done to blacks. Blacks were savages and, despite physical slavery, were given souls with Christianity. Even as whites made blacks pick cotton, they spread the notion among blacks that God is bigger than any number of white folks with guns & whips, and that Jesus, the Son of God, loves the wretched of the Earth, the poor, and the oppressed. So, even as whites shackled blacks physically, they freed black souls from the depths of jungle savagery. And in time, black Christians would use a powerful spiritual argument for freedom and dignity. In contrast, Jewish Power used media and academia to rob whites of their hearts and minds that make up the soul. Jews, the masters of psychology, studied what methods are most effective in slipping into the subliminal and subconscious zones of people. Having thus sneaked in, they set all sorts of traps and spread all sorts of poisons in the white minds so that whites would feel nauseous at any thought of 'white pride'(like Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE) and would feel nervous at entertaining any thought that might offend Jews, blacks, and homos. Jewish mind-control crept into the hearts of white goyim and convinced them that the essence of Christianity is worship of sodomy and a Negro druggy. Every man, no matter how smart or strong, isn't much on his own. He is just one person. He gains power by turning other men into Extensions of himself. Their bodies serve as extensions of his mind, will, and vision. He is the will-to-power. Under Adolf Hitler, it was like all Germans were extensions of the Fuhrer's own arms and legs. And under Mao, countless Chinese were carriers of his will. More Extensions means more Power. This is what Jews had in mind. In a world governed by power, people exist as Extensions. There are many more Extensions than Extenders, just like there is one Sun but many planets. THE GODFATHER is not about individuals but about a handful of characters, Vito and Michael(and Barzini), who are Extenders while the rest are mostly Extensions or Buffers of one kind or another. And in THE GODFATHER PART 2, even the witnesses at the Congressional Hearing are Extensions of one side or another. They either belong to Michael Corleone or to Hyman Roth. Most people belong and serve. On their own, they are nothing or with protection. At one time, Jews rose up the ranks in the US as Extensions of Wasp Power, but the tables were turned, and now Wasps serve as Extensions of Jewish Power. The difference is that, even when Jews were playing the role of Extensions of Wasp Power, they had a powerful sense of who they are and planned for the day when they would rule. In contrast, today's Wasp Extensions of Jews are truly a sorry and pathetic lot. They are without identity or pride and happily servile as minions of Jews. They are like ants-taken-to-serve-as-slaves. They are 'white uncle toms' or 'white toms'. And if Wasps in the past thought it was rather uncouth to be overly 'antisemitic', Jews today are utterly shameless and relentless in insulting, humiliating, and dehumanizing whites in every possible way. And what do whites do? They beg the Jews, "Can I suck your dic*?" At most, some whites will plead with Jews, "Please oh please, don't be so mean to us? I mean, you wouldn't like it if we did it to you. So, please oh please, be nice to us, and we will kiss your behind." How utterly pathetic. In the movie MY BODYGUARD, the small kid is bullied by tougher kids and recruits a much bigger guy to serve as his Extension. Jews are nothing without their Extensions. Ironically, the most valued Extensions of Jewish Power is white people even though Jews also believe they need Diversity as bulwark against the White Threat. Jews see whites as the most useful horse but also the most dangerous that may throw off the Jewish rider and kick him in the skull and run off to be free. So, Jews need Diversity as added baggage on the horse so that it won't be able to jump and be wild. Of course, if Diversity serves as the straw that broke the white horse's back, Jews will have nothing. With whites, it's a game of carrot and sticks. If a white person collaborates fully with Jews, he gets lots of carrots. If they deviate from the Plan, they are attacked with big sticks. (It's like Leon Wieseltier's formula for dealing with Muslims. Total ruthlessness OVER THERE where they pose a threat to Israel and kindness OVER HERE where they can used as part of the coalition against whites.) Jews use Diversity to tame whites but fear that too much anti-white bashing may lead to diminished white energies, in which case whites won't be so useful as managers and foot-soldiers of the empire. In MY BODYGUARD, we naturally sympathize with the small kid because we don't like bullies. And we would like to believe that the good weakling uses his wits to hire good muscle as Extensions to push back against bad bullies. But the kid is also a smart-ass and a jerk. In a way, the dark version of him is Sean Penn's character of Davey Kleinfeld in CARLITO'S WAY. Here's a brainy guy who isn't good with fists and guns, but he knows the law and has connections. He can get people to do all kinds of things for him. And yet, he is a crook and an arch-criminal in the making. Over the years, many Americans got to thinking that Jews, while not the toughest and hardiest men around, are the smartest, wisest, most decent, most judicious, and most understanding, not least because they suffered the Shoah and have been the People of the Book, the greatest ever written. So, why not have Jews take over elite institutions? Why not be guided by Jewish wise-men, philosophers, big thinkers, and teachers? What better kind of elites can one hope for? Let the US be led by such sterling people and let the rest of us be happy and lucky Extensions of Jewish Power. The problem with this view is it misunderstands the nature of power. It may well be that there are wise, smart, and judicious Jews, but such people almost never gain power. Power almost always ends up with the cunning, devious, egotistical, ruthless, greedy, vain, nasty, vicious, corrupt, unscrupulous, and/or decrepit. So, what kind of Jews gained power? The likes of Norman Finkelstein(who, for all his faults, is sincere in trying to come to terms with the Palestinian issue) or a sleazebag like Chuck Schumer? Thus, letting Jews take power didn't end up with US being ruled by wise-men but by gangsters with law degrees, business degrees, or high-tech know-how, the geeksters. George Soros, Paul Singer, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. The Question is, "Do you want to be an Extension of this Power, or do you want to cut free and become an Extension of the forces that defend, support, and preserve YOUR OWN race, culture, and history?" Choose the Proper Extensionism for yourself. https://www.bitchute.com/video/5sTJuYiYD0k/

Minneapolis Riots(spreading across America) suggest the Real Great Sin of American History was not Slavery but Savagery Importation — The Importation of Black Savages from the Dark Continent has led to Thuggery, Crime, & Violence directed at all Non-Black Groups — The Importers of Black Savagery must atone for their great crime against Humanity

White nationalists target Nike despite desperate attempt at corporate virtue signalling.pic.twitter.com/AkQDDwXzmA https://t.co/K1LI3yhPYN

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 31, 2020

George Floyd died under custody of Minneapolis police, and blacks run riot and burn down cities, and predictably enough, the mayor of Minneapolis, a Jew by the way who supports Zionist 'genocide' and apartheid of Palestinians, says it is the result of 400 yrs of oppression of blacks beginning with the slave trade. Indeed, we often hear that the Original Sin of America was Slavery, namely black slavery. Never mind that genocide is worse than slavery, and US was founded on the extermination of the native 'American Indians'. Because Jews run the US and love the Immigration Narrative(as Jewish immigration to the US and Palestine turned out so good for the Tribe), American Indians will just have to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. As blacks are the winners in sports, pop music, oratory, & sex and because the likes of MLK are most closely associated with justice and progress, the narrative of black victimization simply matters more than that of American Indian suffering.

But even putting aside the issue of the American Indians and 'genocide', is it really the case that the black problem is due to slavery? If the US is being punished for the evil of slavery by the god of historical justice, shouldn't it be punished MORE for its treatment of American Indians? If past injustice leads to social unrest and turmoil in the present and future, American Indians should be the main instigators of historical revenge, violence, and social chaos. But American Indians aren't the main criminals, looters, rioters, rapists, and thugs in America. And we aren't often reminded of how the natives of the Americas suffered for 500 yrs under European Imperialism. Only around Columbus Day — called Indigenous Peoples' Day by some — do we hear some murmurings about the tragic fates of the natives at the hands of the European discoverers/invaders, but then, the very people who make pro-indigenous noises on that day spend all the other days of the year promoting and celebrating more immigration and Diversity even though it was Immigration/Diversity that led to the demise and destruction of the natives of the Americas.

If the moral logic of history holds that, "Bigger the Sin, the Bigger the Punishment", then the biggest problems of Brazil should be coming from the native Indio population. After all, they were invaded, 'genocided', and raped en masse(by both whites and blacks). But Indios hardly pose a threat to the social order of Brazil. Most of the problem comes from blacks. While one can argue that black violence in Brazil is the result of the injustice of the Slave Trade — Brazil, especially its Jewish population, imported more black slaves than the rest of the Americas combined — , an even greater injustice was done to the native Indios. Then, how come many more problems come from blacks?
If indeed historical justice is an avenging angel, Australia should be shaken time and time again by its Aborigine problem. After all, Aborigines of Australia experienced a near-genocide even worse than what happened in the Americas. They were regarded as barely human and shot like trophy. And yet, the Aborigines, though problematic for their poverty and dysfunction, don't strike terror into the hearts of whites and others in Australia. They are mostly at the margins and usually just neglected and forgotten. Now, if past injustice leads to recurring nightmares, why isn't Brazil shaken to the core by its Indio population? Why isn't Australia shaking with fear about Aboriginal vengeance?
Isn't it odd that the biggest problems of social violence and chaos in Australia are coming from the newly imported black population from Africa. These blacks were invited as free men and showered with all sorts of amenities... and yet, their behavior is hardly different from blacks in the US. Why is this? It's due to Savagery Importation. Australia doesn't have 400 yrs of history of oppressing blacks. Blacks arrived only recently and as free people welcomed with all sorts of benefits. If Australia did commit a historical 'sin', it was the near-genocide of the Aborigines. And yet, Australia is being shaken by Black African violence than by Aboriginal violence. Given the way blacks were welcomed into Australia, they should be most grateful and kind to Australians, but they are usually the most violent, thuggish, demented, and demanding people down under. What does this tell us? Slavery was not the main problem. The main problem was Savagery Importation. America brought over blacks as slaves, Australia brought them over as free men, but both sets of blacks act like wild and crazy thugs. The great sin of both the US and Australia was Savagery Importation, and the main victims of this are not blacks(certainly not in Australia) but non-blacks who were thus exposed to black thuggery, crime, violence, and dementia. White elites and Jews who allowed Savagery Importation must acknowledge their evil and apologize to non-blacks who must deal with black thuggery and criminality.



Now, there are savages and then there are Savages. Blacks are Savages, or super-savages. In the generic sense, savages are primitive folks who live by hunting-and-gathering and maybe some rudimentary agriculture. American Indians were savages. So were Eskimos in Siberia and Alaska. Amazonian Indians are savages. There are still some very primitive folks in parts of Philippines and India. But despite their generic savagery, they are not particularly tough, big, strong, and aggressive. In contrast, many kinds of Sub-Saharan black Africans aren't mere savages but super-savages. It's like African killer bees are more dangerous than European honey bees. They are Savages and more muscular and aggressive than other races. Therefore, allowing such a race to enter your domain is downright crazy.
But in their shortsightedness, white elites and Jews(yes Jews!) chose to import many many blacks to the Americas. As blacks were strong and relatively more immune to tropical diseases, they were useful for agriculture. These slave traders and slave-owners didn't think of the future when these Savages or super-savages might become free men granted with rights devised by the West, or white rights — what the world calls 'human rights' are really white rights conceived and constructed by whites for whites. (Such legal equality would not lead to racial equality as blacks would still be stronger, tougher, and more aggressive.) Importation of Black Savages to serve as slaves led to lots of short-term profits but laid the groundwork for never-ending nightmare that now affects EVERYONE in the US. Savagery Importation was a bigger crime against non-blacks than blacks. While it's true that blacks did suffer as slaves, they also gained a tremendous deal by having been let into the white world. Without contact with whiteness, blacks would never have amounted to anything but spear-chucking and beating bongo drums. It was under whites that blacks got a taste of civilization. And unlike blacks enslaved by relatively backward Arabs or rather lazy Portuguese of Brazil, blacks brought to Anglo-America came into contact with the most advanced civilization on Earth. Blacks went from being the most backward savage people on Earth to inhabitants of the most advanced society. Even as slaves and servants, blacks in Anglo-America found themselves as members of a nation destined to be the richest, freest, and most powerful. So, there was gain as well as loss for blacks who were brought to the US.

In contrast, non-blacks who must deal with the horrors of black thuggery gained nothing from Savagery Importation. At most, one may argue that they got some good black music, but otherwise, it's been more taxes, more black crime, more black intimidation, more black lunacy, more black lies, more black idiocy, more black destruction, more black savagery. Is soul music worth the price of the fall of Western Civilization? Is 'Disco Inferno' worth the burning of white-built cities? Burn Baby Burn?


So many non-blacks have been insulted, attacked, robbed, raped, or murdered by blacks, and there will be many more victims. Not just in the US but Australia, Canada, and Europe. Neither Australia nor Canada had black slaves, but they are ending up with similar black problems. It's genetics than history. And look at the problems of blacks in Europe. Europe was virtually all-white and black-free, and this blessing should have been appreciated by Europeans who didn't have America's problem. But in their naivete, foolishness, and/or Afro-worship due to sports/music culture & American Civil Rights Narrative, Europeans came to adore blacks and let them in ever bigger numbers, and as the result, Europe is facing much the same crises as the US. And it will only get worse as millions more black savages are headed to Europe.

While we should remember history and the wrongs & injustices suffered by humanity, it's simply not true that history is an agent of justice. If a people are bound to be historically punished for their 'sins', then history sure is a poor judge and executioner. After all, it was mass-immigration that led to the 'genocide' of American Indians, but where is the historical justice punishing whites and other immigrant groups for having conquered and taken the land from the Red Man? Japan committed far greater evils against China than to the US, but China didn't get to punish Japan while the US did. But then, right after the war, the US rewarded Japan for being a good ally. American lies and invasion of Iraq were a worse crime than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor(an act borne of desperation), but has the US been punished with firebombings and nukes? So much for history as judge. Jews carried out Nakba pogroms in Palestine. If history is judge & jury and punishes 'sin', why are Jews so well-off while Palestinians so badly off in that part of the world? Over the years, Zionist oppression of Palestinians has grown ever more brutal and draconian, but Israel has only been doing better and better. The Chinese Communist Party is guilty of horrible crimes under Mao, but it's still in power and seems more powerful than ever.
Now, consider the following alternative history scenario. Suppose, soon after the American Civil War, whites decided to ship all blacks back to Africa. Many would say such an action would have been an even greater 'evil' than Jim Crow and the like. But, would America have been punished for it? No, the US would be black-free and much nicer and more harmonious. Or, imagine an even greater horror. Suppose whites in the 19th century decided to treat blacks like the American Indians and either kill most of them or force them into reservations as separate black nations. Now, such a policy would have been evil, but the US would be a nicer place as it would be black-free, therefore without black crime, black thuggery, black lunacy, and etc. So much for historical justice.

So, the Canard of blaming Slavery for black horrors needs to end. The real big 'sin' or 'crime' of American History is Savagery Importation, not slavery. Just think. Would slavery have been so damaging if the slaves had been any people other than black savages? Suppose America used Russians or Poles as slaves. Once slavery ended, the free white population and ex-slave white population mostly likely would have merged and gotten along... just like Russian serfs just became part of the Russian nation. Or suppose whites had enslaved a non-savage or weak-savage people like the Vietnamese or Amazonian Indians. These peoples are generally short or scrawny and not particularly thuggish or aggressive by disposition. As a smaller and weaker race than bigger/taller whites, they would have just gotten along with the white population once slavery ended.
But, it was bound to be different with blacks because they are super-savages. In other words, even if 300,000 blacks had been brought over to the US as free men, they would have, in time, reverted to their own savage nature and began the destruction of white civilization. Now, blacks would be somewhat less crazy IF fearsome White Power were a thing. Blacks do respect 'badass' power, and the reason why blacks in the past sought to be a 'credit to their race' and emulated white norms was because they regarded whites as powerful, awesome, and not to mess with. Blacks believed in the power of the Great White Man. But once blacks realized, especially through sports, that they could beat up and humiliate white men(or toy with the white boy), they not only lost respect for whites but for white norms of civilization and values. This hastened their reversion to Afro-Savagery.

Again, the problem of American History was NOT slavery per se. It was WHOM the white elites and Jewish slave traders enslaved. They imported black super-savages as slaves to the Americas. The problem was really with Importation of Savagery, not slavery. This needs to be understood by all honest people.
Australia and Europe think that their blacks will be different because they're welcoming blacks as free men than bringing them as slaves. But whether blacks arrive as slaves or free men, they are super-savages, and when their numbers reach critical mass, they will do permanent irreversible damage. The Western elites should protect their own peoples from black super-savages but, because they are so enamored of the notions of the Magic Negro and Cool Badass Blacks — the Mandela/Mandingo Complex — , they welcome ever more blacks to the West while excoriating, silencing, fining, firing, and even imprisoning white truth-tellers who spell out the threat posed by Black Savage Imperialism. Blacks are not gods or angels or saints. They are the most savage, aggressive, and tough among the races.

And all those whites who are so admiring of black athleticism should really ask themselves the questions: (1) Are blacks better because they are faster and tougher? Using this logic, animals are better than humans because they're tougher and stronger. (2) If blacks can beat whites in sports, doesn't it imply they can beat up whites in schools, streets, subways, buses, and etc., thus robbing the white man of white pride and reducing him to a pansy-ass cuck who watches white women go with Negroes?
While we can understand human admiration of power, people need to ask what that power is capable of doing. It's like we can admire the prowess of tigers and polar bears, but it'd be stupid to welcome such in the world of man. Who wants to share the streets with a tiger, bear, or gorilla? I love bears and other animals, but IN NATURE. The last thing I want to come across in the street is a wild bear. While we can understand why an Iranian may admire US military power from an academic or technological angle, would it make sense for him to cheer for the US military that targets Iran for future destruction? While power is impressive, one must never cheer for or embrace power that can do harm to one's kind. When white men admire black athleticism, it's understandable as it's the best in the world, just like US military is the best in world. But white guys CHEERING for black athleticism that demolishes white athleticism would be like Palestinians cheering awesome Israel firepower that is leveling Arab towns. It'd be like the naive British boy in EMPIRE OF THE SUN cheering for Japanese Zeroes.

As for progs who say race is just a social construct or myth and that all races are equal, their BS has been blown to smithereens by Liberal-controlled industries of sports, entertainment, and sex culture. If indeed all races are the same, how come blacks dominate so many sports? It's because blacks are tougher. How come black music is most popular among Libs? Because, for all their conceits about equality, Libs love to feel and behold the power of power, and they feel more potency in the black song and dance. And why do Libs promote the new ideal of black male and white female? It's because Libs feel black males are superior in manhood and therefore deserving of the most attractive women, white women, as sexual trophies. Expression speaks louder than words, and the Lib-dominated presentations in sports and popular culture push black supremacy and black idolatry. What they say have no bearing on what they show. The Say-Show Discrepancy of sports and popular culture gives the lie to the PC BS about 'race is just a social construct' or 'all races are the same'.
Now, why is black idolatry so destructive to the West? Because even though blacks may be impressive in certain areas, their primal nature is savage, wild, and destructive. It may be EXCITING, and savagery is certainly that. But, if left unchecked, it will destroy the West via the forces of BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive) and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).

I counted six white people, so clearly, this was orchestrated by Antifa.pic.twitter.com/CeYvlghoKR

— Ashley Rae Groypenberg (@Communism_Kills) May 31, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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