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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NICK FUENTES: THE TRUTH ABOUT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

A Preliminary Argument: WHITE LIBERATION(from Jewish Supremacism) WILL SAVE THE WORLD

https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/stolen-election-redpill/

Why is 'white liberation' a better term than 'white nationalism'? Fairly or unfairly, people associate 'white nationalism' with aggression and conceit of superiority. It gives the impression that whites got the power and want to show it off by rattling their sabers.

But the West is now under Jewish control like India was under British control, like Algeria and Vietnam were under French control. So, the emphasis must be on the need for whites to free themselves from Jewish Power. The theme of liberation is more appealing and justified than theme of mere power. After all, the great theme of the post WWII era was NATIONAL LIBERATION all across Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America from European Imperialism or American Hegemony. And as the theme of WWII was the 'free world' vs the aggressive imperialism of Germany and Japan, it was difficult for the great powers after the war to justify their rule over others.

So, 'white liberation' is preferable to 'white nationalism', at least for the time being. Now, if skeptics ask, 'liberation from what?', whites can say from Jewish Supremacist Power, which can be amply demonstrated with data and facts. Jews do control the West. Jews not only got money power but made themselves into the new messiah-race. It's one thing to remember the Shoah as a great tragedy but quite another to permanently affix Jewish Identity with that event. Such implies Jews are always a race of 'holocaust victims' no matter what they do. So, even if Jews act like Nazis toward Palestinians, we are supposed to see them as a bunch of poor poor Anne Franks.

Anyway, 'white liberation' will highlight the fact of Jewish Power, an absolute must for real change to take place. (How can there be any reform if the most powerful group is not identified and criticized? Can a cancer victim be properly treated without acknowledging the cancer?) 'White Nationalism' can mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, 'liberation' emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current power that dominates the West and the World... which is Jewish Power. (Even 'white national liberation' sounds better than mere 'white nationalism'.) White Politics that only focuses on whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.

Also, whites can argue that White Liberation will lead not only to white emancipation from Jewish Evil but will save the world. Why? Because Jewish Supremacist Power would dwindle overnight if white folks chose WGTOW or whites going their own way. If whites refused to serve the Jews, no more Wars for Israel against Arabs and Muslims. No more support for Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. No more 'new cold war' with Russia. No more whites acting like dumb dogs who bark and bite whatever their Jewish Masters hate. When whites say NO to Jewish Supremacism, peace will prevail around the world as whites will no longer do the bidding of hateful supremacist-imperialist Zionist Jews. And far less need for 'yellow peril' hysteria about China-China-China to distract Americans from the fact that Jews are the main enemy of the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the nature of Jewish Power.

Think of 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians' as meta-memes. 'Israelis' would be the winners and tyrants, and 'Palestinians' would be the losers and the tyrannized. It is the dream of many whites to be 'Israelis', fellow winners alongside rich and powerful Jews. Jewish identity/pride united with white identity/pride. But this is a dumb dream. Jews will NEVER accept whites as equals. Even as white praise and acknowledge Jewish identity & pride, Jews will denounce white identity and promote white shame/guilt. Thus, the ONLY way whites can rise in the Jew World Order is by turning race-traitor and cucking as collaberals or cuckservatives. All the Bidens and Romneys of the world. And Jared Taylor the deluded fool isn't much better.

Given that Jews regard whites as 'Palestinians' than fellow 'Israelis', whites should identify with Palestinians, that is unless they enjoy being race-traitor cuck-collaborators. (There are, of course, Palestinian collaborators who get rich while serving Zionists.) While Jews are free to gain power as an identity and group, whites can only gain riches as individuals, ones that cravenly collaborate with Jewish Supremacists. No white man with any self-respect and dignity should choose this path.

Now, the key to the success of White Liberation will be the emphasis on humanism & justice than nihilism & supremacism. (Kurosawa Way than Mishima Way.) The problem with people like Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer is they oppose Jewish Supremacism by associating themselves with forms of White Supremacism. Johnson wrote glowing things about Adolf Hitler who brought upon unprecedented disaster for the white race with his Aryan-Germanic supremacism, and Spencer blabbered endlessly about his vision of a new world-white empire. How stupid is that? You get zero moral points by opposing one form of supremacism in defense of another. It's like denouncing a robber just so you could steal yourself. The only convincing argument is NO ONE should steal — indeed, the dirtiest secret of Jewish Power is that it denounces white supremacism not as a principle against supremacism per se but to make browbeaten whites serve Jewish supremacism, a bait-and-switch; this is the dirty secret that needs to be exposed by the White Liberationist Project.
Unfortunately, David Duke, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer all soiled themselves with association with KKK, Neo-Nazism, or Anglo-Imperialism. (Of course, it should be acknowledged that imperialism has long been a part of human history, and it did good as well as bad, spreading ideas and expanding trade routes along with the violence and tyranny. So, to the extent that Western Imperialism united the world and spread modernity all over, it did a lot of good that balances out the bad. However, as the world has been so thoroughly united via technology, there should be no reason for further imperialism and supremacism. And it seemed all the world was agreed, except that American triumphalism and Jewish ascendancy after the Cold War led to a new age of empire, one that has been utterly worthless except as conduits for Zionist madness, Afromania, Globo-Homo and mass deaths across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as mass migration into the West from the Third World.)

David Duke could have done so much more without his KKK association. He will forever be smeared as a former-KKK member. Greg Johnson of late seems to reject Hitlerism in his personal formulation of 'white nationalism', but the Hitler-stain is like the Mark of Cain. Spencer is proof that smarts isn't enough. Lack of character, emotional imbalance, and megalomania(personal and racial) spell disaster.

This is why white liberation or white national liberation should be founded on humanism and justice. Universal Nationalism is justice because it acknowledges that all peoples deserve their rightful portions of history, heritage, and territory. Globalism wages war on this sense of justice EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ISRAEL — Jewish Exceptionalism as always. According to Jewish-controlled globalism, all the world should support Jewish-Israel's right to exist BUT every goy nation should be remade with mass-migration and mass-miscegenation, especially with the Negro.

Too often, 'white nationalism' has been associated with neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK, and overly paranoid militia movement types. (True, whites have much to worry about, but more guns are not the solution when most of the culture war, idol war, and ideological war are done with the pen, mikes, and cameras than with guns and bullets. Militia movement emphasizes guns than lenses.) 'White Liberation' can be associated with humanism that acknowledges the worth of all races and groups.

And even though White Liberation would mostly be about freedom from Jewish Supremacism, it should also address the need for white independence from black supremacism. The problem with white folks who opposed the Civil Rights Movement was they spoke and acted as if blacks were not good enough for whites. A far more effective argument would have been that blacks are superior in certain attributes, and these make blacks arrogant and aggressive against whites, the weaker and slower race who, upon racial integration, often fall victim to black supremacist thuggery; and white men get jack-johnsoned into wussy cucks as tougher blacks kick their butts, and that means the white race loses its human right to manhood, its right to have its own heroes and idols. And this argument is something that other non-black races may understand as well, as most interracial violence is not only black on white but black on brown, black on Asian, black on Muslim, black on etc. Even black on Jew despite all the money Jews give to blacks to hate on whitey.

White Liberation should also argue against non-white mass-immigration into white lands as a perverse form of non-white white-supremacism. Why would it be non-white white-supremacism? Because mass migration of non-whites from their own nations to white nations implies that non-whites see whites as superior and prefer to live with and under whites than with their own kind. This is bad for whites and non-whites. It's bad for whites as it leads to the Great Replacement and violates the right of white folks to have their own homelands. But it's also bad for non-whites because, instead of using their energies and abilities to improve their own nations, they just run off to white nations to leech off whites as short-cut to success. It's especially bad as it leads to brain drain from non-white world to white world. This is why White Liberation will save the world.

"MY FELLOW JEWS" by Brother Nathanael

Muslim Demand for Respect is Valid in the Current Illiberal West that has No Use for Free Speech, Individual Conscience, and Rational Justice — Jihadi Phenomenon is Primarily the Product of Zionist and Western Intervention in the Middle East & North Africa

https://thesaker.is/cui-bono-from-the-situation-in-france/

While we should all condemn the grisly violence carried out by Muslim lunatics, is there anything worth saving in current France? It chose Globo-Homo-Mania over Catholicism. It has 'gay marriage' like the rest of EU that is under Jewish Supremacist control. Also, what is secular France? Is it about philosophy, science, arts & culture, and reason? No, it's all about pop culture, mostly of dumb Hollywood movies and savage black jungle jivery. Pornography is the ONLY domain left for 'free expression', and it's controlled by anti-white Jews. If the choice is between Jihad and the Jungle, the former is better as the Muslim World is at least civilized whereas blacks turn more places into New Detroits and New Haitis.

Steve Turley foolishly praises Emmanuel Macron for his sudden hard-line stance against Islam, but what is globo-boy or globoy defending? Is he being nationalist? No, he's the same globalist. He wants more immigrant-invaders to replace white Frenchmen. He is denouncing aspects of Islam because they give a bad name to Diversity. He seeks to suppress the most violent aspects of Islam but only to increase mass immigration-invasion and hasten the Great Replacement. "You see, apart from the few bad apples, most are good and more than welcome."

MACRON CRACKS DOWN ON ISLAM IN FRANCE IN A MASSIVE TURN TO THE NATIONALIST POPULIST RIGHT

And on occasions when the likes of Macron defend French or 'Western' values against 'Islamo-Fascism', they are not defending Europeans and their civilization. They denounce aspects of Islam as too conservative and antithetical to open sewage pornification of culture that they promote as 'empowering' and 'liberating'. It mainly means celebration of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs and BAMMAMA or blacks-are-more-muscular-and-more-aggressive, i.e. because blacks kick white butts in sports, whites should cuck and worship blacks as the superior race of heroes who deserve to take white women. When Macron and such ilk denounce Jihad, they are defending the Junglization of the white race. (Muslim acts of beheading, cruel and grisly as they are, affect only a tiny number of people. In contrast, black 'bewombing' is affecting millions of white women. White women who could be using their wombs to create more white babies are now creating more blacks, the natural enemy of the white race as black males have the power to emasculate white men into a bunch of fa**oty-ass wussy-boys. Every time a white woman is 'bewombed', a potential white child is being pre-murdered in favor of creating a black child. A Muslim sicko beheading a 70 yr old woman is less threatening to the West than a bunch of Simon Mols 'bewombing' millions of white women in the West.)

In a way, Jews love the presence of Muslims in the West. Sure, there are downsides. It means more attacks on Jews and their property. But this very fact makes whites side with Jews against Muslims. So, Jews get to kill two birds with one stone. By pushing for non-white mass immigration-invasion, Jews undermine white power and white majority. But because Muslims are seen as hostile to Jews, whites become ever more protective of Jews. Now, in a sane world, whites would hate Jews for pushing mass-immigration. Whites would connect the dots and say, "Jews are increasing diversity to play divide-and-rule among goyim." But whites cannot say or even think this because of the cult of the Holy Holocaust. Whites have been inculcated to feel that it's 'antisemitic' to be critical of Jews in any way. One mustn't believe Jews can be wicked or have hostile intentions. One must believe in JEWISH POWER KNOW BEST and LEAVE IT TO BEAVEROWICZ. Also, whites have been so brainwashed with the wonders of 'diversity' and 'inclusion' that they can't say NO to mass-immigration and the Great Replacement, supposedly a 'far right' conspiracy-notion.

Goy Dog John McCain and His Jewish Master Joe Lieberman

Then, the ONLY option left for whites is to find a way to oppose mass-immigration that might flatter and please Jews. And that, of course, is anti-Islamism on account that Muslims are 'antisemitic'. So, the likes of Tommy Robinson can't say NO to more black immigration-invasion even though blacks cause the most problems in the UK. He can only oppose too-many-Muslims because... uh... they hate Jews and, of course, homos. So, never mind white identity and white interests. (Using his logic, More Muslims would be welcome if they were pro-Jewish and pro-homo.) Robinson and his crew don't oppose mass-immigration to save historic Britain of white folks. No, they oppose certain features of mass-immigration, mostly of Muslims, because nasty 'Muzzies' hate the Jews(and homos and feminists too). This is why Jews actually value Muslim Immigration. More Muslims in the West means more whites cozying up to Jews and saying, "We want to protect you Holy Holocaust Jews from those nasty Islamo-Fascists." Of course, Jews feel contempt for such white toadies. Jews go on pushing for mass-immigration to reduce whites into minorities throughout the West. But they play both sides. So devious and cunning.
Jews feel as gods over whites. Whites must make offerings to Jews. Jews take the offerings, but there's no guarantee of appreciation. After all, gods feel entitled to be served by humans. A master doesn't feel much appreciation for what the slaves do for him. He feels entitled to be served whereas the slaves are obligated to serve. Jews and white 'conservatives' are like a glutton and the cook. The cook makes lots of dishes for the glutton who gobbles up everything but pays nothing and doesn't even leave a tip.
As far as Jews are concerned, white 'conservatives' who oppose mass-immigration and rag on Muslims are merely variations of the Old Anti-Semite, and Jews aren't entirely wrong about this. White 'conservatives' have merely transferred their ancient distrust of the Jew as the Other onto other groups, such as Muslims. And yet, Jews also encourage such hatreds as they foster white support for Wars for Israel. Jews loathe anti-Muslim whites as arche-Anti-Semites(archetypal anti-semites) but also value them as useful attack dogs for Zion against Muslims as the 'other Jews'.

As for Free Speech and Muslims, I side with the Muslims. They have every right to call for curtailment of denigration of Islam and Muslims. Now, I prefer a world of total and unfettered free speech. If the West were genuinely committed to free speech for all, I would side with free-speechers against the Muslim hotheads. Back when the West stood for the right of Salman Rushdie to write a controversial book, I was on the side of free-speechers against Iran and Muslim firebrands.
But the notion that the current West is a 'liberal democracy' committed to free speech is a joke. Europe and Canada trample on free speech all the time. And Jews, once the biggest defenders of free speech(to say their say and gain power), are now the biggest enforcers of censorship(to defend the immense power they've accumulated). Jews killed free speech along with white identity and Christianity. So, the real dichotomy is NOT liberal West that respects free speech VERSUS atavistic Muslim dogmatists. The real situation is Muslims calling for respect for Islam on par with enforced respect for Jewish Supremacist Power, globo-homo vanity, and the Jungle Cult of the Noble Negro(and maybe feminist bitchery). In current UK where people are fined and/or hauled off to prison for making a mocking tweet about Nelson Mandela, exposing the dirty machinations of Jewish Power, questioning aspects of the Shoah(as the iron-clad 6 million figure is more numerology than history), making fun of homos, and positing honest questions about racial/sexual differences, where is the commitment to Free Speech? France and Canada are notorious for fining and imprisoning people for offending Jews. It began with the criminalization of denying the Holocaust, but now one can end up in the can for offending Jews in any way. Macron even supported a measure that would criminalize condemnation of Israel for its near-genocidal policies against Palestinians.
Given this context, Muslims have just as much right as Jews, blacks, and homos(and other groups) to demand respect and call on the state to ENFORCE the respect. Muslims are not going against the prevailing wind of Western Values. As the current 'Western Values' are about PC, 'wokeness', and the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, blacks, & homos, the Muslim demands are very much in sync with existing currents of 'Western Thought'. Even in the US, the so-called 'liberals' are supportive of silencing voices, censoring alternative news, and denying basic services of finance to thought-criminals. They are not for more debate, more discussion, more controversy, and more contention of opposing views. They think along doctrinal lines and insist that their 'values' of the Current Year are canonical and cannot be questioned. So much for 'liberalism'. They are 'doctrinals', not liberals. Notice how these mobs are in the habit of chanting slogans together than thinking and speaking as individuals.

In such a climate, Muslims are only conforming to the current 'Western' trend of demanding respect for certain groups and damning all those who don't comply. How many people have been 'canceled' in the West, not least in the US, by institutions and industries for refusing to 'take the knee' before the Negroes? How many people have a chance in business or politics in the US or EU were they to stand up to the power of Zion and dare name the evil of Jewish Supremacism? The new church puts up 'gay' flags and signs that say "All Are Welcome", but of course, you are NOT welcome if you are a moral traditionalist and refuse to accept the 'sodomization' of Christianity. In an illiberal West that worships the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, homos, and Negroes as the new holy trinity, Muslims have every right to demand that they too be included in the canon. Besides, if black violence is always excused in the name of fighting 'systemic racism' and if Zionist violence is always rationalized as Israeli self-defense — you see, Israel must continue bombing Syria and giving aid to ISIS Jihadis to 'defend' itself, the only nation in the Middle East with nukes — , why shouldn't Muslims use violence to get what they want? Is black and Jewish violence okay but Muslim violence isn't?

Finally, all this Jihadi business is the product of Western support of the worsts elements in the Arab-Muslim world. Following World War II, the Arab World did try to modernize and even secularize. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and etc. all sought modernization and some degree of secularization. While some of the regimes were repressive and cruel at times, the last thing they wanted was Muslim rule. The main reason Iran went with the Islamic Revolution was not because most Iranians were opposed to secular power per se but because it became associated with the Shah puppetry to the Americans. Prior to CIA's installation of the Shah, Iran had a national secular government that could have developed into something decent. Gaddafi who came to power in Libya in 1969 was an unapologetic Muslim but not a hothead. If anything, he did everything to suppress Jihadi elements while modernizing much of the country; he also secured basic rights for womenfolk. Same was true of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The regimes there could be cruel, but they were NOT pro-Jihadi. Also, even when Iran became a Islamic republic, it didn't support Jihadi violence but usually fought against it. The main support for the Jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan came from US and Saudis.
Indeed, Saudi Arabia and other arch-conservative Muslim states in the Gulf were backed by the West. The so-called Liberal Democratic West had more cordial relations with theocratic and/or monarchic Saudi Arabia and Gulf States than with the modernizing and secularizing Arab/Muslim nations. Whereas most secular Arab nations were friendly if not allied with the USSR, the arch-conservative Muslim states remained close to the US. When Jews gained dominance in the West, the 'Arabists' were purged and US foreign policy became even more hostile to secular Arab nations and friendlier with arch-conservative Muslim nations that support Jihadi violence. Jews figured Jihadis are most useful in undermining stability in nations like Libya and Syria. When Syria was on fire, Western Europe did NOTHING to stem the flow of Jihadi types from Europe to the Middle East. European policy was "Let Muslims in Europe go to Syria to mess that place up and create a refugee crisis that will lead to more mass-migration to the West. It will please Jews, and we white cucks have no higher value that appeasing and pleasing the Holy Holocaust Jews who have so much money and carrots to dole out to the biggest cucks like us."
So, all this Muslim-bashing is disingenuous on so many levels. Truth is 'liberal democracy' is dead in the West, which is really under Jewria, Gayria, & Negria Law that are as stringent as Sharia Law. Also, Jihadis are to the Middle East what BLM and Antifa are to the West. They've been recruited, enabled, and funded by the proxies of the Jewish-controlled West. Saudis are happy to support Jihadis in Syria to appease Zionists and the West for favorable deals. And which power nudged the Muslim radicals to attack the US on 9/11? Look at the fingerprints. Zionists knew what was up and nudge-nudged the Jihadis to complete their mission. But all we get from the likes of Tommy Robinson and the Trumpkins is 'Muh Israel'.

PATRIOTIC ALTERNATIVE CONFERENCE MARCH 2020. MY SPEECH

What TREASON Means in a Globo-Homo World dominated by Jewish Supremacism — Were the Confederates 'Treasonous'? — Are Current Deep State Elites Treasonous to the American Nation? — Immigration as Treason

One man's treason is another man's reason and vice versa.

Was Southern Secession an act of treason? Yes, if you regard the American Union as inviolable and indivisible. No, if you believe in states' rights, including the right to secede. It all depends on the very premise, the foundational basis, of one's worldview or national view. One could say US was created out of treason against the Mother Country. Or one can say it was founded on liberty and independence from Father Tyranny, like with Zeus' rebellion against his own father Cronus.

Also, if US is so against treason, why encourage it around the world? US has collaborator agents in every country and encourages(and even bribes) them to serve US interests than their own national interests. US remains in Afghanistan by propping up a puppet regime that many Afghans regard as treasonous.

Also, looking back on US history, was Manifest Destiny a treasonous act? If US values and ideals are about equal respect for all peoples and cultures, then Manifest Destiny violated such principles by expanding westward and committing 'genocide' on the native folks. Was US conquest of the SW Territories treasonous? After all, if US was founded on terms of national independence and sovereignty, did it not violate the sovereignty of Mexico by provoking and waging war and taking so much territory?
Of course, one can make counter-arguments and say that the vision of America has been to spread liberty and expand progress. So, if US took more land and grew bigger in order to spread more freedom and development, it was all worth it and very pro-American.

So, on the matter of the Confederacy, one can make a case for treason or against treason. Depending on the premise, either argument is valid, or invalid. It's like a conscientious objector can be regarded as a traitor/coward or a hero/saint depending on one's views. And then, there are matters of dual or higher loyalty. Muhammad Ali considered himself an American but also a BLACK American and a black Muslim. As such, he had a loyalty higher than that to what he perceived as White America. He didn't serve in Vietnam because he saw it as a white man's war. In a way, one could say he was treasonous, but in another way, he was being true to his higher loyalties, i.e. had he served in the war, he would have been treasonous to Allah(as conceived by Nation of Islam).

Personally, treason is most despicable when it's mostly about personal gain, opportunism, and vanity. If you turn against your own people for thirty pieces of silver, you are scum. Or if you switch loyalties to the other side simply because it seems 'cooler' and more prestigious to with the richer/greater power, then you're hollow and lack a core. On the other hand, what may seem treasonous and are indeed so from the traditional perspective may be necessary reforms. Any great social upheaval or revolution is an act of treason against the past, resulting in much crisis and agony. But it allows the birth of an improved or new order that may well benefit the great majority. Rise of Modern Turkey was an act of treason against the traditional Ottoman order, but it was time for much needed changes. But such treason, as with the American Revolution against the British Monarchy, was fueled by much idealism and vision, therefore isn't despicable like treason for mere opportunism. (Besides, one could argue arch-conservatism is also an act of treason. If the role of the ruling class is to govern well and improve the lives of its subjects, then its absolute refusal to adopt superior means and greater justice could be construed as an act of treason against their obligation to rule well and fairly.)

There are obvious examples of treason, but many are subtle, ambiguous, and/or even subconscious. Take mass immigration to the West. Most non-whites don't consider it as treasonous. And even the ruling elites of many non-white nations encourage their own kind to emigrate. Maybe, it's due to surplus population, gaining greater economic access to and influence over the metropole, hope for remittances from the immigrant community, and etc. This kind of immigration isn't regarded as treasonous because emigrants from nation A aren't specifically going to the US or EU to do harm to their country of origin. For example, Turks aren't going to Germany or US to join some institution to do harm to Turkey. And yet, immigration is a kind of treason in the sense that immigrants are abandoning their own nations, pledging allegiance to another nation, forgetting their own identities & cultures, and mixing with other races to dangerous levels of deracination.
Furthermore, given the imperial nature of the US-EU empire under Jewish Power, there is always the chance(and not a slight one) that the empire will target, sanction, destroy, and even invade your nation of origin. Indeed, what are Iranians to do when the US is causing great harm to Iran? Some Iranian-Americans in the US military will have to drop bombs on their own people if it comes to war. Even Iranian-American civilians must pay taxes that go to support Jewish supremacist war on Iran. What are Russian-Americans to do when the US, under Jewish control, is relentless in its hate campaigns against Russia? What are Chinese in America to do if a war breaks out between US and China?
Look to the past, and what did German-Americans end up doing in World War I? They were recruited to kill fellow Germans. (In the case of World War II, it made good sense for German-Americans to fight for the US because Germany declared war, but US entry into WWI was on bogus grounds to serve global bankers. But German-Americans had to fight and kill their own ethno-brethren. [Jews understand this aspect of American History, i.e. it tends to push treasonous views on immigrants to wage war on their own kind in the Old World, e.g. German-Americans vs Germans and Japanese-Americans vs Japanese. And that is why Jews are adamant about remaining JEWISH-Americans than Jewish-AMERICANS, and that is also why Jews use media power and political influence to drum all politicians and all Americans with the notion that "Israel is America's greatest ally", i.e. Zion is synonymous with America.] Also, German-Americans were such craven cowards that, instead of pushing back against vile anti-German campaign in the US during WWI, they did all they could to Anglo-Americanize themselves. In some ways, Jews were more admirable in their resistance to such pressures following World War II when many Jews were under suspicion of sympathizing with World Communism. Jews were wrong to support communism but right to guard Jewish identity from American Power. The fate of German-Americans and Swedish-Americans should be a powerful lesson about what happens to a people when they lose a strong sense of who they are and where they came from. Of course, the deracination disease has struck not only German-Americans and Swedish-Americans but Germans in Germany and Swedes in Sweden. The fate is Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis. Once wonderful places, now either crime-fested cities or 'woke' tardopolises into globo-homo-mania.)

Thus, the story of mass immigration to the US has been a kind of treason. Immigration can only lead to ambivalent feelings about identity. After all, Mexicans have contradictory views of Mexican-Americans. In some ways, they are fellow Mexicanos, fellow Tacoan brethren. Many Mexicans even see Mexican-American immigration, legal and illegal, as a kind of Reconquista. But in another way, Mexicans feel that Mexican-Americans who speak only Ingles, serve in the US military, and work as Cuckez agents of Gringo Nation are traitors. One reason why so many Mexicans didn't warm up to Jeb Bush despite his being so pro-Mexican and having a Mexican wife was that the couple looked so much like a symbol of US domination over Mexico. Big Gringo Man and Tiny Brown Woman. What Jeb regarded as his warmth and affection for Mexico was seen by Mexicans as domination and condescension. So, while many white Americans considered Jeb Bush as a symbol of treason — globalist selling White America to brown future — , many Mexicans saw Jeb's wife as the kind of typical Mexican female in Hollywood movies with a gringo man or hubber.

So, the charge of 'treason' is never a sure thing as anything can be deemed treasonous simply by moving the goal posts or altering the coding of core principles. The current war on Confederacy is essentially part of the Jewish War on White. Just like Jews say whiteness is not intrinsic to being French or British or Dutch or Swedish or whatever, they say any form of defiant white identity is evil and wrong. Jews used BLM to not only topple Confederate but British statues. Neocons are especially invested in destroying the Confederate legacy because they operate in the GOP. As GOP relies so heavily on the Deep South, it has become de facto the Neo-Confederate Party, or the Neocon-Federate Party. But that means Neocons in the GOP are associated with Southern 'racists', and that means people can connect Neocons & Zionism with White Southern Redneck 'racism'.
This is all very ironic because Jews, both Neocons and Liberal Zionists, totally support Israeli tyranny over Palestinians, turn a blind eye to IDF death squads mowing down Palestinian women & children, and support apartheid as practice in West Bank. Also, these 'progressive' Jews work well with theocratic Saudis and ISIS types. (They even work well with quasi-Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, though to be sure, 'neo-nazism' in Ukraine has a somewhat more positive pedigree for its resistance against Stalinism during World War II.)

The rule of American Politics is, "If Jews want it, they get it." Not only do Jews push for it but, once the word is out that Jews want it, goy politicos of either party dare not push back against Jews. So, both parties are totally for suppressing BDS. Both are for more billions to Israel and more sanctions on Iran and Syria. Both are now for globo-homo-mania. Both are for Negrolatry, what with Trump rhapsodizing about Fentanyl 'groid' Floyd smiling down upon us from heaven. (More likely, angels have their knees on his neck before casting his ghastly negro self down to hell.) If Jews want it, they get it. Jews got the power, and the Power decides. Sure, because the US is a democracy, Jews don't get everything right away, but they eventually get it as they get to push while no one pushes back. If one side pushes while other side doesn't push back, the pusher eventually wins even if it takes time. It's simple law of physics. If a car is on neutral and if someone pushes from the rear while no one pushes from the front, the car will eventually move in one direction. Jews made sure there will be no counter-push to their pushiness.
As for the GOP, the attack on Confederacy is both troubling and relieving. It may lead to anger in the White South, but as the GOP is the Party of Lincoln, it's always been inconvenient for it to rely on so many Neo-Confederate votes. But then, the Culture War against the White South has been so relentless and overwhelming that even many white southerners are now finally dropping their 'shameful' heritage that insults the new cult of Negrolatry. Lynyrd Skynyrd consented to stop using Confed flags at their concerts. NASCAR now follows suit. Walmart began in the South, but Confed flags have been OUT since the church shooting some yrs ago. Dixie Chicks are now just Chicks. While Antifa and BLM thugs ravage memorials and statues, most white Southerners remain on the plantation of cuckery and do nothing.

Also, white Southern elites were trained in places like Harvard and Yale and other 'liberal' colleges. As such, they are little more than mental cucks of Jews and globalists. Besides, the current Southern elite attitudes are, to an extent, in line with traditional ones. The values and agendas are different but the attitudes are much the same. In the past, the Southern elites looked down on 'white trash'. Many of them favored House Negroes over poor white farmers. Today, southern white elites virtue-signal by saying, "WE GOOD REPENTANT southern whites are NOT like those lowlife redneck vermin who still wave Stars & Bars and revere Stonewall Jackson. We suck Negro dong, kiss Jewish ass, and bend over to globo-homo power." Same old elitist attitude in different dress. But even white southern masses are changing. Their religion is football dominated by blacks who thump white guys and hump white girls. In integrated schools, many white guys got beaten up by black guys and cuck to blackness as in their pathetic roles as worthless 'whiggers'. And as rap music is big among white southern boys, they imitate blacks and no longer resist jungle-feverization of white women. They are finished. And there is mass immigration of yellows and browns who mostly vote Democratic. The South is really over. Same with Texas, now a land of cuckboys than cowboys.

In the end, while anything can be accused of treason, the sting of accusation sticks ONLY WHEN made by those in power. If the British had won, Benedict Arnold would have been honored as a patriot who served the crown while Washington and Jefferson would have been hanged as traitors. But the Revolutionaries won, and Washington became the Father of the American Republic whereas Benedict Arnold, at least in US history, became synonymous with 'traitor'.
So, 'treason' is one of those power-words. It gains full meaning only if made with the power to back up the accusation with penalty. In a way, all of today's deep state elites are treasonous. US elites don't serve the US. They are globalists whose main loyalties are to the oligarchic matrix of Jewish supremacist power, multi-national corporations, imperialist military-industrial-complex, the cult of Negrolatry, and globo-homo-mania as the new messianic neo-religion of the West. The Russia Collusion Hoax was one of the greatest acts of treason in US history, but it was presented as the ultimate patriotism against Donald Trump, the treasonous puppet of evil Vladimir Putin or Putler. So many people in the Deep State should be sent to prison or even executed for their plot against Trump who came to the presidency by fair election — if it was unfair, the wronged side was Trump and his supporters, but Trump still managed to eke out a win. But notice the Deep State spins a different tale, and it has the power to protect 'made' people. Just like Wall Street scum never faced justice after the 2008 fiasco, virtually everyone involved in Russia Collusion Hoax will be protected and continue to control America.

Men like David Patraeus are traitors. They don't defend or serve America. They serve Jewish supremacist imperialists and work for the kind of power that encourages Christian churches to drape themselves with 'gay pride' colors. In aiding and abetting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians and Wars for Israel(that target Muslims and Arabs), these men are actually even violating the principles of 'anti-racism' that they claim to represent. They say US must redeem its 'racist' past, but they have a strange way of going about it by aiding Zionist 'racist' terror against Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians. So, 'treason' isn't about truth or justice. It's about who has the power, who gets to decide the political premise and 'moral' foundation, and who has the means to not only accuse others of treason but to use the power of institutions to make the charges stick.

In current US and EU, the highest 'loyalty' and greatest 'patriotism' are about cucking to Jewish supremacism, worshiping globo-homo queertianity, and kissing the black ass as magical. If you defy such notion, then you're treasonous. But then, being accused of 'treason' by vile Jewish supremacists and globalist cucks should be a honor. One should NOT be loyal to such evil powers. Today, the weasel globalist-generals who serve a globo-homo-ized US military that is used to promote Jewish Supremacism and Jungle Fever/Faith dare charge the great Robert E. Lee, a loyal son of his beloved Viriginia, of treason. With Jews, You Lose. Whites were fated to lose everything when they ceded their power and authority to Jews.

Now, a question. Suppose Southern States had more people and a bigger economy than the North in 1860 and suppose the Northern States seceded from the Union and Southern States waged war to restore the Union. Would the Northern States have committed treason?

15 Questions for the Groypers to Gribbit at the Cuckservatives or Con-servants that make up the So-Called ‘American Right’

Of late, some say there’s an internecine battle brewing within the American Right between Charlie Kirk camp and Nick Fuentes camp. In fact, the Kirk camp doesn’t stand for any kind of real right or real conservatism. Kirk is essentially a bought-and-paid-for shill, a shabbos goy of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. He is the ‘acceptable’ face of ‘conservatism’, toothless, gutless, and ball-less. His idea of ‘conservatism’ and ‘American values’ is forever malleable and mutable. It is whatever JSP says it is. This kind of Americanism has only one ‘bill of rights’, and it goes like this: Jews say ‘We win, you lose.’ Whatever the Jews want, they eventually get by any means necessary. Jews wanted open borders and got it. Jews wanted ‘free trade’ and got it. Jews wanted to rape the Russian economy in the 90s, and they got to do so. Jews wanted gambling to spread like a virus, and now it’s everywhere. Jews wanted pornography for children, and now there is easy access to porn by kids. Jews wanted ‘gay marriage’ and got it. Jews wanted Wars for Israel, and Middle East now lies in ruins.
Kirk stands for nothing but "I obey my Jewish masters." He is not a conservative but a con-servant of JSP. He is a CILO, or conservative-in-label-only. This is why the Kirk camp gets so triggered and antsy about the so-called ‘Groypers’(generally allied with Nicholas J. Fuentes) asking inconvenient questions. When confronted with tough questions by independent minds, the con-servants and cucks squirm like worm under a hot sun and demand what amounts to SJW-like ‘safe spaces’ from those courageous individuals who refuse to read from the preordained script. Anyway, what follows are some suggestions for ‘Groypers’ to consider in their formulation of questions in future TPUSA and other such cuckservative events.

1. When Big Banks faced financial doom in the 2008 crisis, they were bailed out by all taxpayers regardless of ideology. Right or Left, up or down, we all had to contribute taxes that bailed out Wall Street. Then, do Big Banks have the right to deny service to people based on creed or ideology? If they are bailed out by everyone, shouldn't they serve everyone?

2. Conservatives and Libertarians say private companies have the right to deny service to anyone. Does this apply even when companies are virtual monopolies and serve as de facto public space for all? Does Google, a virtual monopoly as Search Engine, have the right to rig results to favor Democrats and the Deep State over Populists and Republicans? If your answer is ‘yes’, should phone companies have the right to deny service based on creed or ideology?

Also, didn't companies like Google and Facebook become monopolies precisely because they started out by promising neutrality and fairness to all sides? After all, if Google or Facebook had declared their ideological biases from the outset and stated policies that would favor one political party over another, most conservatives would have rejected them and opted for another platform. But everyone, regardless of ideology, signed up to use Google and Facebook on the promise of fairness. So, when these companies now use their monopoly muscle to favor one side over another, it is a total breach of their terms of promise to us. They come up with ever-shifting 'terms of services', but it is they who violated the biggest term of all, that of fairness that attracted so many people to their sites on assurance of neutrality. If I gained market dominance in the ice cream industry by promising quality ice cream to everyone and then used my monopoly position to deny ice cream to certain groups, I would have violated the very principle that made me become the king of ice cream. After all, had I started my company by stating my intention of denying ice cream to certain groups, many people would never have bought ice cream from me, and my company would never have gained monopoly position. It seems Google and Facebook hustled us. They became monopolies by promising fairness to all sides, but once they had the muscle, they decided to favor one side over others. Big Tech companies treat us like Zionists treat Palestinians in Occupied West Bank where Jews get the best land and most water while Palestinians get far less or none at all.

3. When true conservatives and dissident rightists are deplatformed or denied service by monopolies, the reply of cuckservatives is, "They’re private companies, and they can do whatever they want." But if monopolies were to deny service to Zionists on grounds that Zionism is about the destruction of Palestinian nation and culture, would people like you and Charlie Kirk just shrug your shoulders and say private companies can do as they wish? I’d wager people like you will insist that the state must step in to make sure every private firm is open to business with Israel. If the private sector can do as it wishes, why do cuckservatives support state-sanctioned suppression of BDS that calls for justice for Palestinians who are living under apartheid conditions in West Bank and being mowed down by IDF death squads in Gaza? Why shouldn't private individuals and companies choose not to do business with Israel for the same reason that many chose not to do business with Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s? It's funny that cuckservatives defend the right of mega-corporations to sanction little people but never defend the right of private individuals and small businesses to reject business with Israel on account of its international crimes. There is a definite pattern here. Cuckservatism is about corporate domination over little individuals. Its position is monopoly companies can deny service to little individuals, but little individuals cannot say NO to business with the gangster state of Israel.

4. Mass Immigration of peoples from Europe into the New World led to what some call the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians. Also, mass-immigration of whites, blacks, and Asians led to the native people of Hawaii being reduced to a minority in their own ancestral homeland. Mass-immigration of Jews into Palestine led to the Nakba Pogroms that reduced Palestinians to a minority in Israel and an occupied people in West Bank, which continues to be colonized by caravans of Zionist invaders. And Serbs lost their historical homeland of Kosovo permanently to Albanians because of massive Muslim migration under Ottoman Rule. While it’s true that immigration led to rise of new civilizations, there is no doubt it also led to tragedies of natives and indigenous folks losing their land and culture to others. Thus, isn’t it about time to admit the connection between mass immigration, a form of demographic imperialism, with what is tantamount to ‘genocide’ in the long run? Just ask the Palestinians. By the way, since white people took the New World from the indigenous folks, they have a moral obligation to those native people but to peoples all over the world whose lands were NOT taken by whites. And if whites really care about the American Indians, the most tragic people of the New World, then they will stop mass-immigration and do their utmost to revive and restore American Indian communities.

5. We’ve been told by the Mass Media and Mass Education/Indoctrination that ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’? First, isn’t Diversity in the New World the product of imperialism, conquest, genocide, and slave trade? Native reds and browns were conquered by whites. That led to Diversity #1. Then, Latin whites, Anglos, and Jews brought over black African slaves. That led to Diversity #2. Then, white elites called on more mass-immigration to pan out and take all the lands from the native peoples. That was Diversity #3.
Second, if Diversity is a panacea for all problems and if it is no problem for the US to become a white-minority nation, then how come white-minority nations of Latin America with so much racial diversity are relative failures, and why are people in those nations running away from their own diversity to come to the US or Canada that are still majority white? Also, we are told that India is a very diverse place. If so, it must be a wonderful, magical place. And yet, it seems countless Indians want to flee from the Diversity in India and come to UK, US, Australia, and Canada that are white majority nations. What gives? It seems people in very diverse nations want to flee from the chaos of diversity and come to white majority nations that are, as yet, less corrupt and better-managed.

6. It’s been said that white people who want to maintain the racial and cultural integrity of their own nations are ‘white supremacists’. But why are they so characterized when they only want to preserve what is theirs and have no interest in ruling over other peoples? Aren’t the real ‘white supremacists’ all those non-whites who want to run away from their own people, culture, and nation to go live in white-majority nations? It seems those non-white immigrants prefer white people as rulers, neighbors, friends, associates, lovers, and mates OVER their own kind. If non-whites want to permanently flee their own peoples and cultures to come to live in white majority nations, don’t they prefer whites over their own kind? Thus, aren’t they the ‘white supremacists’ because they see whites as preferable and superior to their own kind and other non-white folks? After all, non-whites don’t want to move to non-white nations, especially black ones.

7. Jews in the academia and media bitch and whine about whites all the time. They even created something called ‘whiteness studies’. Most Jews are globalists and push for globo-homo, replacist immigration in goy nations, and vice industries such as gambling, pornography, and drugs. Jewish Hollywood routinely features whites as villains and evildoers, the ones to blame for all the problems of the world. If Jews feel this way about whites and if they insist that Diversity is so great, why have Jews historically followed after whites and chosen to live in white-majority nations? Who’s stopping Jews from moving to more diverse nations of Latin America or India? Why don’t Jews in white nations all move to black Africa or Muslim nations if they have so many issues with whites while claiming to just love non-whites? If Jews prefer non-whites and love immigration, how about they become immigrants to non-white nations. They can have the cake and eat it too. They get to be immigrants again and can forever live with non-whites than with baddy bad whites.

8. Jews often invoke the history of Europeans and Christianity to guilt-bait whites into a position of moral inferiority vis-a-vis Jews. Now, it’s true that Europeans and Christianity have had a blood history, but then, so have all other peoples. If whites must be reminded of their bloody history, isn’t it about time to remind Jews of their genocidal role in Bolshevik communism, their prominent role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(especially to Latin America), their financial funding of Western Imperialism, their selling of opium to the Chinese, their looting of the Russian economy in the 90s(that led to the rise of Putin who put an end to it), and their mass pogroms against the Palestinians that led to Nakba?

9. If people like you and Charlie Kirk believe in equal justice for all, how come you're so silent about how people like Arnon Milchan, who freely admitted that he spied and stole for Israel, can visit the US and walk freely without consequences? How come so many of the crooks pardoned by presidents have been Jewish ones? Think of Marc Rich and Jonathan Pollard. Think of the Jewish crook(who facilitated illegal immigration and exploited workers) pardoned by Trump. It seems Jews are above the law and have a license to steal and kill. Also, if people like you and Kirk believe in colorblind justice for all of humanity, why do you favor Zionist occupiers over Palestinian occupied in the West Bank? Palestinians lost the bulk of their homeland in the Nakba Pogroms of 1948, and Zionist caravans continue to steal land & water from Palestinians in the West Bank, but US politicians only praise and serve Israel.

10. If diversity is so important that we need Affirmative Action for less qualified blacks in higher education, why doesn’t anyone make the same case for sports? NBA and NFL are black-dominated even though blacks are 13% of US population. There are some whites but virtually no brown Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims. Sports are a national pastime and a hugely symbolic part of Americanism, and yet, there isn’t much diversity in sports. Should there be affirmative action for sports for the sake of 'diversity'? And do you think NBA and NFL teams will be better if they added more Asians, Hindus, Muslims, and Mexicans to the mix? After all, we are told ‘diversity is our strength.’

11. Charlie Kirk and others like him have said America is an idea. They say 'gay marriage' is American Ideal. Then, does that mean America was not America prior to the rise of globo-homo values? They say America is about freedom and democracy. Then, was America not 'America' when it had slavery? They say America is about respect for life. Then, was America not 'America' when American Indians were being wiped off the Great Plains to make way for endless waves of immigrant-invaders? Was America not 'America' when women didn't have the vote?
If the military were to take power in America tomorrow, would America no longer be 'America' because of demise of democracy? If so, what would America be? Isn't a nation what it is regardless of ideology, e.g. Russia was Russian prior to communism, during communism, and after communism. Likewise, America is America regardless of ideology or 'ideas' as long as its historic people make up its core populace.

Also, if America is about democracy and individual liberty, is any nation with democracy and individual liberty also 'America'? If America is an idea, then surely any people and place that practices the same ideas must also be 'America'. Mexican constitution is virtually identical to the US Constitution, and Mexico has democratic elections. So, is it also 'America'?

Finally, if America is an idea, then surely you know that ideas can go from place to place. People don't need to come to America to have American values and ideas since they can adopt and practice those ideas in their own nations. If someone invents a way to make fire, you don't need to stand where he is at to have the fire. You can learn the trick and make fire in your own place. So, if America is an idea, that idea can be adopted by any people anywhere around the world, and there is no need for all of them to come to America to enjoy 'American Ideas'. Ideas can come to you; you don't have to come to the place where the idea originated.

12. Can you repeat these historical truths? American Indians were wiped out by mass immigration. Blacks were once slaves in America. Jewish communists played a key role in Bolshevism that led to deaths of tens of millions of Christian Slavs. US aided Zionists in the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map even though Palestinians did no harm to America.

13. Do you believe that American ideas and values are so outstanding that they should be adopted by all peoples around the world? Should they be the beacon of hope for all mankind? Does this include Israel? Should it also have 'gay marriage', deracination, and inclusive-invasive mass-immigration from all over the world?

14. People like you and Charlie Kirk say that we should support Israel because it tolerates and even celebrates homos and trannies. People like you say neighboring Muslim nations throw homos off roofs. But facts say otherwise. Israel is closely allied with Saudis that execute homosexuals. Also, Israel lent support to ISIS fighters in Syria who really do throw homos off roof-tops. Israel aided ISIS and Alqaeda against the Assad regime that is a tolerant, secular, and modernizing force in the Arab world. How do you square these contradictions?

15. Given that Jewish takeover of Palestine led to some of the biggest 'gay' & 'tranny' parades, orgies, and celebrations in the world, do you think Israel should now be called 'Sodom and Gomorrah'? Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Is that something Christian Zionists should celebrate? Did Jews really need to retake the Holy Land because having mass homosexual orgies there is the spiritual and moral priority of Christian Zionists?