Political Correctness and 'wokeness' have been associated with socialism-communism, but they are now more like Judeo-Nazism with Maoist hysterics about the supremacy of blacks and sanctity of homos. Under communism, the worst possible label was 'bourgeois', and so, anything deemed bad, heretical, or false was deemed 'bourgeois' even if it had nothing to do with the actual historical bourgeoisie. When communists attacked other communists, they accused the other being 'bourgeois'. During the Sino-Soviet Rift, the Soviets belittled Maoism as a 'petite-bourgeois' theory, and the Chinese predictably denounced Soviet Union as 'bourgeois revisionist'. (Marxists also dismissed the Iranian Revolution as 'bourgeois'.) So, 'bourgeois' became an all-encompassing term of excoriation against anything deemed undesirable or threatening to the ruling regime or communist hack-intellectuals. It was like all sides in Christian Europe accused their enemies of being agents of the Devil. "God was on OUR side" while the Other Side was tainted with Devil-worship EVEN IF they all worshiped the same God.
Still, the emphasis on the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils — even Fascism and National Socialism were theorized as mere byproducts of bourgeois capitalism, i.e. the rich class recruited faux-revolutionary thugs to protect its property from the communists and workers as vanguards of the True Revolution — makes it clear that Marxism believed class conflict to be the central issue deciding history and morality. The worst evil in the world was class oppression because it was diagnosed to be the source of all other evils. As Karl Marx said, so-called antisemitism is the cause of class conflict: Because Jews are so maniacal about money, capitalism fuels their insatiable greed, and this leads to Jews acting badly and goyim feeling resentful of Jewish wealth and abuses. Therefore, the ONLY way to get rid of 'antisemitism' and other forms of bigotry is to bring about a communist revolution that would make for a classless society of equality. That way, Jews and Goyim will be comrades, brothers and sisters, under the sun. According to classic Marxism, as long as capitalism exists and bourgeois factors create class divisions, it will lead to other forms of divisions as well. One reason will owe to some groups being more adept at business and extraction; they are more clever that way and gain dominance over other less acquisitive groups. The other reason will be the rich and powerful will exploit racial and cultural differences as a divide-and-rule mechanism. Yet, another reason will be that the masses of proles will be too overworked, under-educated, and beastly in a system of dog-eat-dog capitalism to rise above crude tribalism. Ultimately, the real source of all such bigotries was economic injustice. Make people equal in property and education, and they will appreciate one another more as fellow humans. Marx was convinced that, while Jews may gain great wealth under capitalism, they will always be hated. (Ironically, Jews came to be regarded with greater suspicion in the Soviet Union while they came to be much praised in the capitalist US. American Capitalism, having a less darker history than the European counterpart, may have been a factor. American cult of freedom has been more meritocratic and extols the Winner, especially because of the mythos that ANYONE can succeed. Jews certainly won big. But it also owes to the fact that Jews took over much of the academia and media & entertainment and elevated the Shoah to a quasi-religion and made 'racism', especially against Jews and blacks, the worst possible sin — badmouthing Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians is perfectly fine.)
Anyway, if capitalism said ANYONE, regardless of race or creed, can become gloriously rich, communism said ANYONE, regardless of race or culture, can be made evil by greed and money. Capitalism said it's great that a Jew or a Christian can become rich. Communism said it's sad that both a Jew and a Christian can be corrupted by money. Marxism didn't spare the Jews. While Marx lamented antisemitism, he didn't regard Jews as innocent pure-as-snow angels who were hated for irrational reasons. He believed they were hated for rational and material reasons: Capitalism brought out the worst aspects of Jewish Character as molded through history(of money-making). So, the only workable compromise between Goyim and Jews was for goyim to drop their resentment on grounds that Jews will forsake their greed. Only then as comrades could Jews and all kinds of goyim get along.
Because Antifa types and other so-called 'leftists' claim to be socialist or even communist — and because so many on the Right love to draw parallels between Marxism/Maoism and current PC madness in the West — , one would think Old Communism is back in force. But actually, so-called Antifa, though claiming to be anti-fascist, is oddly closer in spirit to Nazism that put Race at the center of its worldview. Unlike Marxism that said ANY PEOPLE, both Jews and Goyim, can become corrupted by money and power, the current PC insists that the problems of power is almost always about 'white supremacism'. So, it doesn't matter how rich Jews are, how successful blacks are, how well-off non-whites are. The problem is always about 'whiteness'. If some whites are exempted from total abuse, it is only because they funnel lots of money toward PC to appease the beast. According to PC, a poor white person who holds an American flag and doesn't hate himself & his race is a greater evildoer than super-rich whites like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates who fund PC causes. As for Jews, blacks, homos, and certain non-white groups, it doesn't matter how rich they are. (Latin American whites are also exempt from the worst of abuse.) You are GOOD simply because you're Jewish, black, homo, or etc. But if you're white(and straight), it doesn't matter how many hardships you face. It doesn't matter if you've been attacked by blacks or fleeced by Jews. You SUCK because you're white.
The notion of 'racism' change from one's attitudes to one's innate character. It went from mutable to immutable. It went from an attitude that anyone can have, borne of ignorance and meanness, to a condition that certain groups are born with, regardless of their attitude. So, you can be a hateful Jew or nasty Negro, but you're hardly 'racist'. You can be a Zionist Jew pushing all kinds of wars in the Middle East to destroy countless Arab/Muslim lives, but that's okay. Jews can dehumanize Russians and white Christians, and that's cool too. And, blacks can do thug-talk, threaten other races, attack other groups, and indulge in all sorts of hateful rhetoric. But no matter what they do, it's always contextualized as 'resistance against systemic racism', that is UNLESS blacks badmouth Jews and homos. In contrast, if you're white, you are 'racist'(or tainted with the white mark of cain) no matter how much you try to be fair with rest of humanity. Indeed, the reason why white Antifa types are so soul-damaged is they indulge in an insane kind of self-hatred. They've internalized Jewish PC so much that they believe it's no longer sufficient for whites to reject 'racist' hatred against non-whites. Rather, whites must actively hate their own race as innately tainted with the 'original sin' of 'racism'. Thus, White Antifa is less about anti-hatred than pro-hatred-against-the-self. (Of course, Jewish leaders of Antifa happily promote such attitude among their white dolt comrades.) If Antifa is truly communist, socialist, or Marxist, it should focus mostly on economic issues. In regarding the 'bourgeois' elements as the source of all inequality and evil, they would condemn ALL forms of power, wealth, and privilege. They would hate Barack Obama who's approaching a billion dollars in personal wealth. They should be denouncing Tim Cook and other fancy-pants homos who do the bidding of oligarchs and the deep state. Karl Marx did just this. Though of Jewish origin, he lambasted Jewish capitalists as among the worst bourgeois elements. But no such is heard from current Antifa and of course BLM. Their worldview is essentially racial-supremacist in that good or evil is really a matter of one's identity. So, it doesn't matter what Jews, blacks, or homos do or how much wealth they have and how much privilege they enjoy. They are wonderful and good simply because of their vaunted identities. In contrast, it doesn't matter how difficult one's situation is as a white person; it doesn't matter how much he or she tries to be good and fair-minded. He or she is bad, even 'white supremacist', simply because he or she is white or, worse, refuses to hate himself/herself.
How ironic that Jews who support Antifa as anti-fascist and anti-'racist', a means to expose and hunt down 'nazis' and 'white supremacists', are now the main purveyors of something like a Neo-Nazi outlook. Jewish Power pushes a certain racial essentialism. Jews are forever to be 'essentialized' as the Holocaust People, or Holochs. So, even when Jews act like Nazis and abuse Palestinians, Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks while Palestinians might as well be the 'nazis'. In the most perverse way, Jews have used the narrative of victimization under supremacist Nazis to justify a kind of moral nihilism for Jews, i.e. because Jews suffered so much, they are forever wise, and therefore, everything done by Jews must be grand! In other words, Jews invoke 'Never Again' against the evils of Nazism to act like a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Just ask the Palestinians. And blacks are to be 'essentialized' forever as a bunch of Emmett Tills when, in fact, so many black thugs roam the streets and terrorize people worse than the KKK ever did. If Jews really care about humanity, why are they most angry with Donald Trump when he wants to de-escalate wars in the Middle East? Why have the likes of Thomas Friedman praised ISIS as the wreckers of Assad's Syria? If Jews are really against 'racism', why are they perfectly fine with Trump and Pompeo's most blatant form of racial bigotry: the mindless support of Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and other Arabs? And if Jews are opposed to racial essentialism, why do they create TV shows that feature Jews and blacks as noble simply for what they are, whereas whites are villains because it's in the nature of whites to be 'racist' and 'supremacist'? Jews fool a lot of people by claiming to condemn 'white supremacism', but the notion that some groups are incorrigibly 'racist' whereas other groups, such as Jews and blacks, are always 'anti-racist' is essentially supremacist. A truly anti-supremacist view would argue that ANY group, given the circumstances, could be supremacist. It was certainly the case with Romans and Germanic barbarians. When Romans were on top, they could lord over the Germanics with supremacist arrogance. But when the empire fell apart and the Germanic barbarians rampaged through Rome, who were the supremacist overlords?
Any honest person would admit the current US is animated by Jewish Supremacism, especially in foreign policy and historical memory. When Jews are remembered only as victims of the Shoah but not as perpetrators of mass killings of others, it's like remembering white history only in terms of what American Indian savages did to white settlers but not what the white invaders did to the Native Tribes. And how can BLM be anything but a form of supremacism when it pretends that even obvious black thugs and degenerates are saintly victims of white supremacism while totally overlooking all the anti-white violence carried out by deranged blacks? When blacks rioted and looted, carrying out modern-day pogroms, the Jewish-run media didn't care about the victims because they were white or non-blacks. (While some Jews were negatively affected too, Jewish Power saw it as a gambit to bring down Trump America. One step backward for Jews for three steps forward for Jewish Power.) Indeed, the Jewish PC Narrative mirrors the peculiar manner of Jewish remembrance of Russian History. Jews never let us forget about the Slavic pogroms against Jews but suppress all discussion of Jewish role in Bolshevik violence that literally destroyed millions of lives. In other words, pogroms were worse because thousands of Jews were affected because, of course, a single Jewish life has more value than a million Slavic lives. It's a form of JLM or "Jewish Lives Matter MORE than Slavic lives", especially if the Slavs were slaughtered at the behest of Jewish communist henchmen.
At the very least, because communism identified economic injustice and class oppression as the true source of evil, any group could be condemned for being 'bourgeois'. While the Soviet Union forbade antisemitism, an ethno-racial animus against Jews, it attacked Jewish capital as well as goy capital. So, even though Jews were protected as communists, they could be destroyed like anyone else as capitalists. So, Jews could be good(communist) or bad(capitalist). But according to current Identity Politics of PC ideology, Jews are never bad or wrong. Jews can be Liberal Zionists or Neocons; both are great. Jews can be socialist or capitalist; both are super. Jews are great no matter what they do. Both GOP and Democratic Party expend most of their energies in flattering and appeasing Jews. Democrats will denounce white conservatism but praise Neocons. Republicans will denounce white liberalism but praise Liberal Zionists. Jews are exempt from all blame. Donald Trump was dragged through the mud by Jewish Power, but his main message is "I Luv Israel, and I Kiss Jewish Butt." And in the recent riots, black thuggery and violence were celebrated by Democrats and unopposed by Republicans. Even as cities burned, Trump was sucking up to blacks and making Fentanyl Floyd into a saint-angel.
This is so unlike Marxism or communism where any group, any nationality, or any race could face moral censure and condemnation for evils. Current PC is more like Nazism because it's about the racial supremacism of Jews and blacks(with special honors for Homos). It says certain groups(Jews, blacks, and homos) are infallible, while whites are intrinsically tainted(no matter what they do or say). Sadly, whites brought this upon themselves because they've enabled the current state of affairs. Whites grovel to Jews who demean them most. Whites also hurt those who face the same kind of hatred from Jews. Given Jewish vitriol and venom against whites, the logical thing would be for whites to side with other targets of Jewish hatred. Whites should be main allies with Russia and Iran; whites should be shouting, "Palestine is our greatest ally." But whites, as politicians, preachers, tax-payers, and soldiers, go out of their way to do the bidding of Jews in destroying other victims of Jewish Power. So, even as Jewish Power clobbers Trump and his white Christian Base, they are enabling the total destruction of Palestine. It'd be like Poles sucking up to Nazi Germany even as Germans push them around. It's truly a disgusting sight.
Whatever socialism that remains among the American 'Left' is NOT about the workers. If American 'leftists' really cared about the Power of Labor, it would call for end of immigration which has a scab-effect on Big Labor. They would also support policies that encourage more blacks toward productive work. But the American 'left' condemned welfare reform under Billy Boy Clinton because it 'heartlessly' put conditions on blacks to find some kind of useful employment. American 'left' doesn't care for workers or labor. What goes by the name of 'socialism' in most places is the demand for more freebies for parasites. Indeed, most 'leftists' and so-called 'progressives' look down on most jobs as demeaning and dirty for 'losers'. They don't want to pick up the shovel. They want to use pens. They want the government to produce more 'clean' jobs for bureaucrats, officials, operatives, instructors, activists, coordinators, managers, and the like. They want to be busy doing nothing in bogus jobs that make them feel they are 'saving the planet', 'working for progress', 'raising consciousness', 'fighting hatred', and etc. Over the years, more people got college degrees, but most degrees outside practical fields like science, technology, medicine, and the like are pretty useless. What good are most 'liberal arts' degrees or 'humanities' degrees, let alone degrees in Women's Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies, and most social sciences? Out of college, all these people with fancy-pants college degrees realize their future is working for Starbucks and serving coffee to people who make lots of money in high tech, medicine, entertainment, finance, and the like. (And those with secure government jobs do pretty well.) And this breeds resentment among many of the educated. Thus, current 'socialism' is not about the proletariat or the working class at war with the rich; rather, it's about college-educated Starbucks workers feeling resentful about having to serve expensive coffee to their much more successful peers who specialized in practical fields like technology or money management. These 'socialists' don't feel any sense of camaraderie with the Workers of the World whom they regard as 'losers of the world'. They don't lose sleep over wage-slaves toiling in Asia to make Nike shoes. If anything, they want the hip and fashionable lifestyles enjoyed by the yupsters, or yuppie-hipsters who work for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Wall Street firms. In a way, they feel more deserving of the good life because they majored in more 'meaningful' fields like arts, culture, and ideas whereas their more successful 'shallow' peers only care about making money. And yet, they are gravitated to the world of privilege; their dream is to live in a fancy condo, be surrounded by books and music, and attend cocktail parties. But only a handful of people who majored in arts/culture/ideas get to attain privileged slots in society.
Still, given the resentment against the successful, you'd think the current 'socialists' would be most passionately anti-rich. But despite their rhetoric about the 99% vs the 1%, their main passions are for the holy three of Jews, blacks, and homos(and sometimes 'diversity'), while their main ire is directed at 'white supremacism', 'racism'(that means speaking truthfully about blacks), 'homophobia'(that means refusal to celebrate 'gay pride'), and 'nazism'(that means anyone hated by Jews is a 'nazi' who must be punched and destroyed). Of course, being anti-rich while being mindlessly pro-Jewish makes no sense because Jews are, by far, the richest people in the world. For one to say that excess wealth is evil but then claim that Jews are above criticism is, for all practical purposes, anti-socialist. If Jews, the richest people on Earth, cannot be condemned, it means Jewish Wealth must be protected. And being pro-'gay' is also antithetical to socialism because homos are naturally vain, narcissistic, elitist, and fancy-pants aristo. While there have been some homos on the Real Left, homo nature tends toward catering to the rich, privileged, and the fancy crowd. Once 'socialism' is associated with homo-celebration, Mayday turns into Gayday, which is precisely why rich Jews and the oligarchy(even in the GOP) pushed the homo agenda so far. Also, celebration of Jews and homos can only be a kind of elite-minority-supremacism. While some minorities are poor and powerless, some are rich and powerful, much more so than the great majority. In the US, almost nothing is said of the plight of American Indians or Muslim-Americans(especially of Palestinian backgrounds), the powerless minorities. Jews and homos, as minority-ruling-elites, count for much more; they are akin to the British Imperialist minority elites in India or the white-Jewish minority elite in Old South Africa. As for blacks, yes, it's true that many are mired in poverty and backwardness. But blacks are also oppressors as street thugs, predators, criminals, and bullies. It's been said that comedians should punch up than down, but it's not like all members of the group are either up or down. While some whites are above blacks, some whites are below blacks. While rich whites live in communities totally safe from black criminality, other whites are constantly attacked by black thuggery. Just because one bunch of whites are above blacks doesn't mean ALL blacks are above them. Some whites are below blacks. But in Jewish-controlled US, there is this crazy notion that ALL whites are privileged with supremacist power while ALL blacks are oppressed. It's like ALL Jews are forever Holocaust Survivors or something whereas ALL Russians, despite having suffered tragically from Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish gangster-capitalism(in the 1990s and even today under international sanctions), are forever tagged with blame for the pogroms.
What can be done to save the West? It must go Cold Turkey with the truth. And white people have no one to blame but themselves unless they speak the obvious truth: That the West is now Jewish Supremacist and that 'white supremacism' is just smoke-and-mirrors cooked up by Jewish Power to distract people from the fact that the modus operandi is "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Then and only then can whites work toward White Liberation whereupon whites will be telling Jewish Power, "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." This will not only be great for whites but for all victim peoples of Jews, such as the Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians. White Racial Disobedience and Resistance to Jewish Supremacism will mean No More Wars for Israel & Zion and no more use of white energies to spread the 'ghaspel'(the ghastly gospel) of Globo-Homo and Afro-Mania around the world. The White Bridges used to spread Jewish Supremacism(and its proxies) around the world must be blown up. If whites resist, the rest of the world will take inspiration and follow suit. If whites cuck and submit to Jewish Supremacism, the rest of the world will do the same. This is the special place whites have in the world. Though the West is Jewish-supremacist and Jewish-dominated, Jewish Power feeds on white submission and obedience. White behavior vis-a-vis Jewish Power serves as the template for all the world. So, if whites suck up to Jews and worship globo-homo-BLM craziness, other races will do likewise. But if whites finally say NO and stand up to Jewish supremacist perfidy, others around the world will also get the message and toss away the shackles. Whites no longer have the power of rule, but they still have the choice between submission and liberation to the rule. And what whites do will determine the direction of history. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQzSILxdgCOq/
It's been said the Chinese have invested heavily in the US, buying up all sorts of properties and spreading the cash around to people in various industries and politicians. They are doing what the Japanese did in the 1980s. And yet, we see the weakness of this approach, the over-reliance of money without gaining power over the morality, or moral narrative. It reminds us of the power dynamics in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Gail Wynand is the tycoon while mid-cult Ellsworth Toohey isn't stinking rich. And yet, Toohey gains the upperhand against Wynand because he has cornered the market on public morality and opinion.
This is why Jews were smart to push the Holocaust Narrative to prevent any moral criticism/condemnation of Jewish behavior. By spiritualizing the historical tragedy of Jews as a world-shaking event, the greatest evil in history that transformed every Jew into a little christ and every critic of Jews into an 'anti-Semite' or 'nazi', Jews made it nearly impossible to criticize Jewish Power. Money Power goes a long way, but it's a double-edged sword. While money can buy influence, it also naturally attracts criticism as the People like to blame the rich, privileged, and powerful. Thus, Money Power is a disadvantage as well an advantage. Moral Power, on the other hand, can be righteous and shielded from criticism but, without the backing of money, can only go so far. But money combined with morality is formidable. Even though Ellsworth Toohey in THE FOUNTAINHEAD isn't himself stinking rich, he has created a name for himself as the voice of 'public conscience', built up a loyal cult-like following, and formed networks with oligarchs all over the city. So, even when Gail Wynand fires him, others at the newspaper follow him than continue to work for Wynand. And Toohey joins forces with Wynand's competitors. Wynand the tycoon was about buying people left and right. It was only about the money. In contrast, Toohey, though a power-hungry operator, was always careful to wrap his words with concern for public morality, decency, justice, and etc. Initially, he did this under Wynand who assumed that Toohey was just a whore who said whatever to please his boss. Actually, Toohey, though acting the flunky of Wynand, was building up his own cult, his own army of devotees, and taking control of public opinion. While his loyalty to Wynand was based on money, the loyalty of those under him was based on fanaticism and his cult of personality. His minions regarded him as the voice of decency, justice, morality, and truth. Though a cold-blooded Machiavellian who resents the power of originality and brilliance(as truly great individuals would see right through his BS), he honed his skills as a public intellectual and moralist. He created an image of himself as a man deeply committed to the public good.
Jews gained power as Wynands of the world, but they also played Toohey, or Joohey. They cleverly used the Holocaust Narrative as a global cult that got so many people, especially in the West, feeling that NO PEOPLE suffered as much as Jews. And on that basis, there must be something wrong, wicked, evil, and irrational about disliking Jews. Only pathological nuts like the Nazis could possibly hate and murder Jews. Therefore, ANY expression that is critical of Jews must be sick, demented, dark, and irrational. If Wynand and Toohey became enemies(until Wynand finally caved and became a 'spiritual' slave of Toohey despite his own riches), the Jewish Wynand and Jewish Toohey worked hand in glove to use Money Power and Morality Cult to gain near-total control of the US and the West. Indeed, what with all this BLM nonsense, we can see how the Power of Money often feels intimidated by the Cult of Morality. Cult of Morality doesn't have to be real morality. It could be sham-morality, utterly false, and even downright evil. While there is true morality, the fact is anything can be 'moralized', especially as, for most people, emotional and sensory manipulation often overrides moral reasoning. Thus, falsehood or evil can be moralized by any side. Ruthless men can invoke God and Jesus to justify wars for gold. Scum rulers can invoke Patriotism to justify imperialist wars. Adolf Hitler could iconize the Aryan Myth to justify wars. Mao Zedong could stir up the social justice of class struggle to unleash demonic energies. Neocons could scaremonger about the threat of terrorism to invade and destroy nations that had nothing to do with 9/11. Madeleine Albright could claim it's 'worth it' to kill 500,000 Arab children as a lesser evil than letting Hussein's Iraq return to normal. Moralize wars for Israel into sham talk of international ethics. And how many evil deeds have been justified on account of spreading 'liberal democracy'?
Still, there's a difference between right-and-wrong and holy-and-unholy. At the very least, right-and-wrong issues can be debated. For instance, one may be deemed wrong for opposing 'war on terror' foreign policy but isn't necessarily deemed evil. In contrast, on matters that are holy, it is deemed downright unholy and evil to say or act in ways that seem to go against its spirit. For instance, MLK isn't a matter for debate. He is now bigger than god and jesus, and any rational discussion of the man is not possible. You are either on the side of angels or with the devil. Same goes for Jews whose main identification is not with religion or heritage but with the Shoah. As such, to be anti-Jewish means you're a 'nazi' who wants to gas Jews. You can only be evil to be anti-Jewish or even anti-Zionist as the combo of Jewish Money Power and Jewish Morality Cult now insists that to be anti-Israel is tantamount to being 'antisemitic'. Thus, Jewish power/money is shielded. Generations of people in the West were raised with official dogma associating Jews with the Holy Holocaust. For most of Christo-European history, goyim felt moral/spirituality over Jews on the basis that, (1) whereas goyim did real work(like grow food and make things), Jews made their fortunes with usury and other parasitic practices and (2) whereas goyim worshiped Jesus as Son of God, Jews were unrepentant of having killed the Messiah and refusing to convert to the universal faith. So, no matter how rich Jews became and used their money to buy favors & influence, the goyim(elites and masses) felt free to criticize and even condemn Jews. But it began to change with the rise of the Holocaust Cult. Just when the power of religion was waning big time all over the West, Jewish Money Power did all it could to push the Holocaust as the new faith. But Jews didn't end there but also pushed White Guilt about blacks. Thus, whites were doubly paralyzed from the moral standpoint. They needed to atone forever for Holocaust and Slavery — never mind that genocides and slavery were nothing new in history. Though Ellsworth Toohey is the villain of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, he is the most useful and instructive figure on the art/science of real power in the world. While Howard Roark is a shining ideal that can only exist in fiction, the Tooheys of the world do amass tremendous power in the world. Just like the rich and powerful through European history had to seek approval of the Church on moral and spiritual matters, the rich and powerful today must 'take the knee' to the dominant Narrative that often originates from media and academia, the hives of Tooheys. Robin DiAngelo's WHITE FRAGILITY is the latest example of Tooheyism. It's nonsense but promoted as the New Morality. People like Amy Harmon also serve as the new tooheys. They are not after the truth but push the Narrative by moralizing endlessly about 'racism' and 'white supremacism', the equivalent of 'bourgeois' in communist nations. (Even when BLM and Antifa thugs burn down cities, city leaders often blame 'white supremacists', which is blaming witches for whatever goes wrong.)
Chick-Fil-A owner washes the feet of an amused Negro as holy saint
Now, Tooheyism isn't about total domination of Morality Cult over Money Power. After all, Toohey couldn't have done much if he didn't have the backing of other oligarchs and bigshots when Wynand canned him. Rather, Tooheyism is the compromise between Money Power and Morality Cult whereby the money flows to the moralizers in exchange for the moralizers devising the rules so that those doling out the money will be spared the brunt of the abuse. It's a way of buying indulgences like in the old Catholic days. Indeed, consider the Tooheic contract between Big Capital and 'Progressivism' in the creation of 'woke capital'. As Big Capital supplies the Money, the Progs have replaced class conflict with Ass Politics of globo-homo, something that Big Business can embrace as homos tend to be vain, narcissistic, and oh-so-cozy with the rich & famous. Replacing Mayday with Gayday was a huge boon for Big Capital. But then, the Old Church played similar games. They rather spent more time denouncing the poor and the wretched while sucking up to the rich and powerful. The rich provided the funds for the clergy, and the clergy, even though committed to a religion that spoke of the virtues of the meek and poor, favored the rich and went easy on them. It's no wonder why so many of the poor in Russia felt no particular sadness when the revolutionaries who burned down churches. They could recall Orthodox priests admonishing the poor and wretched to stop complaining and accept their lot in life while catering to the rich and powerful who wallowed in luxury and ate like pigs. In current America, the Mainline churches are just globo-homo centers catering to the elites, and the major Evangelical churches are dominated by disgusting fatsos who whore themselves out to Neocons and Zion. Tooheyism is alive and well. Some say BLM is like a new religion, and it's certainly useful for big corporations. Since blacks have the cool factor as rappers & athletes and carry the aura of nobility in association with MLK & Civil Rights Movement, it is so easy for crass profit-oriented corporations to burnishing their image by invoking BLM symbolism. Nike is a cutthroat company that exploits cheap labor abroad, and what an easy way to 'moralize' its image by paying big bucks to the likes of Colin Kaepernick. And of course, the people who take the money from Big Capital get the message and focus their ire than anything but their sugardaddies. Antifa is purportedly communist, but its main obsessions are globo-homo and tranny-stuff, both favored by Big Capital as replacement for themes of class struggle. And instead of attacking Big Capital, Antifa leaders direct the rage of their drug-addled minions toward attacking Trump supporters, white Americans, and patriots.
This is why the Chinese are foolish. They think they will gain more power and influence in the West by throwing more money around. But paradoxically, the more money they spend to gain influence, the less power they will have at the end of the day. Because there is no moral taboo against China-bashing, the increase of Chinese influence-buying-and-peddling will simply provide more ammo to the China-bashers. Same happened with Japan in the 1980s. As there was no taboo against Japan-bashing, the more money Japan poured into the US, the more the media and various talking heads warned of the Japan menace. "The Japs are buying everything." Ironically, the Jewish media treated Japanese Power like Christian Goyim used to regard Jewish Power: All Money and No Morality. Because Jews experienced this, they were careful to morally launder their money power in the post-war period. Jews did it by pretending to push socialism against greedy capitalism. Thus, even though Jewish power was growing by leaps and bounds through capitalism, there was the impression that Jews were mostly socialist and committed to 'equality' than to greed. Also, they pushed Western/White Guilt via Holocaust Cult and Slavery Narrative. Jews mastered a Tooheic method of fusing Money and Morality to gain near-absolute power over the West. Jews even sham-'moralized' homosexuality and tranny-stuff into something next to godliness. Again, anything can be 'moralized'. And anything can be 'immoralized'. Wickedness can be 'moralized', as 'gay marriage' was by the power of TV shows and news/education as propaganda. And virtue can be 'immoralized'. Christian bakers who would rather face financial ruin than bake cakes to honor satanism have been vilified as 'homophobic' and 'bigots'. And women who insist on biological womanhood and believe trannies are not real women are denounced as 'transphobic' TERFS. Most people respond to the sensory-manipulative idolatry and emotional manipulation of propaganda than rely on truth and moral reasoning.
This is why China will lose everything in the end in the West. The more money they pour into the US and the West, the louder will be the outcry that the 'Chicoms' are taking over and buying up everything. Money Power without Moral Protection is vulnerable. After all, one can attack George Soros as a billionaire but NOT as a Jew. One can denounce the abstract 1% but not the tribal 2%(the Jews). If Chinese really wanted to gain greater foothold in the West, they should have found Tooheic ways to promote Western/White Guilt about the history between East and West. The history of imperialism, Opium Wars, West's partnership with Japan in carving up China, and US neo-imperialist wars in Asia. And the sad story of Chinese railroad workers in US and Canada. Whether such guilt-tripping would have worked or not, it is foolish for China to invest big money in the West without moral protection. China-bashers can have a field day with 'Communist China is buying up America' narrative, and the ruling elites can cook up some 'human rights' excuse to freeze and grab all of Chinese assets in the West and renege on all debts. It goes to show that the Chinese are still amateurs when it comes to the psychological dynamics of power.
Justice, especially political justice, is a matter of who/whom: Who has the power and which groups have 'sacral' worth? This is also true of individuals — notice how certain Jews tend to get pardoned more than people of other groups, and consider how the Law pretty much allows black thugs and shoplifters/looters to walk free — but especially true at the political level. In Central America during the Cold War, the white-led right-wing regimes could employ 'death squads' and mow down countless indigenous brown folks suspected of being sympathetic to Marxist guerrillas. That was 'justice' in those parts, with the acquiescence of US power. In communist nations, the secret police could arbitrarily arrest anyone and charge him of treason, espionage, or 'bourgeois' thought crimes. The accused could be sent to prison camps or shot dead in basements. That was 'justice' under communism. So, justice is usually the tool of the power. It is what the Power wants and says it is.
Under liberal systems, there developed the idea that justice should be impartial, fair-minded, based on strict adherence to laws(applicable to all), and protective of the 'universal rights' of all citizens, rich or poor, regardless of color or creed. Though liberal systems were far from perfect in the practice of administering justice, it could be said that, more or less, the West was moving toward greater impartiality and fairness up to the 1960s. This mode of justice was based on individual rights. But the Civil Rights Movement wasn't just about the right of blacks as individuals but as a group, and that agenda, along with other trends, provided the groundwork for a different kind of justice. If traditional rightist justice favored the upper classes and certain races over others and if the radical leftist justice favored the notion of 'social justice' that trampled on individual rights in favor of the supposed good of the collective, the classic liberal notion of justice emphasized the rights of individuals. But the New Liberal theory tended to be both more collective-utilitarian(though not to the extent of communism) and special-interest-oriented in the name of reversing past injustice. Collective-utilitarian notion of justice was at the heart of the New Deal. And special-interest notion of justice animated the Great Society program of LBJ and the rise of Holocaust Cult. By emphasizing the problems of black history, the idea was that blacks as a group deserved special recognition. And because Jews suffered the Holocaust, supposedly the greatest evil act in all of history, they were deserving of special sympathy and consideration. (Initially, pro-black & pro-Jewish attitudes and policies were based on sympathy, but the rising cult of their Noble Suffering and their spectacular success in 'idolic' fields of brains & brawn led to idolatrous worship of them as the Truly Superior Races.)
This came to function as a template for other groups as well. Noticing how blacks and Jews gained so much by pushing for justice on grounds of special interest than individual rights, many groups in the US began to develop their own form of Identity Politics. Identity Politics was different from national chauvinism of old that was premised on the conviction of one's own people being somehow superior and/or more powerful than others. In contrast, Identity Politics was based on the cult of victim-hood. Your people could be said to be more special if they suffered more than others. As Identity Politics emerged when the white West pretty much dominated all the world — even the Soviet Union was mostly white, something Red China exploited in its appeal to the non-white world during the Sino-Soviet Rift — , the general impression was of White Dominance and Non-White Victim-hood. Still, as the scales of victim-hood were still determined by the Power, it all came down to who/whom/when/where as emphasized by the Narrative, the product of media & academia. Victim-hood mattered more if the villains were white and if the victims were non-white or Jewish. And it mattered MORE if the oppression happened IN the West, especially the US or Northern Europe. And it was mostly about the 19th and 20th century. As blacks were oppressed in America by whites, they had a good claim. As Jews suffered in Europe in World War II, they too had an easy claim. But much less sympathy goes to non-white victims of whites in non-white lands. More blacks and Hindus were mowed down by whites in Africa and India, but there is far more outrage about far fewer number of blacks who were killed by whites in the US. As for all the violence among non-whites, they don't matter. Who cares about what's been happening in Kashmir? Even as anti-whites claim to call for 'de-colonization of the mind', they are hopelessly 'West-centric' in emphasizing what happened/happens in the West uber alles. (Furthermore, these 'de-colonizers' are desperate to depart from their own native lands to go live in the West. It's as if they still consider the West to be the only Metropole that matters. And of course, even most anti-Western rhetoric has been cooked up by self-hating Westerners whose minds were colonized by Jewish Power and fueled by post-Christian need for absolution by some other means. So, anti-white politics is essentially about non-whites adopting the politics of white self-loathing, and as such, non-whites are still under white mind-control, albeit that of self-loathing whites. And the fact that many of these non-whites prize Jews, blacks, and/or homos over their own kind suggests that they're still totally 'colonized' by Western Powers that now happens to controlled by Jews.) A truly de-colonized mind would stop seeing the West as the source of all good and evil — the paradise to emigrate to and the hell to denounce — , but such is the state of your average non-white & anti-white mind.
Because of the Rules of Identity Politics, various non-whites groups must demonstrate their worthiness of sympathy by emphasizing their victim-hood at the hands of whites in the West, especially in the 20th century(and maybe 19th century). But as many of these groups are relatively recent immigrants, their experience of oppression under whites happened mostly in non-Western lands, and that means their suffering counts for less than that of Jews and blacks. (Even as globalism attacks the notion of national territorial rights, the tragic worth of any history is largely determined by WHERE it happened, i.e. if the police kills a black man on US soil, that is an outrage, but if the US military kills scores of innocent civilians abroad, it doesn't matter. The logic of Tragic Dirt.) Shoah happened in Europe, and black slavery happened in the US, and as such, they matter more. (Oddly enough though, their cults of suffering are transferable to all others of their kind. So, even though American and Anglo Jews were safe during WWII, indeed infinitely more so than white goyim in Europe who died in greater numbers than the Jews did, they too can invoke 'muh holocaust' as fellow Jews. Likewise, recently arrived black African immigrants in US and Europe can also invoke BLM nonsense and 'muh slavery' even though their ancestors captured and sold black slaves to Arabs & whites and even though black-on-black oppression & violence in black nations are far beyond anything whites have done to blacks in recent years. Also, the fact that American Indian experience doesn't count for much in the Narrative shows that the rules of Identity Politics are not set in stone. If a certain group tends not to be vocal and exhibits no special talent in the 'idolic' fields, it is mostly ignored regardless of its tragic history at the hands of whites. Today, American Indians, the people with the biggest claim to victim-hood in American History, get less attention than Asian-Indians who are always talking and balking.) Identity Politics is based on victim-hood points, but over time, it has fused with the All-American culture of winner-takes-all. Jews and blacks began their Identity Politics by wailing abut their victim-hood but, in good ole American fashion, gained special consideration because of their success with money, humor, arts & culture, athletics, & entertainment. So, over time, Identity Politics became more like Idolatry Politics. In other words, 'muh victim-hood' wasn't good enough. What really mattered was 'muh victor-hood to accentuate muh victim-hood'. In other words, if a group could demonstrate superiority in some key field, its victim-hood was to be considered MORE TRAGIC on account of injustice having been done to something better. It's like it's deemed worse to kill a gorilla than a baboon or to kill a giraffe than a gazelle.
So, what we now call Identity Politics is essentially Idolatry Politics. We don't have mass parades in favor of Palestinians where everyone shows up and waves the BDS flag. But we do have 'Pride' Parades where peoples of all colors sing homosannas to fruits and trannies draped in 'rainbow' colors. Of course, Jews want it this way because an Identity Politics where all groups have equal worth — or where all non-white groups have equal worth — would be threatening to their Zionist-globalist supremacist agenda. Indeed, what would happen to Jewish Power if Americans were to give equal hearing to Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians as to Israelis and their Jewish-American enablers? Also, so many groups around the world have had unpleasant experience with Jews, be they blacks in South Africa or the peoples of Latin America. And European History wasn't only of Antisemitism but Jewish chicaneries, some of which came to do great harm. This is why Jews are wary of all-out Identity Politics. It's like Ben Shapiro denounces it because it means groups such as Palestinian-Americans can have their day in the sun as a victim group as well.
As far as Jews are concerned, the only kind of Identity Politics that is acceptable is an Idolatrous one where Jews get to decide the who/whom. So, Jewish Identity and Jewish Suffering are special and must serve as the basis of goyim making amends to Jews by doing whatever Jews demand. And Jews have especially chosen homos and blacks as fellow Idolatrous Groups, not only because both are highly profitable to Jewish industries in fashion & entertainment but because blacks can be used to bait 'white guilt' and homo-celebration can be used to replace Christianity with Queertianity. (Deep in their hearts, Jews still regard Jesus and Paul as renegade Jews, and there is no 'hate symbol' more 'triggering' to Jews than the Christian Crucifix. Of course, as the West was overwhelmingly Christian for over a millennia, Jews couldn't say that outright, but their big dream was always to destroy Christianity and banish the Crucifix. They tried this by destroying churches in the USSR, but it didn't work, and so they are now working to spiritually corrupt Christianity with Anno Sodomini and worship of Magic Negro or Fentanyl Floyd.)
There can be no true justice or impartial justice with idolatry, which is a cheap form of theology. Idolatry may not be deep, but like religion, it is about blind or mindless worship/faith. As such, US justice system is essentially theocratic or 'idolocratic'. Just like religious folks cannot question, blame, or condemn God or gods(no matter what), the idolocratic US cannot condemn sacred Jews and holy blacks(and homos) no matter what they do. The ONLY time Jews, blacks, and homos come under fire is when they insult or attack one another. So, Donald Sterling the Jewish oligarch had to be denounced because he said unkind things about blacks. So, Nick Cannon has to be bitch-slapped back into 'sense' for having said nasty stuff about Jews — never mind what he said about whites. It's perfectly okay for Jews to insult, defame, and smear whites. It's okay for blacks to denounce whites as the devil. No matter how much abuse is heaped on them, whites must keep their mouths shut, do nothing as their symbols & monuments are vandalized by mobs or removed by the establishment, take the knee, and cuck out. Or, whites can go into brainwashed Janissary mode like Antifa goons or the likes of John Bolton & Dan Crenshaw and join with Jews against the Culture War on whites and nationalism. How can true justice operate in such a world?
The fate of Arabs and Muslims in the current order is a sure sign that Idolatry Politics has rendered Justice into a tool of special groups, namely Jews, blacks, and homos. BLM means black lives are precious, white lives are not. And, it's always who/whom. When blacks kill blacks, never mind. As blacks are special, they may kill other blacks, just like gods may fight gods. But how dare these inferior low-life white mortals dare to kill a black god like Fentanyl Floyd or Gentle Giant Michael Brown? Blacks have been robbing, raping, assaulting, and murdering whites in alarming numbers since the 1960s, but who cares? The god-race may attack the mortal-race. Gods are deemed immortal, and blackness has been immortalized in the sense that the black tragedy of American Slavery has been essentialized to apply to all black folks and all of black history. (Also, electronic recording means that all future generations of whites get to worship Otis Redding and Bob Marley as immortal gods of pop culture.) After all, the so-called 1619 project applies even to black African immigrants, the descendants of blacks who captured and sold slaves. So, all of blackness from time immemorial to all the future is to be defined by tragic suffering at the hands of whites. So, never mind Bantu genocides against other Africans. Never mind Zulu atrocities. Never mind the likes of Idi Amin and all those nasty black thugs in the US and elsewhere. All of blackness through the eons is now about 'muh slavery' and ennoblement by suffering under white 'racism'. 100,000 yrs of blackness is to center around 200 yrs of slavery in America. And Jews have done the same with 'muh Holocaust'. All of Jewish Identity and History are to be associated with that tragedy. It's as if all of Jewish-Gentile history led up to that point and all of Jewish-Gentile future must revolve around that memory that condemns whites while consecrating Jews. So, it doesn't matter if Jewish history is full of bad Jewish behavior and if Jews do terrible things now or in the future. Jewish Identity has achieved Moral Immortality via the Holocaust Cult. Of course, in practice, Moral Immortality can only be a monstrous immorality as it's downright demented for any human group to act like they're eternally hallowed and sacred, thus above the rules that apply to other groups.
What does Moral Immortality for blacks and Jews mean in practice? Consider the fate of Muslims and Arabs. There was the photograph of the Muslim man whose business was destroyed in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots. He'd done no wrong. He was strong-armed and robbed by Michael Brown, and later big bully Brown attacked a police officer and got killed in the altercation. But the ONLY narrative that mattered was 'black lives matter' or Negrolatry. The livelihoods or the lives of Muslim businessmen didn't matter at all. The Jewish Media pushed Idolatry Politics of blacks uber Muslims. And one wonders how many Muslim businesses were destroyed this time around following the death of Fentanyl Floyd? To the New American Mind, only Jews, blacks, and homos have starring roles as the good guys while whites have the starring roles as villains. All other groups have supporting roles(at best) or exist only as blurry extras in the background. In movies, we don't care how many people get killed as long as the main characters survive. In INDEPENDENCE DAY, who cares if the entire city blows up as long as the key characters are alive and well and get all the glory? I'm assuming many more Muslims had their lives ruined as the result of riots following the death of Fentanyl Floyd, but no one cares. So, blacks have a righteous right to riot, burn, loot, and attack people. Their lives(and lusts) matter, but others don't matter. This proves the utter hollowness of all this 'liberal' yammering about Diversity and Equality. Not only are immigrant groups being slated to pay the bulk of 'reparations' to blacks but all these 'nice white liberals' show no sympathy for people such as Muslims who were attacked by black violence.
But it is even worse with Jewish Power and its use of Mass Murder Inc, aka the US military. When Neocons smeared the 'Arabists', what were they really attacking? An American policy of blindly favoring Arabs over Jews? No, so-called 'Arabists' were calling for a more fair and balanced approach to the Middle East by considering Arab/Muslim interests as well as those of Zionists. If anything, your average 'Arabist' was nevertheless more pro-Zionist than pro-Arab. Still, he wasn't 100% pro-Zionist and willing to lend an ear to the other side, especially in service to American Interests. But, that wasn't good enough for Jews, for whom it had to be 100% pro-Jewish and the hell with Arab/Muslim interests. In other words, US foreign policy must be totally JEWIST, but of course, all the cuck-shills of Zion aren't called that. Idolatry Politics means Jews are special, wonderful, and oh-so-admirable in every way. Jews being so great, how can anyone oppose any Jewish demand? So, whatever the problem or consequence, the US must always favor Jews EVEN IF these policies lead to wanton destruction of countless Arab/Muslim lives. Jewish Lives Matter, Arab Lives Don't. Jews can wipe out Palestine off the map, but never mind, and Long Live Israel. Instead, focus on paranoid fantasies of how Iran is going to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Israel ignores international standards and has 300 nukes with stolen technology and material from the US while Iran has no nukes and has caved to every international demand. But never mind. Shower Israel with billions in aid while starving Iran and subverting its economy, making millions suffer. And if Jews cheer on Saudi Arabia's genocidal war on Yemen on grounds that it's good for Jews and bad for Iran, that's great too. And even though Mossad is carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran(and aiding the most demented terrorists in Syria), ignore all that and just accuse Iran of being the #1 terrorist nation, as worthless Donald Trump does all the time as the pathetic dog of Zion. So-called 'liberals' are so into idolatry(of Jews, blacks, and homos) that they are incapable of fair-mindedness. And for all their bleating about injustice, they are such craven cowards who dare not offend Jews lest they lose their precious jobs in elite institutions and industries. As for 'conservatives', their hierarchical mindset means they will kneel before whomever has the most power and privilege. Whether it's Sean Hannity praising Amazon or Rich Lowry cucking before his Jewish donors, 'conservatives' are following in the grand tradition of sucking up to the royal court. As for some others on the right, cheering for White Jews over Brown Arabs is a subliminal way of White Pride. It's ironic of course. Jews prohibit white identity and white agency, but Jews wink-wink urge white rightists to cheer for white Jews and Israel(as outpost of Western Civilization) against those Sand Ni**ers. If you can't have Apartheid and Jim Crow anymore, you can at least cheer for Jim Crowitz and IDF death squads mowing down those brown women and children. The likes of David French will virtue-signal by denouncing Old America but cheer on Israelis defending the border and shooting women and children in Gaza. A truly surreal case of whites, having had their own 'racism' canceled by Jews, must outsource their 'racist' fantasies to 'white' Jews who, being Moral Immortals, have the license to mow down brown people in the old ways of colonialist-imperialist wars.
Moral Immortality means Jews and blacks get to loot the world. Jews, being smart, used financial trickery to rape the Russian economy. Jewish banksters in Wall Street got massive bailouts and grew even richer during the Great Recession at the expense of Main Street. Ever more billions are poured into the coffers of Israel while coffins multiply in the Muslim World. The likes of Paul Singer and George Soros can loot entire nations. Blacks, being stupid and childish, loot in the savage-barbarian way of smashing windows and running off with the goods. And beating up or shooting anyone in their way. Outwardly, blacks seem to do far more damage, but the amount they steal is a pittance compared to cargoes of Jewish Booty. At most, blacks will destroy a part of town. Jewish oligarchs and sharks loot entire economies. Not for nothing was George Soros called 'the man who broke the Bank of England'. But just like most black looters get to walk away scot-free with their loot, Jewish globalist sharks are allowed to keep their ill-gotten loot and look to steal more and more.
But, Jewish Power isn't only about white collar crime. By controlling cuck-politicians of the US, Jewish Power gets to employ Mass Murder Inc, aka US military, to wage Wars for Israel, thus destroying entire nations with invasions, bombings, drone attacks, and blockades. The death tolls abroad from such ventures are far beyond the murder and mayhem committed by blacks. But what do Jews and blacks care? Even when they are caught doing bad stuff, they usually get a slap on the wrist or get pardoned. Most black looters will walk free, and so many bad Jews are never investigated, and even those who get convicted serve in minimum-security prisons or get pardoned. Such is justice in Idolocratic America. Justice follows the theocratic mode of worshipful attitudes toward certain groups who can almost never do wrong even when they do wrong, whereas certain other groups, especially whites, Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians, are always deemed wrong even when they do right. But what would be right-and-wrong in a world of 'gay marriage' and 'trannies are women' logic that has inverted all sense of reality?
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.**
