New York Times 1619 Project is Jewish Globalist-Supremacism by Other Means — Why is Black Slavery a Bigger 'Sin' than American Indian 'Genocide'? — Idolatry of Black Supremography

https://www.unz.com/article/the-1619-project-devours-its-liberal-parents/

Some thoughts on the article by Robert Hampton on New York Times 1619 Project:

We can't fully understand the NYT-1619 project without taking into account the Jewish Factor. Jewish Hegemonists at NYT are pushing this mainly to prop up Jewish Supremacist control of the US. It is a roundabout way of justifying and perpetuating Jewish globalist imperialism & Jewish control of guilt-ridden white cucks. In 1776, the British were imperial overlords over the American colonies. Back then, 'Americans' were subjects of the empire though, being white, had more rights and privileges than non-white subjects. White Americans existed mainly to serve and support the empire. The British could foresee how the American colonies would keep expanding and then it was only a matter of time before Americans would outnumber the British. Thus, in order for the empire to remain intact, the British would have to preserve their authority over a larger number of White Americans as loyal colonists. This authority had to be moral and emotional as well as military because it'd be difficult to maintain control over a growing entity with brute force alone. It's like a lion or bear trainer needs something more than fear to keep the beast under control. The beast must be made to FEEL that the human, though weaker and smaller, is its emotional master deserving of respect.

British minority-elites sought indefinite domination over American majority-masses. But White Americans, at least one-third of them who supported the Revolution, developed an independent streak and identity of their own. They decided to break free of the empire. It was the first case of America First. And so, the British lost the empire(though, of course, the French played a key role). One can argue til the cows come home whether the Revolutionaries were in the right or wrong. Many historians think British taxation was valid given the huge costs of the French and Indian Wars, which was triggered by colonial demands by the way. Also, the destinies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, none of which fought for independence, suggest that the British would have been fair, just, and humane rulers over the American colonists had there been no Revolution. But still, the American Revolution, justified or not, was led by men of great talent, intelligence, and vision. And even though British subjects of Canada and Australia came to enjoy freedoms and rights much like those of white Americans, freedom in America had a romantic element because of the founding myth of resistance and liberation. Freedom was granted to white Canadians and Australians, whereas freedom was WON by white Americans, and that made a huge psychological difference.

At any rate, Jews are nervous about the rise of white populism all around the world. Jews are most worried about the US, the center of the Empire of Judea, or EOJ. Indeed, under the current globalist regimen, US isn't so much the sole superpower as the main aircraft carrier & bank of the Empire of Judea that pan across the continents. Jews do have their own nation in Israel, but their real power rests in American Power or, more accurately, in the interconnected-ness of the globo-homo empire. Jewish power rests on hegemonism. If all white nations were to go primarily into nationalist-populist mode, the majority in each nation would ask, "What's in it for us?" Poles would put Poland first, Hungarians would put Hungary first, Germans would put Germany first, French would put France first, Brits would put Britain first, and etc. That means the primary goal of each white nation would be to serve the interests of its majority population than pander to the elitist-supremacist-minoritarian demands of Jewish globalists.
And so, Jewish hegemonists today are like the British Imperialists of old. Just like the British dreaded the rise of national consciousness in the American colonies and demands for national independence/liberation among Asian-Indians, Jewish imperialist-supremacists fear sentiments such as 'America First' or Russia First, Hungary First, Poland First, Britain First, and etc. Jews want all white folks in all white nations to chant 'Jews First', 'Israel First', and etc. And of course, AIPAC, ADL, and other Jewish groups are hard at work pushing for Jewish and Zionist interests. But Jews fear that this can lead to a backlash if they push too far. If everything turns into a matter of 'honor Jews', 'serve Jews', 'obey Jews', 'worship Jews', 'apologize to Jews', and etc., then white goyim may get tired of the shtick or, at the very least, begin to murmur, "Wow, Jews really do control everything." So, Jews seized on seemingly non-Jewish issues to push what is essentially a Jewish Interest. Globo-Homo-mania is a prime example of this. World Queery is just a proxy of World Jewry. Jews have been its main funders. Jewish-Homo alliance is close, not least because top homo movers and shakers are Jewish. Homo elite-minority supremacism of the neo-aristo variety complements Jewish elite-minority globalist supremacism. Also, homos and trannies turned leftism from Mayday to Gayday, thereby emphasizing the demands of urban haute elitists over the needs of middle and working classes. Jews and homos easily work hand-in-hand because both are overly represented in certain key elite institutions and industries.

With the 1619 Project, Jews are merely using blacks in the same way. By pushing the narrative that American National Independence sprung from a pro-slavery agenda, Jews are slyly arguing in favor of empire/imperialism over nation/nationalism. In other words, American colonies would have been more just and humane IF they had remained within the empire. It's like Jews rail against America First and American Nationalism on grounds that the US, as sole superpower, must maintain the New World Order... or else the world will blow up!! The US must embrace its neo-imperial destiny. Funny that nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine were wrecke precisely because of US intervention, but never mind. Jews are in imperialist mode. They now control the US that controls the EU and UK. (UK would be better with Brexit from Zionist-American Empire than from the EU.) Canada and Mexico are mere puppet-extensions of the US, and Japan and the so-called 'tigers' are little more than dogs of the US. China is independent, but it too has become overly reliant on US markets. Still, China, Russia, and Iran represent a solid bloc of nations that have pushed back against the empire. Jews almost had Russia in the 90s but lost it when Vladimir Putin consolidated power, and Jewish imperialists have been plotting all sorts of machinations to turn Russia into just another globo-homo colony.

Though Jews gained the greatest success in America and developed a certain sentimentality about the America as myth, they never cared for America as an independent and sovereign nation. The most famous Jewish American poem by Emma Lazarus defines America not a self-contained nation but one that opens its arms to other Jews(though Lazarus cleverly whitewashed her Judeo-Centrism with talk of immigrants-in-general, the wretched refuse and blah blah). As Jews were scattered across many nations, as Jews in America wanted to bring more Jewish Immigrants, and as Jews around the world sought to forge a vast network of Jewish Power, the notion of an autonomous and independent American nation was ultimately anathema to the grand Jewish plan. Jewish Power could operate more effectively in a world defined by American Imperialist Power.
Of course, American nation itself had developed as part of an empire, and the Westward expansion had the features of imperialism, colonization, and hegemony, though completed easily enough because the native savage 'Indians' were relatively few and far between. Wherever Anglo-Americans expanded, Jews found new opportunities to sink in their claws. Lands taken by whites from the Indians could lead to real estate bonanzas for Jews. Would there be Hollywood in Los Angeles if Anglos hadn't taken California from Mexico? In Jewish eyes, Anglo-Americans were a marvel because (1) despite their 'racism', they considered Jews as fellow whites (2) despite their Christianity, they were far less 'antisemitic' than Old World whites, not least because many White Americans considered America as a kind of New Jerusalem and prided themselves for their relative lack of religious prejudice (3) they practiced Rule of Law that, while not perfect, was fairer than anything else in the world and (4) they were an enterprising and capable people who opened up new frontiers for Jewish opportunity. Anglos were useful to Jews also but Anglo-Americans were even better for their relative lack of class snobbery and greater directness, which suited Jewish interests as Jews tended to be pushy, brazen, and vulgar, traits that might be disdained in Europe but rather admired in rags-to-riches America of "Go West, Young Man".
Now, if Jews were merely appreciative & grateful and latched onto White America as the best of all possible worlds, they might have joined with the American Nation. But despite the value they saw in Anglo-Americans, their main loyalty was still with other Jews around the world. Also, despite Anglo heritage and Anglo-American dynamism, Jews still regarded themselves as a superior, wiser, deeper, more profound, and ancient people. Consider the exchange in the Western movie CIMARRON(based on a novel by Jewish authoress Edna Ferber).

A white character says: "One of my ancestors was a signer of the Declaration of Independence."
A Jewish character says: "That's all right. A relative of mine, a fellow named Moses, wrote the Ten Commandments."

So, across time and space, Jews can never respect any goy nation as self-contained. Ultimately, they all exist to play a role in the realization of the Jewish World Hegemony. Goy concept of time and space is too petty for Jews. For Jews, ancient history is still relevant to future history. When Jews turn back the clock from 1776 to 1619, they are really wink-wink turning the clock as far back as 1619 B.C. or 1776 B.C. Jews seek to control the boundaries of 'America' and its time-frame. So, according to Jewish globalism, America is all of the globo-homo-shlomo empire. Americans have a right to invade and occupy the Middle East(as extension of the empire), and non-whites all over the world have the right to come to America. Indeed, anyone who wants to come to America, legally or illegally, is an 'American' or a 'dreamer' according to Jewish Political Geography.
As for the historical time frame of America, by pushing the 1619 Project, Jews are effectively saying WE get to decide the real timeline of America. And why not? Jews get to decide what marriage is by legalizing and celebrating 'gay marriage'. Jews now even decide what Christianity is, which explains why so many churches now fly the 'gay' flag. Jews lead, goyim follow. Jews got Big Think, goyim got Small Think. Jews are prophets, goyim are props. And with their control of mass media, Jews effectively plant our memories. In BLADE RUNNER, we learn Rachel's childhood memory is really an implant. When it comes to historical remembrance, our collective memory is implanted by the mass media with its selective collage of images and sounds, idols and narratives.
Now, if goyim were to awaken to the nature of this machination, it'd be much harder to fool them. But too many people still haven't figured out a way to see through the curtain at the man behind the Wizard(of Oz). Once the spell is broken, it's broken for good. It's like once a kid realizes that adults lied to him about Santa Claus, no amount of pro-Santa propaganda can make him believe again. Once you realize that a magic trick is bogus, no amount of new magic tricks, however dazzling and impressive, can fool you they're real. Even if you don't know how it's done, you know it's only a trick. Likewise, if people realized what kind of people control the media and how they operate and why, they would much less likely be fooled. So, the first step toward understanding the man behind the curtain of the 1619 Project is to smoke out its Jewish Supremacist angle. Indeed, isn't it odd that the 1619 Project doesn't have much to say about Jews despite the fact that Jews played a huge role in the slave trade, especially in South America that took in many more slaves. (By the way, if black slaves = prosperity, shouldn't Brazil be 10x richer than the US since it took in 10x the slaves? And since Africa had black slaves forever before the white man ever landed on the continent, shouldn't it be one big giant Wakanda? Funny how slavery turned out so profitable under management of Anglos but not so much under others.) Jews played a key financial role in the Southern Slave economy, and most Jews supported the Confederacy. What does NYT have to say about that?
Also, it's more than a bit amusing that slavery is made out to be America's greatest 'sin' when we've been led to believe there is nothing more evil than genocide. After all, doesn't the Shoah have a special place in tragic historiography because it was a case of genocide? Slaves at least get fed and are allowed to live. Now, if genocide is far worse than slavery, then it seems NYT should focus mainly on the 20,000 B.C. Project to commemorate the true beginning of America via the arrival of proto-Asiatic hunter-gatherers from across the Bering Sea. But Indians who suffered something like a 'genocide' are given short shrift by NYT. That gives the game away that NYT is concerned less with morality and justice than power and control. That's the first lesson we must take from any moral hysteria generated by Jewish Power. Jewish morality is selective in service to Jewish interests, not principled universal justice. Indeed, the very Jews who bitched about bad ole Joe McCarthy have been pushing the most insane paranoia about Russia. They very Jews who decry the Nazis have forged an alliance with Nazi-esque organizations in Ukraine. We saw from the Syrian War that Jewish Morality is purely about "Is it good for Jews?" So, Jews had no problems with Obama/Hillary pulling strings to turn Syria upside down, but when Trump muttered something about pulling troops out, Jews in media were up in arms about all those poor poor Kurds.
Same goes with selective narratives about blacks and Indians in the US. Or Palestinians for that matter. Why doesn't NYT have a 1881 Project about how the first Jewish immigration to Palestine set the grounds for Nakba pogroms, thereby paving the way for endless Middle East conflicts? Why hasn't NYT hired a single Palestinian-American journalist in the name of Diversity of views and as a voice of the oppressed Palestinians? To the Jews, the American Indian Narrative is just too inconvenient for their globalist control of the world. Why? The fate of American Indians suggest Mass Immigration = Genocide or Replacement of Native folks. Given what mass colonization followed by mass immigration did to the native indigenous folks of the Americas, Jews obviously don't want to go there. To be sure, there was a time when certain Jewish Leftists in the 1960s made an issue of the American Indians because Diversity then wasn't the mantra it has become today. Back then, Jews sought to associate 'genocide' of the American Indians with what the Nazis did. But since then, people are more likely to associate the fate of American Indians with the effects of mass immigration. Immigration = Genocide, thus undermining Emma Lazarus as the voice of justice. Also, more than a few people have drawn parallels between what whites did to American Indians and what Zionist colonist-imperialists did to the Palestinians. Besides, the 'genocide' of Indians might compete with the Shoah narrative, especially because unlike the Jewish Tragedy, the mass deaths of Indians happened here in this country — Shoah is a Jealous Genocide and there shall be no other genocides before it. And so, slavery has become a bigger injustice than genocide in the American Moral Narrative. If it's inconvenient to Jews, just never mind.

At the very least, Jews might be less obnoxious if white people shot back. After all, contrary to the Jewish Narrative of the Tribe always having been hapless victims of Christian goyim, Jews played a sizable role in Western Imperialism. Jewish financiers bankrolled many ventures of conquests, plunder, and slavery. Jews were the main sellers of opium to the Chinese. Jewish merchants sold guns and ammo to whites to kill Indians with. Jews ran much of Southern finance. And Jewish agents, managers, and moguls exploited and ripped off countless black singers, athletes, and other talents. Also, the increasing tension between Jews and blacks in New York suggests many Jews regard blacks as a nuisance at best and thugs at worst while many blacks regard Jews as super-white people who grab all the loot. No wonder Jews at NYT are pushing the 1619 Project to distract people from the very real problems between Jews and blacks. Of course, the problem is made worse by the relatively poorer religious Jewish community. Whereas most secular Lib Jews are affluent enough to live safely apart from blacks and work in institutions/industries that don't deal directly with them, there's the Hasidim and certain Orthodox communities who live in proximity with blacks. These Jews manipulate real estate to squeeze blacks out of their historic neighborhoods. Also, they dislike blacks because Negroes commit lots of crime and act wild and crazy. Unlike secular Lib Jews in the 50s and 60s who made their money and joined the White Flight or Jew Flew from blackening areas, these ultra-religious Jews seem stuck in their ghettos(and in a ghetto-mentality) that keeps them in closer proximity with wild and crazy blacks. But all such goes against the BS narrative about Noble Negroes and Holy Hebrews in a sacred alliance against white 'racists' and 'nazis'. So, Jews have to keep pulling out Emmett Till stories and now this 1619 circus out of their arse to sustain the illusion of Jews and blacks united against Evil Whites.

Of course, reasons as to why Jews favor blacks over American Indians have to do with numbers, profitability, idolatry, and potency. There are many more blacks than American Indians, and so black concerns get more hearing. But then, why do blacks get more attention than 'Hispanics' who are now bigger in number? Also, don't 'Hispanic' browns have a tragic history that is even worse than black history? Historians say the arrival of Europeans led to the demise of over 90% of the natives, and this was especially tragic in what became Latin-America as something like 55 million out of 60 million perished, mostly of diseases. Also, unlike blacks and yellows who still have their own nations, browns of Latin America lost possession of their ancient lands forever under the Diversity-regimen. Indeed, it's telling that the #1 issue in Latin American politics is whether to go with 'Latino' or 'Latinx' instead of asking why the brown folks of Mexico, Central America, and South America should be referred to as 'Latino' or 'Hispanic' when they have identities and histories going back many thousands of years prior to the arrival of whites. Even with 'Hispanic' numbers eclipsing black numbers, the Jewish Hegemonic Narrative is fixated on blacks than on browns. Now, one might say it's because black history is American History whereas brown history isn't(until relatively recently), but then, why does the US make such a big deal of Zionism, Israel, Shoah, and European 'antisemitism' when those are NOT part of American history?
Again, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jews?" While black numbers matter a lot, they are also profitable to Jewish merchant-kings of sports, music industry, and entertainment. Blacks, being better athletes and louder singers, gain top slots in athletics and popular culture, and Jewish moguls rake in billions in profits by recruiting and promoting blacks. Black success in pop culture and sports have imbued the black race with power of idolatry(or 'idology' or idolatry as ideology) that has great sway among whites, even conservatives. So many whites revere and near-worship blacks as awesome demigods. So, naturally, Jews understand that blacks, as the god-hero-race, have far greater sway among white folks spellbound by black awesomeness in sports, music, and sexuality. Psycho-spiritually, people tend to feel most guilty when they feel they've wronged something superior. It's like Americans are more outraged by a white hunter killing a lion than a skunk(or by a Japanese vessel killing a whale than a slaughter house killing a million pigs). Lions and whales have iconic power, skunks and pigs don't. If Jews tried to make whites feel guilty about American Indians or short brown people from south of the border, it wouldn't be as effective. Even if white minds were made to consciously understand that red folks and brown folks suffered a lot at the hands of whitey, something within the white psyche wouldn't feel all that tragic. Even as they think, "what a tragic people", they'd feel, "a bunch of mediocrities who deserved to lose."
Granted, the tragedy of the Indian once had greater traction when (1) the American Narrative was controlled by Anglo-Americans (2) there was still the memory of Indians as tough worthy foes — in that regard the American Western did the Red Man a favor by featuring him as a fearless and fearsome hunter-warrior — and (3) American values were more stoic and inhibited, thereby more admiring of the Indian temperament. As Anglo-America was forged from confrontations between white settlers and Indian tribes, a certain respect was due to the people who were here first and put up a brave fight. Also, when the making of America was still fresh in the minds of Americans(and when blacks had yet to reach domination in sports), the image of hunter-warrior prowess was owned by the American Indians. Even Indians who'd savagely killed white folks, such as Geronimo, came to be included in the pantheon of American Mythology. They were deemed worthy warriors who fought for their land, culture, and honor.
But that was then. Anglo-American narratives have fallen by the wayside, replaced by Jewish-favored ones. Especially with the fading of the Western genre, most Americans have no more sense of Indians than of Cowboys. And the American Popular imagination has been taken over by black rappers, black athletes, and handful of whites who aspire to sing black or just hang on in sports where blacks rule. Jews understand that Progressivism isn't enough. It supplies (self)righteous vibes and a set of ideas, but ideology isn't enough to get people excited. Jews understand the power of idolatry, and so, they combine Progress with Prowess. Progressivism is about the Idea(usually supplied by Jews), and Prowess-ivism is about the Idol(usually supplied by blacks as top-dog-stars of sports, pop music, and sexuality). In other words, it's not enough to bait 'white guilt' but to switch on 'white thrill' that, esp since the time of Elvis Presley, has centered on acting the White Negro. So, Jews understand that blackness has the potency to make whites cower to black power. Even whites who roll their eyes at talk of Progress tune into the Superbowl to drool all over Black Prowess, which means White Pro-Wuss. Now, if American Indians were the toughest race while most blacks were like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis, the current Narrative might work differently, but blacks dominate the idols. It's like what Al Pacino's Schwarz says to DiCaprio's character in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD, "... playing punching bag to every swinging dick..., that's gonna have a psychological effect on how the audience perceives you... Down goes you, down goes your career as leading man." In other words, the Image matters. When black men began to beat up white men in sports and took over as symbols of manhood, it had a profound impact on mass psychology and perception of Americanism. It wasn't just a matter of black individuals beating white individuals but blacks as new idols smashing the white idols of manhood. Of course, cucks like Ken Burns and Quentin Tarantino are okay with this and even celebrate it, but its effect on the white race has been far more damaging than knocking down Confederate statues. (More than not, 1619 Project is less about blacks as founders than blacks as idol-champs that came much later. Having come to dominate American Idolatry late in the game, there is a retroactive effort to make blacks crucial from the very beginning.) Indeed, if white men dominated sports but lost all Confederate statues, they would be in a much better position. Though ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD has almost no blacks and the violence is between whites vs whites(and a bit of pitter-patter between Brad Pitt's character and 'Bruce Lee'), it is cognizant of the power of idols and how fantasy idols serve as compensation for defeat in reality. When whites lost in boxing, they looked to Rocky who was fantasy-champion in the movies. And yellows looked to Bruce Lee as fantasy hero who could beat up not only Japanese but big Russians and towering Negroes. Tarantino, no stranger to fantasy and ludicrous violence(esp in KILL BILL and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS), seems in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD to be more thoughtful about the dichotomy between real violence and movie violence. Anyway, when whites lost to blacks in sports and felt threatened by black music, they looked to white heroes in movies and adopted black music to create White Rock. That way, whites maintained the semblance of domination. But now, even movies are awash in Jungle Fever, and black rappers took over as top musical acts. Whites are totally under cultural colonization of blacks. Blackness has potency over whites(and even over NBA-worshiping Chinese), and this is NYT uses blackness to toy and mess with not only White Guilt but White Thrill.

On the matter of black labor building Early America, there is much truth to this, but what's appalling is blacks want all the credit, like they want all the grammies, as if all plaques must be for blacks. There were plenty of white farmers in the North and South as well, and they did grueling labor day in and day out. And most factory workers and coal-miners were white. Also, if black labor, especially slave labor, has such a magical impact on the economy, why didn't the countless slave economies of Africa result in growth and development? It's been said slavery began in Africa 10,000 years ago, but blacks seemed not to have gained much by using black slaves. Besides, slavery was common all over Arabia, India, and East Asia. Yet, it didn't lead to development of modern economies. And black slavery in Latin America failed to produce first-rank economies. In contrast, Canada-Australia-New-Zealand became successful economies without black slaves. And if black slavery was key to the rise of modern economy in the US, how did the Germans, Japanese, Swedes, and rest of them manage to build prosperous modern economies without black slaves?
So, while it's true that black labor played an important role in southern agrarian economies in Early America, it seems absurd to insist that it was THE most important factor. If America hadn't brought over a single slave, its economy would surely have been slower to develop, but it would have been better in the long run as the US would have averted the Civil War, problems of racial tension, black violence, and black pathology that turned Detroit from a city of the future into a city of Jafric lunacy. And look at black blight in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, and etc. Blacks-in-America proved to be a short-term gain, long-term loss. Imagine Detroit without blacks. It'd be a first-rank city. But blacks messed up Detroit worse than atomic bomb did Hiroshima, at least in the long run. Afrotomic Bomb is the most horrible thing in the world.
Furthermore, let's consider South Africa. Why did its economy come to be bigger than all of black Africa combined during the Apartheid Era? Because whites were the ruling and guiding hand over black labor. Blacks can provide labor but don't have much to offer in terms of brains, vision, organization, or persistence. Black-ruled African nations had as black labor as South Africa or even more, but they weren't able to get anything done because blacks made incompetent leaders, owners, governors, and managers. Indeed, the fact that all those black Africans want to scramble for Europe and live under whites is proof enough that black labor can't do anything on its own.

At any rate, an economy isn't just about labor and physical power. All European and Asian nations had horses and cows, but certain European nations did far more with them than others did. Horses and cows surely played a very important role in the development of the American economy. Horse power facilitated travel and communication(prior to the telegraph) and cow power plowed the earth. But horses and cows on their own couldn't have built an economy. It all depended on how they were used by humans. And the same goes for black labor. Africa had plenty of black labor and lots of slavery, but Africans never came up with a good way to use black physicality except to beat bongo drums, chuck spears at hippos, and run like a mofo. And Hispanic and Jewish slave-holders in Latin America were far less efficient than white American slave-masters. Given the numbers of black slaves in Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela, those nations should have been first-rank economies if we follow the logic of the 1619 Project. It was White Americans who came up with more efficient(and humane) ways to use black slave labor for maximum results. Whites came up with the Whips-and-Watermelons methodology of Governance over Negroes. If Negroes acted all jive-ass and uppity, they got the whip. But if they picked cotton and called the white man 'massuh', they got an extra helping of watermelons. In Latin American nations, there was too much whip and not enough melons. And as whites were smaller as share of the population or mixed-in-race with native browns in Latin America, there was a more confused identity and sense of purpose among the owners and elites.

None of this is to diminish the contribution of black labor to the development of Early America, but it has to be seen in a proper context. Black labor was efficient in America ONLY BECAUSE whites knew how to harness its power. Also, one of the features of Western Civilization, especially since the rise of capitalism, was the constant advancement in science and technology, and this was entirely a white thing. Did blacks invent or make the ships that sailed the oceans or the cotton gin? And did blacks invent the machines that finally rendered slavery outdated and burdensome? But blacks are blind to all this because their jungle nature tends to be more aggressive, abrasive, self-centered, proud, and full of jive. This is why stoking black vanity is like serving more alcohol to a wino or adding more gasoline to the fire. The natural megalomania of blacks need deflating, not inflating. Of course, Jews inflate black megalomania against whites, and this is why whites should react in kind and inflate black megalomania against Jews and point out all the bad things Jews have done to blacks. But then, Jews will whine about 'antisemitism'. They encourage blacks to hate whites, but whites better not encourage blacks to hate Jews. As whites are such worthless cucks at the feet of Jews, they will go on suffering this humiliation instead of manning up and fighting back in kind.

As for blacks who say their struggle helped to improve American Democracy, this is both true and untrue. In a way, there was genuine inspiration in the American struggle to end slavery and recognize blacks as fellow humans and Americans. And there was genuine greatness to the Civil Rights Movement. But wouldn't American Democracy have been better IF not a single black had been brought to the Americas? There would have been no slavery, no war between the states, and no ugly racial tensions. And blacks wouldn't have suffered as slaves in America and would have no reason to bitch endlessly about 'honkeys'. After all, European nations evolved into democracies just the same WITHOUT racial problems. Wasn't it more pleasant for them than for Americans who had a huge racial challenge to surmount? Did Australian democracy suffer for the lack of blacks? If anything, recent African immigration to Australia seems to have resulted in all manner of crime and pathology.
American democracy would have evolved faster and more naturally without blacks. After all, the reason the North advanced faster in most areas than the South was because it was all white and felt more secure to welcome change. If anything, blacks held back the advancement of democracy because of racial tensions. Also, the problem wasn't entirely with whites. Blacks were not white people with black skin. Racial differences are real. Blacks were naturally the meaner, more aggressive, more thuggish, more psychopathic, and less intelligent race. They posed a real threat to white security and safety. Though KKK was excessive in its actions, there was reason for white fright over blacks. The black rampage since the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s is a testament to this fact. Though white nationalists or white advocates fixate on IQ differences between whites and blacks, that is the least important factor behind race problems. Far more crucial is the Song-Dong-Strong or SDS Factor. Black voice has sirenic power over whites, so much so that even after blacks terrorize whites and cause more problems, whites are yet again lulled and seduced by black vocality. Bigger dongs of black men lead to jungle fever and cuckery of white men. And tougher muscles of blacks lead to much criminality and victimization of whites, which is why whites need guns for safety. If whites and blacks were same in everything but intelligence, it would hardly matter. After all, Mexicans are said to be somewhat less intelligent than whites, but as they aren't tougher or more aggressive than whites, their only problem for whites is demography. Mexicans don't harm whites physically or threaten white idols or symbols of white prowess.
It's often been said Demography Is Destiny, but Supremography also matters. After all, if numbers decide history, why is it that Jews who are only 2% of the US have such total power over the nation? When the US was 89% white Christian and only 2% Jewish, the Law of Demography-Is-Destiny would have secured white rule over Jews. But Jews gained mastery over whites despite their deficiency in numbers. Why? Jews were superior to whites in IQ, stronger in will & personality, larger in vision, and more shameless in deviousness. And why are blacks gaining such prestige, reverence, and power in the West despite being minorities? Blacks are 13% in the US and fewer percentage-wise in Canada and European nations, but they dominate much of the idolatry as athletes, singers, 'twerking' skanks, and studs. Also, as Jewish-controlled US academia and media serve as model for all of the West, many whites in Europe look to MLK and Mandela as the premier saint-prophets. As far as Europeans are concerned, they themselves are frigid and frozen Ice People who were thawed and given warmth by Negroes as the sun god(and homos as the 'rainbow').

Anyway, even if the black story added something to the progress of American Democracy, blacks themselves gained higher morality and concept of human rights only through the white man. While blacks, like Asian Indians led by Gandhi, held the Western Moral Mirror up to the Hypocritical White Face that said one thing but did another, the values that they espoused came from whites, not from their own cultures. After all, what was indigenous black African values but oogity-boogity and jungle-jivery. Indeed, look how blacks have been reverting to their true nature once they gained total freedom in the US. Black culture is now about Rap thuggery and 'twerking' skank-ass-ho behavior. So, while it's true that through blacks and other non-whites, the Christian-Enlightenment West became aware of their shortcomings and hypocrisies, it's no less true that non-whites gained higher values and advanced political morality from contact with whites. Frederick Douglas and MLK didn't get their ideas from the Dark Continent but from Western Civilization.

As for blacks claiming cultural ownership over the very civilization that enslaved them, changed their names, and erased their cultures, it seems absurd but is also indicative of how history works. And we see this all across the West. The very blacks who used to yell, "Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Culture's Got to Go" are now claiming not only America but Europe as 'African' or 'Always Diverse'. And white cucks are aiding in this: BBC made several shows about past British history with blacks in white roles. Even Finland made a TV movie where a black guy is the national hero who fought the Russians. Blacks realized that the West is too good to let go. Too rich, too advanced, too impressive. But since the West has been white than black, blacks(and their enablers) are altering true history to push the myth that Europe was always multi-racial or that Middle Age Europe wasn't white.

But then, didn't the Germanic barbarians do something similar in adopting the culture and partially even the identity of the very people who'd done so much to conquer, enslave, and kill the Germanics? The Roman Empire at its height invaded Germanic lands and slayed tons of people and enslaved even more. And yet, it was so impressive that many Germanics adopted Roman Imperial identity. Indeed, the myth of Roman Might was such that even after the fall of Rome, various Germanic kings sought to revive it as a Germanic thing. The sackers of Rome claimed to be heirs of Rome. And even though the monotheistic religion of Christianity that arose from Semitic Jews came to destroy the indigenous European pagan cultures in one of the greatest 'cultural genocides' ever, the white 'victims' of this cultural erasure adopted the New Faith as if it had always been their highest value system. History and humanity are funny that way.

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

200 years from now, when an honest historian asks, "Why did the West fall?", the main reason will be white people in the late 20th century and 21st century came to most revere, admire, and worship the people most antithetical to civilization. Blacks-and-Civilization is like drinking-and-driving. But due to the combination of 'White Guilt' and White Thrill, whites became spiritually and sensually owned by blacks.

Are there grounds for 'white guilt'? Not really. True, blacks suffered under whites, but history has always been about one people clobbering another. Consider what the Bantus did to other blacks(and to other Bantu Tribes) in Africa. Consider what Romans did to Germanic barbarians and ancient Britons. Mass killings and mass enslavement. Consider what Mongols did to Russia and Persia. Consider what whites did to natives of the New World. Consider the bloody history of the Aztecs. It's all tragic and sad, but no single people had a monopoly on horribleness.
So, why the special hysteria about black suffering? US empire killed millions overseas in the 20th century while a mere thousand blacks were lynched by whites, but there is more outrage about one dead Negro than many millions dead among non-whites. It's like Romans killed so many people by way of crucifixion, but Christians only care about the Crucifixion of Jesus. Why? As the Son of God, He was deemed the Superior Being wronged by inferior humans. Thus, Jesus's suffering matters infinitely more in the hearts of Christians. Once blacks were lionized as the Magic Negro and Macho super-dude, inferior-feeling whites looked upon blacks as the superior race, and that accounts for the excessive 'white guilt' about blacks, the psychology of which Jews understand and exploit to their benefit in order to control and own whites. After all, the most effective way to take away a people's pride and autonomy is by 'guilt' and 'thrill' for the Other. 'White Guilt' paralyzes white pride and white assertion. Whites in atonement mode seek moral redemption by serving the Holy Other, namely Jews and Blacks. And white thrill for the Other in sports and pop music becomes a kind of addiction, like to drugs. Even as it harms whites, they keep sniffing the glue.

Whites need to realize two things.

(1) While white history is certainly not without 'sin', this is true of ALL peoples. Black Slavery was hardly unique as a historical wrong. If there is one advantage to the fall of the Liberal Paradigm, it's that people may regard the US as just another nation with the same kinds of historical crimes and problems, not some 'city on a hill' that should be judged by ludicrously high standards. In a perverse sort of way, all this 'white guilt' stuff is paradoxically the product of excessive white pride. White Americans were so full of themselves in pride of having created an exceptional nation of liberty and justice that they became extremely sensitive and upset to evidence to the contrary. Therefore, instead of romanticizing America as the beginning of freedom and justice, it makes more sense to see America as an extension of human history with warts and all: Wars, conflicts, oppression, exploitation, and etc. Then there would be far less reason to be so 'triggered' by the fact that the American Nation was drenched in 'sin'... like the rest of humanity in all parts of the world. So, hell with the Liberal Paradigm. As for blacks who point to all the faults of white history, whites should shoot back and point to all the vile things of black Africa, black race in general, and black culture. True pride must be based on the mud-pie of human reality, not the pie in the sky of impossible idealism. American Pride should be based on American Achievement, not American Perfection. What people have been perfect?

(2) Whites need to realize that the very things that most excite them about blacks also represent the greatest threat to the white race(and to other races because Western Worship of the Black is having a global impact; White West is still the model for the world, and so, if whites go 'black', so will other peoples to their own detriments). Are blacks better athletes? Yes, but what are the implications of this fact? Tougher blacks in schools, streets, buses, and elevators can beat up whites with impunity. Whites need to learn to connect the dots. It's like a stupid baboon cheering on a leopard will realize soon enough it will be next on the leopard's menu. In other words, any white guy who cheers on a black football player might as well be cheering on blacks beating, robbing, raping, or murdering weaker whites. (While we can all be impressed by the prowess of anything or anyone, we also need to ask, "What does this prowess or power imply for me and my side?" After all, while Iranians may marvel at US military prowess, it would be stupid for them to cheer for it as it could very well turn Iran into rubble. We can be amazed by the power of a lion, tiger, or grizzly bear, but we'd be stupid to cheer for its prowess when it's charging right at us.) It means white manhood will be lost to blacks, and it just so happens that a race without manhood and respect of its womenfolk is a dead race. Just look at the spread of Afro-Colonization of White Wombs in US, EU, and UK as the result of the demise of white manhood at the feet of Negroes.
We see this in Japan as well. Even though Japan is, as yet, still mostly homogeneous, Japanese men have lost their pride of manhood under globalist pressure. Japanese youths grow up watching Mongols sumo monsters toss away Japanese wrestlers like ping pong balls. Japanese MMA shows feature whites and blacks destroying Japanese runts. The demented sexual culture of Japan have encouraged the women to grow up as clubbing whores who latch onto foreign men. The result? Not long ago, Japan put forth a mulatto as Miss Japan, and its most revered athletes are mulattoes in tennis and track, products of Japanese women and a black men. Even before demography is messed up, the psycho-national health of a nation can be crippled by the destruction of symbols of national manhood. We see the same thing all across Europe. France is an extreme case where blacks dominate sports almost 100%. But even in nations with far fewer blacks, the black takeover of sports has led to countless whites looking to blacks as representatives of national heroism. Now, one could argue athletes are not heroes and just physically talented sportsmen, but the fact is so many people the world over look to athletes as their champions, demigods, and superstars.

If white folks realize the dangers of 'White Guilt' and 'White Thrill' and act accordingly, they might survive. But at this point, it seems rather hopeless. Whites, both Libs and Cons, gushingly worship the Negro. Donald Trump too is just a cuck to Negrohood. And what did George W. Bush say was the worst day of his presidency? When god-man Kanye the ass said Bush doesn't like black people. Vaginal EU is now wide open to countless millions of black Africans. In US and Canada, the masses have black sports and black music as their main entertainment while Elite Institutions like Harvard and Deep State go the extra step to elevate blacks to highest positions regardless of merit on the premise that nothing imbues an organization or institution with holiness as Having-Our-Magic-Negro. Of course, because the elites can choose the Nice Smiley-faced Negroes for themselves, they can carry on with the illusion that blacks are so obammy-whammy. But things get pretty hairy at the lower levels of society where the less fortunate whites must integrate with ghastly Negroes. COMING APART means Upper Whites get the Nice Negroes while the Lower Whites get the Nasty Ni**az. But if two types of whites have one thing in common, it's that both elite white men and lower white males are willing to be worthless cucks to the blacks who take their women.

So, 200 yrs from now, when an honest historian wonders WHY THE WEST FELL, it would have been because the combination of White Guilt and White Thrill prevented whites from waking up and taking tough measures to save the West from the blacks, especially as whites were mental minions of Jewish Supremacist Power that used blacks to keep the lid on white pride of identity. Better to die worshiping the Magic Negro than be accused of the heresy of 'racism'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter to a Globo-Homo Freak who Badmouths Ethan in John Ford's THE SEARCHERS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/john-ford-and-the-politics-of-the-western/

Are you so-called 'lefties' capable of saying anything other than 'racism, racism, racism' about THE SEARCHERS? 

And I find this passage hilarious. Andrew Stewart: 

"He wishes to kill his own family for inter-ethnic coupling. When Ethan speaks the wretched words he does, it is vital to remember that Wayne was saying on screen what a whole generation of fathers were saying in private about the idea of their precious white daughters going to school and perhaps one day dating African teens. The film’s literal Indian War is a deep analogue for the culture war that was going on at the time.... y understanding that Wayne’s Ethan is as psychotic and sexually-confused as De Niro’s Travis Bickle, it is possible to see the earlier film on a psycho-analytic level that otherwise escapes today’s viewers."  

You describe yourself as 'queer'. I find it funny that a guy whose idea of 'sex' is fecal penetration with other men would be making fuss about OTHER people's psycho-sexual hangups. 

Maybe you haven't heard but sexuality is DARK. It is animal. It is about territory, pride, possession. It isn't something so genteel like a tea party. It isn't lovey dovey at the core despite the romantic trimmings(but then, is the art of courtship even alive anymore in the West?)

The reason you don't get THE SEARCHERS is because your 'lefty' types see everything through the idiotic prism of 'racism'. Also race-ism is Truth  insofar as different races and racial differences exist. Race-ism, properly defined, should mean belief in the reality of race and racial diversity/differences. After all, '-ism' means belief, and there is no reason why race + ism should automatically mean racial hatred or supremacism or prejudice. 

But first, to get a better grasp of THE SEARCHERS, suppose we take out the racial element. The emotional dynamics would be more or less the same though, of course, the factor of race makes it more intense. It's like this: If a black guy kills a black woman, the family members of the slain victim will feel vengeful toward black killer. They might even feel murderous. But the rage will even be more charged IF the killer is white. Then, it will be seen as a white-on-black-crime. Indeed, the whole BLM outrage was predicated on the race-rage that young black men are being killed by WHITE cops. Why was US so angry when Pearl Harbor happened. It was because the 'Japs' done it. Jewish media and FDR(that wanted US entry into WWII) was livid with joy since the anger at the yellow 'Japs' would rile up all Americans, even isolationists, to enter the war. 

So, race makes it more intense, but sexual dynamics are pretty dark and brooding even without it. Take THE ODYSSEY. The hero comes back and kills all the suitors. He also kills the female servants of the house who sexually serviced the suitors. Odysseus is about manly pride. He has to reinstate his authority as man of the house. He kills other Greeks, but the rage isn't different in kind from that of Ethan Edwards. Though the element of race makes it more charged in THE SEARCHERS, Ethan's blood thirst is driven by healthy manly pride and rage. Maybe you, being a queer, lack an understanding of real manhood. Maybe you are used to other men sticking their dongs into your bung. Maybe you like to play bitch to the stronger Negro. Maybe, maybe not. But real men are like Ethan, a true hero on the Greek scale. And it's not just about race, race, race. Indeed, suppose his brother's family had been killed by Liberty Valance and his gang than by Indians. Ethan would be just as vengeful and angry. He would want to hunt them down and kill them.

As for his willingness to kill Debbie, it's dark but understandable. Ethan really wants to save her but fears that she will grow up to becoming a breeder for the Indians. Imagine that. A tribe of 'savages' murdered his brother and  his brother's children. The woman Ethan dearly loved was raped and butchered by them. Same was done to the older daughter.  OF COURSE Ethan is angry as hell. 

Suppose I'm a leader of a gang, and my gang did that to YOUR family. Wouldn't you be enraged? It'd be PERSONAL. It's like in THE GODFATHER. After the attempt on his father's life, Michael felt obligated to kill the Turk and the police captain. And Vito Corleone(Deniro) eventually returned to Sicily to take revenge on the man who killed his family. Vito was calm on the outside but his vendetta had always been there. And Hyman Roth is obsessed about getting back at Michael because of Moe Green. Jews may act 'liberal', but they are intensely clannish deep down inside and never ever forget. They still want to destroy Germany out of revenge. Maybe you don't understand such sense of revenge, pride, honor, and family/clan loyalty since you're a deracinated white queer 'lefty' who prefers abstract ideas of 'social justice' that are mostly bogus and divorced from reality. 

If Ethan's brother's family had been spared and if Jorgensen's place had been raided, Ethan wouldn't have been so obsessed. The issue here is PERSONAL. Ethan really loved Martha. It was bad enough that he'd lost her to his brother(just like Marty nearly lost Laurie to the guitar strummer). But to find her body raped and killed by Indians? That's some bad shit! Ethan loves Debbie and wants to save her. But he knows as the years pass, she will become part of the very tribe that raped and butchered her family — Ethan's brother and Martha. She will be serving the very people who committed horrors against her own kind. Of course, we  and even Ethan know that it's not Debbie's fault. She was taken when young and the Indians accepted her as their own as long as she makes babies who will grow up to be warriors who attack white people. THIS is what Ethan cannot stand. But your queero PC mentality can only see 'racism, racism, racism'. You don't understand true manly pride cuz you're a globo-homo. 

But surely even a homo can have feelings like that of Ethan. Suppose my gang wiped out your family. Suppose my gang is ultra-right-wing and hate 'progressives' such as yourself. Suppose my gang took your young sister(whom you dearly love) and plan to use her womb to create ultra-right warriors who will attack and kill more 'progressives'.  Wouldn't you be livid and angry? Wouldn't a part of you wish your sister was dead than join the enemy(like Patty Hearst, topic of the Paul Schrader movie) and attack your kind? 

Indeed, suppose we flip the SEARCHERS. Suppose it is about a bunch of white cowboys that attack an Indian village. Suppose these imperialist & 'genocidal' white men rape red women and kill almost everyone. But they take one Indian boy and raise him as 'honorary white' and teach him to hate and kill Indians. Suppose the Indian father or uncle of that boy wants to rescue him. But suppose the years pass and the abducted boy has joined with the whites to fight Indians. Wouldn't it at least be understandable why the Indian father and uncle would be angry and possibly want to see him dead? 

Do you know about the Ottoman Turks? They ruled over Greece for 300 yrs. They took many Greek Christian boys, brainwashed them, and turned them into Janissary trained to fight and destroy Christendom. Many Greek mothers would have preferred to have their kids die than be taken and used that way. Does your queer mind at least understand such mindset? Or would you accuse those Greek mothers of 'racism'? 

Indeed, Greek mythology and folklore are filled with such stories. And what is the main musical form of US today?  Rap music which is about tribal blacks yapping about how their life is all about fighting and fuc*ing and how they finna blow away anyone who done dis their pride. You 'progressives' are okay with the violent sexuality of Rap Culture, but you bitch about how Ethan is too enraged over his brother and family having been mutilated in and rubbed out in the most gruesome manner. You're too much of a pansy PC ideologue to understand human psychology and instinct. Sure, Ethan is angry, even unhinged at times, but his feelings are understandable and all-too-human. And on some level, it is virile and healthy. Man is, at the root, an animal driven by survival, sex, territory, and pride. It is YOU who are sick because you lack such healthy instincts. Instead, you have the anti-instinct of decadence and racial suicide. 

Now, I'm not saying men should always act out their natural rage. The World would blow up like in DR. STRANGELOVE. But those instincts are natural and of the essence. There is a powerful bond within the race and between parents and children. 

Why does the black woman in BELOVED by Toni Morrison kill her own baby? She would rather have the baby be murdered than grow up a slave.  To Ethan, Debbie is a sex slave of the very people who raped and murdered her family. And from her womb will come more warriors to kill whites. To him, that isn't 'being alive'. 

Of course, you know and I know that the history of the West was tragic for the Indians. From their point of view, they were defending their own land from white invaders. This is all very true. Indians had their own reasons and pride. The Walter Hill movie GERONIMO is magnificent in showing a man who fights for his race, land,and pride. Sure, he does horrible things and kills 'innocent' white folks, but it is war, and war brings out the 'worst' on all sides. After all, it was the democratic powers that economically blockaded Germany in WWI, thereby driving many German children to starvation. It's like Ethan shooting bison to starve the Indians. And the Jews who control the US forced sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, killing by some estimates 500,000 women and children. Ethan has nothing on the Jews when it comes to mass killing. And it was democratic Harry Truman who nuked Japan and killed all those babies. And Jews used Barack Obama to aid terrorists in Syria to bring down Assad. It's amusing how so many progs bitch about how 'racist-wacist' Ethan is but are totally okay with Jewish-Zionist mass murder around the world. 

Anyway, we need a better understanding of the dynamics of male pride, its dark side but also as a source of courage and inspiration. After all, what is the catalyst of events in SEVEN SAMURAI. One of the farmers had his wife taken by the bandits. He was helpless to do anything about it and feels shame as a man. His wife is being raped by scumbag, but he's impotent to do anything about her. He feels the kind of rage that Ethan feels. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy who'd accuse the farmer of 'psycho-sexual hangups'.  Or consider Angel in THE WILD BUNCH. He arrives in his village and finds out his father was murdered by Mapache. And his woman was taken... or worse... she freely went off with the very man who killed Angel's father and pillaged the village. So, when Angel encounters Teresa and she mocks him and laughs at him, of course he's angry as hell and shoots the whore. It is a barbaric act in a barbaric world, but wholly understandable. A man's pride can take only so much humiliation. Akira Kurosawa understood this. Sam Peckinpah understood. So did John Ford. But all you can do is bitch about 'racism, racism'. 

Also, you say Ethan's fear of miscegenation is some kind of sickness. Why?  If a white man has a white daughter, he naturally wants the girl to look up to her father and marry someone like him. It's part of human nature. If she goes with another race, it means she finds the Other Men to be racially-sexually superior. She would be sexually betraying her own kind. 

During Southern slavery, black men sometimes felt the same way. Some black women happily themselves to the massuh. White master had the whip hand, and the black ho wanted the white man's seed than that of the Negro. Imagine how humiliated the Negro male must have felt. 

In today's world, white women are finding out that black men are more muscular and bigger-donged. They look down on white males as 'slow white boys'. So, it is only natural that many white men would feel hurt and offended by this. Why wouldn't white men feel like Japanese men after WWII? Bigger and beefier white and black GI's were turning Japanese women into whores, and Japanese women flaunted their relations with American occupiers in front of defeated yellow men. Of course, Japanese men were wounded in pride.  Races are different . Black men are more muscular and tougher than white men. So, it is NATURAL for white men to feel threatened in racial/masculine in relation to blacks, just like Japanese men felt belittled and humiliated by American men sexually conquering Japanese women. And there is a whore element in womenfolk. Women are naturally into hierarchy. They are not egalitarian in their sexual preferences. They want winners with more money, more muscle, and/or bigger dongs.  So, Japanese men were bound to lose out to American men, and white men are bound to lose out to black men.  It's like French women threw themselves at Nazi German victors upon French surrender. Given that France lost, you'd think French women would have stuck with their own men out of national loyalty. But they didn't give a shit about that. They saw German men as winners and French men as losers.  French women acted like Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH. Like Arletty said, "My heart belongs to France but my ass belongs to the world."  Women are natural whores who will always go with Power.  Women like power and look down on 'losers'. Women may be politically on the 'left', but their sexual preferences are hierarchical. They wanna put out to the Best and reject all the Rest. 

Historically and socially, white men had the advantage over blacks, who'd been historically oppressed. But white men were right to fear that, if social discrimination were removed, black men would gain over white men. Tougher black guys would beat up white guys, and white girls would black men as racially-sexually superior. You see, race-ism is TRUE. Races are not the same. Get rid of social 'racism' and you end up NOT with equality but natural 'racism' that picks new winners and losers. Look at sports. Social racism of Yesterday favored whites. But natural racism of Today favors blacks and discriminate against whites, browns, and yellows. We say US is so diverse, but NFL and NBA is almost all black. 

So, white fathers were understandably worried about their daughters going with Negro men. It meant racial-sexual defeat of white males, not colorblind racial equality. 

Such white girls(as 'mudsharks') were not opting for racial equality but rejecting white men as being less manly than mandingo-like Negroes. We hear of the cuckold fetish among white liberals. Why is it racially so unequal? We don't hear of white couples inviting Mexican, Hindu, or Asian men to their bedrooms. It is usually the Negro. And we don't hear of black guys inviting white guys to do their women. Tyrone don't say, "Hey, white Wilbur, hump my Yolanda and humiliate by black ass."

And what does Rap music tell us about black sexuality? Negro rappers say, "the only thing on our minds is fucking and fighting and whupping faggoty ass white boys and fucking white girls." 

I find it amusing that white Libs condemn Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION for saying that black men are a bunch of sexual beasts, but when one looks at rap culture, porn industry, sports franchises, and much else(all controlled by Jews and Liberals), the message is black men are wild studs, white girls should put out to them, and white boys should accept their wimpy secondary status and be cucky pussyboys.  White Libs SAY one thing but they CELEBRATE another. They say all races are the same and race is just a myth, but they really celebrate black superiority as athletes, singers, sex beasts, mandingos, and studs. And the music industry is run by Lib Jews and 'progressives'. Not by KKK or by D.W. Griffith. But their favored depiction of Negroes is as thugs and sex lunatics. And blacks themselves lead all the other races in promoting thug behavior, skank culture, and whore attitude. So, it seems THE BIRTH OF A NATION, wasn't entirely wrong about blacks. Its fears about blacks were dismissed by Progs as 'irrational', but the favored Prog image of the Negro is as the thuggish sex stud or gangsta mandingo. Lib Jews control sex industry and own music industry, and the prevailing image of Negroes is a wild studs who have nothing on their mind fucking white women.  The ONLY difference between Griffith and Lib Jews is Griffith saw this as a bad thing, a threat to the white race, whereas Lib Jews welcome it because they want to castrate white males so that the white race will never gain the pride and unity necessary to challenge Jewish power. Indeed, check out the following old spice advertising: It says Negro is the sex stud who is racially-sexually superior to the cuckish white boy. It's the same logic as in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Difference is Griffith called on white race to resist the looming black sexual imperialism. But cucks like you and Ken Burns celebrate your own racial-sexual demise as beta-male wussies before the macho black man. You guys are like the Eternals in ZARDOZ. You have lost your male instinct to fight and survive. You guys really hate Ethan because he, like Geronimo, is a warrior for his race. You are collaborator cuck dork wimps. You can hide behind all this talk of 'social justice', but you have surrendered to Jews and blacks. 

https://www.facebook.com/wahgwaanmediatv/videos/257359648033355/

Anyway, sexuality is dark and brooding. It's like what Camille Paglia said. We have to start from nature. Nature is at the root of everything, and nature is 'unfair' and 'unequal'. It made men stronger than women. Nature is sex-ist because it created stronger men who can beat up women. Nature is also race-ist because evolution made Jews smarter to rule over us all and made blacks stronger to beat up other races. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

Indeed, if US had imported small Vietnamese as slaves, would we have the same problem? NO. White males wouldn't be afraid of shorter yellow males. But whites bought powerful muscular blacks from Africa, and once the blacks were freed, they began to whup white guys who became wussified and afraid. White women lost respect for white guys and more of them go with Negroes. You see, this is not equality. It is the new inequality.  More social freedom means nature will play a bigger role in sex and crime. Since blacks are stronger and more aggressive, social equality between the races means blacks will beat up other races. This is why white folks want guns. Man to man, a white man is likely to get whupped by a black guy who will then rape the white guy's wife.  In fact, white guys are so demoralized that they now invite black guys to fuc* their wives. White guys are into cuckold fetish. Do you see black guys invite white guys to fuc* black women? 

http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/the-truth-about-interracial-rape/

Ever see STRAW DOGS? Sexuality can be disturbing stuff. Dustin Hoffman's character got the girl because he's smart and successful. Girls like winners with careers who can provide, like Hoffman's David. But girls also like studs, and studs resent and look down on successful geeks or nerds who lack 'genuine manhood'. So, the sexual dynamics in STRAW DOGS get all confused. That's how nature works. But you are too PC priggish and neo-puritanical to have the requisite empathy to understand. Instead, you hysterically shriek, "oh, that is so racist, that is so sexist, that is so... blah blah blah." You will never fully appreciate art and reality if you are such a neo-victorian PC pussy boy. 

Yes, all the characters in STRAW DOGS are sexually anxious and/or 'hung-up',  but that is natural. You see, all guys are anxious about sexual matters.  A big strong ugly guy can attract a girl with his toughness, but he is jealous of the handsome guy and smart guy. It's like Jake Lamotta in RAGING BULL. He got the girl cuz he's a tough boxer. But he is outwitted by old gangsters, and he is intensely jealous when his wife says Tony Janiro is good looking. Or a guy may be handsome and attract girls. But he may be anxious cuz he can be whupped by strong ugly guys. And a smart guy can get a girl with his money, but he may be anxious cuz she might be attracted to strong guys and handsome guys. It's like that Eagles Song 'LYING EYES'. 

Surely, you know about The Iliad. That was about a woman.  A war for Helen. But then, what do men live and fight for? Land and pussy. That's what matters most. Before there are ideas, there has to be life. And life is created through man and woman. So, if man loses the woman, he is lost. No children, no lineage. And if he has no land, he is vulnerable. This is why Jews obsessed about race for 3,500 yrs. Unless Jewish women had children for Jewish men, the Jewish race would face extinction. And even after 2,000 yrs of exile, Jews found a way to take back the land with the creation of Israel. Even the most Liberal Jews supported this massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.  Also, blood matters a lot to Jews. Take the Moses story.  Like Debbie was raised by Indians, Moses was raised by Egyptians as one of their own. But he rediscovered his roots. He sided with Jews, and to defend the Tribe, he worked with God to kill all the first borns of Egypt. Jews still celebrate that day as Passover. That is how Jews survived for 3,500 yrs. There was a bit of Ethan Edwards in all of them. 

Such is the way of life. Ethan is like a little Moses. He fights for his people. And it's understandable why John Wayne stuck up for Ethan.  Wayne's remark about the Indians in your article is valid and invalid. Wayne said the Indians were greedy for having all that land for themselves.  He was right in the sense that the US as a nation couldn't have become a reality if a few million Indians had all of it. There would have been no roads, factories, schools, hospitals, universities, and etc UNLESS white man took over and settled the land. Besides, the moral logic of Wayne's pro-white-settlement account is now used by Progs. They say US is so big and bountiful that Americans must share the land and wealth with others. They say whites mustn't hog it for themselves, just like Wayne once said it was wrong for Indians to claim all the land. These progs who feign outrage over Wayne's remark don't seem terribly interested in reviving Indian communities or returning much of the land to them. Instead, they call for even more mass invasion-immigration so that the remaining Indians will lose their ancestral hunting grounds to ALL THE WORLD.

For those who believe in the American enterprise, Wayne's sentiment has much validity because the Indian Way had to be removed to make way for civilization modeled on European achievements. After all, what has America been but a vast social experiment where white peoples, under leadership of Anglo-Americans, were given a virtual blank slate of land and freedom to show the world what they are capable of? At the time, no other people, provided with the same raw resources and opportunities, could have done as much. Not even close. 
But Wayne's argument is also invalid because, for the Indians, it was not just a matter of economics or politics or 'social progress'. The land under their feet was sacred and mythic, spiritually alive to them. Their folklore and identity were wedded to this land. And even though red 'savages' couldn't build a great modern nation like the Anglos did, they lived in a kind of balance with nature, and there is something to be said for nature and wildlife.  America built by whites is a tremendous achievement, but so many animals had to be wiped out to make way for farms and factories. We modern folks don't wanna live like savages, but Indians had a deeply meaningful relation to the land, and it was tragic that it was lost in the progress of industry and science and etc. Progress is good but came at a price. 

So, you see, there are always two ways to look at things. Even what you say of MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE misses the point.  On one level, it is true that the man's career was built on a lie. But it was also built on a truth. While it's true that Wayne's character of Donifan was the man who really shot Valance, it is no less true that the James Stewart character did show great courage when he picked up a gun to take on Valance. So, his career was built on a half-lie, not a total lie. He did have the mettle to stand up to Valance and be a real man. If Stewart's character had ran from Valance and taken credit for having killed him, that would really have been a lie. But he did show incredible courage in challenging Valance. 

One thing for sure, Ethan is very different from Travis Bickle of TAXI DRIVER(written by Paul Schrader, directed by Martin Scorsese). Ethan is one tough hombre, a leader of men. He is man among men. An alpha. He becomes enraged because of what happened. He can be sociable and is very alert to the world around him. He is a good reader of people's character and motives. In contrast, Bickle is really messed up in the head. You can tell he is sort of like Norman Bates.  

Also, we are talking of two entirely different worlds. In THE SEARCHERS there is civilization vs savagery. Though Ford is somewhat sympathetic to the Indians, the coming of progress means savagery must make way for churches and rule of law. In contrast, TAXI DRIVER is more disturbing because it is set in the heart of civilization, New York, the greatest city on earth. Yet, the decadence and degeneracy are worse than savagery. It is savagery at the core of civilization. 

Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he fears black thugs. But this is so dumb. I mean how could any honest person NOT have noticed black thuggery and crime in NY, especially in the 70s? Things got so bad that even 'liberal' NYers finally got Republican Rudy Giuliani to clean it up. NYers also elected Bloomberg three times to get tough on blacks through stop-and-frisk(the 'nigger'). So, in a way, Bickle's fears were shared by Libs themselves. You surely have it too. If not, go live in Detroit or the black parts of Baltimore. It's easy for you to talk the Lib talk while refusing to walk the Lib walk.  Indeed, look at all the biggest Liberal cities.  They've been gentrifying to drive out dangerous blacks. San Francisco is only 6% black.  Housing projects have been torn down in Chicago to make way for posh condos for white and Jewish 'progressive' yuppies. And for all those 'nice libs' voted for Clinton who locked up tons of Negroes. So, while all you Libs put down Bickle, your ACTIONS confirm his fears. 

In the original screenplay of TAXI DRIVER, the pimps were black. Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he tries to save  a white girl from black thugs. What in the hell is wrong with that?  Suppose a black taxi driver saw a bunch of white pimps exploiting black girls. Would it be wrong for him to feel racial rage? 

Weren't Vietnamese men angry that whites and blacks were turning their women into a bunch of whores? Viet Cong men were a bunch of Travis Bickles who were trying to end sexual imperialism by the US. Bickle wants to save a white girl from black sexual exploitation. 

If a bunch of Arab men sexually exploited Jewish women, Jewish men would be angry as hell. And good thing too. Suppose Arab men exploited Jewish women in the way that Jewish men exploited Slavic women as sex slaves in Israel and Ukraine. Suppose Arab men controlled pornography and got mostly Jewish women to have sex with Negroes for money. Jewish men would shit and fly off the handle. Any man who is okay with men of another race exploiting the women of his race is a pussy-bitch(like what the Japanese have become since the end of WWII).  

Anyway, sexuality is some  dark stuff. It brings out the murderer in us. Consider what OJ did to Nicole Simpson. Or consider what happens in Othello. In Romeo and Juliet, the two young ones commit suicide or murder themselves for love.  
Sex also creates family and new dynamics of bonds and hatreds. When Agamemnon had Iphigenia sacrificed to the gods, his wife got so angry that she waited for him to return and then had him killed. And then her kids killed her. All very dark and crazy stuff but also very understandable since humans are driven by dark passions. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy freak who can only think in terms of "that's racist', 'that's sexist', or 'that's homophobic" when it comes to the arts. 

This is why humanities have come to suck so bad. Too many ideological freaks like you reduce art to a bunch of buzz words. You don't know the true nature of passion. Consider Marty in THE SEARCHERS. He comes across the voice of reason through much of the movie, but when he finds out Laurie his love is about to marry the guitar-strummer, he turns all 'savage', and the 'Indian' side of him emerge. For a moment, he seems even more unhinged than Ethan as he even bites the groom in the ear. You as a homo should know this since the homo community is filled with all sorts of obsessive freako people who are so vain, narcissistic, possessive, and even socio-pathic.