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.**

European Civilization's Great Advantage over the US was HAVING NO BLACKS, but No Longer as EU has gone Afro-maniacal — PC is Ideological Veganism & the Need for a Food Pyramid of the Mind with Ethno-Nationalism as Foundation

https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/blacks-are-13-of-london-englands-population-blacks-represent-50-of-the-murder-suspects-in-london/

Blacks Are 13% of London, England's Population: Blacks Represent 50% of the Murder Suspects in London

Prior to black immigration-invasion into Europe, the virtual lack-of-black or Black-Lack was the one true blessing and advantage that Europe had over the US. And same for Canada and Australia. Whatever was wrong with Europe or deficient vis-a-vis the US, it didn’t have the ghastly Black Problem. Nations without the Black problem have no idea how fortunate they are. If they think things are bad at home, they should take heart in knowing it could be much much worse with blacks. Things bad in Uzbekistan or Nepal? Just be thankful it doesn’t have the black problem. Indeed, "at least we don't have the black problem" should be the bright side for nations without a black population. Just when it seems things can't get any worse, it can if the nation fills up with blacks.

Despite the horrors of World War I and World War II(and tragedies associated with Communism and National Socialism), Europe could at least rest assured in having had no blacks(or just a tiny fraction that kept blacks at the level of curiosity than problem). In the long term, even horrible wars were less destructive than having Negroes. Indeed, look at the recovery of Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, and even Hiroshima soon after WWII. Tens of millions died and entire cities were turned to rubble, but in peacetime, there was breakneck construction, restoration, and return to normal. Whites and Japanese can be tremendously destructive in wartime(because their logistical and organizational skills are so impressive), but in peacetime, they are builders and maintainers. In contrast, blacks are ceaselessly destructive even in peacetime if they are afforded full freedom.

Unlike Europe(and Japan) that rebuilt rapidly after WWII, many American cities from the 1960s onward turned into cesspits of degradation and deterioration due to the BAMMAMA factor: Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. Blacks can easily overpower whites, terrorize communities, and destroy social trust & order that are so central to maintaining a good society. (Even though some American cities recovered via gentrification, the black problem didn’t go away as cities like NY and Chicago sent the blacks to towns and suburbs. Rather, rich yuppie-hipsters or yupsters just passed the buck or hot potato to OTHER communities that had less clout and resources to say NO to the Black Flood.)

So, despite Europe being engulfed in the biggest conflagrations in human history while continental US was spared the devastation of both WWI and WWII, things got bleaker in American cities than in European cities in the postwar period. The looming threat for American cities was the time bomb of black rage and savagery that was just ticking to go off. Indeed, even relatively impoverished Communist cities in Eastern Europe were nicer and safer than American cities like NY, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, and etc beginning especially in the mid-60s.

Surely, Europeans(and Canadians and Australians) knew about the American Race problem from watching the news. Their one great blessing and one great advantage over the US were HAVING NO BLACKS to run wild, terrorize law-abiding citizens, and wreck communities. Tragically, instead of feeling thankful and lucky for having no blacks, it was as though Europeans felt envy for not having them. Why? Not enough 'vibrancy'?

1. Blacks won in sports and were prominent in popular music, and whites all over the world came to swoon with adulation over figures like Muhammad Ali, Pele, and Miles Davis. So, Europeans wanted their own ‘cool’ blacks too, especially as black American athletes often beat up white European ‘palookas’. Why should the US win in all the cool events with their blacks? If Europe couldn't compete on the global level with black Americans, maybe they needed 'black Europeans' to bring home the trophy.
In time, Rap and Afro-Pop became the main music of France, and Rap and Reggae came to dominate UK pop scene. And as blacks came to own the most popular sports, European cucky-wucks found themselves cheering for blacks as their national heroes. Most British boxing champions have been black since the 80s. French soccer players, boxers, and runners are virtually all black. People are tribal but also naturally servile to winners(even of the Other Tribe). Just like French women went with victorious German men during the Nazi Occupation, white folks rejected loser white athletes and prostrated themselves at the feet of black stars. Whites pledged their cuck-loyalty to the tribalism of blacks as the superior race. Tribalism is most effective when backed with pride and victory. When one's tribalism is associated with loss, defeat, and humiliation, there is the temptation to forsake one's own pathetic tribe and serve the masterful tribe.

2. World Media were dominated by Globalists and Jews, and they spun American racial problems as entirely the fault of whites and ‘racism’. Hollywood spread the image of the Magic Negro who only knew oppression under white bigotry and the nobility of struggle for justice. Many such movies featured haloed blacks. It's no wonder that Europeans loved Barack Obama and felt envy for not having someone like him or Mandela as their own leader. Media and Entertainment made whites(and other races) look upon blacks as sacred objects as John Derbyshire has opined many times.
So, the conventional wisdom was that American blacks were just rebelling against legacy of slavery and discrimination. Black violence is always innately noble and moral.

Conceited Europeans figured that they would teach ‘racist’ America how to properly treat blacks. Europe would welcome blacks(from Africa, America, Caribbean, and etc) and treat them with love and decency, and these 'black Europeans' won’t become like American blacks who had no choice but to resort to violence against oppression. Furthermore, Europe would redeem its 'historical sins' by transforming poor African blacks into first-rate 'European blacks'.

In one way, Europeans worship blacks as the superior race with great idolic or idolatrous value. But they also doted on blacks as the childlike race in need of the guidance and beneficence of whites. After all, Europe is rich and modern, Africa is poor and backward. Blacks have become objects of both worship and condescension, as if they are almighty god and helpless baby. Fiendish blacks adroitly sensed and manipulated this delusional white psychology to squeeze ever more concessions from whitey. Blacks toyed with both the servile and maternal instincts of white folks. (Also, as white elites in affluent communities were safe and secure from social problems and rubbed shoulders with better blacks or Good Diversity, they didn’t care about the fate of poor whites who'd likely end up integrating with Bad Diversity. The rich whites get Obamas, the poor whites get Mike Tysons.)

3. In time, white women got jungle fever and white guys strapped on their cuck-shorts. A hit movie in France had a rich white paraplegic who is taken care by big muscular Negro. The message is clear. White guy is reason & riches but no body, and the black body must become the new body of Europe. Whites elites, as the head of the West, don't need the white mass as national body; blacks will take over as the new national body and colonize white wombs. And in BITTER MOON by Roman Polanski, the white guy(Peter Coyote) in the wheel chair is tormented and humiliated by his former lover who gets it on with a Negro. He can only watch helplessly. BBC TV is now all about match-making white women with black men in movie and TV roles. As for white guys, their roles are usually cucky or ‘gay’. No more white national heroes. And young white girls in Europe grow up twerking like their American counterparts. And they go to dance clubs to have their butts bumped-and-grinded by black men.



It just goes to show that the fantasy-reality of media & entertainment can override reality. The grim reality of the US since the 1960s has been "blacks + freedom = fall of civilization", along with end of white manhood as racial integration leads to black guys jumping white guys and humping white girls. Blacks cannot handle freedom like civilized people. Nature and evolution made them too wild and crazy. (Also, feminist 'liberation' has led to white women hankering to be whore-slaves of black men. Women find greatest happiness in surrender, not domination. So, women's liberation really comes down to women freeing themselves of relations with'loser' beta-males and seeking out alpha-males to submit to. As black men have tough-guy-advantage over white men, women's liberation has meant 'empowered' white women increasingly rejecting beta-white-males in search of alpha-black-males, even if only for short-lived affairs. Women's Liberation is not about women seeking equality for all people but about rejecting whom they deem to be inferior men in pursuit of superior men. Women's Liberation has made women more competitive for the limited number of winner-men.)

Europeans should have sighed with relief at their good fortune of black-free cities and towns because news depicted so many reports of race problems in America and black pathology in Africa. But, the media spun American race problems as “It’s all racist whitey’s fault” and “noble blacks are so cool”. And media spun the black African problem as either “It’s all due to white imperialism, and all the world must worship Mandela as god" or "Just a little bit more of white love and compassion can do SO MUCH for black Africans who are just brimming with limitless potential waiting to be tapped."
Also, the dogma of blank-slatism and ‘race is just a construct’ had too many whites believing anyone can be molded into anything. So, if millions of black Africans come to the EU, they can easily molded into 'New Europeans' with a bit of education, acculturation, and training.
As the result of such follies, Europe is going to hell. If Japan, which is so far away from Africa and West, is going afro-jungle with Japanese women having kids with black men and raising them to beat up smaller/weaker Japanese and take over Japanese sports and pop culture, imagine the fate of Europe where millions upon millions of muscled and big-donged Negroes are coming from Africa with only two things in mind, “Where’s the free stuff” and “Where the white women at?”

The biggest threat to the world is the vilification of ‘racism’ that prevents people from realizing the most important truth: Blacks will destroy your nations, and therefore, you must form a tribal defense system to keep blacks out of your domain. (If Ism means belief, then Race + Ism must mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. 'Racism' is the most ill-defined term in the world. As races do exist and racial differences are real, race-ism must be embraced by all peoples if they are to properly understand reality and take necessary measures to safeguard their own race and community. As blacks are superior in muscle power, aggression, and thuggery, all non-black societies must be wary of blacks coming to settle, terrorize, and take over.) Denial of race-ism is like political veganism. Without honest-to-good race-ist nutrients of tribal protein and iron, the white mind-and-body will be too anemic to change course and save Western civilization from the Ghastly Negro.
PC veganism must stop. By denying natural tribal proteins for the white soul, white people(lacking in their own red-meat tribalism) end up seeking tribal satisfaction by taking up radical ideologies or OTHER PEOPLE'S tribalisms. It’s like the vegan body, starved of necessary animal proteins, tries to absorb nutrients, vitamins, and minerals from foods that are deficient in them. It is so futile as there is no real substitute for real animal protein and iron. Women especially do much better with some red meat after menstruation.

Likewise, there is no substitute for real healthy race-ism and tribalism for one’s own kind. Jews gorge on the meat of Jewish tribalism, and look how hale and healthy Zionists in Israel are. (The problem with Zionists, as was the case with the Nazis, is that they insist on gorging on the meat of OTHER peoples as well. Jewish uber-predators aren't content with their own blood-and-soil and must feed on the blood of other volks in imperialist mode.) But because whites are denied white meat and must stick to PC vegan diet, their tribal-protein-starved bodies desperately seek substitute-tribalist-nutrients from ideologies(that never quite satisfy tribal cravings) and OTHER TRIBALISMS, e.g. whites trying to be black in attitude or taking up the black cause against fellow whites. Or, among the cucky-wucks of Conservative Inc., it’s usually about vicariously sharing in the Triballistics of Jews and Israel. As whites aren’t allowed white identity and interests(deemed ‘toxic’ as ‘white supremacist’), whites conservatives seek substitute tribalism in ‘civic nationalism'(which has become useless in overly diverse America) or Zionism(which has no benefits for whites whatsoever). Or, they seek tribal satisfaction in the atomized tribalism-of-one, aka libertarian individualism. But as humans are social animals, individualism alone never satisfies one’s needs.

Whites must learn to eat tribal and race-ist protein again.

Healthy ideology is like the food pyramid. At the bottom(the foundation), there should be tribal identity, the blood and soil thing. Above that, there should be tradition and culture. At the next level, there should be freedom and individualism, and so on.
We all need some degree of idealism. But for white folks, the pyramid has been inverted. Idealism or individualism makes for solid base for complex society. It is too abstract to serve as support system for all else. In contrast, blood-and-soil is real and tangible. It’s like existence comes before idealism. If you favor idealism over existence, it means that, when push comes to shove, you may well choose idealism & death over realism & survival. What people need as fundamentals are Blood, Soil, and Saga. The power of story is important as identity alone doesn't say much. What does it mean to say "I'm Jewish" or "I'm Irish" if you don't know the story and narrative of your people? Identity alone is like knowing your name but being amnesiac about your life story. Blood and Soil, yes, but also the Tale.

Consider the tale retold by Joseph Campbell about becoming what you really are.

http://portalofconsciousness.com/the-goats-and-the-tiger/

So the little one is getting that message; he’s picked up and taken to the tiger’s den, where there are the remains of a recently slaughtered gazelle. Taking a chunk of this bloody stuff, the big tiger says, “Open you face.” The little one backs away, “I’m a vegetarian.” “None of that nonsense,” says the big fellow, and he shoves a piece of meat down the little one’s throat. He gags on it. The text says, “As all do on true doctrine.” But gagging on the true doctrine, he’s nevertheless getting it into his blood, into his nerves; it’s his proper food. It touches his proper nature. Spontaneously, he gives a tiger stretch, the first one. A little tiger roar comes out—Tiger Roar 101…. The big one says, “There. Now you’ve got it. Now we go into the forest and eat tiger food.” Vegetarianism Is the first turning away from life, Because life lives on lives. Vegetarians are just eating something that can’t run away.

Diversity and Inclusion as Mental Viruses to paralyze White Immunity against Parasitism of Non-Whites

Diversity is like a virus, or Divirus. It is a disease or Diversease. It is a meme as a parasitic 'ideorganism' that burrows into white people's minds not unlike hookworms, fleas, and lice that, once attached to their hosts, are difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of.

Diversity doesn’t really mean diversity per se is great. It's just a parasitic mind-trick to fool rich successful nations into letting in outsiders from poorer ones.

After all, if diversity is so great in and of itself, people in diverse nations should stay put. Such nations exist all over the non-white world(and in regions where whites are a minority). Latin American nations are very diverse, most of them with white minorities. Africa is diverse in terms of languages and tribes. North Africa is racially diverse and mixed. Turkey is diverse of ethnicity and languages and cultures, far more than European nations(before mass migration). Central Asia is diverse, made up of whites, Asians, Muslims, Turks, etc. India is very diverse, and so is Indonesia. So, they have more diversity than much of the West(or Far East nations like Japan). If diversity is so great, those people should stay put in their ultra-diverse nations. After all, they have the magic wonder of diversity all around them.
They should not try to go to US, Canada, Australia, Japan, or EU that are far less diverse or even near-homogeneous. After all, we are told diversity is so great. Then, people should stay in their own diverse nations than head for less diverse nations of the West. Why head to horrible homogeneous nations or to terrible LESS diverse nations away from ultra-diverse nations?

As it turns out, the most successful and prosperous nations have been the relatively homogeneous ones in Europe and East Asia, especially Japan. The thing is organisms(and humans are organisms) want to migrated to and invade places that are more bountiful, efficient, and convenient.
But how do you convince homogeneous prosperous nations that they must open up to foreigners? You infect them with the diversity virus or divirus. Make them feel bad or shameful for being homogeneous and not diverse enough. Make them feel something is wrong about their society for lacking sufficient diversity. Make Diversity morally assertive and make lack of diversity morally defensive. Make Diversity-Deficiency a kind of social malady, disease, or dysfunction(even though white societies were far more functional with homogeneity).
Fool them into thinking diversity is noble and wonderful whereas homogeneity is wicked and evil. Tell them that Diversity-Disease or Diversease is the cure whereas Healthy-Homogeneity is an illness. Fool them into thinking their societies will be improved with diversity. But if diversity is the magic pill, how come so many diverse nations in Latin America, North Africa, and Central Asia are failures. How come India is such a mess whereas relatively homogeneous China has achieved more? Who really thinks Israel will be better if filled with more Africans and Muslims at the expense of Jewish demography? (The only successful nation with diversity is the US, but this has to be seen in proper historical context. In its formative stages, the US was far less diverse than Latin America that has always lagged behind. Also, the white North was more successful and productive than the diverse South with lots of blacks. And, until 1965, the US was 90% white. And even Ethnic whites who arrived in early 20th century were Anglo-Americanized by education, culture, and propaganda. And we must remember that the US rose to great power status long before the 1965 immigration act. Diversity didn’t make America rich and powerful. If anything, America attracted diversity because its relative homogeneity was far more successful than the preponderance of diversity in Latin America. Also, the ONLY two non-white-gentile groups that contributed something unique to America have been blacks and Jews. Blacks had a huge influence on music, and Jews contributed in many brainy fields. But to get the full picture, one mustn’t overlook the negative cost of black presence in the US, what with all the crime, pathology, violence, thuggery, corruption. Also, there is a dark side to black music, especially in rap, that promotes sociopathic tendencies, nihilism, and neo-savagery. As for Jews, their spread of PC has done incalculable damage to the West, and their war-mongering has made a total mess of the 21st century. Europeans who see ‘cool badass hip’ blacks in US sports, music, & movies and want some of that stuff in Europe fail to see the bigger picture of black impact on the US: Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, and etc. Is Detroit worth it because of Motown? Should Japan Detroitize its cities with lots of black crime & pathology in the hope that its music culture might become more ‘vibrant’? But then, if you want to listen to black music, you don’t need blacks. Just buy a CD or download stuff on the internet. It's like you don't need real Italians or real Chinese in your nation to learn how to make pizza or chop suey.)

So, all this Diversity talk is disingenuous. If homogeneous nations in Europe, Japan, US, and Canada were dirt poor and famished, no one would press diversity on them. No one would want to go there, so who’d care if they accepted foreigners or not in the name of Diversity? After all, no one presses Cameroon, Mozambique, or Bolivia to embrace more diversity. Diverse or homogeneous, what does it matter? Who’d want to move to a failed black African nation? Who would want to move to messy India(unless one can be assured of good job and can live in the nicest parts; being poor in the US is preferable to being middle class in India).

If white nations were poorer than non-white ones, no one would care if whites embraced diversity or not. It just so happens that whites are best at creating wealth, producing nice stuff, and running functional societies. And foreigners want access to the White Cow to drink the milk. Since they have no ancestral claim or national right to white lands, they invoke Diversity as a noble ideal to gain access. And plenty of cucks in the West, having been mentally colonized by globo-homo PC, fall for this shtick.
Jews pioneered this mind-trick since their success and power have depended on access to white non-Jewish nations, even to the point of gaining elite domination over them. Any idea of a ‘World of Our Own’ for whites is anathema to Jews since it means Jews may be left out in the cold(and made to live in non-white worlds where the natives aren’t so nice and productive as whites are).

So, Jews have persuaded whites that it is ‘racist’ for whites to have things for themselves: White lands, white wealth, white institutions, white women, and etc. must all be made available to non-whites and Jews. And then, non-whites of all stripes have allied with Jews to make the same demands.

Once whites are infected with Divirus, they can no longer have anything to call their own. Even their past history is retrofitted to serve PC. So, BBC now makes historical shows with blacks and other non-whites in white roles. Even past history must be ‘corrected’ and made diverse to send a message to whites that ANY vision of a ‘world of our own’ must be banished from white minds, past-present-and-future. Don’t even think about it, don’t even feel nostalgia for it. Even memory is ‘racist’ unless the past is rewritten as a 'diverse' narrative. Just like the Tyrell Corporation in BLADE RUNNER implants someone else's memories into Rachel's mind, Jewish Power is implanting false historical memories into the minds of whites. Thus, impressionable white British children now grow up seeing black and non-white characters as key figures and heroes of British & European History on TV and in movies. Donna Zuckerberg, a disgusting Jewish globo-homo agent, says Ancient and Medieval periods of Europe weren't white but belonged just as much to blacks, Muslims, and Asians. I suppose Poles should celebrate the Mongol incursions into their territory. And Spanish should celebrate their subjugation under the Moors. (Using this logic, the French have just as much claim to Vietnam since they once invaded and ruled over it.) To Jews, white people are mere 'replicants' whose minds exist only to be messed with.

Once whites have been infected by Divirus, whatever they do must ‘include’ non-whites. So, if whites want to move from the browning city and settle in the suburbs, the suburbs too must eventually surrender to diversity because, otherwise, they’d be ‘non-inclusive’, therefore 'racist' and evil. They are to be inspected and penalized for lack of diversity. Diversity is offered as a vitamin but it's really a virus.
Whatever whites possess(through inheritance or ingenuity) must be shared with others. Because this idea has been virally programmed into the very core of the white ideological DNA, it is now deemed wrong for whites to do anything without adding diversity. If whites want to go to Mars and settle a colony there, they MUST include diversity even if all the science and funds were provided by whites. So, non-whites are allowed to freeload and piggyback on whiteness. And there is white-shaming for whites who create anything that resembles a World of Our Own. According to the Jewish Narrative, white scientists not only stole the labors of Jewish genius but hid the contributions of blacks who were REALLY responsible to sending American astronauts to the Moon.

Related to Diversity is the virus of ‘Inclusion’(really a euphemism for invasion). It’s just parasitism on the part of non-whites to leech off whites. Since non-whites can’t do much on their own, they must rely on the white world to have nice things for themselves. So, they invoke ‘inclusion’ to pressure whites to ‘include’ non-whites into anything nice created by whites.

Now, if non-whites really believe in racial equality(as they claim to), they must believe that non-white nations can have nice things too. After all, Latin America is huge with tons of natural resources. Africa has lots of nice places, lots of people, tons of natural resources, and has great potential. The success of white farmers in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa in the past is a testament of what people can achieve in Africa if they really have a mind to. PC says all races are equal, so all peoples must be equally capable and should be able to have nice things in their own nations by doing what whites did in white nations.

But, of course, races are different, and some races fail badly at creating and running modern societies. So, the only way they can have Nice Things is to gain entry into the White World. But they have no ancestral right or national claim to white lands. (In the New World, only American Indians have ancestral claim to the land. Only they can make a moral claim against whites who conquered. In contrast, non-whites around the world have NO moral claim to come to America or Canada as the New World wasn't taken from them.) So, they rely on the guilt-tripping ideo-virus of ‘inclusion’ that makes white people feel 'guilty' for not ‘including’ masses of non-whites. Under PC-mental-infection, whites feel good only when they allow ‘inclusion’, which really means invasion, via which so much of nice things created by whites are leeched by non-whites. We are often told that the Chinese Exclusion Act was a horrible thing. But why? Didn't the Chinese invade and take over Tibet? Do the Chinese invite people from all over the world to share in the colonization of Tibet? It seems Tibet is for Han Chinese Only and excludes the rest of the world.

On the other hand, I can understand why white folks prefer immigrants to blacks. Better to use immigrants as buffers.

Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive, and black violence terrifies whites. Immigrants are useful buffers against blacks, esp. for purposes of gentrification: http://takimag.com/article/las_dirty_little_brown_secret_david_cole/print

Play a Simple Children’s Game to Demonstrate that Maximum Homogeneity is Best and Maximum Diversity is Worst for Nations

A simple children's game can easily demonstrate the ideal conditions for World Peace: More Homogeneity or More Diversity? To find the answer, just get yourself a World Map.

The game is played thus:

Take a good look at Europe on the map. Now, erase all national borders until all of Europe is one landmass without divisions. Then, redraw national borders to either...

(1) Maximize homogeneity

or

(2) Maximize diversity.

You can draw borders around where the bulk of Polish people live to maximize Polish Homogeneity OR you can draw borders so that what is now Poland is broken up into 5 parts, each of which is included with OTHER nations that are also made diverse.

If you go for Maximizing Homogeneity, your newly drawn Poland will be mostly Polish.

But if you go for Maximizing Diversity, your nation will include a part of Poland, part of Germany, part of Hungary, part of Czech Rep, part of Ukraine. Polish people, instead of having a nation in which they are the solid super-majority, will become like the Kurdish people who are scattered among other nations.
You might do the same with Germany until there is no single Germany in which most Germans are situated. Instead, Germany would be divided into five or six parts and joined with other nations made up of diverse peoples, not unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Now, which will be more socially peaceful, culturally meaningful, and politically more stable? A Poland where Polish people and culture are maximally homogenized or an entity where Polish people are divided and included as minorities in six other nations(in which no people are a majority)?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Polish people with a nation of their own are likely to feel far more content, secure, and happy than if Polish nation is dissolved and if Polish people are divided and included as minorities into a bunch of nations filled with diversity of Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovenians, Croatians, etc.

A nation may gain something by having minorities, but it’s always good to have a super-majority who define the identity, character, culture, and heritage of a nation and people. After all, don’t we pity the Kurds because they don’t have a nation in which they are the solid majority and can feel at home? Instead, they are scattered in nations like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. As a minority in each country, they always feel oppressed or marginalized. And other people look upon them with suspicion and hostility. Indeed, let’s play this game in the Middle East where much of the problem stems from maps(drawn by Western Imperialists) that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Was that a good idea? Well, just ask the Kurds who are a thorn on the side of every nation in which they constitute a sizable minority and to whom every nation seems like a boot pressed upon their face.

Anyway, let's suppose we are back in 1918 after World War I. Suppose we have the chance to draw borders in the Middle East to create new nation-states. We have two choices. We can draw borders to

(1) Maximize Homogeneity in every nation

or

(2) Maximize Diversity in every nation.

Which would be the wiser option? To draw the borders on the map so as to give Kurds their own nation(or at least one where they are the overwhelming majority) OR to break up Kurdish-populated areas to be included into other nations designed for maximum diversity?

When we look at the current mess in the Middle East, the answer is pretty obvious. If the map of the Middle East had been drawn to maximize homogeneity after WWI, much of the political problems, at least pertaining to ethnic and/or sectarian conflicts, could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced. Take Iraq. If the imperialists had allowed a separate Kurdish nation, had united Sunni Arabs in Iraq with Sunnis in Syria, and if Shia Arabs in Iraq had been given their own nation, there would have been far greater stability. Instead, imperialists created nations like modern Syria, modern Iraq, modern Afghanistan, and etc. to be excessively diverse. As such, only an iron-fisted strongman could keep the peace as democratic experimentation would have led to divisions along ethnic lines.

How things might have been different if, following WWI, the Europeans had carefully surveyed the demographic reality of the entire region and drawn national maps to ensure that one particular group would be the overwhelming majority of every new nations. If Kurds in what is now Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and maybe even Turkey(if Turkish resistance could have been overcome) would have been given a nation of their own, they would be far happier and securer. They would be causing far less trouble to their neighbors and vice versa.

Now, let’s play this game in crazy-quilt region of Southeast Asia. Suppose we erase the current map and draw new borders to either

(1) Maximize Homogeneity

or

(2) Maximize Diversity.

Would it be better to draw maps to create a maximally homogeneous nation for Vietnamese, a maximally homogeneous nation for Cambodians, maximally homogeneous nation for Laotians, maximally homogeneous nation for Thais, maximally homogeneous nation for Burmese, OR would it be better to draw arbitrary borders so that one nation(shaped like a longitudinal snake) is created that is demographically 1/5 Vietnamese, 1/5 Cambodia, 1/5 Thai, 1/5 Burmese, etc.
Which would be the wiser option? A nation that is as homogeneous as possible for each people OR a bunch of nations that is made of maximally diverse populations?
Would it be better for Vietnamese to have Vietnam, Cambodians to have Cambodia, Thais to have Thailand, Laotians to have Laos, and etc., OR would it better for there to be several nations in which every group is a minority? So, instead of the Vietnamese having a nation to call their own, Vietnamese people would be dispersed, like Kurds, among other nations filled with diversity?

We can also play this game with Northeast Asia. Currently, Korea is divided in half because the US, after Japanese defeat, split the nation with the Soviet Empire. If European imperialists forced different peoples into a single nation in the Middle East and Africa, Americans divided one people into two peoples in Korea.
But suppose there is a chance for great change on the peninsula. What would make more sense? To erase the border between North Korea and South Korea and form one nation composed of people of shared ethnos, language, and history... OR to join North Korea with Manchuria and to join South Korea with Japan? If we want to maximize homogeneity, North Korea and South Korea should merge. But if we want to maximize Diversity, North Korea should be added to Manchuria and South Korea should be added to Japan(like Ireland used to be joined to Great Britain). What would be better? To maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity?

What does history tell us? I think even a child would figure this out. Maximizing Homogeneity wherever possible has been the best formula for peace within nation and with other nations. The threat to world peace usually happens when nationalism is violated in favor of imperialism. Imperialism causes diversity by invading other nations or by turning one’s nation into some cosmopolitan center welcome to all... in which case foreigners arrive to take advantage and eventually take over demographically, which is exactly what has happened in many cities and towns in France, UK, Sweden, and Germany.

Finally, let’s play this game with Israel and neighboring nations. Suppose we erase all existing borders and draw new ones. We can draw borders to maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity for each people. Now, what would be better? To draw borders to maximize, say, Jewish homogeneity in Israel or to break up Israel into three parts and include each with other geo-political entities for the purpose of more diversity?
Now, suppose northern third of Israel is joined with Lebanon and parts of Syria. The middle third of Israel is joined with Jordan and a part of Saudi Arabia. And the southern third of Israel is joined with a part of Egypt and a part of Libya.

So, would it be better to draw maps to maximize Homogeneity of Jews within a nation to call their own OR to divide up Israel and Jews(like Kurds) and turn them into minorities in diverse nations?

Now, isn’t the main problem facing Israel due to diversity caused by Occupation of West Bank?

The answer is SO OBVIOUS, but Jewish globalist elites pressure the entire world to maximize diversity(except for Israel where Jews support JEWS-ONLY immigration to maximize homogeneity). Why do Jews give such bad advice when it’s bad for gentile nations? Because it is good for the designs of Jewish Globalist Supremacism. When nations turn overly diverse, it’s easier for Jews to manipulate in divide-and-conquer fashion. Also, a diverse nation hardly has any useful nationalism. Because the various groups don’t trust one another, they tend not to unite as ONE PEOPLE but forge alliances with foreigners and imperialists to gain an advantage.
This is why Jews find homos so useful. Because homos feel alienated in many nations, they will gladly collaborate with World Jewry that showers them with money and favors. As such, homos around the world have effectively become the proxies of Jewish supremacism.
This is why truly independent and autonomous nations like Russia, Iran, China, and now Turkey do NOT allow the US(the primary tool of Judea or World Jewry) to force Homomania on them. Turkey used to allow ‘gay pride’ parades but finally stood up to World Jewry and said NO. But puppet-whore nations of the US, such as Germany-UK-Italy-Japan-Mexico-Ukraine-S. Korea-Taiwan-UK-etc. all put on massive Homomania festivals. If Uncle Samowicz tell them they better, they better.

Jews know that a patriotic and unified people can stand together against Jewish infiltration. That’s why Jews do everything to weaken and dilute gentile national identity. Jews do this by spreading Homomania that says Minority Privilege must take precedence over Majority Values. Jews also use Afromania to make people all over the world addicted to rap music, black sports, and jungle fever. Afromania destroys the manhood of non-black gentiles around the world because black rappers sing louder, black athletes got more muscle, and black hustlers got bigger dongs.

And of course, Jews try to promote Holocaustianity as a neo-religion all over the world so that every people will feel sorry and ‘guilty’ about Jews. And then, once a nation’s identity and patriotism have been weakened, Jews use their immense power of media, academia, and finance to brainwash the gentile elites into believing that DIVERSITY is not only a great boon but a moral necessity.
The result is something like the disastrous experiment taking place in Sweden, a nation where hideous feminists rule, where men are castrated cucks, and where endless streams of invaders are ‘welcomed’ as adding more wonderful Diversity to the nation. Well, goodbye to Sweden. With Jews, You Lose.

Play the Game of AAJ or Ask-A-Jew - Then See the World Anew as Scales Fall Off Your Eyes - It’s Most Necessary Because the Fall of Wasp Power was even More Momentous than the Fall of Communism

Play ASK A JEW with Jennifer Rubin

Play ASK A JEW with Max Boot

The game of ASK A JEW. It’s a simple game that anyone can play, even a child. Its purpose is to understand the true nature of the People who rule over us. (For tips on how to play this game, skip most of this post and go to where it says *How to Play ASK A JEW*.) Why did the world begin to change so fast and so much since the End of the Cold War? The main reason was not the Fall of Communism but the fall of White Gentile Power, especially in the US. By hogging all the news, the fall of communism masked a far more important, momentous, and significant fall: The Fall of Wasp Power, White Christian Power, and Catholic Power. If, following the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States had remained under White Christian Power, we would not have witnessed the crazy accelerated transformation of so much of the world.
Since the end of WWII, Western Europe has essentially been the vassal of the U.S., but this wasn’t such a bad thing because, for most of the Cold War, the US was controlled by Wasps and White Christians. Conservative or Liberal, they had no problem with Europe being the domain of Europeans. They had no problem with European nationalism as long as European nations got along together instead of instigating new wars for hegemony. (The trauma of WWII, the fear of the USSR, and the reliance on the US made Western Europe emphasize mutual respect and cooperation above all else.) Also, the US stoked nationalism in Eastern Europe to inspire resistance there against the Soviet Empire. The European political norms of the 1980s were essentially moderate-nationalist. German citizenship was still based on blood and ancestry. UK, France, and Sweden had not yet gone utterly crazy with PC and Diversity. Jews and radicals had already spread such seeds, but the US, as the superpower, didn’t press upon European nations to adopt those ideas as sacrosanct.

So, how did the political norms of the 1980s come to be regarded as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’ in today’s world? If someone in the UK today espoused views that were common in the 1980s, he’d be sent to jail. If German citizenship based on blood(that was still operative in the 1980s) were proposed for re-introduction today, it’d be denounced as Neo-Nazi. The crucial difference between then and now is that the US currently presses on EU and all its vassals to undergo vast social, cultural, and ideological changes to discredit, undermine, and transform the very meaning of what it means to be European and Western. When the US had been ruled by Wasps and White Christians, there was far greater respect for the national norms and local customs of other nations. The idea of the US using its power and money to spread Homomania and African-as-New-European would have been unthinkable back then. Even though the US was a kind of empire after WWII and throughout the Cold War, it wasn’t hellbent on forcing other peoples to become like Americans(who, by the way, were not the degenerate morons they came to be beginning in the late 60s). Sure, US sold consumer products and exported Hollywood movies and American music all over the world, but it was up to each and every nation to formulate their own national policy to deal with such influence. And those were considered as unserious popular culture.

Some might argue that the US got more arrogant after winning the Cold War. As the lone superpower, it couldn’t resist spreading its power, ideas, and (anti)values all over the world. But would this have been so IF the US hadn’t come under the control of Jews? Would US have fought those Wars in the Middle East if not for Jewish influence? Would US have been so hellbent on crushing Iran if not for Jewish power? Would the US be waging this ridiculous ‘new cold war’ with Russia if not for Jewish Power. Would the US be spreading Homomania as a neo-religion all over the world if not for Jewish Power? Would the US be forcing the Cult of Diversity into every nation if not for Jewish Power?

In the 80s, the US didn’t press upon Japan and Germany to become diverse. The US elites back then would not have shamed Poland and Hungry for wanting to preserve their national integrity. If anything, the US urged Eastern European peoples to reassert their national identity and interests to gain independence from the Soviet Union.
Bill Clinton has been called the ‘first black president’, but as the first boomer president who’d especially come under Jewish influence, he was really the first Jewish president(and Bush II was the first Neocon Jewish president, and Obama was the second Jewish president).

When Wasp and White Catholics ruled the US, there was no American animus against European patriots and nationalists. The American Empire following WWII was mostly a live-and-let-live affair. It didn’t even have the messianic passion of the first wave of overseas American imperialism beginning in the late 19th century that sought to Evangelize the world. The international contract of Pax Americana following WWII was that the US would offer protection and markets to certain nations that would, in return, pledge allegiance to the US against the Soviet Union or any new power that might aspire to challenge the World Order of the postwar era. Now, the marketing of US consumer-capitalism was aggressive all over the world, but Americans never pretended that it had moral or spiritual value. Coca-cola was good to drink, Marilyn Monroe was good to see, and Elvis Presley was good to dance to. But they were not serious. But things are now so different. Globalist culture promotes trashy rappers as quasi-prophets, skanky sluts as idols of female empowerment, and homos/trannies as saint-angels whom young children should look up to. If, in the past, America marketed pop culture as just fun, entertainment, and recreation, the New America promotes pop culture as inspiration and salvation. So, people around the world are supposed to watch something like BLACK PANTHER and really dream of Wakanda. Or kids around the world are supposed to embrace Diversity and Interracism because the New Star Wars movies say they’re cool.
At least in the past, Hollywood tried to make adult-oriented movies to spread loftier themes and values. Think of TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR, and THE LONGEST DAY. These days, the kinds of movies that get the most buzz even from the shakers and makers of cultural opinion are often based on superhero comics and childish fantasies.

Back in the day when Wasps and White Catholics ruled America, Jews who controlled much of movie-and-music culture had to watch themselves. If they promoted something too crazy and trashy, especially as message or propaganda, there might have been a white or Christian backlash. This is why Jews were savvy in promoting the notion of ‘antisemitism’ and tie it with Shoah(or the Holocaust). That way, if Jews did something slimy and sleazy and if whites called out on Jewish foulness, Jews could just yell ‘antisemitism’ and associate critics of Jewish influence with ‘Nazis’. This is how Jews got around to legalizing filmed pornography. Jews were the main forces behind it, but Wasps and Catholics were too afraid to name the Jew because of the Jew Taboo. Fast Forward to today, and Jews have weaponized pornography against the white race. Indeed, Jews weaponized everything: media, education, advertising, finance, the law, and even free speech(with the notion that ‘hate speech’ — speech hated by Jews — is not free speech and must be banned). Because so many gentiles get their ideas, idols, and icons from media, academia, and entertainment controlled by Jews, they become rabid true-believing lunatics, just like so many young impressionable Russians were turned into diehard communists almost overnight under Bolshevik Rule.
But Jews also use the stick as well as the carrot. By ruthlessly punishing groups like the Alt Right and BDS, Jewish power sends a message that anyone who deviates from the Official Narrative will be taken out. And it can happen even to those ensconced in the Establishment. Jason Richwine was a member of the 'esteemed' Heritage Foundation before he was purged at the behest of vile Jewish bitch Jennifer Rubin. Rick Sanchez used to work for CNN before he was banished for having noticed and blabbed about Jewish power. Even a veteran journalist like Helen Thomas couldn’t save herself when she said European Jews in Israel should go back to Europe. She died soon after being fired and dragged through the mud by the vile Jewish Power machine.

Anyway, what Jews did to the White America has been the template for what they did to Europe also. It’s no accident that exactly what Jews did to White America also happened to the EU at the same time. The cult of diversity & multi-culturalism, the rise of Homomania, the notion that one’s country is a ‘nation of immigrants’, the objective of economically destroying Iran(or any other nation hated by Israel), and the hysteria for ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Why is it that both the US and EU have been acting in tandem since the end of the Cold War? We need to understand that Jews see Europeans differently from how Wasps and White Catholics used to see them. White Gentiles in America saw Europeans as fellow racial and cultural brethren. They harbored no animus or hostility toward them. White Americans just hoped that Europeans would stop fighting one another and learn to live in peace. Also, white Americans respected European histories & cultures and didn’t want to mess with the narratives and symbols. If anything, there was a widespread feeling among White Americans that, even though there was something instantly appealing about Americanism, European histories and cultures have greater depth and that white Americans should respect and learn from this. In contrast, Jews always views the Christian West with hostility. Even though they found the US, another white Christian civilization, far more welcoming, they still regarded white Christians with resentment, hostility, and envy. So, if the Wasp hegemony over Europe had been live-and-let-live, Jewish hegemony became one of "do as I say... or else you are Nazi". So, if Wasp America’s power in Europe had mostly been political and military-related, the Jewish-ruled American power in Europe has been ideological and neo-spiritual. Jews want to penetrate, alter, and own the souls of Europeans.

Another key factor as to why Jewish domination of the US proved to be far more dangerous than Wasp domination ever was due to the Jew Taboo. Wasps were feared and respected but were not seen as a holy people. So, if Wasp America was perceived as doing bad, Europeans could push back a little and denounce American Power and Influence. The reason why Europeans were so hard on George W. Bush was he came across as a big dumb American cowboy trying to ride the world like a horse at a rodeo. Granted, he was controlled by Jews, but he was seen by Europeans as the archetypal Ugly American. Anyway, when the US was perceived as being ruled by Wasps, there was some push-back from Europe. There was no taboo against calling out against Anglo elites, Cowboys, Uncle Sam, and Yankee Doodle Dandy.

But as it became more evident that the US is a totally Jew-dominated nation, it became ever more difficult for Europeans to push back against the US. (Ever the fervent European opposition to Bush II focused on his cowboy image, not on the vampiric JEWS around him. And of course, when the Iraq War went badly, the Jew-media conveniently placed all the blame in Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.) It was one thing to denounce American foreign policy devised by Wasp Cold Warriors. But the ‘new cold war’ with Russia is a Jewish thing, and no one dares to remove the mask and say it like it is... lest he be accused of ‘antisemitism’, the biggest sin in Europe where Holocaust has been made a virtual religion(and not just in Germany). Also, the rise of American financial power and high-tech power since End of the Cold War has been spectacular, and those sectors are dominated by Jews. That means much more Jewish money greasing the entire institutional apparatuses of Europe where many bureaucrats, activists, and journalists are really little more than paid shills of Jews like George Soros.

Also, because of the Jewish transformation of both the US and EU, it is more difficult for Europeans to feel ideologically purer or more virtuous. During much of the Cold War, Europeans loved to turn the tables on the US for being a ‘racist’ nation of rednecks, stupid nation addicted to vulgar pop culture, greedy nation of uber-materialists, and reactionary nation of ignorant religiosity, but especially since the end of the Cold War, the US and EU have been merging into one. Most young people in the EU are now an anti-intellectual and addicted to trash culture as American youth are. Also, even though majority of Americans still claim to be religious, the power of religious institutions has vanished in the US. Christianity not only couldn’t stop Homomania but bent over to it. The Civil Rights Era is now a thing of the past, with rap music, black-dominated sports, interracist pornified TV being the culture of America. Also, the US even got a black president... which means Europeans could no longer accuse the US of ‘racism’. Also, with massive invasion-immigration, the US is fated to become white majority faster than any European nation. As the US turns less white, it will be deemed politically incorrect to condemn it because Diversity is worshiped as holy. This is why Europeans feel most free to disparage the US when it's ruled by cowboy types like Reagan, Bush II, and Donald Trump. Despite facing an existential threat from Mass Invasion from Africa and the Muslim World, the European Soul following WWII has been instilled with the notion that Historical Sin is uniquely a White Thing,and therefore, the ONLY approved way to score moral points is by attacking other whites for moral failings. (Granted, it's still OK to invade and destroy non-white nations IF the green light comes from Jews, especially with black president as a front. So, too bad for Libya and Syria.)
As for Europe, it is now as addicted to pop culture as America is. Its young people in UK, France, Sweden, and Germany are vapid trashy whores who worship crass celebrities and bling-strapped rappers. And with ‘gay marriage’ being the law of the land in the US(even before in some European nations), Europeans can’t wave the 'gay' flag to feel holier-than-thou with homomaniacal virtue-signaling. And with US universities now being a net exporter than importer of PC, Europeans can hardly feel more ‘radical’ or ‘progressive’ as they used to in the Age of Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault.

It used to be that Europe was a vassal of Wasp-ruled US. Because Wasps had a special relationship with Anglo-Brits, Continental Europeans used to see US-UK as a separate political-cultural entity: Anglosphere vs Eurosphere even as they made common cause against the USSR during the Cold War. Also, there used to be some pushback against English as the common language for all Europeans. There was a time when French and German had special prestige in Continental Europe. But that was then, this is now. All Europeans have surrendered to English, especially the American kind, as the new lingua franca. So, Americanism has spread all across Europe like wildfire as Europeans grow up immersed in everything associated with American English, which these days is mostly about worship of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. After all, Jews control media in the Anglosphere and Rap is the #1 musical genre in America. So, English, though Anglo in origin, is now the instrument of Jews and blacks.

Paradoxically, it's precisely because English has become such a world language that Continental Europeans are less resistant to it. When it used to be associated with Anglo-British Power and Anglo-American Power, Continental Europeans associated it with the domination of Brits and Wasps. The Narcissism of Small Differences made Continental Europeans feel resentful and envious of the Greater Power spawned by the troublesome Island Nation across the English Channel. But once English came to be regarded as a World Language that no longer belongs to Anglos but also to Jews, blacks, Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, and anyone who wants to do business and smoke the PC pipe, the use of English among Continental Europeans was no longer seen as triumph of Anglos over other Europeans.

If it used to be the case that Europe was under the thumb of Wasp-ruled America, the new reality since the end of the Cold War has been that BOTH Europe and the US(along with Canada and Australia) are under the rule of Judea, the most powerful empire in the world. When Jews took over the institutions of America, they didn't see themselves as the owners of American Power. They saw themselves as members of Judea or World Jewry, for whom America is the biggest prize, the Jewel in the Crown. It was like Alexander the Macedon was not content with the conquest of Greece. Though Hellenized and the new ruler of Greek peoples, Alexander didn’t see himself as First among Greeks. He saw himself as the Ruler of the World. He saw himself as lord of not only Macedonia and Greece but over Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, and parts of India. Likewise, Jews are not content with being the New Elites of America. Their main identification is not with American Power but with World Power as Judea has networks all over the world wherever there are Jews, and this means in Israel, Europe, Russia, Latin America, and even in Iran. With Jewish men marrying Chinese women, Jews also aim to sink their influence into China itself.

This is why PC has accelerated all over the West. It is the Jewish weapon of castrating white power and enforcing White Submissivism in both the US and EU. So, we have White Submissivist cuck-collaborator elites denouncing nationalism in Europe as being ‘far right’ and ‘nazi’. So, we have cuck-dogs like John McCain never denouncing the mass invasion of Germany and UK — but then, he never opposed the Mexican invasion of Southwest territories either because Jews would be angry with him — while growling at Russia, a nation whose advice to Europeans is that they should defend and preserve their borders, race, and cultures. Because Jews are so little in number, they know that their power is OVER the minute white people begin to reject White Submissivism. Currently, most whites are under the impression that white folks wanting to defend their nations, peoples, and cultures from non-white mass invasion is ‘white supremacist’ when, in fact, it’s the non-whites who are aggressively conquering white lands and replacing whites who are left to drop dead like flies from opioids and other excesses urged upon them by the Jews. But there is always a chance that whites will wake up, especially in the age of the internet when even whites without establishment power can get their ideas and images across. This is why Jews go all out to infect whites with PC from the youngest age. Jews urge white parents to start the brainwashing in the crib lest the kids turn out, oh my god, ‘racist’! To condition white minds to cucky-wuck defenseless, Jews promote Homomania that idolizes wussy white men(as nobler than masculine white men) and lionizes trannies who make white people accept degeneration and disorientation as the New Normal. If a nation believes ridiculous-looking men with dicks and balls are ‘women’ because they wear wigs & dresses, then it can be made to believe in just about anything. It’s the infantilization of adults. It’s like kids who can be made to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy can be made to believe in whatever.

Even so, Jews know that the power of PC is all in the mind. If whites were to eject PC from their minds, they could abandon White Submissivism and stand up to vile Jewish Supremacism and smash it. It's like, once the character in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is disinfected of the mental virus, he can see everything clearly.

So, the ONLY sure way for Judea to rule over the West forever is to create massive Diversity, whereby they can play divide-and-rule among so many different gentiles who can never agree on anything. And even if all those gentiles were to dislike Jews, they would also dislike and distrust one another and thus fail to form a united bloc against Jewish supremacist power. Even if every white person were a razing Nazi, he couldn't do anything if his race made up only 30% of the population.

Now...

*How to Play ASK A JEW*

Jewish Power is up to no good, but Jews love to put white gentiles on the defensive by accusing White People of ‘supremacism’ whenever white folks insist on their identity, inheritance, history, and right of territory. Jews don’t want white folks to have autonomy of history because it is natural for all groups to be ‘ethnoistic’, just like it’s natural for individuals to be egoistic. Every person wants to feel that his or her version of events is most correct and most justified. Even when people do wrong and know it, they seek emotional justifications for why they did what they did. Consider the Akira Kurosawa film RASHOMON where each of the three characters admits to the murder(or suicide) but passionately justifies what he/she did on emotional and egoistic terms.
This is why, to control memory means to control the world. Because all individuals and all groups tend to shape their memory, personal or political, to justify their actions and deeds, people who gain control of others’ memories gain control over them, and people who lose control of their memory to another people become owned by them. Indeed, NOTHING is more important than control of memory that serves as the basis of the Narrative that validates an individual, a group, or a people.
If a man has memory and 10 million dollars, he is a lucky man. Now, what would be worse? For him to keep the 10 million and lose his memory OR for him to lose the 10 million but keep his memory? Of course, the latter. Money is precious but memory is priceless. None of us would know what or who we are without memory.

Also, there is another side to memory. It’s the management of memory. Memory itself doesn’t ensure pride and power. It all depends on how the Memory is Managed. For example, Jews committed massive pogroms to expel Palestinians to create Israel. All Jews now know this part of Israeli history. So, why aren’t they filled with shame and guilt? Because Jews have Management over their Memory. Even as Jews admit to what they did to the Palestinians, they manage and spin the memory in such a way that justifies their actions. Now, imagine what would happen to Israel if the Palestinian minority were to gain control of most media & academia and bought up all Jewish politicians to do the bidding of Palestinian power. Suppose Palestinian elites gained control of Jewish memory and its management. Suppose they suppressed any memory that makes Jews look good and Palestinians look bad. And then, suppose they managed the memory of the founding of Israel in such a way that makes Jews look especially vile and evil. It won’t be long before Jews lose pride & confidence and turn into putty in the hands of Jews. Unless Jews wake up and regain their memory and its management, they are sure to be a doomed people who, year after year, will lose out to the Palestinians who will gradually take over Israel and turn it back into Palestine, especially with Right of Return instituted as historical redress.

Jews sure love to mess with white/gentile minds. Jews do it so well that so many white Progs and Liberals are convinced that Jews are so noble, saintly, wise, and wonderful. They’ve been brainwashed by Jews to believe that Evil is something almost unique to whites(and Russians, Iranians, and Chinese). They look up to Jews as knowing more, understanding more, and being morally superior. But are Jews really this way? Indeed, what are they really like and what are they really about? To access that truth, it’s best for these white progs and white cucks to play the game of ASK A JEW. Now, what kinds of questions should they ask to the Jews?

Here are some suggestions. Just look Jews straight in the eye and ask them to answer the following questions:

1. Is it true that you Jews want Hungary and Poland to be mass-invaded by Muslims and Africans while Israel gets to protect its borders and preserve its Jewish ethnic identity and cultural integrity?

2. Is it true that you Jews believe that gentiles, especially Europeans, have NO identity based on blood, history, and territory? So, Irishness, Italianness, and Germanness have no roots and lineage? They are just pieces of paper that anyone can apply for to become, virtually overnight, New Irish, New Italians, and New Germans? If so, should Jewishness be defined the same way in Israel? Anyone who wishes to be ‘Jewish’ should have the right to move to Israel and claim identity as 'New Jews'?

3. If you Jews believe that race is just a social construct, why do you not notice that all those sports teams owned by your kind are dominated by blacks due to factors of real racial difference? After all, if race is a phony social construct and peoples of all races are the same in everything but skin color, why are Ashkenazi Jews far more likely to make big bucks and own sports teams while blacks are far more likely to dominate sports and make big bucks that way?

4. If you Jews believe that American History was stained because it favored whites over non-whites, why do you insist that the New and Improved America should favor Israel over Iran and favor Zionists over Palestinians? And if the US, as a Nation of Immigrants, should have equal respect for all nations and all peoples, why do you Jews command us to chant "Israel is America’s greatest ally"? And where is the evidence that the US needs Israel for security or prosperity?

5. If you Jews love Immigration, why do you stay put in the West? Why don’t you take up immigration again and emigrate to Africa, Asia, or the Middle East? Why stay put in places like NY, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Miami? Why not get back in nomadic gear and immigrate to other nations? After all, you Jews say all Nations are ‘nation of immigrants’ since all of them were created by invasions and migrations. Since all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, isn’t it about time you Jews moved to, say, Africa? Or how about Latin America? You Jews say it’s great that whites will be a racial minority in the future. You say Diversity is awesome. Well, if that’s true, shouldn’t you move to Latin America where whites are already minorities in very diverse nations made of all sorts of mixed races? Why do you stay put in the West?

6. You Jews decry inequality and call for 'fair' representation. If so, why do you Jews freak out whenever people point out that YOU JEWS are over-represented in many elite institutions and industries? And if white people should try to hire non-whites as much as possible to promote Diversity, why are you Jews so prone to hiring and especially promoting fellow Jews in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Media, Academia, Law firms, and Deep State?

7. Why do you Jews oppose gun ownership in the US but support the right of Jews to have assault weapons in Israel? Is it because Israel is majority Jewish and that means an armed Jewish majority with the firepower,esp against the Arab minority? In contrast, because the US is mostly gentile, maybe you Jews fear all those gentiles with guns? Since you Jews control the government, you want guns to be monopolized by the state so that the people won’t be able to resist when the Jewish-controlled government comes after them, right?

Surely, we can come up with many other questions for Jews. Anyway, it’s a fun game for the whole family and all your friends. Just look at the discrepancy between what Jews say and what Jews actually do. Don’t be a dummy and remain silent. Come up with questions and ASK A JEW. One thing for sure, it’s better to Ask-a-Jew than Ass-Kiss-a-Jew.

Maybe we can even have an Ask-A-Jew March where many people hold up placards with QUESTIONS FOR JEWS(as the dominant power in the world). It’s smart to pose questions to the most powerful power, which is currently Judea. It’s dumb to just obey the ultimate power and never ask questions. And if you remain mute out of fear, then it’s just craven cowardice.