Why We Cannot Expect Jews to Tell Us the TRUTH — Jews Talk to Us like Adults Talk to Children — We Need to Grow Up and Stop Acting like Children before Jews-as-Adults

When adults and children talk, do we expect adults to always speak the truth? No. Even as adults press upon children to speak truthfully to adults, they don’t feel obligated to always speak truthfully with children. Of course, decent adults try to be as truthful as possible, but they believe, with good reason, that children are intellectually and emotionally unprepared to deal with certain truths. The mind of a child that can believe in Santa Claus can be led to believe in just about anything. While lying-to-children as a policy isn't good, expecting children to handle the truth like adults would be foolish. And so, there are certain truths that we don’t share with children. And if children ask inconvenient questions, we resort to half-truths or explanations(or even concoct lies) that we feel to be appropriate given the circumstances. Only gradually do children mature into adults in their emotions and sophistication, and it takes time for children to grow into young adults who can handle more truth. It’s been that way forever among humans all around the world.

But the adult-children dynamics often exist even among adults or between groups of adults. Some groups feel more intelligent, more knowing, and more deserving of power/influence. They believe they know and understand more. Therefore, while they themselves can ‘handle the truth’, they believe other groups cannot. Such group dynamics can be along educational, class, racial, religious, or ethnic lines. Obviously, those who attended and/or work for elite institutions feel they are smarter, more capable, and more deserving to know More Truth. In contrast, the less intelligent, less informed, and less sophisticated are deemed undeserving of the raw and unfiltered truth. They must be fed the official news processed by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ which is an industrial complex of the Deep State and oligarchic corporations. So much of state documents are redacted and kept secret. And Big Media are as much about hiding, twisting, or spinning the news as ferreting them out. New York Times and such publications may sometimes go the extra mile to expose secrets that the government wants suppressed, but more often than not, they work with the Power to decide what the people should or shouldn’t be told. Furthermore, even when the Big Media expose inconvenient secrets, they do so less for the public good or for truth-for-truth’s-sake than as a power game. When MSM broke the Watergate scandal, it was working with elements of the Deep State to oust Richard Nixon. And when the MSM pushed the Russia-Russia-Russia Hysteria, or Russysteria, to unseat Donald Trump, it was in collusion with the globalist Deep State that deems nationalism too petty for an empire like the US. So, the so-called Fourth Estate is less in service to the people than to the elites. Even when MSM spills the truth for the people to see and hear, it is less to inform the people and raise their political consciousness than to manipulate mass opinions so that one elite faction can undermine another elite faction. It's about using mass opinion to boost one elite faction against others.

People in the MSM believe they must be the gatekeepers of truth, facts, and opinions. They believe there are too many lies, falsehoods, fabrications, and ‘conspiracy theories’ in the alternative newsphere and online opinion world. And they are right about all the cranks, charlatans, looneys, and nutjobs on the internet spreading half-truths, false rumors, and fake news. And yet, it’s downright hilarious for MSM to sit atop the high horse when it’s been guilty of the same thing on a much bigger and more consequential scale. While liberal democracies offer more venues and outlets for news than totalitarian systems do, they are essentially ruled by oligarchies that are more concerned with power, prestige, and privilege than with truth, honesty, and integrity.
Elites have always regarded themselves as better and more deserving than the masses. They’ve seen themselves as the ‘adults in the room’ and sneered at the masses as ones who ‘cannot handle the truth’. Still, even such snobbery could be fused with genuine idealism, i.e. elites must strive to know more, understand more, and responsibly craft news & opinions for the good of the people. They may be vain and conceited but also sincere in their goodwill toward the people. Such is usually the case when the adult-children dichotomy among adults is only along class-lines. The higher classes with better education feel they should know more and have more power to do what is good for the lower classes, the hoi polloi. Such class dynamics plays out in the US, Russia, China, Iran, France, and etc. The US elites in NY, DC, and LA think they should tell us what to think and how to feel. The CCP believe it knows what is good for the Chinese people. The Russian government controls the news and narrative for the national interest. The leaders of Iran and France think they know best and suppress certain truths while highlighting or even exaggerating others.

But when class snobbery combines with racial supremacism, the adult-children dichotomy among adults becomes more problematic. Consider the Deep South where white elites considered blacks to be not only economic and cultural but racial inferiors. They believed the problem wasn’t merely that blacks had less education(if any) and knowledge but that blacks were innately less capable of thinking like adults. Blacks were regarded as childlike and naturally animal-primal in their emotions and thought-processes. As such, blacks could be told some truth but not all the truth. Blacks would not be able to process them, handle them. Besides, as blacks were bigger, stronger, and more aggressive, giving them the same rights and freedoms of white folks could be very dangerous. As history showed, a lot of white fears and anxieties about free blacks with equal rights proved to be valid. Biologically, it’s true that blacks are less inhibited, less rational, more impulsive, and wilder. As such, blacks aren’t capable of handling the truth in the same way as whites. (That said, the main problem was that white elites were not honest among themselves about the threat posed by blacks. Abraham Lincoln was candid about the black problem in private and hoped for a permanent separation of the races by means of repatriation or creation of a black republic. If white elites had spoken the truth about blacks to each other loud-and-clear and spread the same message to the white masses, the race problem could have been brought to an end. Imagine if white elites had spread the following message far-and-wide-and-loud-and-clear: "Blacks evolved to be more muscular, more aggressive, bigger-donged, and more psychopathic. Without separation, some may call for racial integration one of these days, and then blacks will destroy white manhood and conquer white women, and that will turn white guys into a bunch of 'faggot-maggots' and that will be the end of the white race. Also, as an idol is worth a million individuals in prestige & fame and as idols in America will be determined by athletic feats and musical prowess, blacks will likely take over as idols, and white boys and girls will effectively grow up worshiping Negroes as demigods." If white elites had spoken such truths, most whites would surely have agreed for radical measures to bring about racial separation when the US was still a virile and healthy race-ist nation.) Now, if blacks were smaller and weaker — like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis — , one might speak the whole truth to them and let it sink in. But as blacks are tougher, louder, and stronger, white folks are now scared half to death to say anything that might trigger blacks into flipping out. Still, even if white folks had good reasons to maintain an adult-children dynamics between themselves and blacks, many of their lies were self-serving. Worse, it’s often the case that those who lie to control others often come to half-believe in those lies for emotional comfort. The 'white lie' can become the official myth.

In the current US, Jews and Goyim are like whites and blacks in the Deep South prior to the Civil Rights Movement. Just like white elites in the South felt they deserved to rule because they were better educated, more cultivated, and more civilized, many Jews feel they should rule because they are more intelligent, more engaged, more informed, and wiser. So, Southern white elites were like the adults, and blacks(and ‘white trash’) were like the children(or chillun). Southern white elites were privy to certain truths whereas the blacks(and ‘white trash’) were fed simple narratives and fairytale-like myths... though in their vanity and self-aggrandizement, many Southern elites came to believe in the myth that the peddled to the masses — besides, most of the elites are too busy making money and leave it up to OTHERS to define the truth; as the cultural elites mostly write books for the public and as the children of the elites also read these books, they too come under the same kind of manipulation, the kind that prints legend as fact.
The childlike masses weren’t deemed as deserving of knowledge and privilege rightfully reserved for ‘adults in the room’ who know what is in the best interest for all of society. It’s like what parents say to each other, they keep from the children. It’s like the Movie Rating that forbids kids from watching R-rated movies without an adult guardian. It’s like special archives that are accessible only for those with credentials. The rest of us must rely on MSM and public libraries. Even the internet doesn’t allow access to state secrets and the like. Furthermore, monopolies like Google manipulate algorithms to favor Jewish-controlled 'mainstream news' over alternative sources that dare speak truth to power. Jews are like the Southern white elites in feeling that they know best and deserve special access to knowledge denied to most people. The rest of us, being childlike and insufficient in knowledge, should be controlled. We need to be told what to believe and how to feel. After all, Jews are the ‘adults in the room’ while we are ‘children in the romper room’. Jews feel that unless we are kept in the romper room with toys, we might go romper stomper.

But then, there is a Catch-22 kind of logic to Jewish Power over us. Jews say, because we don’t know enough, we must be kept from knowing too much. But if we don’t know enough, shouldn’t we be encouraged to know more so that we will be deserving to know the full truth one day? If a child must be kept from the truth because his mind isn’t ready for it yet, then shouldn’t he be intellectually and emotionally prepared so that he will be ready one day? Then, the same logic would apply to adult goyim. If too many adult goyim are currently too ill-informed and childlike to handle truth and nothing but the truth, then shouldn’t they be prepared and informed so that they will be more knowledgeable and understanding to handle the truth? And yet, the Jewish Paradox sets in that denies such possibility for growth among goyim. Jews say, because we don’t know enough, we must not be allowed to know more that may prepare us to know the full truth. Instead of urging us to know more to ultimately gain the truth, Jews say that because we don’t know enough, we should know even less. Indeed, our knowledge should be limited to what the Jewish-controlled MSM, entertainment, academia, and Deep State deem as 'acceptable'. For Jews, it's not a matter of truth vs falsehood but 'acceptable' vs 'unacceptable', with their ilk deciding what is acceptable or not. In a way, the way Jews see goyim is worse than how adults see children. At the very least, adults expect children to eventually grow up and handle the truth. In contrast, Jews want us to remain stupid children forever, all the better to control us emotionally and ideologically. Jews do not want us to think independently or attain autonomy of mind. Jews don’t want us to find and explore our own truth. They are to decide what is ‘extreme’ or ‘hateful’.

Now, if Jews were at least sincere in their commitment to justice and truth, their concerns would be more understandable. If Jews were truly moral and decent, I can understand why they would be concerned about young, impressionable, gullible, and immature people falling under the sway of stupid Neo-Nazi or white-supremacist nonsense that one does indeed encounter on the internet. While I’m for freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas, many young people have fallen under bad influence as the result of propaganda from both left and right. Whether one turns into a skinhead or an antifa goon, obviously such a person isn’t thinking. He is intellectually decrepit and emotionally crippled. But, in fact, even as Jews feign concern for justice and truth, they themselves are arch-tribal-supremacists and full of hateful extremism. Also, they not only oppose white supremacism or goy extremism but seek to suppress any healthy sign of white/goy consciousness lest it seek independence and liberation from Jewish Supremacism.
In this, Jews are like the white elites of the Old South. Even as the white elites made noise about how they needed to control the power, truth, and narrative to maintain a just and stable order over black savages and ‘white trash’, they were trying to keep it all for themselves. They wanted permanent privilege on both racial and class grounds. They not only felt that blacks and ‘white trash’ weren’t, as yet, ready for full power and truth but sought to maintain the existing power structure as long as possible. The lower elements deserved to know less because they knew less. Hardly an effort was made to urge the lower elements to know more so that they could know even more and eventually rise up the ladder. And yet, the white elites weren’t merely cunning and deceptive. Many of them came to believe in their own myths because it made them feel better. People justify power with myth, and then, if they aren’t careful, come to believe in the myth. It’s like getting high on one’s own supply.
Especially pertaining to blacks, the white elites in the South felt that the differences weren’t merely a matter of education and cultivation but race and blood. Even though some of them did mouth platitudes about blacks gradually rising up to higher civilizational standards, they mostly wished that blacks would always remain ‘children’ vis-a-vis the white ‘adults’ who knew what was in the best interest of the Negroes. Now, history has proven that blacks do indeed do better in societies ruled by whites who are more intelligent and even-tempered; black-run societies have gone to pots. And yet, such social dynamics, even if based on some degree of truth, was bound to be untenable in the long run because it demeaned black pride and contradicted American principles. While it seems factual that childlike blacks do fare better under whites in the role of ‘adults’, what people would want to believe that they are best off serving as obedient ‘children’ under the guidance of another race? This was especially tough for blacks to swallow since they are a very physical people who judge worth mainly in terms of who-can-whup-whose-ass? Because blacks ‘think’ so viscerally, they have a hard time accepting the fact that ‘faggoty-ass white boys’ are better than them in anything. Now, if white race were tougher, bigger, and stronger than blacks, then blacks would have less problem accepting the white race as the master race because black psycho-hierarchy gauges worth in terms of ass-whupping prowess. Indeed, the main sense of racial injustice among blacks isn’t so much that they were enslaved by whites. It’s that they were enslaved by a weaker and wussier race. As such, blacks feel that THEY should have been the master race over the whites: THEY should have been kicking white boys’ ass and humping white women. (In contrast, the short brown people of Latin America have been willing to regard the white Conquistador elites as the rightful rulers for being bigger and taller. The Aryan invaders of India also didn't have to worry about the physical threat because the Dravidians whom they conquered weren't bigger or stronger. Furthermore, the Aryans manipulated Hindu religion to 'sacralize' themselves as the more sacred class/race. By spiritualizing their power over the darker native folks, they made it a crime against the cosmos to challenge the existing social order. In a way, Jews see eye-to-eye with the Hindus because they are trying to create a caste system in the US with themselves as the Holiest Race based on the combination of Covenant myth and Shoah cult. Jews push a kind of 'Meritokarma' that would have us believe that Jews, with their superior intelligence and wisdom, deserve to be at the very top. And as many elite and wanna-be-elite Americans are obsessed about IQ and status — despite their bogus PC noises to the otherwise — , they do look upon Jews as the super-brahmin caste. Yet, not all Americans feel that way. White Nationalists, for instance, are more into aesthetics and beauty. While they believe Jews may be smarter, they believe whites are more attractive. And they believe that the white race has a right to preserve its beauty in white lands; as such, those most invested in the preservation of the white race and white beauty are most deserving to rule. This is why Jews see white beauty as something they must own, control, and commoditize. It must be turned from a racial preserve of the white race to a globalist product to be sold around the world by Jews.)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1FfpORiyo39H/

While Jews may be smarter than white goyim, the Jewish-white dynamics is very different from the white-black dynamics. While we can understand how the adult-children dynamics between whites and blacks was deeply offensive and hurtful to blacks(especially as it deemed whites to be racially more advanced than blacks), there is no denying that, without whites, blacks wouldn't have modern civilization, or much of civilization of any kind. Without whites, most blacks would be nothing but Jafro-Jivers chucking spears at hippos and running like mofos from lions or gorillas when not beating on bongo drums and shaking their booties. In contrast, despite higher Jewish intelligence and tremendous Jewish achievements, history has shown that whites can do just fine without Jews, indeed even better.
Paradoxically, higher Jewish achievements can be WORSE for white societies. Why? Because even though Jews use their high IQ for advancements in various fields, especially science, medicine, and technology, they use the profits not for the general good of the nation but to boost and reinforce Jewish Supremacism, and this entails the mental and emotional enslavement of the goy population. Jews will push any agenda or product, regardless of how harmful it may be to the general goy public, to strengthen themselves by weakening the Other. Take ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs for instance. Why are Jews using media, academia, entertainment, and advertising to push interracism, especially the kind where white wombs are to be colonized by black seed? It’s to demolish white male pride and white unity. Jews seek to turn the goyim into mulatto-mestizo who are so confused in identity that they won’t be able to unite against Jewish supremacist power. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Jews will use their high IQ only for noble ends, such as finding cures for horrible diseases or exploring deeper philosophical truths. A lot of Jews are smart but shallow, and all they care about is money, money, money, and like gangsters and crooks, they will use ANY MEANS at their disposal to rake in more cash... like Jordan Belfort and his fellow Jewish pranksters who were the basis for the film THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Of course, Hollywood being Jewish, Martin Scorsese took care to de-Jewify the story somewhat, but it’s pretty obvious what it’s all about.

In some ways, Jews are justified in feeling like ‘adults’ over white goy ‘children’. Even though the differences between Jews and white goyim aren’t as stark as the differences between the white race and the black race — Jews are Caucasian like the Arabs and, like the Europeans, a people with a deep history of civilization and achievements — , Jews(at least the Ashkenazi ones) are thought to be smarter than whites on average(and indeed even by one standard deviation). Also, Jewish personality is wilier and more cunning, crafty, clever, sneaky, and shifty. As such, Jews are more prone to be in the mind-game mode than whites are. Whites, especially those of Northern European stock, tend to be more obedient and simplistic in personality. In some ways, Jewish personality is to white personality what white personality is to East Asian personality. Jewish personality is more passive-aggressive, more multi-faceted. In a way, Jews had to develop such shifty Zeligish personality because they had to wear many masks. As a people who came to prominence with both prophecy and profiteering amongst various goy groups, Jews could never be just one thing. It’s like a salesman or a politician needs to have more of an adaptive personality than a farmer or truck driver. They must be chameleon-like; they must play different roles. Because Jews are more adept with a multi-faceted personality than white goyim are, they tend to look upon whites as overly earnest, trusting, or simple-minded. In other words, whites can be made simplemindedly antisemitic or simplemindedly philo-semitic. Whites can be made to go ‘full retard’ as either ‘nazis’ or ‘shabbos goyim’. Same is true of children. Children can be made to believe anything. They can be taught to be 100% Nazi or 100% Commie. Young ones can be made to believe in God or not believe in God. They can be made to believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The Jewish Mind thinks strategically at all times and never lowers the guard. And it’s always looking for soft spots through which to thrust the blade. Jewish Mind is one with Jewish Pride, and this makes Jews defiant. So, it’s not easy for whites to convince or persuade Jews. Even when whites are correct and well-meaning in their interaction with Jews, the latter thinks, “What is the white goy REALLY after?” The Jew wonders, “Is the white goy trying to push his ‘truth’ onto me to control me?” And if the Jew realizes that the white goy is both correct in his truth and well-meaning in his sharing of the truth, he wonders, “Why is the white goy being SO DUMB and sharing this truth with me when I can remold and manipulate it against him?” The Jew is always asking questions, whereas the goy is not, at least not in relation to Jews.

In a way, the Jew-Goy dynamics is natural because it’s generally true that when a smart person is with a less-smart person, the former is more inquisitive whereas the latter is more trusting. The smarter person tries to figure out the ‘dummy’, whereas the less-smart person feels so flattered to be in the presence of the ‘genius’ that he gets all oh-goshy. Indeed, we see such uh-shucks-oh-goshiness among so many white goyim in the presence of Jews. Consider Charles Murray who wets his pants in the presence of Jewish Genius. Even Jared Taylor, though insulted, defamed, and excommunicated by Jews from social platforms and financial services, is always sucking up to Jews, deferring to them, and banning any criticism of Jewish Power & Israel on his site American Renaissance. The combination of higher IQ and wilier personality makes Jews feel more ‘adult’ in the presence of white goyim who seem less smart and less complex in emotional terms.
But of course, there is the added element of spiritual mythology and/or Holocaustianity. Among simpleminded Evangelicals, Jews are the original Chosen, the holy People of the Book. There was a time when Christianity said Jews killed Jesus and etc., but the New Narrative blamed it all on the Romans, and most Christian pastors are the biggest cucks of Jews in the world. For the secular goyim, there is the neo-spiritual faith in the Holy Holocaust that would have us believe no people suffered as much as the Jews and for NO GOOD REASON at all because, apparently according to the new historiography, Jews were pure-as-snow innocents all throughout history, and it was ALWAYS the goyim’s fault when Jews were met with explosions of violence. Jewish rationale is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, Jews denounce the superstitiousness of goyim who were prone to BLAME THE JEW. And yet, we are to believe that all those goyim in all those places all throughout history just lost their minds and went totally cuckoo in the presence of totally innocent Jews. So, who’s being superstitious? The real superstition is the Jewish Lie that Jews were always innocent and Goyim were always in the wrong. It’s statistically impossible that all throughout history, in all the outbreaks of violence between Jews and non-Jews, it was the Jews who were always innocent and it was the goyim who were always guilty. Unless Jews are a godlike people, there’s no way Jews were that good.

Unfortunately, Jews tend to fall into two categories. What both have in common is self-worship but in different ways. One group believes that Jews are indeed pure-as-snow and always right and so goody-good, and therefore, it really must have been the fault of goyim. These Jews believe that the Tribe is indeed holy because its members are indeed morally superior to the rest of humanity. Such Jews are Moral Supremacists. They do believe in morality but are blind to Jewish immorality toward goyim and only see the ‘evil’ of hostile goy reactions to Jewish bad behavior. Even though they call for Jewish unity in pride and prestige — all Jews deserve to share in the achievements of great and good Jews — , they are the first ones to say that the behavior of bad Jews do not reflect on the Jewish community as a whole. So, when Jews act good, all Jews deserve to share in the pride of goodness. But when Jews act bad, it is ‘evil’ and ‘antisemitic’ to notice certain patterns that pertain to the Jewish community in general. Still, the moral supremacist Jews do believe in some kind of code of ethics. In contrast, the other kind of Jews, the Nihilist Supremacists, believe Jews are superior just because. In other words, Jews are better, superior, and more deserving simply because they are Jews, the ultimate Tribesmen. Jews are right even when they do wrong because... they are Jews. So, it doesn’t matter if Jews do good or Jews do bad. As Jews, they can do as they please to lord over goyim and exploit them. They have the mentality not unlike that of the hoodlums in GOODFELLAS. They regard themselves as the Made Men, and the Covenant gives them license to act as the World Mafia.

While it’s inconceivable to imagine a social order in which all people are equally deserving of power and truth — even if such were offered to everyone, too many people will reject power and truth in favor of escapism and comforting myths — , we must nevertheless strive for a society where most people are adult-like and demand to know more and handle more responsibility. People must never be mindlessly trusting of the Power, and this goes for US, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and etc. There are no philosopher kings or wise-men among the ruling elites. Power has its own logic: Self-perpetuation by any means. Societies cannot do without concentrations of power, wealth, and influence, but the people must still insist on knowing more and ask tough questions. They must support a system of education, cultivation, and communication where people are encouraged to be more mature, rational, factual, and inquisitive. They need to be on the side of critical thinking, the will and courage to speak truth to power, or at least ask truth of power.
Jews know this is a threat to them. Why would they want people to think critically when, in the Current System, they are positioned as the ‘adults in the room’ while the goyim are relegated to ‘kindergarten’ status? Why would they want us to feel, think, and speak as adults when they prefer us to remain like children or cattle? This is why Jews push PC on schools at an early age. By pushing ‘anti-racism’, Jews seek to suppress white racial consciousness and identity. By pushing hysteria about ‘antisemitism’, Jews seek to suppress the truth that the main supremacist ideology of the West is Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, Wars for Israel, and nihilistic Jewish gangsterism throughout government & the economy. Jews are so clever. They pretend to be ‘anti-racist’ by denouncing ‘racism’ but then shield Jewish ‘racism’ or racial supremacism by invoking ‘antisemitism’ to suppress criticism of Jewish monstrosity against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. And of course, Jews push globo-homo to kids as early as possible in schools. Jews would have us ‘children’ believe that Homo-Mania is all about Human Rights and Justice, but it’s really about inculcating children with mindless worship of Minority Supremacism. After all, kids aren’t merely taught that homos are born that way and do odd ‘sexual’ things. They are taught that homos and trannies are the holy ‘rainbow’ people who deserve extra love and adoration. By making goyim worship homos as eternal minorities, Jews are trying to condition all goy minds to favor the minority-elite over the majority-norm. Sadly, the fact that SO MANY goyim have fallen for this shtick and even take their kids to libraries for reading sessions from trannies goes to show there is some truth to the notion of Jews as ‘adults’ and goyim as ‘children’. Adults lead, children follow. Jews lead, goyim follow.

But this is a habit goyim must break free of. Goyim must not be like Charlie Kirk the worthless cuck for whom ‘conservatism’ happens to be whatever Jews say it is. Kirk is more dog than human. He barks and rolls over accordingly. If Jews say NO WHITE IDENTITY, then Kirk says NO WHITE IDENTITY. If Jews say WHITES MUST SERVE JEWISH IDENTITY, then Kirks concurs and says WHITES MUST SERVE JEWISH IDENTITY. If Jews say ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IS A CONSERVATIVE VALUE AND ‘LADY MAGA’ EPITOMIZES CONSERVATISM, then Charlie Cuck says the same. He really is a child. It could be he’s just an opportunist who says whatever to get a leg up in a Jewish-controlled system, but his childlike cuck-self really seems to believe in the ever-morphing ‘truth’ peddled by Jews who’ve taken control of Conservatism Inc. For such fools, truth is not a matter of what but of who. Truth is whatever said by Jews. So, if Jews say A is true, A is true. If Jews say B is true, then B is true. All that matters is WHO says it. If Jews say it, it must be true.
While not a genius, Kirk doesn’t seem like a retard either. So, why is he such a ‘child’, why is he such a dog? It’s because he has the emotions of an eight-year old who is so eager to please the ‘adults in the room’. Charlie Kirk the Cuck looks upon Jews as the holy ‘adult’ race and regards himself and fellow goyim as ‘children’ who must defer to the ‘grown-ups in the room and gain their approval’. It’s all so pathetic.

One of the most important projects among white goyim must be to create a culture of adulthood. There is a reason why adults are adults and children are children, but there is no good reason for a bunch of adults to remain childlike at the feet of other adults. It smacks of Oriental Despotism or Jerry-Springer-ism. Individualism used to be a means by which Western Man(and Woman) stood out and up from the herd and learned to think, feel, and act on his own. But over time, with the rise of Youth Culture and Pop Culture, individualism came to be degraded into mindless addiction to sensory overlord via electronica that promote impulsive behavior as being ‘liberated’. But liberated from what? Rational self-control, critical thought, skepticism, and restraint? It’s like a car being 'liberated' of its brakes. It will eventually go off the cliff. A truly free mind has control over both accelerator and brakes. Use of individualism to rise above the herd, gain self-autonomy, and question the Power is noble, but individualism to self-indulge in drugs, sex, and lunacy at the expense of responsibility is no freedom at all. It is enslavement of the mind to the senses, but such is the kind of individualism pushed by Jews who control most media, entertainment, casinos, and drug industries.
In the end, Americans mustn’t rely on Trumpism because its brand of populism ultimately infantilizes the populace with mindless slogans such as MAGA. That’s for the kids. The real adults should ask Trump, “If you’re so much about freedom and American nationalism, why do you keep sucking up to Jews who hate you and have done most to spread globalism all over the world?” Though Ann Coulter has a long way to go, she was adult enough to ask tough questions of Trumpism once Trump became president. He promised the Wall. So, where is it? And Michelle Malkin, though childish in many ways, took it upon herself to be more principled and truthful in challenging the bogus lies of Conservatism Inc with Charlie Kirks of the world as its fronts. Adults must ask tough questions, not just chant slogans like childish tards at Trump-Chump rallies. In the crazy present, while adults are urged to become more infantile and childlike, children like Greta Thunberg are elevated to guru status. Jews rule, and they want adults to be stupid 'children' and hand the mike to children who can be manipulated and mind-controlled. After all, what mind of her own does Thunberg really have? She believes whatever was told her by her parents who got all their worldview from the Jewish-run globalist media. In the Jew-controlled world, illegal is legal, and legal is illegal; sin is virtue, and virtue is sin; and adults are children, and children are adults. And even though Jews are the most powerful and most murderous force in the world, we are told we must look upon Jews as helpless victims in need of protection. But if you're a true adult, go ask the Palestinians about the true nature of Jewish Power. And if Jews treat Palestinians that way, why would they treat you any better?

In a way, goyim in elite circles and Deep State almost consider themselves as ersatz Jews. Though they consider themselves not as 'good, wise, and intelligent' as the super-Jews, the holy race of geniuses and Shoah tragedy, they nevertheless see themselves as good enough to have attended elite schools and reached upper ranks of power where they get to rub shoulders with the super-Jews. Deep State is utterly Philo-Semitic in this manner. Because they worship Jews and feel flattered to be working with and under Jews, there is a kind of super-adult-and-adult dynamics between Jews and elite goyim. Jews are super-adults and elite goyim are adults. And the rest of us are mere 'children' who must be managed by goy elite 'adults' who defer to Jewish 'super-adults'.
Because goy elites have access to the inner circles of power, they know the truth of Jewish Power and Perfidy. And yet, as they were instilled with Jew-Worship from cradle, they can't think rationally about the Jews(and blacks and homos, two other groups Jews have 'christened' or 'anti-christened' as especially holy). Also, those who are most eager to reach the top are less interested in truth, honesty, courage, and integrity than status, privilege, and power. Social climbers are really vain narcissists and nihilists at heart. They may flatter themselves that they want power and/or wealth for the higher/larger good, but it's mostly a self-justifying myth. Also, just like adults are often as foolish as children and believe in stupid things, there is no guarantee that the 'adults in the room', the so-called well-educated elites will favor truth, reason, and integrity over lies, cults, and mendacity. Most members of the elites won't dare say something true or do something courageous IF it means loss of status and reputation among peers, most of whom are vain social-climbers and status-preeners. This has always been the case with all peoples in all places at all times. So, even though it is generally true that the better-educated are more deserving to rule than the less-educated are, it's not a case of the good-and-wise ruling over the bad-and-dumb. Rather, it's fools with more education ruling over fools with less education. And for that reason, the elite justification for the suppression of truth is more often self-serving than for the common good.

Lack of Perspective and Angles in the Age of Insta-Pleasure & Insta-Outrage Makes White Nakba so much Easier — White People Need Perspective and Multiple-Angles More than Ever

There is a scene in THE PLANET OF THE APES(1968) where Taylor(Charlton Heston) and Nova(Linda Harrison) are on the run from the apes. When Nova sees food, her immediate response is to go for it. She acts by impulse and is blind to the potential dangers lurking about. In contrast, Taylor acts with caution, fully aware that it could be a trap or a vulnerability. He has a sense of perspective about the matter, something missing from animals, children, and dumb people. (Granted, even though animals lack depth of reason and perspective, they do possess instinctive fear, jumpy anxiety & trepidation. While rats cannot understand the human hand behind the mouse-trap or rat poison, they evolved to feel certain hesitation when face-to-face with something-too-good-to-be-true. Rats evolved to sample food before consuming the whole thing. If, after the initial sampling, they feel sick, they eat no further. But if they feel no negative effects, they eat the whole thing. This is why warfarin was developed as rat poison. As a blood-thinner, its effect shows up only gradually. And so, the rat goes about consuming warfarin-laced food unaware of its long-term lethal effect.) Why do fish get caught all the time? Because they see worm-on-a-hook as merely food. They don’t see the hook, let alone understand the human mind behind hook, line, sinker, and rod. So, humans have been fooling and catching fish for as long as we can remember and will go on doing so indefinitely. The fish just don’t get it. The fish just see the easy food and not the angle of the angler.
Even intelligent mammals fall for traps all the time. So many mammals, big and small, have been snared or crushed in traps. They saw the easy food but didn’t understand the mechanics of the trap or the mind behind it. Even nature has devised in certain organisms the trap mechanism. Consider the Venus Fly Trap, or the Alligator-Snapping-Turtle that has a tongue that mimics a tiny worm, thus attracting unsuspecting fish. Of course, all such attainments were the ‘accidents’ of evolution than consciously thought-out tools created by the organisms themselves. Most likely, only humans have a truly conscious understanding of how to conceive of and use stealth, camouflage, misdirection, deception(& decoys), and snares to gain advantage over their rivals, animal or human. And this applies not only to instruments of warfare and/or violence but to information, ideas, and idols(images/sounds of culture) used to gain a lead or advantage. More often than not, the clever and resourceful feign sincerity and good will while deploying their messages, expressions, and promises as tools of deception to gain an advantage. Even Jesus spoke of being fishermen of men.


This is why TRUST is a dirty word to any sensible person. Always be wary of trusting others, especially outsiders, though, in certain times, outsiders are more trustworthy than insiders. After all, blacks in America and Africa are better off trusting non-blacks than fellow blacks whose idea of life is jiving and acting crazy. If Trust should be a dirty word, why are Trust Societies better than Distrust Societies? Trust is good if and only if those within the trustful community share in the virtues of honesty and codes of honor. Thus, trust can be made sensible, and this is a great advantage to human communities. (And even among animals, those capable of mutual trust and cooperation within the pack or herd, such as wolves, hyenas, lions, elephants, and orcas, gain a formidable advantage.) But it’s a question of what kind of trust and how it was arrived at. Within a genuine trust community, people are raised from cradle to exhibit mutual respect & cooperation and inculcated with shame or sense of dishonor were they to fall short. Thus, trust is cultivated, developed, and maintained.
Furthermore, there’s an understanding of a penalty(more emotional than monetary) for those who violate the trust. Such trust comes with a price but is upheld and sustained by most people because they sense the alternative, a culture of distrust, would be worse. (The problem with nations like Sweden is the people have forgotten the historical cost and ethno-cultural basis for their culture of trust. In other words, Nordic culture of trust is not some universal truth but a particular reality that came about due to a confluence of factors, biological, cultural, geographic, and spiritual. The extreme cold had the effect of narrowing and hardening Nordic temperaments. The racial homogeneity led to stronger sense of unity. Relative geographic isolation led to fewer invasions, especially by non-whites. And Protestantism had a sobering impact on the Nordic soul. Today’s libertine Nordics may choose to believe that their societies became so stable and tolerant because they are oh-so-nice, kindly, and warm, but in fact, the historical roots of Nordic values owe much to ethno-homogeneity, culture of strict discipline & sobriety, even severity, spiritual devotion, and fear of shame. But silly secularized Nordics, especially the Swedes, have forgotten or forsaken their history and roots as ‘patriarchal’ & ‘oppressive’ and conveniently congratulated themselves that their modern success owes purely to liberal attitudes and tolerance. The real issue is less about liberalism and tolerance, both of which have pros as well as cons, than about what-kind-of-national-character-makes-best-use-of-freedom? After all, freedom is only as good as the person using it. If two people are released from prison, the person with resolve to be virtuous can make good use of his freedom and fare better than in prison while the person with ill-intent will likely use his freedom to commit crime, making things worse for himself and others. This is why libertarianism is only half-right. While it’s true that people want to be free, it's no less true that what people will make of their freedom relies mainly on their genetic makeup, moral upbringing, and cultural conditioning. Why is it that some of the most functional modern societies were those with long histories of authoritarianism, cultural as well as political? Even the Anglos, though pioneers of modern liberty, were part of a highly disciplined and hierarchical society steeped in manners and politesse. Surely, a properly reared child and a spoiled brat will grow up to use their freedoms differently. Libertarians assume that market-forces and rule of law are sufficient to maintain social balance, but a society where most people grow up with Las Vegas and Hollywood values will be too vain, narcissistic, infantile, shameless, and irresponsible to use their freedoms sensibly. And due to their lack of introspection and reflection, they will never blame themselves but point their fingers at everyone else. It'll be even worse if they happen to be genetically predisposed to be less inhibited and egocentric. Take blacks for instance, the race that evolved to be loud and loutish? Is it any wonder that blacks in America always blame OTHERS for their problems? Black idea of justice is, "If we steal and if you notice that we steal, you be racist and shit." How can libertarianism work with such people? Libertarianism might work if society were filled with people like Ron Paul, a man of personal self-restraint and family values, but can anyone imagine a functional libertarian society with the likes of Al Sharpton? How long will rule-of-law be honored by such apelike men?)

Trust is good and sound only within a closed system of shared identities, loyalties, and values. Trust among people is valuable precisely because the default position of mankind must be distrust. Indeed, how many people would you trust with your money, property, or secrets? Even family members cannot be trusted sometimes. For safety and security, we all live in a world of distrust. Even in Trust Societies, people lock their doors when they go to sleep. Even among People-of-Trust, it is a matter of degrees. For example, even Nordics and Japanese don’t share their banking information with others. If people through the ages and across the continents needed to be distrustful in order to survive, how precious it's been for certain communities to produce a culture of trust, which is really a culture of honor. After all, why do people go out of their way to appear trustworthy in some societies? It’s because they’ve been raised from childhood that it’s a matter of honor to be trustworthy. Without that sense of gratification tied to honor(or shame from lack thereof), people would be far less invested in being trustworthy.
Trust grew out of a world of distrust, the natural way of things, and that’s why people valued trust as a valuable commodity. They knew that if they lost the trust, things would revert to the ‘natural state' where everyone tries to cheat the other for petty gains(and without shame). (But over time, Trust Societies got so accustomed to the culture/habit of trust all around them that they took it for granted as something that would always be there; they even got to thinking Trust was the natural way of things. Well, Swedes are in for a rude awakening as tons of foreigners arrive without a Trust Culture. It’s like people who grew up rich may take wealth for granted, failing to realize that poverty is the natural state of being.)

The balancing act necessary for a Trust Society isn’t easy to maintain. It calls for the Goldilocks middle among tribal loyalty, national unity, and higher ideals. While some societies are high on distrust all around, some fail to turn into Trust Societies precisely because they are so heavily invested in one kind of trust over another. A society where people are extremely loyal and trustworthy to fellow kinsmen is likely to be less trustworthy overall because everyone, being so loyal and trusting of close-knit folks, fail to see the bigger picture and the higher good. In a way, Michael Corleone's deep loyalty to his family makes him less trustworthy as an American citizen in THE GODFATHER. On the other hand, a people who are overly loyal to higher ideals or universal ethics will destroy trust in another way. By trying to be One with all of humanity, they neglect the particular needs of their own communities and nations. Just look what the cuck-Scandinavian-Americans have wrought in Minnesota by embracing Blacks and Somalis as representatives of All Humanity than by preserving what had been so successful as Nordic-America.


It should be obvious to everyone that we cannot live by focusing on the Moment. We need a sense of perspective and angles. Even unintelligent people know this on the basic level. Even children understand life is a game of deceit and trickery. After all, no one wins a game of chess by moving pieces in accordance to the Moment. If you thoughtlessly take an 'easy' piece, your opponent could be exposing his piece just to draw you into a trap. So, you must broaden the frame of reference before you make a move. You may take a pawn, knight, bishop, or even a rook, but your opponent could be planning devastating counter-moves. He could be baiting you like a fisherman baits a fish with worm-and-hook. Chess thankfully is a cerebral game, and those who play it know they mustn’t make moves on impulse or sensation. One must be cautious.
And yet, look all around at society-at-large, and so many people who seem to understand the concept of perspectives and angles(at least as theory/principle) are sorely lacking in mindfulness and its application to real life. Of late, how did things get so bad? Partly, it’s due to the infantilization of culture that has allowed so many people to act shamelessly. Also, our pop culture has sensationalized the thrill of the Extreme This or Extreme That. In other words, if something jolts you in the Moment with super excitement, pleasure, or blast, just shut up and GO FOR IT! Just consider the obesity epidemic. Fatkins know that they should eat a balanced diet, but they often binge on excess food in the Moment. They are so fixated on MY PLEASURE NOW that they become oblivious to the fact that they will grow fat by over-eating, especially junky stuff. A more dire case involves dangerous drugs such as meth or various kinds of opioids. People who abuse them know of the long-term dangers, but they are so into the Moment that they don’t care about the consequences or the future. Especially as so many Americans since the 1960s grew up with so much comfort, leisure, and plenty — to the point where even many poor Americans are fatter than middle class folks in many parts of the world — , they never developed the essentials of self-discipline and sense-of-shame. Their mode of life is WANTONNESS. Obesity, drug epidemic, porn-addiction(and pornification of even kiddie pop culture via Disney), vulgarity & violence(especially in mindless video-games), online narcissism(especially on Instragram), insane ‘gay pride’ parades, and etc. didn't come by accident. They are all part of a pattern of a culture that has surrendered(rather happily) to Wantonness, Extreme Thrills, and Pleasures of the Moment. One might argue it really took off with Rock n Roll music of the 1950s, and black jungle boogie and Jewish merchant wits had something to do with it.

But one thing for sure, the Rise of Wantonness has robbed so many people of their sense of perspective and angles, especially if it offers them shameless jolts of pleasure. Even the so-called SJW or Woke phenomenon is really part of the Wantonness. After all, it seems so many Wokers are into politics for the euphoric highs of extreme self-righteousness by vaping on hatred toward Pure Evil. While it may feel good to believe one’s on the right side of history, it feels super-greater to believe one’s side is totally noble while the other side is PURE EVIL. Jewish Power has gone from vilifying Nazis as pure-evil to defaming white patriots as the New Nazis. Thus, hating white people is like a super-moral-drug for the proggies and people-of-color. (And as homos have been elevated to angel-status, celebrating them has taken on orgasmic proportions.) But, Conservatives shouldn’t be so easy to pat themselves on the back for being more sober-minded. After all, they couldn’t vape enough of that Neocon narrative of a New World War where the Gung Ho American Good Guys are at war with the New Nazis made up of ‘Islamo-fascist’ terrorists.

Anyway, a culture that prioritizes the Moment will weaken and eventually paralyze the sense of perspective & angles even among those who do get it, at least cerebrally. Just like the sensation of rapture in a church can make people abandon their conscious will(or the hysteria of mass politics can make even generally sober-minded people become swept away by someone like Hitler or MLK), the emphasis on the Moment will increasingly make people overlook the deeper meaning, the obligations, and the consequences. One reason why globo-homo-mania spread so fast even among the intelligent and educated is due to the ecstatic pageantry with all those ‘rainbow’ colors. Just like Oprah fans got swept away with her cult-of-personality, even smart people get swept away with Momentary Sensations of ‘Gay’ Celebrations. They are like Hansel and Gretel who lose sight of things because they got busy with cookies and candies. Or they are like Pinocchio and young boys who are lured to Pleasure Island to be turned into donkey-slaves(like the girls on Jeffery Epstein's island). Then, it is no surprise that even so many adults today are more like Nova than Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES. Whenever some new morsel of pleasure, delight, thrill, or high is dangled before their eyes, they must have it and be on Pleasure Island. This is as true of politics as anything else. Ever notice that for many progs(and also cuckservatives), what matters most is the rapturous FEELING of being holier-than-thou and high-and-mighty about being on the ‘right side of history’ without ever contemplating the long-term effects of mass-immigration-invasion, spread of globo-homo decadence, and mindless idolatrous worship of Nasty Negroes and Jealous Jews. We went from Bill of Rights to Feels of Righteousness.

It is precisely because so many whites now define truth and meaning in terms of Momentary Feels that they’ve become blind to the real dangers of White Nakba(whereby whites in Europe and North America will be replaced by Diversity much like Palestinians were replaced by Jewish immigrant-invaders). Consider all those silly Europeans holding up signs welcoming ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ without thinking about (1) Jew-run America’s role in smashing the Middle East and North Africa, thereby displacing millions of Arabs/Muslims and (2) the long-term cost of all those non-white newcomers and consequences for the demographic integrity of Europe. How could they be bothered by such details when they got so HIGH on virtue-vaping of the Moment? Of course, the Moment is always more exciting than History, just like someone who visits a brothel is focused on sex/orgasm than the moral/social reverberations.



Paradoxically, Current Jews are at the center of both the Culture of Memory and Culture of Moment. One might ask, how did a people so steeped in memory, morality, and meaning become so involved in the vices of the moment, especially in urging them unto goyim? Given Jewish history, one might say Jews have been more ants than grasshoppers. A people with a serious and sober sense of who they are and what they must do to maintain their community and morality. A people who pondered God and His meaning for Jews and mankind. One would think such a people would be filled with piousness and solemnity. After all, it’s difficult to be both serious/responsible and wild/crazy. It’s hard to be both ant and grasshopper.
And yet, Jews became like 'ant-hoppers', and not least because what started as a Day of Rest turned into days of revelry. Being more intelligent, Jews need expend less of their energies toward work and could indulge in more fun. If a none-too-bright person has to focus a lot(like an ant) to get his work done, a bright person could likely do the work in half the time or even less. That means he has more time for revelry, and this is what we see in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Even though Jordan Belfort was a crook, he was also very hard-at-work in his crookery. He was a hardworking crook. And yet, he was a crazy party animal too. How could a man do so much yet still have so much time left over for self-indulgence? He was very smart. But then, how did Jews get to be so smart? It was because of their mindful piety that pondered God and rewarded the most brilliant religious scholars with better opportunity for marriage and family formation, often with daughters of successful Jewish merchants who also proved their superior intelligence. So, oddly enough, Jewish debauchery has roots in Jewish piety and Jewish work ethic. A community that stressed higher intelligence & brilliance in God-think and making money led to evolutionary factors favoring Jews with higher IQ. Being smarter, Jews realized in the modern world that they could make more money with less time than it takes for goyim, and that meant more leisure time for acting like Jordan Belfort or Jeffrey Epstein.


White Goyim must regain their sense of perspective. They must realize that they are locked in a deadly game of chess with the Jew. First, white goyim must realize that the Jew is the opponent, the enemy. Not because it’s right to be knee-jerk anti-Jewish but because Jews most certainly see white goyim as their rival to destroy and own. When Jews play chess by regarding white goyim as the opponent/enemy, it is utterly foolish and retarded for whites to see Jews as their partner and even advisor. Such lack of perspective! There’s the Jew playing the game to checkmate your king, and you act like he’s on your side and trying to help you out. And because you see the Jew as friend, you try to help him win and lose sight of your own purpose of checkmating his king & his purpose of trying to checkmate your king. It’s like what Deke Thorton says in THE WILD BUNCH: "You think Pike and old Sykes haven't been watchin' us. They know what this is all about - and what do I have? Nothin' but you egg-suckin', chicken stealing gutter trash with not even sixty rounds between you. We're after men - and I wish to God I was with them." (Granted, there is an element of irony because Pike is confused in his own ways.) Consider THE GODFATHER PART 2. Both Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth try to put the other at ease as a partner, friend, and ally, but deep down inside, they know they’re rivals, even mortal enemies, and each knows that the other knows what he knows. At the mildest, Jews see white goyim like Michael Corleone sees Senator Geary: Someone to own and control.
If whites can’t win against the Jew with a checkmate, they must at least play to a stalemate. But idiot whites are under the illusion that Jews are their best friends and coaches in life. Because whites are so retarded at the moment, they don’t even understand the Jewish gambit. When Jews offer whites an easy piece from the table, whites take it with both eagerness(as it seems SO EASY) and guilt-ridden gratitude as the Jew seems so self-sacrificing in offering one of his pieces to the goy. The white goy doesn’t realize that the Jew is setting him up to take the BETTER PIECES. Consider how Jews advised Conservatism Inc to support Mass Immigration because immigrants are ‘natural conservatives’ and especially because most of those coming from South of the Border are Christian Catholics. So, one might have thought Jewish ‘liberals’ and Neocons were doing a favor for American Conservatism and Christianity. Immigration = More Conservatives and More Christians. And so much of Conservatism Inc fell for this gambit without realizing that Jews knew that more immigration would favor their own power. How and Why? (1) The #1 animus of those from Latin America is inferiority complex and resentment toward gringo, and as long as GOP is seen as the Gringo Party, the beaner-folks will vote Democratic. (2) While browns and non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, the policy & agenda are determined at the top by Jews. Non-whites take up the oars while Jews control the steering. Jews play political chess with a sense of perspective, angles, and context. Whites play political chess for the Moment. They go for easy pickings, especially in total trust and gratitude vis-a-vis the Jewish opponent-in-friend's-clothing, and lose sight of the big picture of what the game is really about. But then, even those who do know dare not say anything as the Truth will get them censured or censored, purged or pulverized in the current system where the rules have been totally rigged by Jewish gangster-lawyers and shyster-judges.

Of course, in the Current Year, it is perfectly okay for Jews to play the game as though whites are the enemy, the baddies, the villains, and even the New Nazis. Jewish attitude toward whites can be as hostile, vicious, vitriolic, and demented as they like. So, Jews can play political chess with whites as the opponent who must be destroyed. But whites better not play political chess in kind. The whitey must look upon the Jewish opponent across the table as his dearest buddy, helpful adviser, noble guru, and the most wonderful person on earth. This is a road to serfdom, and Jews keep winning and winning because they play to beat the opponent who sees the Jews as 'muh best pal'. And the reason why Jews want to keep whites in the mode of the Moment, either in orgasm or outrage, is because they sense that white goyim shaken free of the programming may start to think soberly about the perspective and angles of what the Jews are REALLY up to; then, whites will start playing a very different kind of political chess. Jews see whites as children, and we know adults feel free to lie to kids who are deemed unworthy and unprepared of the truth. Jews see themselves as the superior adult-race and see rest of mankind as children-race, and that’s why goyim mustn't expect honest talk from Jews. When Jews talk to you, just remember that they see themselves as adult and you as child. To their credit, they are not without reason for being so arrogant. The fact that so many goyim have been duped by Jews, just like kids fooled by adults, says volumes about how stupid or dumb goy-kind can be. Time to wake up and grow up. Put away childish things.

Oddly Enough, the New Waves of Immigrant-Invaders are like Whites of Old America, whereas White Americans are doped on the Peyote and Firewater of the Constitution — African Evolution and Consequential Culture of Buns & Dongs

It has become something of a 'politicultural' pastime among White American Conservatives to gripe about Constitutional Rights being buried by avalanche of Diversity via Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The logic goes, "Since most immigrants are non-white, and since most non-whites vote for Democrats and align with PC, most future elections will be won by the 'Left' that will clamp down on Constitutional Rights and Traditional American Liberties." Even if immigrants themselves may not be anti-white or anti-American(or anti-Constitutional, especially as one of their reasons for wanting to come to America is for greater freedom), they come under the influence of US media. Furthermore, their children are indoctrinated by PC-laden schools and turn into mental robots spouting the usual nonsense about 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'; and they'll say Diversity is among the highest values(even though many immigrant-invaders moved to white-majority nations in the hope of getting away from too much diversity in their mother countries). But then, EVEN IF most immigrant-invaders were totally supportive of the Constitution and what it stands for, they will still vote for Democratic Party for the simple reason that it is more supportive of Broken Borders(aka Open Borders) that will allow them to bring over more of their relatives and the like. It seems India wants to export at least 400 million Hindus to US, Canada, and Australia. Many are also motivated by envy and resentment. This is especially true of people from Latin America, white and brown alike. White Latinos have long been resentful of the far more successful Anglos and Anglo-Americans, and browns see the 'gringo' as the people who got more of everything. So, their anti-white spite would override their hypothetical support of free speech and property rights. Emotions often overwhelm principles(and even material concerns).

But there is another reason for immigrant-invaders supporting the Democrats and PC. While it's true that they come to the US, Canada, and Australia for More Freedom and More Liberty, they want more of that for THEMSELVES(as opposed to for everyone). While Freedom need not be a zero-sum game, it's usually the case that freedom/opportunity for one people leads to diminished freedom/opportunity for another people. Letting blacks freely compete in sports led to far less opportunities for whites to make a mark in athletics because blacks are naturally better at it. Letting blacks wander around freely diminished the freedom of white movement due to fear of black thuggery and crime.
In order for there to be America, the freedom of the American Indians — to continue their culture and traditional ways — had to be crushed. In order for the US to take over the Southwest Territories, Mexican freedoms had to be trampled and curtailed. In order for Jews to freely push for Zionist-Centrism, it certainly helps to limit the freedom of the BDS movement to spread the message of Justice and Liberation for Palestinians. So, there is a kind of Freedom Paradox in the American Dream. It is true that all these Immigrant-invaders come to the West for MORE FREEDOM(as their home nations are often less free), but in order for them to maximize their own freedoms, it certainly helps if Western Policies limit the freedom of White Natives or Nationals who might say "Enough Already, No More Mass-Immigration and Great Replacement" and "Look at all the problems these Newcomers bring with them from so many backward or barbaric parts of the world." It's like, if YOU want to say MORE, it's useful to gag the other person. If he is free to speak just as much as you are, then freedom will clash with freedom. If you want to prioritize your freedom, it's tempting to limit the freedom of the other, especially if he or she holds an opposing view. This is why Jewish Power has spread the Jew Taboo that smears any view that is critical of Jews as 'antisemitism'. Thus, Jews feel free to say whatever they want, whereas non-Jews must be very careful about what they say about Jews lest it be 'antisemitic'! Non-white immigrants feel as the Jews do. They also want to maximize their own freedoms but by suppressing the 'excess' freedom of whites who might push back against mass-immigration-invasion and condemn the cultures/values brought over by the newcomers. But then, were whites any different throughout most of American History?

In a way, white Americans who invoke the Constitution(its protection of rights and liberties) and how it's threatened by all these newcomers(who as new citizens vote 'left' and for 'socialism') are not thinking clearly nor very honestly. Something like true and neutral adherence to the US Constitution was never a part of US history. One may argue that the US was closest to its Constitutional Ideal from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s with the end of racial discrimination against blacks and with explosion of personal rights and liberties all throughout the nation. Of course, even here, there were problems. After all, did the Constitution allow for 'Affirmative Action'? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's right to abortion? And then, there is the problem of federalism and states rights that have never been satisfactorily resolved. Still, for about two decades from the mid-60s to mid-80s, the old restraints faded while PC(the product of the radical boomers) had yet to take hold of universities, though trends had been moving in that direction, mainly due to the agenda of boomer Jews. For those two decades, America seemed freer than ever before in terms of Free Speech and Personal Liberty, and this meant for people on the 'right' and 'left', religious folks and non-religious(or anti-religious) folks,whites and blacks, men and women, and so on. This was a time when the Jewish-heavy ACLU even felt compelled to defend Neo-Nazis and the KKK in certain cases to demonstrate that the US Constitution must protect the rights of all. Free Speech Absolutism was still useful to Jews back then as many were into radical politics and had yet to take total power over all the main institutions of America. But anyone who thinks most of US history was like those yrs from 60s to 80s is gravely mistaken.
The bulk of US history was not about equal freedom for all under the Constitution but White Freedom and White Rights Uber Alles. The US was founded as the Land of the Free(and was freer than most parts of the world, including most of Europe), but it wasn't meant to be the land of equal freedom. Indeed, the US would never have come into being on the basis of equal freedom, whether between elites and the masses, between whites and non-whites, between Anglo-American Whites and Non-Anglo-Whites, between Christians and Non-Christians, and among the various states. For starters, suppose America, from its very inception, had respected the right of American Indians to be equally free. Then, American Indians would have stayed put and kept playing Indian, thereby standing in the way of the white man's move westward and technological progress. Much of America would have remained savage. Also, if Early America said American Indian culture & values are just as valuable and worthy as Anglo-American culture and values, then civilization and savagery would have had to coexist side by side. With both having equal protection under the law, the forces of civilization wouldn't have been free to sweep aside the forces of savagery freely romping around with bows & arrows and tomahawks(and a bit of human sacrifice and cannibalism). America was created by white people hogging the freedom to do as they wished and by crushing the freedoms of American Indians who wished to maintain their way of life on what they deemed as their sacred hunting, mating, and burial grounds. Also, as American Indians practiced slavery and saw no evil in it, equal freedom for the Indians would have meant their 'right' to practice slavery without the interference of Western Culture and Values then moving away from the institution of bondage as grave moral injustice, even an evil. After all, slavery didn't begin with whites in the New World. It had been practiced by American Indians for nearly ten thousand years.
The formation and development of America also depended on the suppression of blacks, a people even more savage in origin than the American Indians. While many whites, in the South as well in the North, weren't proud of slavery and eventually wanted it eradicated(as it was regarded as a moral stain and ideological betrayal of Enlightenment principles), they also instinctively understood that blacks posed a serious threat to the white race. For starters, blacks were more muscular and naturally more aggressive. They had to be trained hard, even severely, to behave because they had a natural propensity to act ugabuga and apelike(like how today's rappers make motions akin to chimp-gorilla behavior). Black women, if left to their own devices, had a tendency to shake their butts to attract the men. It's hardly surprising that with more freedom and fewer inhibitions in America, black women reverted to ass-shaking that is now called 'twerking'. Black women have bouncier butts for reasons of evolution. To attract men in Africa, black 'biatches' had to jiggle their buttocks before the men who preferred bouncier buns. Whereas women were mainly chosen for their faces in Europe, they were chosen for their buns in Africa. When women shook their buns at men, men were supposed to pull out their dongs to show who got the bigger ones. So, over time, black men favored bouncy buns while black women favored bigger dongs. The essence of black African culture was in the buns and dongs. Of course, the Africanization of the West is turning white women into a bunch of whiggirls prepping for Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
White people instinctively understood this threat posed by blacks. As blacks are naturally more rambunctious and uggity-buggity, their use of freedom was bound to be different from that of whites. While all races have their share of good ole boys who like to act wild and rowdy, blacks had badass boys who were likely to act even wilder and crazier. Also, whereas non-blacks regard having-fun as recreation and blowing off steam, blacks regard fun as the core of existence. This is why so many blacks commit crime not just to gain something but to have fun. Non-whites think, "Work, earn, buy stuff, and have fun." Blacks feel, "Grab it if you want it, and that be fun." It's the difference between agricultural mentality and hunting mentality. Farming isn't fun, but you do it because you will be rewarded with harvests that can be sold for profits with which you can have some fun. In contrast, hunting itself is fun whether you catch the prey or not. Long ago, whites understood this side of blackness, and this is why they couldn't allow equal freedom to blacks. Having a different nature, blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Just like men and women with equal freedom spend their money and expend their energies in divergent ways, whites and blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Whites are more likely to use freedom constructively and rationally, blacks are more likely to use freedom destructively and crazily. In order for America to grow and develop by White Freedom Tendency, it was believed that Black Freedom Tendency had to be suppressed. If blacks had been granted equal freedom as whites, black misuse of freedom would have stood in the way of white use of freedom to build a modern nation of Rule, Regulations, and Sound Management.

Of course, there was nothing in the US Constitution that spelled out issues pertaining to Racial Tendencies, but that didn't matter as White Americans favored White Freedom over Black Freedom. As in regards to the American Indians, in order for white Americans to have their way and do their thing, it was necessary to clamp down on equality of black freedom. It's like parents must limit the freedom of children to keep the family together and maintain semblance of order. If parents allow equal freedom to their kids(who are so easily manipulated by junky pop culture and pied-piper charlatans), the family will fall apart and things will spiral out of control. So, even though the suppression of black freedom was a violation of the US Constitution, most whites felt it was necessary and worthwhile to develop and maintain a sound, stable, and sane nation(that could easily be corrupted by unfettered black savagery and brutalized by unleashed black thuggery). What this shows is that most of US history was not about 'Muh Constitution' or Equality of Rights for everyone and all groups. While the Constitution was certainly important and shaped much of American values and norms, most whites who dominated America believed White Survival, White Expansion, White Well-Being, White Prosperity, White Progress, and White Stability were more important. If whites had to choose between the Constitution/Principles and Continuation/Power, they chose the latter. Whites believed the Law existed to guide and serve whites than the other way around. Of course, most whites didn't believe whites were always right or that the law must favor white interests at all times — if a white committed murder of a non-white, he should face justice — , but they believed that the Law must not stand in the way of what was good for whites as a collective.

For most of American History, whites understood that they couldn't have pure tribalism or pure principles. If white were purely tribal, they would have been hardly be different from savage American Indian Tribes or could all devolve into clans like Hatfields and McCoys. Therefore, whites valued the Constitution, Rule of Law, and Higher Principles, such as that led to the eradication of slavery and many other social reforms. And yet, whites also understood that Man Doesn't Live on Principles Alone. After all, even though the West became a Christian Civilization, it wouldn't have survived, let alone grown in power, by adhering to a purist form of Christianity. If the Christian West practiced 'turn the other cheek' and believed in poverty-as-virtue as Jesus had preached, it would have been conquered and dominated by other peoples and races. The West gained much wisdom and good values from Christianity, but its principles had to be balanced by the Way of Power. When necessary, whites had to be warriors and fight. And they had to make peace with human nature and allow people to pursue wealth and privilege in order to have economic development and science/technology. Life has its own organic rules. Human life gained much by creating certain values & rules and obeying them than going purely by life's instinct. Everyone has something to gain by stealing, but good people choose not to steal(even when they can) because it's good for the whole community if people respect each other's property. If people act like animals(or Negroes) and just take stuff because they want it, the thieving individuals might gain short-term benefit, but social order would crumble, and then, things would be harder for EVERYONE. It's because animals act like animals — chimps steal from other chimps, wolves steal from other wolves, lions steal from other lions, etc — that they are mired in a world of brutality. And so, rules and principles are important as regulators of life. And yet, ultimately, rules and principles have real value ONLY IF they enhance the survival and well-being of a community. If adhering to rules and principles leads to the demise of one's community, then it doesn't matter how fancy and precious those values may be. The fact is they led to destruction of life.
The lesson to be learned is that there is a useful limit to every rule and principle. So, while Christianity has been useful as a moral and spiritual guide for the West(and non-West), it would be foolish to follow its tenets to the letter as doing so will definitely lead to the demise of your people. There has to be a kind of compromise between power and principles. Power must agree to adhere to principles, but principles must concede that they don't have all the answers. Principles have value only as a guide. After all, if people must adhere to the principle of 'thou shalt not steal' at all times, then America would have been impossible as it was created through white man's stealing of land from the Indians. In some ways, it was a violation of moral principles, but from the power perspective it made sense because so much of bountiful rich land was occupied by a relatively small number of primitive savages. Same is true of war. Sure, the notion of War Crimes is a useful idea, and all sides should stick to the Rules of War, but the fact is, no side really does and can't expect to win by sticking to the letter of international conventions. So, through most of US history, white people favored Continuation over Constitution. They never rejected the Constitution and, if anything, had great respect for it as a legal and political guide for the nation, but their priority was their own racial survival, victory, and power. They were not willing to give up those things in the name of absolute adherence to the Constitution. Free Speech as an absolute right may have existed in the US from late 60s to the mid-80s, but prior to massive social changes in the 60s, many forms of speech and expression had been suppressed or downright censored by the state and/or private sector for their obscenity, seditious nature, subversive content, blasphemy, disturbance to the peace, and the like. So, the notion that the US will respect Free Speech Abolutism ONLY IF it remains white is to ignore most of US history.
It is also false to believe that US will turn 'socialist' because of the rise of color. Europe was more white than the US, but even Western Europe went far more 'socialist' — with social democratic programs and labor protection laws galore — than the US. Also, it was an overwhelmingly white America that elected 'socialist' FDR four times, indeed so much so that the GOP had to make peace with New Deal policies. And Lyndon B. Johnson who promised Bigger Government was elected by a nation that was solidly white. This was prior to the 1965 Immigration Bill. Why did so many white people vote for the 'socialism' of the Democratic Party? Because the white hoi polloi thought the Democratic Party would take MORE from the Fat Cats(who mainly supported the GOP) and spread the wealth around to the white masses. (White Americans began to turn against 'socialism' and Big Government ONLY WHEN government policies began to favor blacks over whites.)

When we consider all these points, it is rather disingenuous for white Americans(especially of a 'conservative' bent) to argue that the Constitution and Inalienable Rights will go out the window if the US ceases to be a white majority nation. The fact is the US almost never had Free Speech Absolutism though the period from the late 60s to late 80s came closest. Also, it was White America that elected 'socialist' New Dealer Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times. And it was white Germanic Wisconsin and white Scandinavian Minnesota that had some of the most socialist programs in the US. In contrast, socialist policies were generally shunned in the American South because of the fear of blacks. But even that isn't the full picture. Huey Long of Louisiana gained support as a populist who railed against Big Money and spoke on the behalf of 'hicks' who had less(at least according to ALL THE KING'S MEN). And many white agricultural folks in the South voted Democratic because they regarded it as the party of the working class and 'honest farmer' against Big Money dominated by the North. White Southerners began to turn against 'socialism' only when blacks got full franchise and began to dominate the politics of taking from the trough.

A kind of Socialist Paradox operates among whites. A community that is virtually all-white or minority-white is more likely to turn 'socialist', whereas a community that is majority white but with a large non-white population of dependents is likely to be 'anti-socialist'. If a society is all white, most people regard 'socialism' as a kind of all-in-the-family. It's white money going to white folks. Besides, there is a sense of shared values among whites, especially those of Northern European heritage. The understanding is that the rich pay more, but even poor whites have some values and sense of shame and try to get back on their feet. They use socialist services out of need than laziness or chronic parasitism. Thus, 'socialism' is attractive to communities that are overwhelmingly white. In contrast, in a society that is majority white but with a sizable non-white population(especially such as blacks or browns), there is a sense among whites that much of their tax dollars will go to supporting leeches and deadbeats. Whites of such community tend to reject 'socialism' out of lack of identification with and trust of non-whites. However, if non-white population keeps growing and eclipse the white population — as happened in California and fated to happen to Texas as well — , their votes can win elections in favor of 'socialism', whereby whites will have to pay more to fund non-white leeches. California can afford to do so because of its giant businesses in agriculture, entertainment, and high-tech, but this is a recipe for disaster for most white-minority societies. 'Socialism' in an all-white setting is one of common trust and compromise, whereas 'socialism' in a white-minority setting is one of parasitism and resentment. Of course, eventually, 'socialist' policies can no longer be afforded and sustained, whereby the three likelihoods is (1) radical tyranny, as happened in Cuba (2) oligarchic tyranny, as happened in most Latin American nations ruled by military juntas backed by big money or (3) stalemate & stagnation, as is the case in current Venezuela that is, at once, democratic, radical, and oligarchic, with no single side gaining full power to establish order as it wants.

The fact is white Americans for most of US history put their race, survival, well-being, and power before the Constitution. Just ask the American Indians, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians(especially those in 'internment camps' during World War II). And this was also true between Anglo-Americans and non-Anglo-whites. Just ask the German-Americans during World War I who came under great suspicion and were pressured to become more Anglo-Americanized. (It's no wonder that Jews go out of their way to make Israel the closest ally of the US. Anglo-America made German-Americans side with US/UK against Germany. It made Italian-Americans side with the US against Italy. It made Arab-Americans side with US against Arab nations. So, it's possible for the US to make Jewish Americans side with American Interests against Jewish/Zionist interests abroad. To prevent such, Jews have the full might of media and their whore-politicians to repeat the mantra, "Israel is our closest ally and greatest friend, and bagel is the finest food" in the hope it will be inconceivable for any American to believe that US could act against Jewish or Israeli interests. The US is a nation built on betrayal as betrayal can be liberating and spark new possibilities. The colonials betrayed their British King. French King betrayed a fellow monarch and aided the revolutionaries against the Crown. Though the French King did so much for American Independence, Americans had no problem working with the French Revolutionaries who killed him and his family. Whites betrayed all the treaties made with Indians. America betrayed the principles of its anti-imperialist founding by practicing its own imperialism. And all the new immigrants were made to swear oath to America, thereby turning their backs on their ancestral nations. In time, German-Americans were willing to kill fellow Germans abroad to serve the US empire. Just about the ONLY people who refused to betray their own kind are the Jews, and they must be admired for that. Jews were not willing to kill fellow Jews abroad for the US empire. If anything, they were going to take power and make the US fight for interests that served World Jewry, and it is for such strategy that Jews must be condemned. But then, Jews had good reason to think that unless the US was made to bow down before Jewishness, it was possible that the US could turn anti-Jewish and use its might against Jewish interests abroad.) In order to forge a new united nation, Anglo-Americans used many extra-legal and what might now be called unconstitutional means to shove Anglo-Americanism down the throats of non-Anglo white immigrants. Even as such groups found much freedom in America and could keep certain aspects of their culture(mainly in food and wine), they and their children came under pressure from schools, businesses, and so many other areas to conform to Anglo-American standards... or else. Only the Jews, with a deep & profound sense of identity and powerful personality, managed to resist this pressure, though at times they did a pretty good job of pretending to be Good Americans. If Constitutional purism had been upheld and enforced in the late 19th century and early 20th century when so many newcomers came ashore from the Old World, it's difficult to believe the US could have come together as a solid mass of national unity and patriotism.

As valuable as the Constitution is, it is about 'negative rights' and therefore, it is defensive. It's not about a certain vision, nor about right or wrong. All it says is that people should be free to say, do, and have certain things, and those should be secured as 'rights'. It isn't particularly American as most of those ideas had developed already long ago in Europe. Also, constitutionalism has spread worldwide, even in non-white nations. Everyone in all parts of the world know something about 'rights'. To speak of 'rights' is not to say that "I am right." It means, right or wrong, I have a 'right' to say, do, or have certain things. As such, it is morally neutral and defensive. But Power cannot win by defense alone. White people didn't gain power in the US by protecting all rights, all ideas, all property of all peoples and groups. Rather, it had a certain vision about race, culture, values, civilization, and progress. And this vision was going to be realized with or without the Constitution. The Founders were proud white men. They saw all the land and resources before them and had preconception that the US could be a great magnificent nation of immense power and potential. And they were racial loyalists and envisioned the development of America as an extension of European Civilization, albeit with a new fighting and liberating spirit. The stuff about rights, freedom, and property was useful as incentives for Americans to move westward and do lots of work to create a new nation. It also drew in immigrants from Europe of same or similar stock who were looking for new opportunities. It was all about white power.
Some may call it 'white supremacism', but then, it should be given credit as the main reason why the US became a rich and powerful nation. Without 'white supremacism', whites would not have 'stolen' land from the American Indians. And for those who believe blacks are so integral to America and its economy, it was 'white supremacism' that efficiently exploited black labor to expand the economy. Also, the only reason why blacks are in the Americas is due to 'white supremacism' that was willing to use black labor. If there had been no 'white supremacism', black slaves would not have been brought over to the Americas, Latin or Anglo. Blacks or no blacks, the main makers of America were whites, and the fact then(as is still now, more or less) was that whites were the most advanced, most productive, most innovative, most progressive, and most ingenious people in the world. Thus, limiting mass-immigration to the US mostly to whites did great things for America. Seriously, if America right after its founding had practiced open borders in the name of 'anti-racism' and welcomed all the world, would things have worked out so well? Give the Devil its due. What is called 'white supremacism' in American History had a dark side but also was the basis of much that was great and awesome about it. Indeed, prior to the rise of idiotic multi-culturalism, even the main aspiration of non-whites was to be like whites and emulate them. And the most developed parts of the non-West are those that decided that the White Way is the best as the model for development. Of course, under the influence of globo-shlomo-afro-homo, the White Way is now almost entirely useless as it's all about Negro-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, and Diversity-worship, but when whites were riding high, they'd come up a formula for power, prosperity, and progress such as the world had never seen before.

Anyway, what do current Immigrant-Invaders and Whites of Old America have in common? Both groups put Power before Principle. They put their own racial interests before a set of 'universal' notions. Whites of Old America favored concentration and continuation of their power over the Constitution. Only when their power was secure and assured did whites adhere to the Constitution with anything like true commitment.
In dealing with non-whites, here or abroad, white folks of America always understood that their power must not be sacrificed over a set of tenets. And White America was pretty much in this mode until the 1960s. Many people have lauded White Americans(who have lauded themselves) for having 'come a long way' in ultimately favoring universal principles over racial/tribal politics, and this was at a time when white Americans had it so good that they could rest on their laurels, take their power for granted, and indulge in magnanimity & generosity toward other groups in US and the world, not least because the Cold War had created a mentality that the US must show its 'best face' in order to defeat the Soviets that preached World Revolution and Liberation of the non-white world from Western Capitalist-Imperialism. Also, the Civil Rights Narrative made many whites believe that the end-goal of American History was to fulfill the guarantees of equal rights in the Constitution. Finally, free at last free at last, the Negroes be free at last, and America could put behind its legacy of racial discrimination. But such highfalutin thinking overlooked the fact that racialism had been integral and essential to the making of America. Long before whites could rest on their laurels and put on do-goody airs as 'progressive' folks with 'white guilt', the only way America could have come into existence was through White Power. American Indians had to be pushed aside. Black savages had to be tamed and kept tame because of their natural apelike uggity-boogity tendencies. (Just look at the state of Detroit, the product of blacks left to indulge in their freedom.) Also, immigration had to be limited mostly to whites because (1) Europeans were more talented and had higher IQ than most other folks and (2) it was easier to create unity among peoples of same race than different races. Therefore, while it's fair game to point to all the dark sides and horrors of American History(and there are plenty), it is also undeniable that what made America great was its conscientious, intelligent, pragmatic, and sensible race-ism. (Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean the reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and need for racial consciousness. Be a race-ist.) In this, D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be regarded as nearly as important as the Constitution. In some ways, it is more important because while the Constitution deals with 'negative rights', Griffith's great and awesome film offers a positive, powerful, and sober vision of what white folks must constantly be reminded of lest they turn into a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks and/or damned naive fools. A prophetic work, its warnings 100 yrs ago have come to be realized in a nation where whites came to lose identity and reject their own racial pride and heritage. Griffith warned of BAMMAMA(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), jungle fever, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and cucky-wuckery among whites. Well, look all around. Who were more right about blacks? Sappy do-goody race-denying liberal-wiberals who said blacks are merely whites with dark skin and could be treated as such OR sober race-ists like Griffith who warned that blacks, with their higher aggression, natural savagery, tougher muscles, and bigger dongs, will terrorize and intimidate the white race into jungle fever or cucky-wuckery?

What do New Immigrants have in common with Whites of Old America? While they come to the US(or Canada or Australia or New Zealand) for more freedom and opportunity, they place their racial, tribal, and/or familial interests at the center. Even when non-white immigrants are hardcore individualist-libertarians, they still put MY interest before American Interest or the Constitution. If 'my interest' means to be in America and enjoy its fruits, it means that nothing is more important to non-white libertarians than being allowed INTO the US. Therefore, if Party A is pro-individualist and anti-immigration while Party B is anti-individualist but pro-immigration, the non-white individualist is likely to go with Party B because his main priority is to be INSIDE the US. After all, even limited individualist freedom in the US is likely more than what he is likely to have in his own nation.

It's not that all these new immigrant-invaders are anti-free speech or anti-Constitution. They are for it TO THE EXTENT that such doesn't undermine their MAIN interests of wanting to gain access to America(and such nations) for material improvement, better livelihood, and more opportunities. Sure, they come for freedom and 'rights' too, but they are secondary to the priority of gaining access to metropole of World Empire, living in the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, and bringing over more of their own clan/tribal kind so that they can enjoy the fruits too. In this, they are very much like the white pioneers and settlers who built this nation, albeit without the audacity and adventurous spirit(as they are followers than leaders). When early White Americans were fighting Indians, working the farms, and taking land from Mexico, they were not thinking about 'muh constitution' or some set of highfalutin principles. They had more primal interests and elemental emotions in their minds, hearts, and guts. Americans understood that the only way they could take SW territories from Mexico was by sheer might and power. It wasn't anything in the Constitution that convinced Mexico to surrender those parts to the US. Now, one can argue that the Constitution and its rule of law made for a better-functioning society in the US that was able to expand faster with greater wealth and power. But keep in mind that Imperial Germany made tremendous gains in the late 19th century and early 20th century WITHOUT anything like the US Constitution. In contrast, even with democracy and a constitution nearly identical to that of the US, Mexico has always been a basket-case.

Long ago, white Americans understood that what mattered most was identity, power, solidarity, and sense of heritage/continuity. They were proud to have a Constitution to guide them as a framework and compass, but when push came to shove, they understood that Constitutional Principles had to take a backseat to White Power and White Continuation. "Our People, Our Power, Our Survival, and Our Well-Being come first." Indeed, what would be the point of adhering to the Constitution 100% if doing so led to the demise and eventual collapse of a people? Is it worth it to lose one's civilization in the name of 'muh democracy'? Surely, even tyranny-and-survival is preferable to democracy-and-death. It's like it's better to lose one's freedom and live than gain freedom to use it for self-destruction.
What the American Experiment demonstrated is that one can have both freedom and life, but this is true ONLY IF freedom serves life than other way around. By life, we don't just mean individual lives but the Life of a People, Culture, Civilization, Memory, Heritage, the things that outlast the life spans of individuals. If current 'Western Values' are leading to the demise of the White Race that is to be replaced by non-whites, then they are useless no matter how fancy, precious, and highfalutin they may sound to educated(or indoctrinated) ears. Of course, one must not throw away the baby with the bathwater. While the current globo-shlomo-afro-homo bathwater that masquerades as 'Western Values' must go, there is a great Western Tradition in culture and values that can maintain and uphold a great civilization for many centuries, indeed millenniums, to come. After all, those values and outlooks led to the greatest civilization in human history.

The fatal flaw of the West was in trusting Jews. More than any people, it was the Jews who bitched, whined, and seethed that White Americans had betrayed their Constitutional or Propositional principles. Jewish elites in media, academia, and government urged whites to favor Principles at all cost, even at considerable loss of white power, pride, and prestige. Thus began the white trajectory of being 'beautiful losers'. The sheer stupidity of this way of thinking is proven by the fact that Jews themselves don't practice what they preach to whites. Indeed, Jews urged whites to favor principles over power mainly so that they themselves could gain more power by manipulating those principles(and Hindus have learned this game and are now cooperating and competing with Jews at it). Notice how Jews, even as they admonish whites to let go of white identity, are always telling whites to be mindful of supporting Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish power. If principles must win over power, then Jews should do exactly like whites have been cajoled into doing(by Jews no less), but the fact is, just as Jews tell goyim to do one thing, they do quite the opposite. But then, what kind of people are Jews. They accuse of Palestinians of trying to wipe Israel off the map while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map. Seriously, if Jews treat Palestinians this way, why would they treat whites any better or with any more honesty? Whites may think, "Uh... out of gratitude to whites for having helped them take Palestine from the Palestinians?" Any white who thinks this way is a willfully naive dupe who knows nothing about Jewish personality and culture. Gratitude-toward-Goyim simply doesn't exist in the Jewish Vocabulary. Also, surely whites need to realize that Jews crave far more what whites got than for what Palestinians had. While Israel has great symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning for Jews, the main source of Jewish supremacist power is in the control of the West, mainly the US, the metropole of the world. And in order to make whites serve Jewish interests, Jews naturally defame & suppress white identity while using the whip of 'white guilt' to make whites channel their repressed tribalism toward another people who would be the Jews. If Jews are really into colorblind universalism(which is supposedly what the Constitution is about), why do they insist that the US support Zionism over Palestinian nationhood? Why do they use their muscles to have US businesses and governments shut down BDS? Why did Jews pull their strings to shut down the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly at Charlottesville?
Jews are for freedom, but they are for Power before Principles. They will tolerate freedom only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize their supremacist control of the US. This is why Jews say, "We defend Free Speech but not 'hate speech'", with 'hate speech' to be defined by the likes of AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC. Likewise, Hindus flood into the US for more freedom and wealth for their kind, and it is precisely for that reason that Hindus will support the US Constitution ONLY TO THE EXTENT it serves their interests.

But then, this was precisely how white Americans practiced the Constitution for most of American History. They always found exceptions and clauses to ensure that principles didn't undermine the core power and survival of White America. It is something forgotten by white Americans while obsessively practiced by non-whites. It is then time for whites to return to how it used to be. It's the ONLY way to survive and to win. It's like what Arthur who, having regained the wisdom of 'you and the land are one', says before the battle: "We'll use the old ways" in John Boorman's EXCALIBUR. And Lancelot, who'd lost himself to religious fanaticism, a kind of SJW nuttery of the day, returns to fight for Arthur once more. Don't damn the principles. Damn the fool who mistakes or favors principles over power. Both are important, but without securing the power, it will be for the other side, very likely your enemy, to manipulate principles to suit its priority of... power. Whites need to say "We believe in free speech but not 'hate speech'", and they must define 'hate' as insulting whiteness, Jewish defamation of white identity, black thug-talk, calls for Great Replacement or White Nakba. Once whites think this way, they will once again be on the path of winning.