A Response to "Must the West Beg the World for Forgiveness?" by PAT BUCHANAN — The Special Tragedy of Indigenous Folks of Mexico & South America — Why Latin Whites are utterly Useless as allies of White American National Liberationists

https://buchanan.org/blog/must-the-west-beg-the-world-for-forgiveness-136755

Pat Buchanan: 
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador(El Presidente de Mexico) has written Pope Francis I and King Felipe VI to demand their apologies for the Spanish conquest of Mexico that began 500 years ago with the “invasion” of Hernando Cortez... “One culture, one civilization was imposed upon another... There were massacres and oppression... They built their churches on top of the temples.”
...Now no one denies that great sins and crimes were committed in that conquest. But are not the Mexican people, 130 million of them, far better off because the Spanish came and overthrew the Aztec Empire? Did not 300 years of Spanish rule... lead to enormous advances for its civilization and human rights? Or is there never a justification for one nation to invade another, conquer its people, impose its rule, and uproot and replace its culture and civilization? ...Did the Aztecs have a right to be left alone by the European world? If so, whence came that right?

All throughout history and all around the world, people have been conquering each other. Demanding apology for past imperialism is stupid. The entire world was about small imperialism and big imperialism. Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia before the French arrived. Zulus conquered other tribes in southern Africa. Even before the Europeans arrived in the New World or some non-white part of the world, the native peoples had been bashing and invading one another. Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans(though gone before the Europeans arrived) were imperialists in their own right. American Indians of the Great Plains were no strangers to ceaseless warfare. Mongols were among the greatest conquerors. Ottoman Turks controlled much of Southern Europe for centuries.
Now, not all peoples at all times were into imperialist mode, and there were long stretches of history in certain areas of the world when certain peoples mainly kept to themselves. Japanese were perhaps the most famous example of this. After Hideyoshi's failed attempt to conquer China by the way of Korea, Japan mostly looked inward and shut itself from the bigger world. Finally, it was pried open by the West. And even though China was more of an imperial power, it had no interest in expanding across the seas. (Even Chinese territorial expansions were oftentimes less the work of Chinese themselves than of peoples who'd conquered the Chinese and then pushed beyond existing borders. In time, as the conquerors themselves were absorbed into China, their conquests ended up in Chinese hands.) Still, the concept of respecting borders and sovereignty of nation-states is a relatively recent idea, at least as a 'right' as an ethical principle. Therefore, it should be morally applied only to the world after World War II when most peoples came to an agreement of national independence and sovereignty. It's like condemnation of past slavery makes little sense because most of the world not only practiced it but didn't find it particularly evil.

For most of history, borders always shifted like the scrimmage line in a football game. Polish-Lithuanian Empire was once huge and, if sustained, might have rivaled the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the petty Poles were too divided among themselves and failed to generate sufficient central authority to make it work... unlike Moscow or Vienna. And so, the once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Empire grew ever smaller until it was all gone, followed by Poland and Lithuania being swallowed by bigger empires.
That said, even in the Ages of Empires, there was a crude sense of blood-and-soil national consciousness even among conquered peoples. This was evident in Judea vs Rome. Romans conquered and ruled, but Jews still regarded themselves as the true owners of the land. Roman blood-and-spoil vs Jewish blood-and-soil. While empires constantly fluctuated in reach and size, there was nevertheless a sense among the conquered/occupied that a foreign people were ruling over them. Even when Poland was wiped off the map(like Palestine much later) by Russian and Prussian empires, many Poles in their ancestral territory dreamed of restoration of Polish nationhood on the soil that the Poles stood. Poles aspired to end to foreign rule, just like Cossacks in Ukraine had once risen up against Polish imperial domination. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and it is now Israel. And Zionist imperialists are looking to annex West Bank, but Palestinians still dream of their own nationhood. Jews are the New Romans, Palestinians are the New Judaeans.... though one difference is Jews have a somewhat legitimate claim of blood-and-soil connection to Judea, something Romans lacked when they scattered Jews to the winds. And of course, Greeks lived under Ottoman rule for centuries but clung to Greek-Christian identity and hoped for liberation one day. It finally came though at bloody cost to both sides.

Given the history of mankind, it makes no sense for people to apologize for past 'wrongs'. Should Mongols apologize to Persians and Romans? Jews sure ain't apologizing to Palestinians. And when will Turks apologize to Greeks and Balkan folks? Chinese aren't apologizing to Tibetans and Uighurs, nor for its cynical role in propping up the insane Khmer Rouge... though Chinese do make a big stink about how Japan needs to grovel more for what it did to China. Due to the complexities of history, it's difficult to ascertain collective guilt, especially for descendants who weren't even around when the tragedies happened. Furthermore, apologies are rarely taken in good faith. Instead, it is abused as a political weapon to squeeze out more apologies, more groveling, and more concessions from the 'apologizer'. Look how Jews milk the Holocaust to no end. Norman Finkelstein wrote about Shoah Industry as a never-ending cash cow, a kind of Holocasino. It doesn't matter how much Germans prostrate themselves and hand over more cash, build more monuments, imprison more 90 yr old camp guards, and censor more speech. Jews just see cucky weakness and demand GIMME MORE, GIMME MORE. And not just to 'holocaust survivors'(a very loose term as just about ANY Jew who lived in areas of German Occupation is designated as a Holocaust Survivor EVEN IF he or she was never sent to a concentration camp) but to their children and grandchildren and so on. Also, Jews have used Holocaust Guilt as moral shield for their Nazi-like behavior in crushing Palestinians, spreading Wars for Israel, and economically raping entire nations.

So, how should nations deal with dark chapters of their histories(and all nations have dark chapters aplenty). They should honestly and truthfully acknowledge what happened and draw useful lessons and make comparisons with other civilizations. Comparative Tragedies. It should be like Alcoholics Anonymous where everyone takes HIS turn to confess problems with addiction. The fact is ALL OF HUMANITY has been drenched in blood, and if some spilled more than others, it generally had less to do with more evil but with more power. Now, one can argue that some peoples at certain times were especially cruel, even by the standards of the times. It seems fair to say that Assyrians, Mongols, Vikings, Aztecs, Nazis(at least in imperialist mode), Khmer Rouge, Japanese in Nanking, and Idi Amin were especially ruthless and bloody. But then, just about all civilizations had their extreme periods and extreme figures... like Ivan the Terrible of Russia and the utterly ruthless first emperor Chin of China. The best way to understand history is through Comparative Studies. Just like there is comparative literature, we need more sensible use of comparative history. But too much of 'comparative' discourse in history is to make white civilizations seem especially evil while whitewashing non-white ones.

Now, there is ONE reason why there is more pressure on white civilizations to apologize, and it owes to something inherent to white civilization itself. It has to do with Christianity, the faith of Pat Buchanan. What's the difference between Christianity and Islam? Jesus told His flock to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor and forgive enemies. In contrast, Muhammad, like Moses, was a warrior-prophet who commanded his followers to wage Jihad to spread the faith. Now, both Christians and Muslims expanded their powers thee same way: War, violence, and terror.
However, Muslims need not feel sorry for what they did according to their sacred text of the Koran. Muhammad was a fighter and urged the faithful to use the sword as well as the word to spread the message of Allah. In contrast, Christian civilization was vulnerable to pangs of doubt, hypocrisy, and guilt because Christian expansion(fueled by greed, violence, and ambition) went so much against what Jesus had preached. Christians often found themselves apologizing to God in prayer for having gone against Jesus' teachings in their victories in His name. Muslims saw their violence as an act of virtue. Christians saw their violence as, at best, a 'necessary evil' to defeat the greater evil of heathen darkness. Muslims did 'good', whereas Christians did 'lesser bad' to defeat the 'bigger bad'. This is why it's much more difficult for Jews to toy with Muslim psychology than with Christian psychology. Try to guilt-bait a Muslim, and he will laugh in your face. Try to guilt-bait a Christian, and it's so easy. For most of Western history, white Christians controlled the narrative and dogma; therefore, they could suppress matters exposing their hypocrisy and guilt. But once Jews took over the media and academia, they've been having a field day in guilt-baiting white Christians for their betrayal of their own ethos. Jews left whites feeling like hypocristians.

If Muslims had conquered South America and Mexico, there wouldn't be this issue of 'apology' or 'guilt'. Islam would be the dominant culture, and that'd be that. Muhammad told his flock to kick butt if they must. Enslave infidels if they must. Whatever it takes to spread Islam. Now, Islam did have a theory of justice and called for just treatment of fellow Muslims(and to some extent the fellow peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians), but violence was okay if a bunch of infidels could be crushed and converted.
But, even after 2000 yrs of Catholic theological discourse, the fact remains that it isn't very persuasive to argue that Jesus(and the Christian God) would ever have blessed the use of violence to spread the faith. In a way, Christianity was morally compromised in the moment it forged a pact with the Roman Empire. It began as a faith among Jews resisting the Roman Empire but then re-branded itself as the faith of a militarist behemoth maintained by endless blood-letting. (Perhaps, another reason why Islam has been more resilient is it spread Arabic far and wide as the sacred language of the Koran. As a result, many peoples in the Near East and North Africa abandoned their own languages and adopted Arabic. In contrast, Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, remained only among the elites, and furthermore, various European folks kept their own languages.)

On the matter of South America and Mexico, we need to deviate from the general standards of history. It is because what happened there is especially tragic, indeed far beyond anything that happened to other peoples. While it's true that all peoples were caught up in one form of imperialism or another -- indeed, all organisms, everything from bacteria to weeds to ants to fish to wolves and etc. vie for domination and expansion -- , the scale of devastation in South America and Mexico was unprecedented. Now, this is morally complicated because most of the natives died from diseases for which they had no immunity. In other words, EVEN IF the Spanish and Portuguese had come with the best of intentions and meant NO harm, it's likely that tens of millions(the great majority) of the natives would have died just the same. If the natives had had immunity to Old World diseases, it's likely that their fate would have been more like that of Asian Indians, Russians, and black Africans. Asian Indians were under British rule for a few centuries, but Anglos simply couldn't rule forever. There were too many native browns. And even though Mongols conquered Russia, the far greater number of Russians eventually reclaimed independence and pushed out or absorbed the Mongols. And Blacks still own and control black Africa.
In contrast, Old World diseases were so devastating and debilitating to the native population in South America and Mexico that the Spanish and Portuguese effectively gained permanent dominance. The natives had little chance of retaking their territories like most other peoples were able to eventually. Perhaps, if British diseases had wiped out 95% of Asian Indians or Chinese, it's possible that India or China today would still be an Anglo-dominated civilization. All peoples came under imperialist rule at one time or another, but most of them eventually reclaimed their land and gained autonomy. Romans eventually left Britain. Mongols eventually left Russia. Turks eventually left Greece. Imperialism is violent and destructive but also liberates and opens up new channels by loosening or destroying the native-conservative power structure. While the Chinese in Hong Kong did collaborate with British Imperialists, they gained lots of first-rate knowledge and wealth. However, the thing is the British eventually left, and Hong Kong is now part of China again.

So, when Buchanan argues that the Spanish and Portuguese imperialism in South America and Mexico did a lot of good as well as bad, that's all very true. Indeed, many native folks sided with the Europeans because they loathed the monstrous Aztecs. It's like if space aliens had come to Earth during World War II and declared war on Germany, Poles and Czechs would have allied with space aliens against the German foe. Poles and Czechs would have been grateful to the space aliens for coming to their rescue. But then, what if the aliens refuse to leave? What if they decide to stay and, in doing so, spread diseases that wipe out 90% of Poles and Czechs. And suppose they demographically take over Poland & Czech-land and rule as the New Boss. And just like Simon Mol the African Negro nearly turned Poland into Moland by humping tons of Polish girls, what if space aliens enslave the Polish and Czech men while having sex with Polish and Czech women to create mestizos who look like creatures in STAR TREK?

While it's true that Aztecs were demented and their defeat was a good thing, it wasn't as if EVERYTHING about their civilization was evil. While it's true that the native civilizations of South America and Mexico practiced horrid rituals like human sacrifice, they also built cities and had their own impressive bodies of knowledge and arts. But nearly all of that were wiped out by the Europeans. They threw out the baby along with the bathwater. We know Nazi Germany was evil, and it deserved to be defeated(even though Nazism was less defeated by communism and liberal democracy than by its own over-weaning ambition; any power, regardless of ideology, will destroy itself with excessive hubris or preserve itself with caution and moderation). But, the thing is Germany was allowed to survive as a civilization. Germans still had Germany(even if reduced in territory). Even the Soviets who occupied East Germany didn't deny Germans the right of people-hood and culture. But suppose the victors of World War II decided to destroy ALL of German identity and culture by conflating everything German with Nazism. Would that have been justified?

While imperialism has its pros and cons and even though subject peoples can gain something from imperialism -- Roman imperialism certainly spread civilization to the Germanic Barbarians -- , its positives can be justified ONLY WHEN the empire finally recedes and the native folks regain their lands. India and China are two cases of civilizations that were both victims and beneficiaries of European Imperialism. They did undergo stages of defeat, humiliation, and exploitation, but they also learned a great deal from the West and made remarkable advances because of revolutions in values and organization unleashed by Western influence. (Unless pried open by an outside force, their internal conservatism wasn't going to budge for new possibilities.) But the thing is neither Chinese nor Indians lost their land or culture in the long run. The imperialists eventually went home, and the natives reclaimed their land. Sadly, this cannot be said of the natives of Mexico and South America. Even though India was ruled by the Brits for couple of centuries, we don't call it Anglo-India. And Brits ruled parts of China, but we don't call it Anglo-China. But both 'Latin' and 'America' are permanent fixtures in a world that had once belonged to non-European civilizations.

Now, imagine Europe in barbarian times. Suppose Vikings are going around pillaging and raping and committing human sacrifice. Suppose the more civilized Arabs or Chinese arrive with deadly diseases and superior technology. Suppose they defeat the cruel Vikings and create a superior moral order premised on Islam or Confucianism. And since most whites died by diseases introduced by Arabs and Chinese, the newcomers get to stay and rule. And suppose they promote massive race-mixing, whereby most white women have children of Arab or Chinese men. And suppose to this very day, Europe is called Arabo-Europe or Sino-Europe.
Would Buchanan say it was worth it because, after all, the cruel pagan Vikings were defeated and a new order was founded on the estimable wisdom of Islam or Confucianism? I think not. Pat Buchanan has been a race-ist(a term of praise in my book), and I would think he'd prefer even a barbarian Europe that is white than a civilized Europe that is overrun and ruled by non-whites. Indeed, if Buchanan had to choose between an all-white Germany that is ruled by Germanic barbarian ax-lords who act like Big-Boss-Man AND a race-mixed Germany that is ruled by Chinese Christians who impose Christo-Confucian theocracy and encourage race-mixing on a massive scale, which one would he choose? The latter might be more orderly and civilized, but the core of any people and culture is blood-and-soil and must be above all. Surely, even an all-white Communist Germany is preferable to race-mixed multi-culti capitalist Germany that will end up looking like Morocco.

South America and Mexico are especially tragic because they had impressive civilizations, all the more remarkable for having been created in utter isolation from the Old World. Also, there were huge population centers. In contrast, as tragic as the fate of North American Indians was, they simply had no chance against the white invasion, no more than primitive Aborigines of Australia or the Eskimo-like tribes of Siberia. Once Anglos and French set foot on North America, they were going to take it, just like Russians were bound to grab all of Siberia(as long as Chinese failed to do so). Primitive folks sparsely spread out over vast territories will have to yield to the force of Macro-History.
In contrast, according to general historical patterns, what happened to the peoples of Mexico and South America is almost unprecedented, of course mainly because of the lack of immunity to Old World diseases. Had the natives had been disease-resistance, their fate would likely have been more like that of the peoples of India or Indonesia. They would have been under white rule for a time but would have eventually gained independence and autonomy. And if they adopted Christianity, it would have been on their own terms. It's like the spread of Christianity to Europe didn't necessitate Near Eastern demographic takeover. Even though Christianity originated among tribes in the Middle East, it spread far and wide as an idea and creed. Europeans remained European and kept their own lands even as they adopted the new faith(though one could argue that the 'cultural genocide' by Christianity did grave harm to pagan cultures of Europe; also, it could be argued Byzantine Orthodoxy destroyed or buried much of pagan science and math, leading to kind of Christo-Platonic hibernation of the mind).
In contrast, it wasn't only Christianity that spread to peoples of South America and Mexico. It was Christian Europeans who took over demographically as well and sexually colonized the native folks. (Now, some people might say that race-mixing was good for the natives because it made them taller and better-looking because Europeans are considered to be more desirable and robust. But then, one could use the same logic to argue for massive African invasion of Europe and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. After all, mixed-raced kids will be tougher and more macho than pure-white males.)
It's one thing for a people to gain something by coming in contact with another people. Whether it happens peacefully or violently, there is bound to be some kind of gain. This was certainly true with the Moorish conquest of Spain. Moorish Arabs at the time were more sophisticated and advanced in learning and the arts, and their contributions altered the fate of Spain. That said, Spanish Europeans finally did defeat and expel the Moors and regained control of their territory. This dream has been permanently quashed for the native brown folks of South America and Mexico. Their anger, if such exists, is understandable.
Indeed, why are white nationalist so angry about mass-immigration. It's one thing for white folks to try other foods, watch films from around the world, listen to all sorts of music, pop and folk, from all parts of the world, and learn from the ideas of other cultures. But, it's an entirely different matter for white lands to be demographically and genetically transformed by massive third world invasions and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Adopting foreign ideas and cultures can do much good. Japan certainly gained much by Westernization beginning in the 19th century. But Japanese were still in command of their own nation.

Buchanan says Christianity and Western Civilization did much good for the natives of South America and Mexico, and that is true. But is moral and spiritual progress worth the loss of one's homeland? Was Christianity a fair exchange for permanent subjugation to a foreign people from another continent? Indians and Chinese gained a lot from Western ideas and sciences that came with Western Imperialism, BUT they kept their own lands. Black Africans gained a lot from Western Imperialism, but Sub-Saharan Africa is still theirs. Middle Eastern folks also gained a lot from Western Imperialism. Think of the oil fields and all that wealth gushing from the ground. Arabs and Persians still own and control the Middle East.
In contrast, the peoples of South America and Mexico not only fell like flies in the tens of millions to European diseases but were mass-'raped' into 'mestizos' and came under what looks to be like permanent rule by imperialists(who never went home) who labeled the land of Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs as 'Latin American', with both 'Latin' and 'American' being of European origin.
Furthermore, the native folks weren't a bunch of crude savages like Aborigines in Australia or Eskimos in Alaska but a people who'd created remarkable civilizations all on their own. On that note, what befell the native peoples of South America and Mexico was the greatest tragedy in human history. But, such view isn't part of a dominant narrative because browns tend to be rather inarticulate and inexpressive, unlike Jews who are verbally gifted and blacks who are vocally rambunctious. Being of a servile and slavish mentality, most native brown folks just go along with the Narrative formed by Others. (Just look at the sight of idiot brown radicals demanding that 'Latino' be changed to 'Latinx'. First, do these browns not know that 'Latin' is an imposed European identity on the Americas? Second, don't they know that this globo-homo gender-bending crap is Western cultural-imperialist degeneracy at its worst?) One dominant Narrative of Diversity-Worship gushes that a wonderfully unique civilization was created by the fusion of Latin and Native traditions. This narrative is presented as a kind of love story of various colors, flavors, and spices, a global Romeo-and-Juliet Story. It utterly overlooks the fact that Diversity is a product of imperialism and was forcibly imposed on the native folks through wars, 'rape', 'genocide', and slavery. It's like Che Guevara's laughable bullshit that 'Latino' is a wonder to behold as a happy blend of all of humanity. Or Orson Welles waxing romantic about Brazil as a joyous cocktail of so many races, colors, and cultures. Now, while it's true that such blend of many peoples and cultures did lead to something new(and even wonderful & inspired) in Latin America, it was also a bloody process of endless violence and mayhem(that goes on to this very day).



If we deconstruct the celebration of Diversity, and it is really an apologia of imperialism. After all, why did South America and Mexico become racially diverse? Because whites conquered and took over. And why did it become even more diverse? Because of the slave trade that brought over millions of black Africans to the New World. So, the brown natives didn't just lose out to whites but to ghastly Negroes who were even worse. It was bad enough that whites took the land and the women, but then the stupid jerks had to import tons of black savages for short-term profit. (And Jews played a considerable role in Latin American slave trade.) Natives didn't just lose out to whites but to blacks brought over by whites. Imagine a barbarian Germany that is conquered by the Confucian Chinese who choose to stay, race-mix, and rule forever. That'd be bad enough, but suppose those a**holes decide to bring over millions of black Africans as slaves to Germany as well. Then, whites would not only have to deal with yellow peril but with black lunacy.

This is why anyone who claims to be for both 'indigeneity' and Diversity is full of crap. DIVERSITY is what destroys 'indigeneity'. 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' imply that the native folks who have blood-and-soil claim to their own land MUST be 'inclusive' of invasions by foreign peoples in order to increase DIVERSITY to the point where the native folks end up strangers in their own homeland. Look what 'inclusion' and 'diversity' did to Palestine. Palestinians were forced to 'include' all those Jews, and guess what happened?. And West Bank is currently forced to 'include' more Jews as well. The result has been Diversity alright, that of Palestinians having to live with more and more Jews who demand endless 'inclusion' of Jewish immigrants.
Any people who adopt Diversity and Inclusion will end up like Palestinians or Native Hawaiians who are outnumbered in their ancestral homeland by whites and Asians. Now, it would take a special kind of lowlife to tell native Hawaiians to celebrate Diversity, which is akin to celebrating their own loss of land and demographic demise. But then, as most native Hawaiians are rather stupid like the brown masses of 'Latin America', I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been hoodwinked with the idea that Diversity is good for 'indigeneity'. Why? Because Diversity is often invoked as an anti-white agenda, native browns of Latin America and native folks of Hawaii may well think it empowers them against White Privilege. They overlook the fact that Diversity means white globalism has opened up immigration floodgates to the point where EVEN MORE foreigners keep streaming into Latin America and Hawaii. People who don't control their terminology and narrative are mental putty in the hands of others.
Smart people invoke Diversity and Inclusion to conquer and take from others, BUT THEN invoke Nation and Culture to keep what they have for themselves. Jews are smart, which is why they push Diversity and Inclusion on goyim(whom they see as More Palestinians) while they themselves emphasize Nation and Culture to defend and preserve Israel as a Jewish State, one that allows only Jewish Immigration.

Now, there is an aspect of this recent controversy that Buchanan is overlooking. The demand by the Mexican president is totally disingenuous. Unlike Anglo, Germanic, and Scandinavian progs who really cuck hard -- look at that worthless Joe Biden denouncing English Law -- , Hispanic 'leftists' bitch about whiteness to actually keep their white power. Look at the Mexican president. He is white or mostly white, as are most leaders of Latin American nations. Then, why is he denouncing the Catholic Church and Spain? Because he wants to fool the native browns that he is with them, that people like himself are really part of 'people of color' than European. It's a dirty trick. After all, if the Mex Prez is really sincere, how about calling for whites in Latin America to GO BACK HOME or handing all political power to the browns?
While native folks have a historical reason to blame Spain and the Church as the source of their problems, white and mostly white peoples in Latin America have no such right. They've been the main beneficiaries of imperialism. They've been ruling over the natives, and nothing much changed with Latin America's independence from Spain. If anything, independence led to continued white rule and even more importation of black slaves. White Latinos blaming Spain and the Catholic Church for Latin American problems is like Anglo-Americans blaming Great Britain and the Anglican Church for all the problems in North America. (Maybe there is something more to Biden blaming 'English' law, a way of blaming the Old World for New World problems.)

Latin whites are among the scummiest people on Earth. Now, if Latin whites honestly acknowledged the tragic aspects of history and sought an understanding whereby all sides could bury the hatchet and move forward, that'd be ideal and good for everyone. But these lowlife scum don't play fair. Though white and privileged themselves, they pretend to be 'people of color' and, just like Jews, try to blame Anglo-Germanic whites for ALL THE PROBLEMS. Latin Whites are like Greeks in having no sense of honor or principles. It's all talk, no walk. Take the loathsome Guillermo Del Toro who looks about as white as a white person can be. He's the kind of Latin turd-person who've been hogging all the wealth, privilege, and opportunities in Latin America. Latin whites have been far more corrupt, violent, and oppressive than gringos in the North. But these lowlife scum are always pretending to be People of Color and always hectoring gringos for stuff like Selma and 'racism'. These Latin White scum(who spread diseases and killed tens of millions, committed massive 'rapes', and enslaved many more blacks than North America ever did) are always pontificating about how they are full of tolerance and love. They sermonize about how Trump's proposed WALL is so evil while conveniently overlooking the fact that their intrusion into the New World led to untold misery for the native folks, for whom things got even worse when Latin whites decided to bring over hordes of crazy black Africans to carry bananas.

This is why people like Buchanan have failed in the Culture War. Buchanan is sticking up for Latin whites even though Latin whites, being the weasels that they are, go out of their way to form alliances with Jews, blacks, and any POC(even Muslims) to bash gringo and yanqui. Why defend Latin whites from POC when Latin whites use POC against northern whites? It's as stupid as whites siding with Jews against Palestinians when Jews are using POC and Muslims against whites. (And if Jews are capable of doing what they did to Palestinians, why would they not do it to your people as well? If Bob steals from Bill, what makes you think he won't steal from you? Oh, because you helped Bob steal from Bill? Well, if Bob has a sense of gratitude, maybe he will go easy on you. But is Bob capable of gratitude? If not, you will be the next victim for sure. People like Max Boot and William Kristol do not inspire trust. When have they ever said Thank You to America?) Furthermore, Latin whites side with POC against northern whites mainly to keep their own white privilege. It's a game of misdirection. Just like Jews want people to focus on 'white privilege' as distraction from Jewish Power(an 'antisemitic trope'), Latin whites manipulate the brown masses in Latin America into hating and blaming 'gringos' or 'yanquis'(or European Spain or Catholic Church) than take notice of the all-too-obvious fact that Latin America is mostly ruled by white Latin elites(often allied with globo-homo Jewry).

White Americans should return the favor. Two can play that game. If Latin whites want to rouse up POC against whites in the US, whites should rouse up POC in Latin America against Latin whites. Latin whites are too sleazy and slimy to come to a mutual understanding with Northern whites. They are like Greeks, a people that simply cannot be trusted with honor and principles. White Americans should go tit-for-tat and denounce Diversity in Latin America as the product of imperialism. White Americans should call for restoration of Aztec Rule and reopening of the temple for massive human sacrifices(of Latin whites). All Latin whites like Guillermo Del Toro should be led up the steps for crude heart-transplant operations. And the brown Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show) should be renamed Moctezuma II and made ruler-for-life of Mexico(as he looks more native than European). Mexican white elites are the scum of the Earth who champion POC for the most cynical and self-serving reasons. It isn't really to favor browns over whites but to ensure that Latin whites will keep the power by directing brown rage against the OTHER whites(Anglos, Germanic, and Europeans).



These Latin whites are dirtbags, and white Americans must give up any hope of alliance on good faith. Just look at scumbags like Jorge Ramos, Ana Navarro, Jim Acosta, and etc. What total filth. Though their ancestors messed up South America and Mexico, they never accept any blame. If anything, they take pride that Hispanic imperialism, slave trade, and mass 'rape' of natives led to so much vibrant Diversity in Latin America. That one magic word 'Diversity' redeems all the horrors. And of course, Jews indulge Latin whites and let them carry on as honorary POC because Jews figure Latinos are currently useful in the POC coalition against white goyim. These Latin whites messed up their own nations and ran from their own problems, but they are always accusing gringo and yanqui of being 'racist' and 'not caring'. Instead of going back home and fixing the problems, they come to the US to leech off gringo, and they expect gringos to let in endless waves of 'Latinos'(many of whom are not Latin at all) and bear all the responsibilities of solving the problems of humanity. Latin white's idea of panacea is "Let us go to gringoland, let's take stuff, and let's blame gringo for everything" and "Gringo, if you don't let us in, you are racismo." Adios Rule of Law.
There is no honest discussion as to why Latin America is messed up so bad. No mention of Latin white culture of corruption, vanity, and superficiality. No mention of the problems of Diversity that seriously undermines social trust. No mention of black problems due to Hispanic and Jewish slave trade. No mention of problems of somewhat lower IQ of browns and their lackluster personality. Instead, all the burden is on gringos to keep taking in more and more peoples from Latin America. Now, won't too many 'Latinos' lead to degradation of America into something more like Latin America? Won't they be killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg? But Latin whites don't care because they've long eyed the Anglo-Germanic success in the US with burning envy and resentment. They want to leech off it, and if it is finally destroyed with excessive diversity, what do they care? Just like barbarians pillaged civilizations out of envy and resentment(as well as greed), Latin whites hate the very existence of the US because it stands as stark reminder of the failure of Latin whites in the South.

Justin Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples. France’s Emmanuel Macron has apologized for the torture of rebels in Algeria’s war for independence.

This is all BS. If Trudeau really cares about Canada's indigenous peoples, why is he allowing mass immigration? If white people are guilt-ridden for having stolen Indian lands, shouldn't they try to revive the indigenous communities and return some of the land? Instead, Trudeau lets in tons of Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, and Africans who have ZERO ancestral or historical claim to the land. With globo-homo scum like Trudeau, it's all horseplay. He's a Muslim, Hindu, Indian, Homo, Chinese, African, and etc, etc. The man for all costumes, all hipster-dipter larping. Besides, how can anyone who truly respects indigenous culture go about spreading Homomania all around, the product of Western decadence, Jewish subversion, 'gay' vanity, and capitalism-gone-cancerous? So much for defending native cultures.

As for Macron, he's just another BS artist and globo-homo shill. If indeed Macron truly feels guilty for what the French did in Algeria, why is he supportive of all these Wars for Israel that have decimated entire parts of the Middle East? Why is he blind to the plight of Palestinians who are far worse off than Algerians under the French? Syria has some of the greatest ancient treasures and artifacts, but so many have been blown up sky-high by US-Israel-Saudi backed terrorist Jihadis labeled as 'moderate rebels'. Do people like Macron even care or voice criticism? And France worked closely with US in the utter destruction of Libya. It's all talk. Macron talks of 'human rights' and uses it as moral cover for his collaboration with Jewish supremacist imperialism. It's like scummy Hillary and Madeline Albright spout sentiments about 'saving Muslim refugees' while overlooking the fact that those refugees are the result of Wars for Israel in which they had a hand.

Also, it's about time Algeria and rest of them apologized to the French for colonizing France. And it is about time the French patriots got resistance mode as depicted in the film BATTLE OF ALGIERS. At this point, unless there is a BATTLE OF FRANCE, it is game over for a nation that is being colonized demographically and sexually by Muslims and Africans. In the coming decades, France will be even darker than Algeria and Morocco. North Africans generally disdain black sub-Saharan Africans and use harsh means to keep them under control. This is why black Africans don't stick around in North Africa and make it to Europe, esp France-UK-Germany-Sweden where they treated as Magic Negroes. In 'liberal' Europe, blacks are celebrated and allowed to run jungle wild.

Anyway, Pat Buchanan is stuck in Old Think. The paradigms he refers to are gone. We need new paradigms in dealing with stuff like Diversity. We must spell out that Diversity is the product of imperialism, genocide, slavery, and replacement immigration-invasion. And it's about time to give up on the alliance of North American whites and South American whites. It might have worked if South American whites had a sense of honor and if North American whites fended off Jewish takeover of elite power and stuck to their noble race-ist principles. But Latin whites are a bunch of weasels who try to keep their white privilege by directing brown rage at Europe and 'gringo', and most Northern white elites are a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks who bend over to homomania and roll over before their Jewish supremacist masters and wet their pants in joy over their daughter marrying a Negro. Utterly worthless.

Slavocaust, a Great Tragedy of the 20th Century, and It Continues to this Day — On the Aryan and Semitic War on Slavic Peoples and Cultures

Slavocaust from the Semites. The Great Famine of the 1930s. Stalin and Jewish Bolsheviks implemented Forced-Collectivization that led to 7 million deaths in the Soviet Union. 3.5 million were in Ukraine alone, mostly Christian Slavs. As Jews were urban-dwellers and safely ensconced in elite positions, they evaded the brunt of the famine and ate well while millions of Slavs across the country faced death by starvation. At the time, the Jewish-owned New York Times ran articles denying the existence of the famines, and the reporter, the homosexual Walter Duranty, was awarded with the Pulitzer Prize for one of the greatest Fake News stories in journalism.

Slavocaust from the Aryans. Nazi Germans invade Russia with genocidal plans to wipe out tens of millions of Slavs to be replaced with German farmers. Had the Germans won the war and carried out the Slavocaust in full measure, Russian Slavs would have been turned into slaves or slaughtered like cattle. Unlike Jewish Bolsheviks who hid their ethnic animus with socialist ideology, Germans were blatant in their contempt for Eastern Slavs as untermensch who must make way for superior Germans.

20th Century was no stranger to tragedies. There were the two great World Wars. There was the mass killings of Armenians, the Shoah, Nanking Massacre, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rwandan Genocide, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Mao’s famines and campaign against culture, wars in Vietnam and Algeria, and many more. But perhaps one that has been overlooked could broadly be called the Slavocaust, or Slavic-Holocaust. Now, the tragedies that fall into this category have been studied and discussed — the Great Famine in Ukraine under Bolshevism is one of the most well-known example — as individual events, but perhaps what we need is a more comprehensive overview of a pattern of events that could be summed up as a War on Slavs. When we ponder the entire forest than fixate on individual trees, a pattern emerges. One such pattern may explain the particularly tragic history of the Slavs, especially Russians/Ukrainians. And in a very real way, the animus behind Slavocaust of the 20th century is still with us, especially as so much of the world is under the hegemony of the Empire of Judea or EOJ. Jewish hatred of Slavs is now near-genocidal.

The main pattern that emerges from Eastern Europe and Russia in the 20th century concerns the Jewish(Semitic) and Germanic(Aryan) Wars of Enslavement and Extermination against the Slavic Peoples. Why did Germans and Jews play key roles in this? This seems all the odder considering that, especially from 1933 to 1945, the Semites and Aryans were the fiercest enemies in the world. To be sure, there was a supporting cast of characters in the Slavocaust by Anglos, British and American. And to a lesser extent, Japan that was used, prior to WWII and during the Cold War, as an collaborator against Russia.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Slavs have been some pure-as-snow saints of history. As we all know, Slavic history is filled with warriors, conquerors, ruthless tyrants, imperialists, and lunatics. Russia got so big because it conquered other peoples, and it’s understandable why many peoples, including non-Russian Slavs, developed hostilities toward Russians as overbearing invaders and despoilers. People are people, and Slavs could be as good or bad as anyone(though perhaps Negroes are one race that defies imagination in terms of morality; DNA tells us that all of humanity could roughly be divided between Sub-Saharan Africans and Everyone Else).

That said, geography condemned the Slavs(especially those further to the East) to a rather troubled place in history. Like Southern Europe — Balkans and Spain, Italy, & Portugal — , the Slavic territories were exposed to non-European invaders. Spain came under Moorish rule for several centuries. Parts of the Balkans came under Turkish rule(though some may include Turkey as part of Europe). As Slavic peoples lived in the Eastern territories, they were the first Europeans to be ravaged when the Mongols moved westward from the Gobi steppes. And Russians were constantly at war with the Turkic Muslim peoples. For nearly three centuries, Russians lived under the Mongol yoke. And with the Muslims of Turkic regions and Central Asia, the Russian gave as good as they got(but they ‘got’ a lot). According to Andrei Tarkovsky in THE MIRROR, Russia played a christ-like role in European history. If not for Russia as sacrificial bulwark, the West could have been flooded with the Mongol Horde, and then, who knows what the history of Christendom and Europe might have been. Weakened by threats from North Africa, Turkic peoples, and Mongols, maybe the European pageant would have been quashed... like the glory of Greece was lost long ago when invasions upon invasions left only skeletons of Hellenic glory.

And yet, it was precisely because Russia underwent that ‘christ-like’ sacrificial role that it came to be despised than appreciated by the West. Instead of gratitude toward Slavs for serving as the demographic brunt against the Mongols, many in the West came to see them as whites tainted with Asiatic blood and poisoned with Oriental Despotism. They were seen as the lesser Europeans, if European at all.
And even in the Modern Era, Russian aristocrats came to regard their people in a condescending, even contemptuous, manner. If Russian rulers like Ivan the Terrible were infected with the virus of 'Oriental Despotism' and ruled like a ‘Khan’, the later Russian rulers held themselves aloof from the Slavic rabble; they took special pride in their ‘western' cultivation. The famed Catherine the Great was actually a German. And Russian elites who modeled themselves on Western attitudes and manners snubbed their own national folk. Given that only a sliver of privileged Russians had the means to be educated in the West, it led to a widening divide between the elites and the masses. Russian royalty married with non-Russians, especially the Germans. Many preferred to speak French than Russian, considered as a barbarian tongue. These elites weren't ‘oriental despotist’ but despotic just the same because they turned up their noses at Russian commoners as semi-barbarian louts and boors munching on raw potatoes and mired in superstition. So, whether Russian elites followed the Oriental model or the Western model, they generally disdained their folks. In Oriental Despotic mode, the masses were seen as obedient cattle. In Western Enlightenment mode, the masses were seen as ignorant dummies. Peter the Great was a westernizing modernizer, but he treated his people as chattel in the building of St. Petersburg. Catherine the Great patronized Western artists and thinkers but only reinforced the institution of serfdom. Enlightenment was for the washed and perfumed.

Looking further back into history, we find more reasons as to why the West generally came to disdain the Slavs. Christianity spread to Western and Northern Europe before it moved deep into Slavic territory. So, the Christian West once regarded Slavic peoples as unredeemed pagans. For this reason, the Christian West's prohibition of slavery(among Christians) didn't apply to pagan Slavs who were regarded as lowly heathens. The fact that the term ‘slave’ derives from ‘Slav’ is sure indication of the massive scale of the slave trade involving Slavs. Christian West and Jews sold millions of Slavs to North Africa and Near East. For much of Western and Central European history, the Slavs were regarded as barbarians, the last ones to be civilized and converted to Christianity. Western Europeans looked upon Slavs like the English once regarded the Scottish or how today’s urban yuppie elites feel about rural white folks in the South. (It’s no wonder that Andrei Konchalovsky had such rapport with the subject of rural white folks in SHY PEOPLE set in Louisiana.)
Furthermore, Russian Slavs always seemed to bet on the wrong horse. When Russians finally adopted Christianity, they chose the Eastern Orthodox Faith than Catholicism. (Certain Slavic groups became Catholics, drawing them closer to the more advanced West.) At the time, the two great centers of Christianity were Rome and Constantinople. Russians bet on the everlasting glory of Constantinople, but it would fall into decline and eventually fall to the Turks whereas the Roman Church would grow bigger and stronger, until it was confronted with the ‘heresy’ of Protestantism. Even though the wars between the Catholics and Protestants were many times more violent than anything between Catholics and Orthodox, the two great Western Churches arrived at a way to tolerate and even cooperate with one another. Besides, even if in opposition, Protestantism was a direct outgrowth of Catholicism. It was all-in-the-family. In contrast, the Orthodox Church evolved in a universe all its own. So, even though Western Europe and Russia were both Christian, there was a cultural-spiritual gulf that could never be closed.

In a way, the prelude to the Slavocaust of the 20th Century was the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. Not only did it lead to the deaths of millions of Russians under an emperor who emerged from the French Revolution but it led to resentment against Russia among radicals and progressives in the coming years.
In one way, Russia was appreciated as the savior that finally broke the back of the increasingly aggressive and arrogant French Empire. Defeat of France meant liberation all across Europe. And yet, in yrs to come, many radicals came to revere Napoleon as a romantic figure who'd once nearly united all of Europe under Enlightenment values. So, from this viewpoint, Russia was not so much the savior of Europe from French domination but the reactionary ditch that destroyed the wheels of revolution. After all, following the downfall of the Napoleonic Order, most of Europe came under aristocratic rule for the next hundred years before it all came tumbling down in the catastrophe of World War I.
In the wake of Napoleon’s defeat, the kings and aristocrats swiftly regained control in nearly all of Europe, France included. Especially because Russia was the most backward part of Europe — it still had serfdom — , its role as the molder of the post-Napoleonic Order didn’t bode well with idealists restless for change. Then, it is understandable why there was a special fury against the Russian order from radicals both within and outside Russia. Russia was seen by radicals as the haystack that broke the camel’s back of the revolution. When the October Revolution happened in 1917, it was the sweetest revenge to finally witness the most backward part of Europe undergo the most radical transformation. The element of revenge against Russia wasn’t only with Jews. It was with radicals and revolutionaries all across Europe. (Jews, along with Mongols, are the only people who conquered Russia. Jews did it again in the 1990s and are planning another Slavocaust.)


As the movie NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA finely illustrated, Russia was both a great power and weak power. Immense and limitless in raw materials with a population bigger than any other European country yet burdened by that very size. Also, ruling over so many ethnic groups meant the Russian core would come under constant assault by radical elements of every one of them, from Latvians to Georgians. Also, the concentration of power in the Tsar meant that the fall of that one edifice would throw all of the empire into turmoil, leading to civil war and chaos until a new regime took control with an iron grip.
Even though Russians are racially closer to Anglos and Germans than to Mongols, Turks, or Mexicans, the national character of Russians(and some other Slavs as well) was closer to that of Mexicans: Deficient in spark, initiative, and drive. Mexico was once immense, almost as big as the United States. So, why did it lose the SW territories? Because while Anglos swiftly moved westward to settle new lands and build enterprise, most Mexicans remained in their villages and eat tacos. If Mexicans had had the drive of Anglos, they would have developed the SW territories and turned Mexico into a great power. (The great migration of Mexicans into the US since the 1960s hasn’t been about initiative and spark but the opposite. Because Mexicans can’t do much on their own, they want to come to the US to just work for ‘gringo’.) Russians, to be sure, were far bolder than Mexicans in territorial ambition. They took all of Siberia and even claimed Alaska before stupidly selling it to the US. Still, Russians were far less good in developing than in merely conquering new lands. Look what a handful of Anglos did with Canada compared with what Russians did with all the territory they conquered.

Because Russia was both a great power and a weak power, both a strong man and a sick man, it was seen as predator by some, prey by others. Or as both predator and prey. To the Chinese whose star had fallen in the 19th century, Russia was just another predatory power scrambling to grab parts of North Asia. The Ottomans, also in decline, regarded Russia with growing fear. The British lion both despised and worried about the Russian bear. The Brits, the rulers of the greatest empire in the world in the late 19th century, knew Russia was backward in industry and technology. But the Brits also knew that Russians had embarked on industrialization on a massive scale to catch up with the West. Also, able Germans ran many Russian institutions and industries. Also, the sheer size of Russia intimidated the Brits. British Empire was huge but vulnerable because small numbers of British overlords ruled over increasingly restless natives. The British dominated the seas, but water wasn't as firm as land. British hostility against Russia grew to such intensity that the UK once sided with the Turks against Russia. And the UK also sided with Japan against Russia in the early 20th century. But the real tragedy that would befall the Slavs in the 20th century had to do with Jews and Germans, for reasons different and similar.

Upon German unification under the Prussian helm, the mentality of the Germans began to change. Though a capable people over the centuries, the Germans were too fragmented to be a great power. But the fact that Prussians, though limited in number and territory, could gain a vital foothold in Continental politics was a harbinger of things to come. If tiny Prussia could assert itself as a major player in Europe, what would happen if the German folks were to unite as one? Soon after the unification of German peoples, the new nation overshadowed France, traditionally the great land power in Europe. German victory against France that opposed further unification of Germany was so overwhelming that the French never fully recovered their pride. (Even though France won WWI, it was due to the grand alliance with UK, Russia, and US.) With such power, the Germans began to think in terms of their ‘place in the sun’. It was no longer enough to be part of a good nation, rich nation, or strong nation. Germany had to be a great power, even a world power. But the world was already taken. Brits and French had grabbed much of Africa, Middle East, and Asia. The New World was also colonized and taken. Plenty of Germans settled in the US, but they were losing their links to Germany. So, in order for Germany to become a world power, it had to move eastward and grab territory from vast Russia. And Germans felt justified in this for the same reason Anglo-Americans did in taking the SW territories. Anglos figured, "Mexicans are such useless, clueless, and uninspired bunch of bums, so we proud and tireless Anglos with work ethic should make something of the land." Germans felt the same way. They felt that Russians were too lazy, stupid, and drunk to deserve all that land. Germans could do so much more with it. Why let Russians have all that land and make nothing of it? If Germans took it, they could it up and become a great power. Now, such feelings weren’t necessarily genocidal, just like the Anglo-American conquest of SW territories was really just a land-grab. It was not a racial war on the Mexicans, and indeed, Anglos and Mexicans learned to co-exist in many communities, like we see in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID.


But overtime, certain radical-racist elements of the German Population came to develop a racial rationale for invading and dominating over the Slavs. In their eyes, Slavs(especially Russians) weren’t merely lazy and underachieving whites but ‘untermensch’ whose lot was to serve as helots as Germans or be gradually eliminated to make way for German settlers. Even though the ‘Aryan’ vision of German-ruled Russia was frightening, there was a certain cold logic to it. A people who rule but come to rely on the labor of another people will eventually fall. White Americans in the North and Zionists both understood this. White Americans in the South made a huge mistake by bringing black slave labor from Africa. It made for profits in the short-term but losses in the long-term. Same happened to whites in South Africa who came to rely on black labor. In contrast, whites in the American North and Zionists in Palestine/Israel understood that a people must both rule and do the labor. This is why Jews are safe in Israel whereas whites are all but finished in South Africa. Spartans also failed in the long run because they relied on non-Spartan helots to do most of the work.

Anyway, even though the National Socialists were correct about their ethno-theory-of-management-and-labor, its implementation in Russia would have been ghastly. In order for Russia to be converted into a world of German ownership and labor, the native populations would have to be eliminated by the tens of millions. So, the ethno-theory-of-management-and-labor is morally applicable only in one’s own nation, not in other lands as it'd necessitate either genocide or mass expulsion. For Israel to become a Jewish state, the existing Palestinian population(700,000 of them) had to be removed by massive pogroms and ‘ethnic cleansing’. But at least, the Zionists didn’t kill too many people.
The Nazis, in contrast, had diabolical plans in the East. Even though the Nazis eventually lost the war and suffered horrible war crimes themselves, their Lebensraum plan was partially implemented in conquered areas, and the results were horrific. Even Slavs who had initially greeted the Germans as liberators from Godless communism came to fear the ruthless Germans more than the Soviets. Even though the Nazi Slavocaust ultimately failed, the Russian and other Slavic died in the millions by execution, starvation, and retaliation. To the extent that the Nazi Aryans weren’t merely out to grab some territory — something Europeans have been doing to one another since time immemorial — but carrying out a racial ideology of enslavement and extermination, it was indeed an act of genocide. Thus, the term ‘Slavocaust’ is most appropriate. Even though the brunt of Slavocaust fell on Slavs of the Soviet Union, the Nazis also acted brutally in Poland, vacillating between treating Poles as fellow second-rate Aryans or Slavic scum. And even though Nazi violence against Czechs was far less than toward Poles and Russians, there’s no telling what the long-term plan would have been. Germans, especially of Austrian background, hated Czechs because of bad blood between the two communities in the eras prior to WWI and immediate thereafter when German minorities in Czech-controlled territories were mistreated.

If the Nazi Slavocaust against Russians was blatant enough — the Nazis wore their radical-racist ideology on their sleeve — , it was more complicated with the Jews. Indeed, it could be argued that because Jewish Bolsheviks acted out of ‘social justice’, their war on the Slavosphere wasn’t really genocidal in nature. And it is true enough that Jews didn’t mean to wipe out entire populations of Slavs and replace them with another population. Still, despite all the egalitarian rhetoric, the fact is many Jews were motivated by a powerful animus against Russia. Partly, it was revenge for Russian 'oppression' of Jews. Even though the Jewish victims of the periodic pogroms weren’t exceedingly high(compared to 20th century horrors), Jews knew things were much better for their kind in Western Europe. On the basis of such contrasts, Russia seemed like an especial hell. It seemed even more so when Jews began to move to America. Suddenly, Jews compared Jews-over-here with Jews-over-there, and they concluded Russia as the worst place for Jews.

But there was also the long-existing Jewish view of goyim, especially Christians. Jews hated Christians as the people who stole their religion, their God. Also, Jews, who became adept in business and learning, came to regard the vast majority of Russians as dumb, lazy, and childish morons. Jews hated Russian elites as pompous a**holes and loathed Russian masses as ignorant, stupid, and boorish. So, even though Jewish Semites didn’t have an ideology of enslavement and extermination against the Slavs like the Nazi Aryans did, their radical cause wasn’t merely fueled by idealism and vision of justice. It was driven by animus, hatred, contempt, arrogance, and revanchism.
Jewish Bolsheviks were clever in cloaking their bilious impulses with prophetic promise of a better tomorrow. But in the end, a person is more about what he feels than what he says. If a person hates you, it doesn’t matter how he rationalizes his actions toward you in the name of goodwill and camaraderie. His gut instinct is out to get you. It’s like Jewish supremacists in the US always talk about curing white people of their ‘sins’ of ‘racism’, ‘white supremacism’, and etc. Jews talk like they’re doing whites a favor. But in truth, they are driven by ethnic animus, paranoia, and supremacism. They want to take over as the superior group and simply cannot abide by any goy group that says NO to the Jewish agenda.
If Jews feel contempt for Russian Slavs for being too stupid and lazy, they fear Anglos and Germanics for being too capable. In both cases, Jews act like Bad Faith Doctors who say they’re offering medicine when it’s really poison. Even though some Bolsheviks, Jewish or non-Jewish, were sincere in their hopes for a better world, there were too many nasty, vicious, sadistic, and psychopathic Jews among them who took up the cause because it opened the door to power and control. And in the guise of moral progress, they could wipe out entire classes of enemies. When certain farmers wouldn’t hand over the grain, they were classified as ‘kulaks’ and were eliminated without mercy.
Granted, Jews didn’t do this alone. They worked with the Georgian Stalin who regarded people as pawns. Jews weren’t the only ones with blood-soaked hands, but they were the main drivers. And in the early period of Soviet history, they were the most determined ethnic players at the elite level. (Also, once the ball got rolling,  there was no turning back. The Bolshevik terror was so extreme that is the Bolsheviks were to fall, they'd surely be torn limb from limb. Just like it was a zero-sum-game of win everything or lose everything for the Germans when they invaded Russia in WWII, Jewish Bolsheviks knew it was win or lose with nothing in between when Russia fell into the throes of Civil War. So, Jewish Bolsheviks doubled down on the terror with no show of mercy. We see the same psychological pattern among Jews today. They've pushed anti-white and anti-Christian PC so far that they fear it's win or lose; there is no more middle ground. Jews went all in for the jackpot. Jews sure can be degenerate gamblers.)
If history has taught us anything, Jews are the people with the deepest, bitterest hatred. With a nomadic-merchant ‘parasitic’ mentality, Jews have developed this ethno-megalomania that everything exists to be claimed and owned by them. If most people get upset when others try to take their stuff, Jews get upset when others won’t let Jews take their stuff. Granted, there is a partial justification as to why Jews may feel this way. Unlike Vikings and Mongols, Jews generally didn’t just plunder stuff outright. Rather, they came to non-Jewish places and set up businesses or services that expanded economic activity. So, Jews felt the bulk of the wealth should belong to them. This makes some sense, even good sense. If Jews in Russia build up businesses and generate revenue, why shouldn’t they keep most of the profits after taxes? The problem is Jews went further. Since Jews are adept at making money off the land(by means fair or foul), they began to feel that the land itself should belong to them.
For example, since Jews are the best businessmen in Russia, they should have the primary claim to Russia itself. It sounds crazy to us, but it sounds totally logical and justified to Jews. And in some nations, Jews have convinced the native population of the justness of such attitude. Jews did this by promoting the Shoah and presenting Jews as the most tragic, wise, wonderful, funny, endearing, and lovable people. So, many goyim in US and UK want to go out on a limb to help the Jews to take over more and more. It's like fans want their celebrity idols to become richer and richer, even at their own expense. For many cucky goyim, it's not enough to make Jews the richest people in the US and UK. Jews must have de facto ownership of US and UK so that THEY get to decide the national policy. So, if Jews say "America is a nation of immigrants" and that tons of non-whites must come and replace white people, it must be so because Jews are such a wise people, a sacred people, a wonderful people, a genius people. Many white Christians believe that their main mission in life is to appease and serve the noble, tragic, and wise Jews. In their eyes, there is nothing alarming about Jews, as the 2% of the population, controlling over 90% of the media. it only seems right. For white progs, there is nothing wrong with Jews replacing Christianity with Homomania. There is nothing wrong with Jews turning the US from a white nation into a ‘brown’ nation. Jews know best, and they should be allowed to call the shots. If you disagree, you are a ‘white supremacist’ or ‘nazi’. Jew-worship is so ingrained in the hearts and minds of Americans that even after Jewish oligarchs moved in concert to de-platform him, Alex Jones is full of praise of Jews and blaming the censorship on the ‘Chicoms’ or Chinese-Communists. (For some reason, attacking China is not considered a ‘hate speech’ by the Establishment because Jews find it useful to distract people from Jewish Power by making them babble about Yellow Peril.)


Anyway, the communist revolution in Russia(spearheaded by many Jews) led to the deaths of millions of lives by starvation, execution, or hard labor. Many innocents were tortured. Much of arts and culture was ransacked, plundered, stolen, or sold to foreigners. Tens of thousands of Churches were smashed. Slavs came to live in fear. To be sure, plenty of Slavs took part in the Revolution, and they also carried out bloody purges and killed people left and right. But it’s possible that the ‘Russian’ Revolution might not have turned out so extreme if not for the ethnic animus of Jewish Bolsheviks for whom the conflict was a matter of total victory or total defeat. (Ironically, the main threat to Jews came from within the Revolution in the figure of Stalin.) After all, the Kerensky regime after the Tsar’s abdication in February was also socialist, but it was closer to social-democracy than radical communism. It was patriotic, not anti-Russian. And when an election was held in the new Soviet Union, the great majority of the people voted for agro-socialist parties, but the results were nullified by the Bolsheviks who created a vast secret-police apparatus to terrorize and/or kill anyone who might pose a threat to the regime. Even though Stalin the Georgian took it to new heights, we need to keep in mind that Stalin came to power with the help of Jews.
Indeed, Jews miscalculated Josef Stalin, just like the German conservative elites underestimated Adolf Hitler. Jews thought they could manipulate Stalin, and the German conservatives thought they could keep Hitler on a leash. As it turned out, both men were of immense will-to-power and deviousness. In time, both Stalin and Hitler made their allies know who was boss in the grand scheme of things. That said, many Jews played a crucial role in the Soviet system all throughout Stalin’s rule. And Stalin also appointed lots of Jews to rule Eastern European nations that came into Soviet orbit at the end of World War II.

All in all, many Slavs and Eastern Europeans felt the brunt of both Jewish radical-socialism and German radical-racism. In the aftermath of WWI, countless Slavs in Russia and Ukraine were destroyed through the meat-grinder of the Revolution that even went so far as to kill all of the Tsar’s family. It is estimated that at least 3.5 million died in the Great Famine in Ukraine. Stalin wasn’t the only heartless bastard. Jewish Bolsheviks shed no tears for all the dead. And Jews in the West never called on the world to save Slavic Christians from Communism and Jewish mass-killers. (It’s like few Jews cared about the 100,000s of Iraqi women and children killed by Jewish-controlled US sanctions. And Jews sure don’t care about the 500,000 Syrians who died in the recent war due to Jewish machinations with US foreign policy.) Eric Hobsbawm the Jewish historian never expressed any moral outrage over the millions crushed by communism. Like what Madeleine Albright said of all those dead Iraqi kids, Hobsbawn's attitude was "It was worth it."
Jews endlessly bitch about how the world didn’t care when Nazis were killing members of the Tribe, but most Jews around the world were utterly indifferent to millions of Slavs being killed by Stalin and the Jews. Even capitalist Jews in the US and Europe felt closer to Communist Jews in the USSR than with ‘capitalist-kulak’ victims. Even Leon Trotsky, the dearly beloved god-hero of Neocons, didn’t protest Stalin’s forced collectivization program. At the height of the tragedy, Trotsky’s only criticism was it wasn’t radical enough.

Now, all these Jews who took part in the bloodbath justified themselves as agents of History; and if they got carried away, it was due to excessive enthusiasm for Justice. Over-zealous maybe but for noble ends. But, the communist horror was too grim for such self-serving excuses. And the sheer lack of reflection and remorse shown by the Jewish Community suggests a deep animus, arrogance, and contempt for Slavs. (Jews insist all Germans til the end of time must share in the Shoah Guilt, but they treat the Jewish Slavocaust as a tissue to blow their noses with and toss away.) Even though Jewish Bolsheviks didn’t have an explicit program for the extermination of Slavs, their attitude was one of megalomania and contempt. As such, Christian Slavs were seen as expendable cannon-fodder for the Revolution, laying the groundwork for radical policies that would lead to mass terror and deaths. The Slavs were seen as so many guinea pigs to be experimented by all-knowing Jews.
If Russia and Ukraine had majority Jewish populations, would Jewish Bolsheviks have been so reckless in their social experiments? Of course not. Jews hold Jewish lives as precious. They acted the way they did because they saw Slavs as hammer-and-sickle than flesh-and-blood. A people to be molded anyway the Jewish Bolsheviks deemed fit regardless of the human cost. Whether it’s George Soros pushing for Open Borders(and all the chaos that ensues) or Neocons calling for Wars for Israel, Jews don’t care about their consequences to goy lives. Jewish ‘leftists’ may believe in ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ in the abstract, but their emotions are driven by animus, arrogance, hatred, and contempt when dealing with goyim.
One thing for sure, Jewish globo-capitalists didn’t care how many Russians were destroyed by the Jewish looting of the economy in the 1990s. Jews never cared about the Zionism’s impact on Palestinians. Jews don’t care about the effect of Neocon policies on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or any other country.

As it happened, it was in Russia that Jews first got the chance to run riot and do as they please. Even though Jewish elites had gained immense fortunes and privileges in certain European nations, it was only with the ‘Russian’ Revolution that a bunch of Jews were flush with near-total power over a nation and could do as they pleased(at least for a time). The result was tragic, indeed catastrophic, leading to cultural destruction and deaths of millions. Back then and even now, Jews feel ZERO accountability for what they did. Jewish moral outrage only concerns the plight of Jews. Of course, on occasion, Jews will prop up some other group as deserving of special victim status, but it is purely strategic. The ONLY reason why Jews make a fuss about Black Slavery and Apartheid is because they are useful in baiting and paralyzing whites with ‘white guilt’. (Never mind Jews played a key role in the slave trade, and never mind Jews were the biggest exploiters of diamond mines and black labor in South Africa. Never mind Israel was the #1 ally of South Africa during Apartheid years, and never mind Mandela had the deepest admiration for Arafat and the PLO. Jews, with their media monopoly and whore-politicians in their pockets, rewrite history as they see it.) That is why Jews keep bringing up Emmit Till over and over but ignore all those dead Palestinians as statistics or faceless victims to be forgotten like yesterday’s papers.

Tragically, the Jewish Slavocaust mentality is still going like the Energizer Bunny. Not only are Jews unrepentant of what they’d done in Russia in the 1990s, they are calling on the US and EU to apply more sanctions on Russia(on cooked up charges) no matter how many people might suffer. As far as Jews are concerned, because the majority of Russians support Vladimir Putin(the New Hitler), they must all be made to suffer and brought to heel. Jews love to play God. They think they should have the right to smite any people and play the game of "Jews giveth, Jews taketh away".

The Slavic peoples suffered greatly in the 20th century due to Slavocaust coming from two directions: Radical Semites and Radical Aryans. Radical Semites thought they knew everything and everything must conform to their agenda. Even though they adopted a 'universal' ideology, it was used to serve their tribal supremacist ambition against Slavs-as-cattle, just like the pigs in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM talk a good game about ‘equality’ but lord over the other animals.
Even today, notice how Jews really operate on the basis of "Is it good for the Jews?" but mask their tribal agenda with talk of ‘social justice’. Funny how this 'social justice' only makes Jews richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else. If Jews really care for equal justice, who does Israel get showered with billions in aid while Iran is hit with sanctions? Doesn’t Israel have 300 illegal nukes while Iran has none? Why favor Israel over Iran? It makes no sense to waste goodwill on Jews. Jews simply feel, "We are smarter, we are better, we are holier, and we should rule over you, and you exist to serve us and obey us and believe everything we tell you. If not, you’re an ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘Nazi’." In the US, Jews force all of us to support their mass tyranny over Palestinians. Jews, who are only 2% of the population, get to control over 90% of media and virtually all internet platforms. Yet, we never hear of Jewish supremacism or Jewish privilege. Instead, Jews cover up their immense power by making people fixate and foam at the mouth over ‘White Privilege’.

In other words, Jews have learned NOTHING from the Slavocaust. Of course, Jews remember the Holocaust and remind us to erect more monuments and watch more Holocaust movies and weep for Jews and die for Jews and worship Jews. But Jews, by and large, feel zero accountability for their role in the Slavocaust. Also, they would rather not ponder the perverse irony that both Jews and Nazi Aryans took part in the Slavocaust. Jews did it from the ‘far left’ and Nazis did it from the ‘far right’. But then, to the extent that Jewish Bolsheviks felt profoundly Jewish despite their universalist and egalitarian ideology, they were subconsciously motivated by ‘far right’ ultra-tribal passions: "Is it good for the Jews?"

Well, if Jews learned nothing from the Slavocaust, did the Germans learn something? No. Even though Germans endlessly kvetch about their boo-hoo-hoo guilt for the Holocaust, they now feel NOTHING about what they did to Slavs in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Russia. Germans feel nothing about the millions of Slavs they'd slaughtered in WWII and, furthermore, now work in concert with George Soros to push massive invading armies of Muslims and Africans into Eastern Europe. And Germany is fully on-board with the Jewish-controlled US to ‘punish’ Russia no matter how many people may be direly affected. Even though Germans no longer feel a murderous zeal for Slavocaust(as Jews still do), they feel no conscience or guilt for all the horrors they’d visited on Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, and Russians during WWII. If Aryans and Semites had one thing in common in the 21st Century, it was their supremacist contempt for Slavs as Inferiors. Aryans chose extermination but failed in WWII. Semites slaughtered millions of Slavs in the name of 'progress'.

We must remember the Slavocaust and make sure it doesn’t happen again. To prevent another such tragedy, we must call out on the depraved evil that has become of Jewish Power.