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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whites need to realize two things.

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

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

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

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

Some Notes on HOW HITLER SAVED THE ALLIES(by Ron Unz)

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

Victors(or the Official Scribes) write the history. Scholars also write the history. Victors prefer their own 'good war' narrative. This is true of all sides. As for scholars, they are not necessarily on the side of victors, especially in a system that is relatively free, like in a democracy. There have been plenty of dissident or alternative scholars in the West, even in elite institutions. But scholars have tended to be on the Left. Furthermore, especially after revelations of Nazi atrocities in WWII(and because the West felt the direct fury of Nazi Germany but not of the Soviet Union), it had become increasingly difficult to be a right-wing scholar(except from the most defensive or Philo-Semitic position, self-defeating since Jewish Power is the main force against the Gentile Right). So, not only were most official scholars on the Liberal side of the spectrum but even most dissident scholars were on the Left. Naturally, they emphasized the crimes of Nazi Germany while tending to overlook the atrocities of the Liberation. In Italy as in France, the Left took to revenge with a fury. One could argue that the leftists acted worse than the Right(during the Occupation), but absent law and order(in a time of chaos and flux), mobs(of any stripe) can easily get out of hand. And it wasn't just the Left. Many Frenchmen who felt humiliation of defeat and occupation just took it out on anyone, not least on French women who had affairs with German soldiers. And there had been plenty of collaborators, big and small. And even though German Occupiers were reasonably tolerant and humane toward most Frenchmen, they came down hard on the far-left and Jews, and the Left remembered and sought revenge. In Spain in the wake of Right-wing victory, many on the Left were brutalized and killed as well. Not all of it was done by the state. Conservative and clerical forces rounded up suspected communists and anarchists and butchered them. In Indonesia, upon Sukarno's ouster upon the failed communist coup, a reign of terror engulfed the nation in which 100,000s, maybe a million, were butchered by mobs, often on economic or ethnic than ideological grounds: Chinese were often targeted.

There are many other inconvenient truths about the 'Good War'. US bombing of French towns in preparation of invasion of Normandy killed lots of French civilians. Much of US bombing of Japan was punitive and/or vengeful than strategic. Also, contrary to the belief that the US was hesitant to use nukes and was compelled to do so only to 'save lives', it was prepared to nuke 10 to 12 more cities if Japan didn't surrender. In other words, US was willing to go 'full Nazi' against a nation that was all but defeated and crippled just to push for total unconditional surrender. When I grew up, the term 'fascist' had such negative connotations that I thought Mussolini must have been just as evil as Hitler. Reading his biographies, I was surprised by how mild(relatively) his rule was compared to others. And contrary to the romantic myths about the Spanish Civil War, the Left was just as ruthless and murderous as the Right. Though made famous by Picasso's painting, the bombing of Guernica was a minor event. Indeed, all of history is a simplification or distortion. In discussion of the Vietnam War, people tend to blame LBJ or Nixon the most. For some reason, Eisenhower gets a break because he warned of the Military-Industrial Complex. But it was Eisenhower's administration that sowed the seeds of discord in Vietnam and messed up Guatemala and Iran that would have huge repercussions later.
Also, it's ironic when people say Hitler planned to 'conquer the world'. Untrue but even if true, the world was already conquered by imperialists, mainly British and French that were hardly 'liberal democracies' around the world but, in fact, often-brutal colonial powers. Accusing Nazi Germany of preparing to do what the Western Imperialists had done already is rather amusing. Though Hitler admired the imperialists, esp the British, his actions inadvertently 'saved' the Third World by bankrupting France and UK even more than after WWI. Furthermore, once UK and France redefined themselves as nations that resisted foreign tyranny, the template spread to the Third World that defined itself as the Resistance against Western 'Nazi-Like' Imperialists.

As for Operation Pike, historians focus mainly on what happened that what-might-have-happened. For example, if Hitler had planned the Shoah but didn't carry it out, it would be discussed far less. If the US had planned using atomic bombs on Japan but finally decided not to, it would be treated as a footnote. There are surely political and ideological reasons as to why Operation Pike would rather not be mentioned by scholars, but it didn't happen in the end. It was talk, not walk.

Was Josef Stalin preparing to conquer all of Europe? Could he have? I just don't see Stalin being so reckless. If Soviets(and that is a Big If) did set up offensive posture against Germany, it was likely to force Germany into a defensive posture, thus thwarting any first attack on Germany's part. Given Stalin's nature -- consider his ambiguous position on Korea -- , it's difficult to believe he planned to conquer all of Europe. Maybe just maybe, he hoped that France and Germany would weaken each other as in WWI and then, if the opportunity was ripe, the Soviets would sweep in to take it all(as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe). But Germany's victory over France was so swift and commanding that Stalin was in awe of Germany, and the last thing he wanted was a war. Stalin had expected the Franco-German War to last several yrs, bleeding both the republic and Reich as in the previous war. He had no idea that it would end so quickly and dramatically.
However, he may have feared that Hitler would then move against the USSR, and therefore set up 'offensive' positions along the border to send a strong message that Soviets are not to be threatened.
Consider that part of the reason why France lost was it thought ONLY in terms of defense. Even though it declared war on Germany and not vice versa, France was dug in for defense and had no capacity or will for offense. Stalin may have thought that the ONLY way to stop Hitler was put up an offensive posture. Also, it's hard to believe that Hitler and his men prepared such a vast undertaking(total war on Russia) at the last moment in panic and desperation. It had all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out plan. And the timing was near perfect as it was around summer solstice, the longest day of the year.
While Stalin might have had big plans -- he was a Marxist after all -- , he was not a dreamer like Hitler who thought more like an artist than an intellectual. More than anything, Wagner's operas were the inspiration of Hitler's vision of history. Thus, he saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Also, his initial gains pumped him full of hubris. And then, his swift victory over France made him feel near-invincible.
According to John Lukacs and Pat Buchanan, the main reason for Hitler's attack on the USSR was to bring UK to the table. This theory sounds absurd, but it makes sense from a psychological point of view. From a practical point of view, it makes little sense. If Hitler was having such a hard time defeating UK, why enter into a two-front war that also involves USSR? That seems utterly stupid. But if we consider that Hitler loved and admired the UK while loathing the 'subhuman Slavs', then what he ultimately wanted was an alliance with the British while subjugating the Slavs. So, by taking the USSR out, Germany would demonstrate to the UK that it alone is the undisputed ruler of Europe, and there is NOTHING the UK could do about it except to come to the table and form a partnership with Germany. As Lukacs wrote, Hitler's main ideology was not Germanism but Aryanism. He regarded Britons as fellow Aryans, and so, British Empire was Aryan rule over the world. Though Hitler had alliances with Italy, France(which had no choice), Spain(in a willy-nilly way), Eastern European nations, and Russia prior to Operation Barbarossa, he didn't prize them as much as he did the hypothetical one between Germany and Britain, the World Empire. That would have been Aryan + Aryan. Could such have been possible if not for Jewish influence in Britain? Or, was the culture of class and manners too important to the British elites to side with a 'vulgar' demagogue like Hitler, gutter trash who rose to the top by ranting like a lunatic?
Great Britain had played a moon-like influence on Continental Europe. A balancing effect. Just like the moon steadies the rotation of Earth and ocean waves, British influence maintained balance of power on the Continent by forging alliances against whatever power was most dominant. Indeed, had it not been for Britain, perhaps a Continental Empire might have formed. But in WWI, British influence went awry and made things much worse by intervening on the side of France. Its effect was more like that of an asteroid than the moon. As for Hitler, he was a super-volcano that just erupted out of nowhere. British asteroid and German volcano undid Europe in the 20th century.

I can believe that Jacob Schiff played a role in Bolshevism. Not out of ideology but tribal loyalty and hatred against 'bad goyim'. We see the same patterns today, what with Jewish Oligarchs even siding with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine against Russia. And Israel works with extreme Muslim elements to subvert secular Arab regimes(that are regarded as bigger threat to Israel). Also, George Soros throws his money around at ANYTHING to get what he wants. Given the level of hatred Jews felt toward Russia in the 19th and early 20th century, it seems likely that a Jewish banker like Schiff and others would aid JEWISH Bolsheviks against Traditional Russia. It was mainly about JEWISH capitalists aiding JEWISH communists. If a conflict was about GOY communists vs JEWISH traditionalists, I'm sure men like Schiff would have funded the latter. Blood matters sometimes. Though both China and Vietnam were communist while the Chinese minority in Vietnam was capitalist, the Boat People tragedy(that targeted capitalist Chinese) angered China(though communist), partially accounting for the brief Sino-Vietnam War. And there are plenty of capitalist Chinese who loathe communism but still side with Mainland out of tribal loyalty.

As for David Irving, yes, he was targeted for taking on sacred cows, but it was also the way he did it. An abrasive and difficult personality, he relished the role of playing enfant terrible just too much. Also, he has a double standard when it comes to history. When it comes to Hitler's crimes, he insists on total documentary proof. But on other matters, he's willing to go with established narrative, flimsy evidence, or wild exaggerations if it makes the Allies, esp Churchill, 'just as bad as Germany'. His suggestion of moral equivalence that Allies were just as bad as Nazi Germany is going too far. In war, both sides did horrible things, but does anyone really think Germany would have treated the vanquished like the Allies treated Germany? Once the dust settled, Germany was treated like a normal nation by the Allies, but what would a victorious Germany have done? If Germany had won over Britain, humane treatment was likely. But against Russia, it would have been horrors on a scale unimaginable. And as it would have been on racial than ideological grounds, it would have been far worse. (Germany was treated reasonably fairly by Allies after WWII, though in the immediate aftermath, there was a period of unspeakable atrocities against Germans, esp the women by Soviet troops. If things got worse for Germany over the years, it has to do with Jewish Power taking over the US and turning Shoah into a secular religion, thus turning German Guilt from a historical matter to a spiritual one. But then, this Sacred Cow that comes with powerful taboos applies to all of Europe, as well as Canada and US and beyond. The Shoah Narrative is nearly as harsh on France, Poland, UK, Sweden, and etc. as on Germany. If Germans are to apologize forever as the killers, other Europeans are to apologize forever as collaborators or craven cowards who failed to stand up to Hitler. As EU is a US satellite and as the US is controlled by Jewish Power, much of the 'free world' is occupied zone of Jewish Supremacism that, while calling on whites to atone for their own past supremacism, also insists that whites must support Jewish Supremacism against Palestinians, Arabs, Iran, and Russia.)

Was Kaiser Wilhelm a 'peacemaker'? The article says Wilhelm was once praised by the New York Times as a rational and sound leader, but what does that mean? NYT was and is full of shit. During the Newt Gingrich and then George W. Bush II era, NYT often praised John McCain as the Good Republican, moderate and balanced. But in the 2008 campaign, he was made out to be a moron, nutjob, and loon in contrast to messiah Obama. And then in the Trump era, he's been rehabilitated and praised once again as a voice of reason by NYT and rest of 'Liberal' Media. In the 70s, US media were full of high praise for Mao. In the 80s, US media called Jihadis in Afghanistan 'freedom fighters', and Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy because he was fighting Iran. But then, he was 'new Hitler' in the early 90s. So, it doesn't matter how NYT may have characterized Wilhelm before WWI. NYT is a political rag of the moneyed class, and it's been all over the map. Also, when even if something was printed in the NYT, it was either one writer or a handful of people on the editorial board. It doesn't mean everyone working for the paper agreed. Many newspapers offer varying points of views.
The fact is Wilhelm was vain, arrogant, and conceited. And when it mattered most, he failed miserably, but then so did the idiot Czar of Russia and the French Republic in revanchist mode(going back to 1870 defeat to Prussia-Germany). WWI was a case of "It takes two to tango" or "It takes a bunch to start a barroom brawl." UK didn't make things any better as it hoped German defeat would thwart its global ambitions, esp as Germany had surpassed UK as the #1 industrial power in Europe.

Viktor Suvorov

Did FDR want a war with Germany to save his presidency? And was Adolf Hitler not so bad? The notion that FDR was itching for war just to have another term sounds far-fetched. Also, even if was true, Hitler was the one who was driving events. He could have avoided much trouble by not moving on Czech territory, for which he was forgiven and accommodated(or 'appeased'). And then, whatever problems he had with Poland, the joint German-Soviet invasion was pure evil. But even then, his victory over France meant he had domination over all the continent except the Soviet Union. He could have kept the peace with USSR and run out the clock against the UK.
Now, Viktor Suvorov argues that the USSR was about to attack Germany and that Hitler didn't have a choice, but this is still conjecture and speculation, a matter open to debate, one that I still don't believe. If indeed, Stalin did amass military formations against Germany, he took a huge gamble. Likely, he was using a mental strategy against Hitler. A show of force from the position of strength to psych Hitler out and prevent Germans from attacking. But maybe Hitler read things differently and really believed a Soviet threat was imminent, in which case Stalin's bluff failed(or succeeded to well in convincing the Germans). Now, given the endless lies we've gotten from the media -- and bogus books on Israeli History, such as the notion that Palestinians abandoned their homes voluntarily during the Jewish-Arab War in 1948 -- , it's possible that there's far more to WWII than we'd been told so far. But psychology matters in history, and Stalin's psychology just doesn't indicate 'Invade all of Europe'. Also, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler was that the former already had vast areas and vast populations under direct control. Even without taking another inch, the USSR was an empire unto itself. Stalin already had what it took to be an emperor. In contrast, Hitler's ego was just as big or even bigger, but he only ruled over 'tiny' Germany. Germany had dominion over satellite states, but it was far from what Stalin had. From that perspective, Stalin was content without taking further territory. He was content to nibble on parts of Finland(though he could have taken it all) and Baltic states. Also, even if the Soviet offensive against Germany might have been successful, it would have been at huge cost, and I highly doubt if Stalin was willing to risk that.

German economy did better under Hitler than US economy under FDR, but then that was one of the advantages of a centralized state. Hitler didn't have to deal with democratic brakes for his plans that were implemented overnight and at vast scale. In contrast, FDR's New Deal was hampered by opposition from the other party and capitalists(and American individualism). So, it's understandable why he wanted to be wartime president because war(and hate), like nothing else, unites a nation together for a single purpose. While the notion that FDR provoked Japan into aggression to facilitate US entry into the war is maybe plausible, he would have had to been a super 4D chess player to foresee and manipulate events in Europe. Also, considering that he won his terms by promising peace than war, a mere outbreak of war in Europe would NOT have guaranteed US entry unless US it was itself attacked(and that took Japan).

As for Hitler not being 'Hitler' of Villainy, this is true enough up to 1939. It's like what Joachim Fest wrote in his biography: Had Hitler died in 1939, he would have been remembered as one of Germany's greatest leaders. But there were events following 39 and esp 41, and they revealed the dark side of him. That dark side had always been there, but it truly emerged as he gained greater power and means to do as he wished. Given his ideology and worldview, Hitler could be reasonably humane among his own kind and those whom he respected(like the French). He regarded them with affection and fondness. It's like Jews in Israel are wonderfully nice to other Jews but virulently murderous to those in Gaza. But his racial ideology meant he could be incredibly uncaring and even hostile/murderous toward certain others. He didn't merely dislike the Slavs. He despised them as a people. His hatred of Jews was understandable given Jewish role in communism and Weimar decadence, but it went beyond human hatred toward something monstrous that led to atrocities that even David Irving admits. Irving never said Germans didn't commit atrocities against Jews. He said he found no evidence that Hitler directly gave those orders, but this is rather incredible. While Hitler surely didn't order every instance of mass-killing of Jews, he presided over a system and appointed the kind of men who would gladly do such things.
Morality depends on context. A chimp can be a capital fellow among his own tribe. He can be a good friend and leader. But against an enemy tribe, he can be most vicious, commit all sorts of mayhem, and bite off the genitals of the Other. So, Hitler's rather decent behavior among Germans says nothing of his behavior among Russians or Jews. Likewise, white Americans who could be so nice among themselves could ruthlessly wipe out Indians or kill tons of Filipinos or Vietnamese. Americans, who talk of law & order and democracy, turn a blind eye to all those dead Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. In the American Way of Thinking, a fellow American is a capital fellow and becoming America is ennobling, but 'muzzies' in the Middle East are just cannon-fodder for "Support the Troops" mentality. Americans have affection for Jews and praise them highly, but when it comes to Palestinians, it's like a Brahmin sneering at an Untouchable. Farrakhan is so loving and forgiving of his black brothers and sisters... but feels contempt for rest of humanity. Israeli Jews are brothers and sisters, but they don't care how many Syrians are slaughtered as long as it's 'good for Israel'. Hitler was no different.

From observation of current Jewish mindset and attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish globalists harbored a supremacist outlook in the early 20th century(as did the French and Anglos who also vied for world supremacy) and that was a factor in German resistance against Weimar-ism.
Indeed, most of Western Europe was in imperialist hegemonic mode, and Jews were a part of it. Whether it was military supremacy, financial supremacy, intellectual/ideological supremacy, cultural supremacy, religious supremacy, racial supremacy, and etc., it was a real game of thrones. As Jewish money and involvement were inseparably intertwined with Western Imperialism, it's likely Jews had a similarly supremacist outlook. In some ways, Jewish hegemonism may have been stronger because of their ancient pedigree of the Chosen rooted in the Covenant.

The tragedy of National Socialist Germany was it didn't counter Jewish supremacism with German Nationalism and Humanism. Alas, it countered Jewish Supremacism with 'Aryan' supremacism and thus forfeited whatever moral credibility it could have possessed. Indeed, one moral advantage of communism was it cleverly framed the global conflict in terms of capitalist-imperialists vs social justice for all of humanity.

But then, it's hardly surprising why Hitler thought as he did since most of the world was already under one form of supremacist domination or other. So-called democracies were the biggest imperialist powers who'd secured dominance over the world. If they felt threatened by Hitler, the reasons weren't merely militaristic but rhetorical. His brazen racial theories bared naked the true nature of imperialism. In essence, it wasn't about enlightenment, Christianity, and spreading progress but about the supremacist hegemony of one group of people(mostly Europeans, Anglos, and Jews) over the rest of mankind. Hitler was blunt and 'rude' enough to spell out what other white elites really thinking but wouldn't say, or at least didn't shout for all to hear. Hitler was too much of a 'cowboy' who called attention to the true gangster-nature of Western Power. Gangsters like to keep things orderly and cordial on the surface: Keep it respectable and gentlemanly. If dirty business has to be done, use the goons, but leave the talking to Men with Manners. In contrast, Hitler did a lot of goonish hollering. In the gangster world, anyone who causes too much stir and spills the beans on what it's really about must be wiped out. Like Tommy in GOODFELLAS.