Without Race-ism, Your Nation, Race, and Culture will NOT survive — It's really that simple, and that is precisely why Jews have vilified white race-ism above all else

We've been told by the Jewish-controlled and cuck-managed media and academia that the greatest 'sin' is 'racism'. Now, if by 'racism', they mean blind and mindless hatred and hostility toward other races based on ignorance, arrogance, and contempt, I would agree. But we must ask why Race + Ism has been defined in such manner. 'Ism' means belief, therefore Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences and/or the need for Racial Consciousness. Race-ism should mean belief and conviction in certain facts, ideas, and principles associated with racial realities. It shouldn't mean the worst possible extreme and radical manifestation of that particular belief system. After all, being a Christian means one embraces the Faith and accepts Jesus as one's savior. Christianity has ranged from extreme theocracy to something approaching New Age flakiness. There have been hardline Christians, moderate Christians, tolerant Christians, and progressive Christians who reinterpret the Bible in startling ways. So, there is no single way to be Christian. But suppose someone defined Christianity by its most extreme expressions and actions. It'd be ridiculous. It'd be like defining 'socialism' by pointing to Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer-Rouge-ism. But in fact, there have been other forms of socialism that weren't tyrannical and ruthless/murderous. Then, how does it make sense to define 'racism' or 'race-ism' only by the extreme actions of the KKK, Nazis, or Nation of Islam? (By the way, the longest radical racism of contempt, paranoia, and hostility is probably certain strains of Judaism and Jewish World View.)

Anyway, I will use the term 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and/or the need for racial consciousness. And by 'race', I also mean sub-race or ethnicity. There is the broad white race of Europeans and then ethnic groups or sub-races such as the Germanics, Slavs, Anglos, Celts, Italians, Greeks, and etc. Now, what do I mean by no race or nation surviving for long without race-ism? I obviously don't mean the people of a nation must act like Nazis and 'invade Poland' and commit mass-killings of the Other. Instead, a people must know that they are unique and particular by blood & genetic inheritance and/or culture & history. Even if whites and blacks were to be raised and instilled with same language and ideology, they would still be different races with unique features, temperaments, and styles. They might learn from each other and borrow ideas from one another, but if either group is to survive as a unique people, it must maintain a general separateness, sovereignty, and autonomy over its own territory and affairs.
Next, even if two peoples are genetically nearly identical, they could have different histories, cultures, customs, and legends that distinguish one from the other. There isn't much genetic distance between Anglos and the Irish, but they have different histories and cultural consciousness. Same is true of Southern Chinese and Vietnamese. Many Greeks and Turks are similar in genetics and blood, but they are culturally and historically separate groups. Same goes for Germans and Swedes, even more so between Norwegians and Swedes. Just because Finns and Russians are both white Europeans doesn't mean that they don't have rich and varied differences in language, culture, and historical narratives. And those differences are what makes the world fascinating. For the world to be colorful and diverse, there must remain distinct nations of peoples and cultures who maintain borders, identities, and territorial integrity.

And that's why no nation, people, or culture will survive without race-ism and culturism: A belief in their racial and/or cultural uniqueness and the conviction to preserve such distinctions. It is by race-ism and culturism that people get to LAY CLAIM to their bios, ethnos, mythos, cultos, and terros. Without such claim, your people own nothing; they have nothing to call their own; everything about them, their lands, their wealth, their culture, their history, and etc. are all toss-up objects for sale at the global flea-market and meat-market. The entirety of your people, culture, land, and history has been turned into mix-and-match items in a Jewish pawnshop. They may continue to exist physically but no longer as the property of your people. Everything about your people now exists to be raided, auctioned off, looted, and passed around the world. Just like cattle exist but don't own their own bodies and therefore are slaughtered, chopped, and sold around the world, your people-culture-and-land will be turned into meat-and-dairy products under globalist hegemony. Cows can't say NO to being slaughtered, butchered, and sold because they don't own their own bodies. They belong to humans-as-either-sellers-or-buyers. They are mere economic units to be bought and sold on the global marketplace. Beef from Argentina may be sold to Mexico, the US, India, China, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Cows are organisms like we are, but they have no racial consciousness, no culture, no history, and no means to lay claim to anything. They are clueless creatures that eat when fed and don't know they are to be killed, cut up, and cooked for humanity. They cannot connect the dots. If they had human intelligence and means of speech, they would be able to assert themselves.
But then, maybe not. After all, so much of humanity are being turned into faceless & mindless consumers and even commodities(especially as sex objects to be marketed by Jewish shysters) and their identities, cultures, and territories are being robbed from them right under their feet, but they are either unaware of what is happening or deliriously supportive of this process of dehumanization, de-nationalization, and de-culturalization. And even though Jews do the very opposite for themselves while pushing commoditization on the goyim, so many goyim praise and honor Jews as their masters — it's like how the animals on the farm all praise the vile and vicious Pig Elites in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM where the promise of equality caves to the ruthless logic of IQ hierarchy, art of cunning, and Will to Power. It goes to show that human intelligence and consciousness are malleable. Rationally or irrationally, mini-minds and weak wills are warped and manipulated by big minds and strong wills. While all people think and feel, most people 'think' and 'feel' as the elites direct them to. And the big-minded and strong-willed elites of the current West are heinous and hideous Jews.

Possibly, the most effective means by which Jews robbed white goyim of their claims to blood, soil, culture, history, and morality is by using the Jew-run media, academia, and deep state to spread the notion that there is no greater 'sin' than 'racism'. Paradoxically, Jews suppressed white race-ism in order to bolster their own racial supremacism. Jews attack even the slightest show of white identity and interests as 'white supremacist' while compelling whites to mindlessly support what is clearly Jewish racial supremacism as it's quite obvious that Jews aren't content with Jewish national sovereignty in Israel or expression of Jewish interests(among other interests, some of them counter to Jewish interests) in the US. Instead, Jews insist on Zionist imperialist tyranny over Palestinians and use their control of the US to destroy perceived enemies and rivals in the Middle East by sanctions, invasions, and support for terrorism. In the US, Jews will not tolerate Palestinian-American support for BDS or a foreign policy that balances Zionist lobbying with counter interests of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others. Instead, all of US must be for Jews Uber Alles, Israel First, and Zionic hegemonism over the Middle East and North Africa. And of course, Jews have done everything to destroy or desecrate Christianity with globo-homo Queertianity. Despite Zionists having turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive homo 'pride' parades, the christ-cucks in US churches praise Jews and Israel in the most embarrassing way. As for principled Christians like Rick Wiles who refuse to kneel before Satanic globo-homo Zion, they are censored, banned, and denied service by Jew-monopolies like Youtube and Paypal.

Incredibly, Jews have gotten away with forcing all of us to support their supremacism, imperialism, and hatred by pushing the pretense that they're combating 'white supremacism' and 'antisemitism'. According to Jews, even the slightest sign of white consciousness is 'white supremacist'. Even "It's Okay to be White" must be shut down and investigated by the FBI. And if you call out on Jewish imperialism and Zionist tyranny, you are smeared and destroyed as an 'Anti-Semite'. They are truly a vile and vicious people, the biggest hypocrites and arrogant scoundrels in the world. As far as Jews are concerned, White History has been nothing but one of 'white privilege', 'white racism', 'white supremacism', and etc. And because White History is so tainted with evil and guilt, Jews insist that even a smidgen of white consciousness, let alone pride, is reason for alarm. In other words, whiteness = disease = evil. Whiteness is so toxic and noxious(and apparently infectious to other whites) that it must remain fumigated and quarantined at all times. Even if just a tiny bit is allowed to escape and assert its worth and autonomy, it might spread like a virus and threaten the Jew World Order as all those 'infected' whites will want to burst out of the Jewish-made PC bubble. Whites must be made at all times to believe that they are ACCURSED with whiteness. They were born with a sickness and, as patients infected with evil, they must listen to Jewish social science doctors who tell them that they must show no pride or unity in their whiteness. If anything, whites must welcome mass-immigration-invasion, the Great Replacement or White Nakba, and massive race-mixing. Whites must all be turned into brown people like those of Latin America or North Africa. Having mixed blood, there shall no longer be proud white consciousness that may stand up to Jewish perfidy. And Jews figure that even if anti-Jewish sentiments may linger among browned folks, they will be too confused in identity to ever unite against Jewish Power. After all, the mixed-race populations of Latin America have been extremely ineffective in overthrowing the white Latin elites who've ruled South America since the days of the Conquistadors.

Whites no longer own their own history. White history has been doctored by Jews who associate whiteness with evil and guilt. Of course, if one does the same with Jewish History, Jews cry 'anti-Semite'. Jews have an effective moral and polemical shield against those who rummage through Jewish History for various evils, but whites have no comparable defense mechanism(and they need to develop it against Jews). Also, Jews covered up the fact that some of the darkest 'evils' of white history have been inseparable from Jewish History. Much of the slave trade that sold Slavic whites to North Africa and Near East were done by Jews. Jewish bankers financed much of Western Imperialism. Jews took part in the Atlantic Slave trade, especially in Brazil that brought over the greatest numbers of slaves. Jews of the British Empire sold opium to the Chinese. Jewish merchants worked with whites who wiped out the American Indians. Jews dominated much of organized crime in Europe and America. And Jewish communists played a key role in the Russian Revolution that ended up destroying millions of lives. So, the evils of genocide, imperialism, brutality, and slave-trade done by whites were also done by Jews who acted as merchants or financiers. But clever, cunning, and nasty Jews make us focus ONLY on the WHITE aspect of those evils. Also, Jews spread the notion among non-whites that WHITES AND ONLY WHITES were guilty of all the wrongs done to them. Indeed, Jews even pretend to be allies and fellow-victims of the so-called People of Color by selectively pointing to events where Jews were attacked by whites while failing to mention that, more often than not, Jews in Europe worked with the European Imperialist elites in the conquest and exploitation of the world. Imagine if the French selectively pointed to periods when they were attacked by the British and claimed to be fellow victims of the British Empire while totally ignoring the historical fact that the British and the French competed and cooperated side by side in their conquest of the non-white world. Jews are fiendishly sneaky that way.
One thing for sure, the Zionist project came to fruition with backing not only from British, Soviet, and American imperialists but even from Nazi imperialists. But then, Jews do a number on naive and stupid non-whites as well. By creating the impression that nationalism in white nations is 'racist' and 'xenophobic', Jews persuade non-whites into thinking that Nationalism = White Supremacism, and therefore, all goyim must reject this Nazi-like nationalism and embrace globalism. But in truth, whites didn't conquer the world through nationalism but through imperialism, and if non-whites eventually regained autonomy and sovereignty, it was through native nationalism and national liberation from Western Imperialism that had been thrust upon the world not only with white arms but with Jewish money. Jews sure are cunning and crafty. By conflating Nationalism with White Supremacism, Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone. They mean to destroy nationalism not only in white nations but in non-white ones. Of course, there are people who know this is BS, but as those in elite circles are mostly fixated on status and as the Jew-run US rules the world, they dare not stick out their necks and speak the truth; instead, they just hunker down and go along with the globalist project on the basis of "I got mine."

Without race-ism, there is no racial consciousness. The only kind of racial consciousness that Jews allow for whites is negative-consciousness or anti-consciousness, i.e. whites are to denounce consciousness of white identity, white history, white culture, and white territoriality as either evil, ill-gotten, or misconceived. Whites must not feel pride and a sense of ownership to what they are, where they live, what they've done, and what they believe. The great achievements of whites must be attributed to ALL of humanity. White history must retroactively be made 'multi-racial' and 'multi-cultural' so that ANY people can lay claim to it. The media put on historical programs where Past Europe has lots of blacks and other non-whites. Even the great white leaders and heroes must be made black or non-white. Jews say there was no WHITE History. Europe was never white but always 'multi-cultural' because NOT EVERYONE in Europe was white. (Using this logic, Japan and China weren't yellow because whites like Marco Polo and other came to visit.) Apparently, the Middle Ages weren't white and European because there were some Arabs and blacks in Europe at the time; therefore, Middle Ages were just as Arab and black. Of course, this isn't really about blacks or Arabs but about Jews. Jews hate the idea of white consciousness that thinks in terms of "we white Christians" and "those Semitic Jews". Such might lead to white consciousness that seeks White Liberation from Current Jewish Supremacism. So, Jews not only push a Diverse Future on the White West but try to fool whites that this Diverse Future isn't a break with the White Past but a merely natural continuance because the White World was always Diverse and into Multi-Culturalism. (Never mind that most of these white relations with non-whites were violent and bloody: Moorish invasions, Mongol invasions, and European Crusades and incursions into non-white territories. If anyone wants to celebrate Ottoman Occupation of Greece and Moorish conquest of Spain as wonders of Diversity, he or she is a mental slave of Jews. I suppose Jews should celebrate Roman tyranny over Judea.)

There are two kinds of histories. Factual history, which should be left up to professional historians who pore over records, documents, data. But for most people, the kind of history that matters isn't factual but mytho-narrative. While this kind of history should stick close to facts and truth as much as possible, its real objective is to fashion a story of a people and imbue it with meaning, significance, and purpose. It's like a biography isn't merely a collection of data on someone. It is a lively tale and summation of his life and what it has come to mean. Thus, certain facts must be selected over others. Certain details are emphasized over others. Necessarily, if you want to portray a man as a villain, you will focus the bad sides of his character and deeds to drive the point home. On the other hand, if you want to portray a man as a hero, you will focus on facts and details that would support such an image. Of course, no man is all villain and all hero. Everyone is a mix of both, and all biographies and all histories should dwell on both the light and the darkness of any person or people. Still, the main purpose of mytho-narrative is to defend, glorify, and romanticize the story of your people. Take the Old Testament. While there are passages that show Jews to have been unworthy of God's love and blessing, it is ultimately a narrative that justifies the story of Jews as a special people with a sacred contract or Covenant with God. This is why it is necessary that mytho-narrative history must be owned and controlled by your own people and its champions. Such historians are essentially word-warriors. They master the power of words and knowledge to fashion a narrative that honors, defends, and justifies your people. While it's possible that a foreigner may be sympathetic to your people while one of your own may be hostile to his own kind, there is a greater likelihood that the history of your people will be sullied, befouled, and condemned in the hands of the Other.
Tragically, white folks outsourced their mytho-narrative to the Jews who selectively spun a tale that made whites out to be the Devil, Cancer, and Virus of human history. Would Jews be so stupid as to out-source their mytho-history to Palestinians, Iranians, or those deemed 'anti-Semitic'? While those hostile to Jews may tell a compelling and convincing story of Jewish Perfidy and Evils through human history, Jews themselves would be stupid not to own their own history and narrative. While it would be good for Jews(and any people) to face up to the dark chapters in their own history, ultimately their narrative must be more of light than darkness. Otherwise, the people will end up like whites under Jews who turned White History into one of exceptional evil that can be redeemed ONLY BY cucking to Jews, ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) , and White Nakba(aka the Great Replacement).

Now, consider race-ism and the ownership of homeland. Any territory without the stamp of race-ist claim will be lost no matter how rich and powerful a people may be. American Indians lost their lands to whites because they were outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-fought. In contrast, whites are losing their lands in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe not because they are weak and poor but because they've lost race-ist claims on their nations. Despite dire demographic trends, the White West is still the most powerful bloc in the world. Then, why is it so helpless against preventing White Nakba or the Great Replacement brought about by Mass Immigration Invasion? It is because whites have rejected race-ist claim to history and territory. The claim of history and claim of territory are interrelated because, after all, territorial claim is justified by historical narrative. "We Hungarians own Hungary because it's the land bequeathed to us by our ancestors." "We Jews founded the Jewish State in Palestine because it was our land in ancient times." "We whites deserve to own and rule the US, Canada, and Australia because, even though we took it from other peoples, we founded and built great new nations in ways that ONLY WE could have." Such race-ist historical claims serve as basis for race-ist territorial claims. These claims say THIS is OURS, and NOT yours: Either the land belonged to our people from time immemorial OR our people built new nations out of the wilderness. But once a people reject race-ism, they lose racial consciousness. Their sense of story and territory becomes merely individualistic. 'My Story' and 'My Property' but no sense of 'Our Story' and 'Our Property'. Once whites rejected race-ism, they rejected the very concept of white people with white history on white territory. So, while whites-as-individuals have personal stories and private properties, they have no sense of collective narrative(except one that emphasizes 'white guilt') and collective ownership of territory or national property. While individualism is useful and productive, the question is what must it ultimately serve? As no individual lives forever or is a god, it makes no sense to put oneself at the center of existence and meaning. Every individual must realize he is part of a link, an inheritor, and that after he dies, what he'd been a part of shall be bequeathed to others whose obligation is to keep alight the torch of identity, history, and territory. The problem with libertarian individualism is it has no sense of life beyond 'me, me, me'. Furthermore, the fact that so many libertarians nevertheless suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos indicates that even for hardcore libertarians, liberty and individuality aren't enough. Even as they denigrate and negate white identity in the name of individuality, they feel this craving to serve something-bigger-than-themselves, and it's usually 'muh Israel', 'muh Magic Negro', or 'muh holy homo'.

Anyway, despite the greatness of white power and wealth in objective terms, the White West began its slide into oblivion because it subjectively abandoned race-ism, the consciousness that had once united whites in white nations into proud peoples with a powerful claims over the lands on which they lived and their ancestors fought for and died. Without race-ist consciousness, they could no longer felt united as members of a white race in a white nation. Without racial solidarity, they lost their sense of racial history and racial territory. If they no longer cared for white identity, it meant they no longer made white claims over white territory. Indeed, the new dogma was that whiteness is just a social construct or, worse, a disease/cancer, and therefore, the greatest evil is for whites to identify proudly as white or European. Lacking such consciousness, how could white people say WE WHITE PEOPLE OWN THIS WHITE LAND? How could a particular land belong to whites when whites no longer have white identity? Without white identity, there is no claim of white territory.
Thus, it doesn't matter how many white people there are in a certain nation; it doesn't matter how much wealth they own or how much power they have in objective terms of guns, tanks, and bombers. As long as they have no race-ist or racial consciousness, they no longer believe that their territory belongs to them as a race and people. So, even as tons of non-whites pour in as immigrants, whites cannot say NO since their anti-race-ism tells them that it's wrong for whites to think, feel, and react collectively(except in denouncing white unity). Indeed, white nations have been rendered defenseless even against rag-tag illegal migrants because, as whites no longer believe in white identity and territory, who are whites to tell non-whites, legal or illegal, that they don't belong in white nations that are no longer deemed WHITE nations? And so, we see the sorry sight all over Europe. Europe is so much richer and stronger than African and Muslim nations, but they are also helpless to stop the invasion.
Worse, while white identity is taboo, white anti-identity is all the rage among the neo-puritanical progs whose minds have been infected by Jewish Propaganda. So, not only are whites defenseless against the invasion but they are hastening the invasion and Great Replacement with enthused aid to non-white marauder-migrants. Some do it in the name of humanitarianism, but if they truly care about justice, why don't they call out on the factors that have turned so many people in the Middle East into refugees in the first place? Why don't they condemn Jewish Supremacism and Wars for Israel? But then, how could they since, even as they reject white identity, they've embraced Jews-as-Deity, and that means Jews cannot be condemned for their foulness. Why, it'd be 'antisemitic'. So, even as Jews mess up the Middle East, whites cannot condemn the Jews but must suffer the cost of the mess created by Jews. Imagine if I burn down someone's house and force you to take in the family that is now without a home. Naturally, you should be condemning me for burning down the house, but you dare NOT do that as you've come to see me as your master and god; so you feel YOU must bear the burden of what I have done.

It doesn't matter how powerful you are objectively if you're weak and cucked subjectively. Suppose you live in a home with lots of guns and bullets. You have strong walls and lots of food and supplies. Objectively, you are well-protected and secure indeed. But suppose you subjectively believe that you have no special claim to the house. As such, when trespassers arrive and ask to be let in, you just let them in. You have the guns but dare not use them against the invaders because you don't believe the house belongs especially to you and your family. Same logic applies to nations. If you lose race-ist consciousness, you've lost the race-ist claim on your land. Then, it is open to invasion from all the world... which is what is happening to the West. Next time Jews tell you to lose your race-ist claim on your land, you ask them why they maintain a powerful race-ist claim on Israel? The damned buggers.

One of the most important assets a race or people have is possession of the women. A people are effectively finished when the women of the race lose respect for the men. Such women are likely to forgo wifehood and motherhood, thereby failing to produce the next generation. Or worse, they might go with the men of another race, even the invasive and colonizing race because it is the nature of women to go with winner-conquerors(even of enemy races). Always, the conquering race takes the women of the vanquished race. When People A conquer People B, the men of People A don't go to the men of People B and say, "Hey, come and hump our mothers, wives, daughters, and etc." No, it's the winning side that conquers and colonizes the wombs of the losing side. When Turks ruled over Greece, they took Greek women. When Mongols invaded China, Iran, and Russia, they took the women of the conquered. When whites were masters over blacks as slaves, white men humped black women. When Zionists took nearly all of Palestine and carried out Nakba, they raped Arab women as sexual trophies. When Soviet Troops entered Germany, they raped countless German women. When US defeated Japan, they used Japanese women as whores. When the Spanish Conquistadors took over South America and Mexico, they took native brown women.
Now, not all conquering folks were enthusiastic about race-mixing. The British Empire was far less into race-mixing than the French Empire and Spanish Empire were. National Socialists discouraged race-mixing whereas Soviet Empire encouraged it. At any rate, the fate of the brown natives of what is called 'Latin America' goes to show what happens when men lose possession and the respect of their own women. Brown men were defeated by white Spaniards who took brown women to produce a neo-race of 'mestizos' who became confused in identity and, to this day, have no real sense of what they are. While race-mixing of any kind always weakens and dilutes the identity of the conquerors as well as of the conquered, it is always far more damaging psychologically and culturally to the conquered side. It was painful for Russian men to see their daughters taken by Mongol barbarians. It was painful for Vietnamese men to see their women turned into a bunch of whores by US military. It was shameful for black men to see their women be taken by 'honkey-ass mothafuc*as' in the Old South. Consider the trauma of French men who were helpless to stop French women from running into the arms of German occupiers. (Granted, some of these French women weren't necessarily treasonous in spirit. They might have regarded pre-Occupation France as a Jewish-dominated tyranny and therefore welcomed German victory as liberation of France from the Juif.) Without women, there is no future for the race. And while men can produce kids with women of any race, if they want to perpetuate the aesthetics, soul, and temperament of their own Volk, they should have children with women of the same race. Spanish men had children with native brown women, and the results were rather Guillermo-ish(of the dreadful Jimmy Kimmel Show). Guillermo may be a nice guy and all, but he doesn't look quite like a Spaniard. Nor does he look like a proud Mayan warrior. He looks like a human burrito.

In our time, the biggest threat to white ownership of white women and white beauty comes from 'anti-racism' and Jungle Fever, a kind of double whammy. Political Correctness is the colonization of white minds by Jewish propaganda, and what might be called Biological Correctness is the colonization of white wombs by black seed. In a way, both PC and Jungle Fever are 'natural' insofar as smaller minds cuck to bigger minds and wussier men cuck to tougher men. When whites began to practice inter-meritocracy, they were bound to lose out to the 'best man'. White Power could only be sustained with intra-meritocracy that rewarded the best among the whites AGAINST non-whites. But once whites adopted universal inter-meritocracy, white minds lost out to Jewish minds that are higher in IQ and stronger in will. And white muscles lost out to tougher black muscles, and white dongs lost out to bigger black dongs. Now, why did whites forsake intra-meritocracy that had served and sustained White Power so well and instead go with inter-meritocracy, a universal call for 'may the best man of any race win'? Part of the reason was the rise of rationalism and its concept of universal justice. Another reason was rooted in Christian ethos. Also, the radical racists such as the National Socialists gave racial consciousness a bad name. Ironically though, even as Jews reviled racial consciousness among whites on grounds of Nazi Evil in World War II, they revamped their own racial consciousness in pushing through the Zionist project and in making whites submit to Jewish Supremacist Power. (Also, let's remember that the Pacific War was pushed by both Conservatives and Liberals alike as a race war against the yellow 'Japs', and Jews did their part in dehumanizing the Japanese like the National Socialists had dehumanized the Jews.)
In any case, when white people gave up on racial consciousness, each and every white person was encouraged to be a mere individualist, consumer, hedonist, celebrity-obsessed idol worshiper, and etc. White women felt 'liberated' and no longer 'owned' by white men, the evil patriarchs. But most of them being stupid or dumb, they just came to be mentally owned by Jews and sexually owned by blacks. They went from women of a race, history, and heritage to mere commodities of Jews and playthings of blacks. And white men, instead of waking up and fighting the Jews and blacks, were too brainwashed themselves with 'white guilt' and too gushy with 'white fever'(for black thrills in sports and rap) to unite and fight to defend race, homeland, heritage, and honor. And at this point in history, it all looks hopeless. The great lesson, at any rate, is that a people will lose their identity, history, homeland, and women when they abandon race-ism. While sane people need to forsake extreme race-ism(like religious people should reject theocratic fanaticism), they need to realize that there is nothing more precious and valuable than race-ism in the preservation of a people and culture on their sacred land. If whites want to reclaim their land and culture for their posterity, they must say NO to Jewish Supremacism and regain white race-ist consciousness.

Some Observations on Jewsteronomy — What are the relations between Jewish Power Elites and Ordinary Jewish Masses — Jews compared to Japanese — To Own and to be Owned

Notes in Reply to GGAllin's comments on the Saker's ruminations on Russians and Jews:

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/our-fundamental-disagreement-about-wwii-hitler-jews-and-race/#comment-3706681

Since I began earning over $20/hour late in life, I’m not nearly a billionaire. Have little to no influence other than if I write something in an online forum or Tweets. It’s weird to read about “me” as an existential threat, but it’s interesting to grasp the context, of past harms done by “my people” who I pretty much don’t know any other than immediate siblings. It makes more sense than “irrational hate”.

It's not about YOU per se, though an average Jew, with an income of nearly 100,000, does make more than $20 an hour. The fact is powerful Jews will likely look down you as a 'dumb Jew'. That said, rich Jews do care about lesser Jews more than rich whites care about lesser whites, and that's something. We goyim don't see YOU, an individual, as an 'existential threat'. Indeed, if all or most Jews were like you, whites and Jews would likely get along. Most people want to peacefully co-exist with others, even folks of different ethnicity, in a sound and stable system. Even under Nazi rule, most German individuals were like you. They were not fire-breathing Nazi monsters. They were working stiffs who got up every morning, went to work, returned home to family, and relaxed, then did the same the next day. But Germany was then under Hitler's rule, and Hitler could be batshit crazy. National Socialist elites guided Germanic energies towards dark ends. In a typical socio-political order, most individuals are powerless and end up serving the agenda of the rulers. So, even anti-Nazi Germans ended up working and paying taxes to support Nazism. And most Jewish individuals end up supporting Jewish Power. One reason is relative powerlessness of the masses(who are like herds of cattle without control of levers and steering wheel of power), but the other reason is most people, with free will and left to their own devices, will choose their own side(as the devil they know or feel familiar with) over the other side. Even as they know their cabal of elites are plenty flawed and even rotten, they figure its rule is preferable to being conquered and/or controlled by the other side. Even Jewish Israelis who are deeply critical of Zionist rule would rather be ruled by Jewish elites than by Arab overlords. And this is why many Jewish individuals continue to support Jewish power. Furthermore, even as they know much of it is rotten, they nevertheless feel a pride of power — the incredible fact of Jews as 2% of America controlling the greatest power in the world — and a paranoia for the Other, the potential new pogromites or 'nazis', if goyim were to regain elite power. Indeed, this is why Germans and Japanese also supported their regimes to the very end in WWII. What if the conquering Russians kill or rape all Germans? What if victorious Americans wipe out all Japanese?

Also, even though a single German was like most other 'ordinary individual' around the world, there was a certain tendency within Germanic Teutonism to push things too far. It's like one straw on a camel's back is nothing, but enough of them will break its back. Even though Nazism and its horrors were not inevitable and could have been avoided(without defeat in WWI and the ensuing economic depression), there was still something powerful and irrational in German national character that, under certain circumstances, could cast a dark shadow over the world. It's like one little flame is nothing, but if you combine the flames together, it can form into ag massive pyre that can burn down a forest.
Same was true of Japan during WWII. Your average Japanese guy was a nice person. But there was something extreme and insane in Japanese national character that, under certain circumstances, could unleash a hellish kind of madness. It's like there is the sane side of Yonoi in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR LAWRENCE but also the obsessive side driven by dark national mythos.
Same with Negroes. One Negro isn't much of a problem(though, to be sure, problem enough), but too many Negroes leads to a critical mass or critical badass of jivery, criminality, and madness.

If a single Jew was dropped into any goy community, he would likely just get along. Much the same if just a few were dropped. But with sufficient numbers, Jews tend to go into Judeo-centric solar mode: They feel goyim must revolve around them than vice versa. They alter the gravitational dynamics between Jews and goyim. Though much smaller in number, the Jewish Covenant-mentality and pride-of-intellect provide Jews with a super-gravity-pack that can warp the relativity of political power.
Even as a minority, they feel like they own the place and should set the agenda and tell others what to do. Look at Jewish behavior under early Bolshevism. Look at Jewish behavior in 'capitalist' Russia of the 1990s. Granted, Jewish chutzpah wouldn't be so effective if not for goy goopery. Jewish culture taught Jews to be resilient and tenacious, even at the genetic level via selective mating that favored merchants and scholars. In contrast, Russian Orthodox culture and agro-centrism bred a race of people who were passive, witless, and expended most of their energies on useless diversions like swilling vodka, wrestling with bears, and dancing in such manner to blow the knees. While Jews were singing with their minds, Russians were dancing with their bodies. Guess which side gained advantage over the other?



So, while it's inconceivable that a tiny number of Russians could ever gain control over a vast majority Jewish population, even a small number of Jews could gain power over Russians. It's like a horse can't own a man, but a man can own a horse and ride it. Indeed, Jews even gained power over Anglos, the mightiest people that ever lived, so they naturally could so easily toy with Russians. Yet, there is a certain paradox here when we consider Jews-and-Anglos and Jews-and-Slavs. How strange that, in the end, Jewish power over Anglos was more total than power over Russians(or Italians). Why would this be if Russians and Greasers have been far less impressive and competent than the Anglos? This is where corruption and lack of scruples are almost an advantage for the goyim. Anglos, being more committed to Rule of Law, meritocracy, and fair play, were bound to be more sensitive to charges of hypocrisy and dirty tricks. Also, Anglos came to revere Rule of Law as a cornerstone of their might. So, Jews could exploit Anglo Ethos and Rule of Law to gain total power over Anglos on legal and ethical grounds. But among Russkies and Greasers, legality counts for less than machinations of power. So, despite being less impressive than Anglos, Russkies have been more adept at wresting power back from the Jews by dirty means(but then Jews also used dirty means to gain power over Russians).

Even though an average Jew is just an ordinary person, doesn't he share the values and worldview of powerful globo-homo Jews? After all, Jews, more than any other people, support globo-homo. Jews, more than most white groups, support Diversity. If all powerful/rich Jews were to die of some disease today, and if they were replaced by average Jews as new elites, would things really be all that different? I think not. Look at Max Boot, Julia Ioffe, and the Vindman Brothers. They came to the US with little or nothing. They began as ordinary Jews. But once they gained elite positions, they've been working with rest of World Jewry to mess things up for white goyim. A new batch of Jewish elites would likely push for mass immigration, great replacement, White Nakba, wars for Israel, cold war on Russia, hate-war on Iran, promotion of 'white guilt', total blind support for Israel, and etc. Now, YOU yourself may be an atypical Jew of a more pro-white and 'conservative' bent. But most ORDINARY Jews voted for Obama and Hillary. Most Jews hate Trump, and even most of those on his side are merely using him to serve Zionism 200% than merely 100%. Alan Dershowitz hasn't any good will toward Trump and Deplorables. He's such a fanatical Zionist that he figures Trump is more useful to the Israeli agenda.

Since middle school, I grew up in a suburb with many Jews, and most of them were nice people. As individuals, I'd say they were generally better, or preferable(and conscientious on the personal level), than most other groups, such as Scotch-Irish hillbillies, 'dumb Polacks', messy Mexicans, haggly Hindus, trashy Irish, doglike yellows, and of course, the ghastly Negroes. As individuals they are nice people, but over the years I've learned most of them are for globalism, great replacement of white goyim, exploiting collective 'white guilt', pushing jungle fever, and the like. Also, their hypocrisy on political matters amazes me. Most are staunch Zionist nationalists, but they denigrate nationalist feeling among goyim. They incessantly yammer about 'white guilt' about blacks but expect whites to support Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. They go on and on about Shoah but never face up to Jewish role in 20th century historical 'crimes'. And they push globo-homo. Most voted for Obama and think pushing jungle fever on white women is the greatest thing while they talk about Arabs and Palestinians as near-animals who should be pushed out of Greater Israel. I know this from personal conversations. So, even though a Jewish individual can be a nice person, associate, or friend, his political attitudes, combined with those of other Jews, signal danger to the well-being of goyim. I mean, isn't there something truly rotten in how Jews, the most privileged and powerful(and over-represented people in elite circles), berate whites for 'white privilege'? Isn't it lowdown for Jews to say Americanism is about colorblindness but then insisting ALL Americans must support Zionist-Israelis over Palestinians and Iranians? If the US must be a colorblind nation and fair broker among all peoples, why this supremacist outlook that favors Jews uber alles?

Even though your average person, Jew or otherwise, is different from members of the elite, the fact is elite outlooks don't come from nowhere. Often, they spring from the national character of the people. After all, Jews didn't land on American shores as elites. Many of them came with little or nothing. So, most members of today's Jewish elites have humble origins and rose from the bottom. So, that means their elite attitudes are, to a large extent, an expression of something intrinsic to Jewishness. Same with blacks. If all elite blacks were to die this moment and be replaced by ordinary blacks, the result would be much the same because black jiggity-ness has roots in core blackness. Blacks who write for the New York Times just offer a fancier and more haute version of, "Yo, I want all the blings and shit."

I never read the Talmud.

I believe you, but you don't have to read the thing to be affected by it. Talmudic attitudes and outlook have seeped into so much of Jewish life that, even without having read it, many Jews live it in so many Jews(and this true of secular as well as religious Jews). It's like most communists never read Das Kapital but its ideas defined so much of communist life. And plenty of Christians, incredible as it may sound, never read all(or any) of the New Testament, not least because so many goyim were illiterate over the ages. But its tenets still colored many aspects of their lives.

In a way, the problem now is less with Jews than with goyim. Instead of trying to make Jews be like goyim, we should try to make goyim be like Jews. Why should Jews want to be like goyim when so many goyim are so stupid and pathetic? Arabs can't get their act together. Japanese have tentacle porn as culture. Russians are lazy drunkards. Mexicans are garbage-tossing tards. Even the once great Germans and Anglos are castrated cucks. So, why should Jews try to be like them? No, we should all strive to be like Jews. Now, this isn't easy because most goyim don't have Jewish intelligence. But they can still emulate the next most potent thing about Jews: Chutzpah and covenant. Whites must think like Sean Connery in UNTOUCHABLES, written by Jewish David Mamet no less. If the enemy brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun. If they push, you push back harder.



The problem is goyim hasn't been pushing back against Jews. When Jews push, goyim must push back. Also, Jews got the Covenant that says they have a special contract with the ultimate power. The problem with Christianity and Islam is their versions of the 'covenant' are too bland and broad, shared with too large a population. I mean how can whites preserve their unique identity and power if their Christo-Covenant must be shared with Negroes, yellows, browns, and etc? No, just like Jews have a JEWISH covenant, whites must have a WHITE covenant, and this will require a white man of prophetic power who communes with the ultimate power and then brings this truth to his people. (Imagine what Hitler might have been capable of if he'd spoken for all whites, Germanics and Slavs and Latins and even pro-white Jews, instead of just for the Nordics and 'Aryans'.) He must be a river to his people. But do whites have a prophetic soul? Maybe the Germans once did. After all, unlike Greeks and Romans who lacked the Big Picture and emphasized individualism — on grounds that after you died, you just ended up in Hades and that was that — , Germanic mythology had a grand vision of fate and destiny whereby all the great warriors of Valhalla would unite once again to fight the final battle. It was such bigness of vision that made impassioned Germans the greatest musical composers. And it's no wonder that Richard Wagner and Nietzsche were both Germans. And it was Jews in Germanosphere who developed the most powerful ideas, even if dangerous. Could French or Italian culture have produced a Marx? (Also, it was the German quasi-prophet Martin Luther who altered the history of Christianity with a defiant vision of his own.) Jews have long had prophetic power, but this was magnified under Germanic influence. Granted, the problem with Germanic prophecy was its excessive doom-and-gloom, a fatalistic nihilism that unsurprisingly led to the hyper-Wagnerian excesses of Hitler. The awesome side of Hitler couldn't have been possible if he were moderate, but a bit of moderation could have saved National Socialism from itself.

Now, goyim can't be smart like Jews just because they want to be. But even the un-smart can work on chutzpah and covenant. After all, even the idiot Arabs produced a great prophet in the figure of Muhammad. White folks need a White Muhammad who attains the covenant for his people. As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad. Blacks are proof that chutzpah goes a long way(and homos are proof of the power of Poopchutespah). Even though blacks don't make much sense, they always push back when they are criticized. Jews easily run roughshod over apologetic whites, but even a bunch of angry Jews can't make Al Sharpton budge because the wildass Negro hollers back. And look how Ace Rothstein is frozen with fear when Nicky Santoro uses greaser-chutzpah on him. Anglos were never up for that kind of push-back. This is why Jews run circles around Anglo-types in Marx Brothers movies. But imagine what would happen if Groucho and Chico tried to do a number on Nicky Santoro or Tommy(in GOODFELLAS). If Anglo elites had talked to Jews like Nicky does with Ace Rothstein, they'd still have the power. But they had to keep their 'dignity' at all costs. Now, dignity, or true dignity, is about standing your ground with integrity and pushing back against BS. It's not about staying 'clean' by the art of 'reputation'. For Anglos, 'dignity' really means haute status, and that's why they focus on perception than conviction. So, if the New Normal says globo-homo is the New Dignity, Anglos immediately go along with that to maintain their conceit of 'dignity'. They regard 'dignity' as dress and gown than body and soul. Look how Charles Murray the bald-headed cuck-fool supported 'gay marriage' when it became the fashionable thing among elites. In contrast, even though blacks are dumber and poorer than whites, they hold their own against Jews because they push back and possess a special sense of black covenant called FOABP, or Fear of a Black Planet to scare 'honkeys' with, though one might call it POTA or Planet of the Africans.




There are two kinds of people in the world. Owners and the owned. Masters and Slaves. Masters own, slaves are owned. When we consider the Jewish Worldview, it is to be owners of the world. But before you own others, you must own yourself. You must see yourself as special, not a commodity to be traded. And your people must treat others of the tribe as fellow owners. Jews developed this sense via the Covenant that said even the lowest humble Jew was equally precious in the eyes of God the Almighty who didn't favor some Jew simply because he was richer than others. Thus, every Jew, even a lowly Jew, felt that he owned himself as a human. He wasn't owned by others. The only power that owns him is God. In contrast, goy orders were made of masters and slaves. Masters owned the slaves, the minions, the rabble who had no autonomous self-worth. (Also, the elites felt as owners ONLY IF they retained political/military power over the minions. Without worldly power, they felt as worthless.) So, only the elites felt as owners whereas the masses felt as the owned. This was Russia under the Tsars. The Tsar was the master, albeit supposedly a benevolent patriarch, over the masses of Russians who were deemed childlike and cattle-like. Most Russians felt owned by the Tsar and the nobility, and this mentality lingered even after serfdom was abolished. It is then hardly surprising that a single Jew in Russia had 100x the confidence and will-power of an average Russian. Communism didn't help matters. Though it spoke of liberation, Russians just became owned by the Iron State ruled by the likes of Lenin and Stalin as new master-owners.

In contrast to Russia/USSR, the US imbued its citizens with the sense of ownership. And yet, even this couldn't stand up to Jewish power because Anglo-American concept of ownership was centered on individuality, dry letter of the law, property rights, and opportunity. In other words, it was bound to lead to atomization and the Coming Apart along class lines. Also, the excessive emphasis on property rights meant that consumers obsessed with commodities could themselves become human commodities whose only value is economic or GDP-related. No wonder we hear stuff like, "Great Replacement is okay as long as economic activity goes up." Also, excessive materialist-individualism meant that rich Americans would feel as winners or uber-masters, while poorer Americans would feel as abject 'losers' or servant-class.
If whites had a Jewishy concept of ownership that was essentially tribal, cultural, historical, and spiritual, they would be in a much better shape. For one thing, they would be united as a people on grounds that all whites, regardless of class, would be considered as brethren within the white family with shared destiny. Such a rich cultural sense of ownership would mean that even a poor white owns something of great historical-spiritual value, something that cannot be priced with dollars. But the soulless materialist concept of ownership in the US means that the haves feel like masters(as long as they keep on 'having') while have-nots feel like slaves or 'losers'. It's like what Kurt Vonnegut said.

Jews are owners twofold in the US. As the wealthiest group, they own so much of America. But as Covenant-ists, they feel that they own themselves. They are their own people with a deep and rich history. Indeed, even when Jewish immigrants arrived on American soil with little or nothing, they still felt that they owned themselves, not by goyim no matter how richer the goyim may have been. You see this in the Bible too. Even when Hebrews are held captive by more powerful groups, Jews feel they own their own souls. If any Being owns them, it's God and only Him. This is in stark contrast to the Japanese Way where nearly everyone felt he was owned by someone higher. The essence of Japanese-ness was to serve. To serve the master than be a master. And besides, even being a master meant one had to serve a higher master with absolute devotion. 'Bushi', the term for samurai, means 'to serve'. So, when we compare Jews and Japanese in the US, the difference couldn't be starker. Jews feel they own themselves(and even feel that they should own the silly inferior goyim). But Japanese-Americans are happy to be owned by the dominant power. Look at Francis Fukuyama, that worthless spineless cuck-servant before the Jewish globo-homo masters. He's like the Japanese after World War II who groveled at the feet of General MacArthur as the New Shogun. Of course, it was right for Japan to surrender as they couldn't continue with the war effort, but did they have to grovel before the power that had so utterly crushed them? Even if Israel were to face defeat and be conquered by the Other, Jews won't grovel. They will smile, shake hands, and pretend to go along, but they will not surrender their sense of ownership to the Other. Indeed, even after Exile in Roman Times, Jews never lost their sense of spiritual ownership of the Holy Land. That is the difference between Jews and Japanese. This is why, even though Israel is a much smaller nation than Japan, it is getting stronger while Japan is dying. Even as Jews spread globalization to goy nations to destroy them, they maintain total Jewish ownership of Jewish homeland, Jewish bodies, and Jewish history. In contrast, the hapless Japanese cucks, in total obeisance to their globalist overlords, are committing massive harakiri, also true of other East Asian nations with the possible exception of China. Japanese surrendered their Narrative to the West, and Japanese regard their women as sex toys as pornography is a big feature of their 'culture'. It's a nation of plastic toys than soulful humans.

White people used to feel as owners in America. They owned their bodies and souls. They owned their narratives, icons & idols, and the land. They conquered it, they claimed it, they built it, and they kept it. They sometimes owned other peoples, especially the blacks as slaves, but the idea of white folks being owned by the Other, or White Slavery, was anathema to white pride and dignity. And this was due to White Race-ism, the greatest thing in American history. White Race-ism was the glue, the bond, and a kind of emotional sub-covenant that held white folks together.
But the over-emphasis on individualism, materialism, and universalism eventually frayed this sense of white unity of ownership of body, soul, and land. Individualism led to atomization, an excessive focus on me-as-winner than we-as-owners. So, if a white individualist could betray his own kind and cut a deal to make money, he did just that. So many whites became a bunch of Mitt Romneys. Materialism meant that the essence of life was to buy stuff. So, one's value was tied to consumer goods and services. That meant one had no value unless attached to some hedonistic-economic activity. In other words, if electricity were to go out, a white person would have no value, no reason to live. And all this talk of universalism meant that white bodies, white lands, white wealth, and even white history could be owned by others. So, we got jungle fever and Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. We have white-built sports taken over by blacks who now reign as heroes and idols of whites; this means whites are owned by black demigods in fantasy, recreation, and entertainment. Whites used to protect their heroes from the Other. So, white sports kept out blacks, the tougher race. But individualism and universalism undermined white race-ism and paved the way for black supremacism. This has been crucial because the most impressionable things in peoples memories are the peak moments of thrill. People ignore or forget most things in their daily lives and remember only the most exciting moments. It's like we look at peaks of mountains than at slopes or valleys. As blacks took over the peaks of sports, pop music, and sexualized culture, most whites conflate blackness with peak thrills of life. Whites don't even own their heroes. As the demigod heroes are of the Other, it's like blacks own the sensations of whites. And as black entertainers and athletes are owned by Jewish moguls, it's like Jews own whites two-fold. They own the blacks who own the whites-as-hapless-cucky-wucks.
With the fading of white race-ism, whites can no longer claim ownership of white lands, even in Europe. Whites are not owners but mere commodities. White lands can be claimed by anyone, and white people can be declared obsolete or 'antique' and replaced by new people as new cattle, new pets, or new furniture. The rise of pornification of society means whites have gone from owners to the owned. Look at Miley Cyrus and other creatures of Jewish-run Disney, now a shikse-whore-factory. They are not humans but commodities, sex dolls. And white people accept this because they don't even own their minds. Indeed, white minds are now mere extensions of Jewish-owned electronic media. If Jews say 'gay marriage is holy', white minds hooked to Jewish-owned TV nod along. Even the white religion of Christianity has been owned and altered by Jews into worship of Globo-Homo as so many churches now are essentially about worship of Sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting than anything else. (But then, the fact that whites had been converted in such huge numbers to Christianity, a religion originating from the Other, suggests whites are easily owned. Incapable of creating a prophetic vision of their own, they surrendered their souls to a Jew as Son of God.)

Now, imagine Arabs in Israel controlling prostitution & pornography and using Jewish women as sex meat for Arab men, Palestinian men, and Negro men. Jews would be outraged that another group is treating Jewish women as objects to be owned and exploited. They would see it as Arabs treating Jews like commodities. But Jews apparently see nothing wrong with treating whites that way. Worse, if whites a hundred years ago would have been shocked and offended by Jews using whites in such manner, white cuck-maggots of today are sheepishly resigned to the fate of existing to be owned, bought/sold, and ordered around by Jewish Power. Even Donald Trump, who'd been harassed by Jewish Power from day one, is totally owned by Jews and do their bidding, like killing Soleimani, a proud man who is NOT owned by Jews. (And of course, young white men in the US military don't fight to defend America as a nation they own. No, they are mere mercenary goons owned by Jewish Power that sends them to slaughter Arabs and Muslims for the glory of Zion that owns almost all US politicians who are worthless toadies.) Indeed, it seems as if owned white fools like Trump and John McCain are envious of goyim who are not owned. No wonder McCain barked so loudly at Vladimir Putin. No wonder Trump took out Soleimani, a painful reminder to cuck-dogs like The Donald that indeed a goy can be his own master and not be owned by Jewish supremacists.
Under Sorosian Jewish Supremacism, a white man in Europe who says his nation belongs to his own people is now a 'far rightist', but at the same time, all European elites are expected to say Israel belongs to Jews and Jews only. So, Jews are to be admired and supported as Owners whereas whites must resign themselves to Owned status. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where whites can't even own their own history as justification for owning their lands. Under Jewish control, white narratives are being taken away from white hands and rewritten by Jews, white cuck-scribes, and blacks into a 'Diversity' narrative. In other words, Swedes have no ownership of historical narrative to buttress territorial ownership of their land because... uh... the Vikings were black and shit. Right, and because some European merchants visited China and India, those Asian lands belong just as much to whites as to yellows and browns. Can you imagine anyone in China or India falling for that bull? But then, Japan seems falling for it as it's just a cuck-wussy colony of the US that is a cuck-wussy colony of the Empire of Judea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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