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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whites need to realize two things.

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

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

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

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

Commentary on "Why ‘Apartheid Denial’ Must Be Made a Crime"(by Henry Wolff)

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/02/why-apartheid-denial-must-be-made-a-crime/

Biggest Apartheid Denials are:

1. Israel was created by Nakba Pogroms that ethnically cleansed Palestinians. Also, Israel illegally occupies West Bank, into which Zionist Caravans come invading(against international law), and Palestinians can't do anything about it... just like white Americans and so many Europeans are helpless to do anything about the foreign invasion. Now, what do West Bank, Western Europe, Canada, and US have in common? Their cucked goy elites -- Fatah or Liberals or Conservatives or Democrats or Republicans -- don't represent the national aspirations of their own peoples but serve the globalist hegemony of Jewish Power that insists on Mono-Nationalism(or Nationalism and pride of Identity for Jews only) against Poly-Nationalism(or all peoples have the right of identity and nationality). White elites in the West are hardly better than dog-like elites in Hong Kong who served the British Imperialists. If anything, Western Elites are worse. At the very least, Hong Kong elites kept Hong Kong Chinese and looked forward to the day when they would take the island from the white man. In contrast, Western elites are in the process of giving away their homelands forever.

2. Biggest forms of apartheid in the US are carried out surreptitiously. Progs have mastered the art of SAYING one thing while DOING something else. It's a form of Moral Masking. It's like US imperialism justifies itself by making noises about spreading 'liberal democracy' when, in fact, these are essentially Wars for Israel and MIC(military-industrial complex). And if Western Imperialism morally justified itself in the name of spreading Christianity, now it's all about spreading globohomo. As Western elites and white people in general have been sold on the lunacy that homosexuality and tranny business = holy 'rainbow', they can't think of anything more redemptive for all of mankind that spreading the glory of Anno Sodomini, even if it means dropping tons of bombs on other nations.

Anyway, Progs practice Cryto-Apartheid or Surrepto-Apartheid via Gentric Cleansing, often spearheaded by white homos. NY elected Rudy Giuliani for two terms and Michael Bloomberg for three terms, and both went after black crime in a very big way. Clinton locked up more super-predators than anyone before or after him. Stop-and-Frisk especially targeted blacks(who commit the most crime). And push for Gentrification changed many black neighborhoods into yuppie-hipster or 'yupster' ones in DC, Chicago, San Fran, and NY. When you have lots of money and legal muscle, you can do just about anything. But lest blacks realize what is really happening, these Progs made much noise about their adoration of blacks(and promoted globohomo to push black issues to the back of the bus, ironically under the presidency of Obama the black man; but then, Jews and Homos made him, not blacks, so he owed more to globohomo than to Negro; blacks got angry about lack of attention, and Obama tried to redress this in his last 2 yrs by supporting BLM, which spiraled out of control like the Cultural Revolution; it became Criminal Revolution). The current Crypto-Apartheid is like how white people drove out the Indians but then erected Indian statues and named towns after the Red Man to lend the impression of their respect than removal of Indians. Remove the bodies while hoisting the symbol. SAY one thing and DO something else. Just like the US war machine that wages war and destruction while calling it 'pacification' campaign.

----------

We need a law against Black Rampage Denialism. Or Criminal Revolution Denialism. Due to BAMMAMA factor -- blacks are more muscular and more aggressive --, black freedom led to black bullying, battery, robbery, rape, and murder of so many whites. All over the US, stronger blacks have been terrorizing and assaulting whites, as Colin Flaherty has detailed so many times.

Yes, there was segregation in the past, but such was deemed necessary because freed blacks, being stronger and more aggressive, could act predatory against whites. And this exact thing happened since the 1960s when the Criminal Revolution took off. And things got so bad that Jewish and white liberals ran from blacks. The era of white flight or 'Exurbodus', or Exodus from Urban areas. Black Criminal Revolution effectively ethnically and racially cleansed so many whites from traditional white areas. Even as Jewish Liberals denounced Segregation in the South, they joined(even spearheaded) the Exurbodus to flee black criminality and thuggery(and to prevent their children being bullied by blacks in schools). This wasn't official segregation as in the South but effectively the same thing.

And how did rich whites and Jews retake downtown areas of cities? They used economic and legal muscle to tear down housing projects, drive blacks out to lesser suburbs and small towns. They boosted property values so that only globalist yupsters could afford them.

----------

Why is the American South especially targeted for ideological abuse? If Confederate Flags, Symbolism, and Ceremonies must be suppressed because of their association with slavery, why is it okay to celebrate cowboys and the Wild West? After all, one could associate all that with 'genocide' of the Indians? Weren't a lot of Indians killed by guns? Maybe the Winchester 73 should be banned(and M-16 and Helicopters should be banned for their association with 'genocide' of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War). And 20% of cowboys were black, and that means lots of blacks also killed Indians. Jewish merchants sold guns and supplies to the pioneers of Manifest Destiny.
Also, didn't mass immigration from the Old World lead to more wars against Indians, effectively leading to their 'genocide' and expulsion from their sacred lands? The US flag can be construed as a symbol of conquest, invasion, imperialism, and 'genocide' against the natives of America, just like the Israeli Flag can be conflated with Nakba pogroms and 'genocidal' erasure of Palestine -- by the U.N'.s own definition of 'genocide', Nakba was clearly an official genocide. Statue of Liberty should be dismantled if we follow this line of moral logic. Though originally erected as a tribute to US freedom, it came to symbolize immigration. But it was immigration that destroyed the native peoples and cultures of America.
Now, it's my understanding that genocide is worse than slavery. Then, why all this celebration of the Statue of Liberty that symbolizes Mass-Immigration-Invasion that reduced Indians to wretched huddled masses, as opposed to all the vitriol spewed against the Confederacy? Was black slavery worse than Indian 'genocide'? If anything, it seems the South treated the blacks better than Northern Whites treated the Indians(and it was the North that spearheaded and financed most of the imperialist Manifest Destiny) -- also, politicians of the US North supported white elites in Latin America who employed 'death squads' to carry out near-genocidal campaigns against browns. Furthermore, what about all the US memorials to wars? Many US wars were imperialist in character and agenda. Taking SW territories from Mexico. Invading Philippines. Committing war crimes against Japan and Germany. Interfering and killing millions in Korea and Vietnam. Using worst kind of mendacity to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, and etc. It seems the US military has a lot of imperialist, even genocidal, blood on its hands. (Ironically, Obama's war on Libya led to open black slave markets over there.) So, how about tearing down all War Memorials as reprehensible tributes to US soldiers who took part in Imperialism and even near-genocidal acts?

American Indians were destroyed by imperialism and mass-immigration. Millions of innocents were killed abroad by US military machine and Wars for Israel. And yet, we must celebrate immigration. We must wave the flag and support the troops(not least because globo-homo Libs are now the biggest warmongers). Why? One reason is Proggism is actually 'sympa-supremacist'(or supremacist in selective sympathy that favors certain groups over others). Proggism is not animated by fairness or principles toward ALL peoples. Just ask the Palestinians and White Americans if they get a fair deal from Current Globalism? Current Proggism is about the idolatrous worship of Jews, blacks, and homos above all.
Why those three? One reason is Jewish control of media and academia. So, Jews control the narrative and decide who is holy, who is unholy. Jews naturally favored themselves. And they favored homos as a talented elite-minority. Jewish power and Homo power together posit the New Normal of Elite Minority Privilege uber super-majority goyim and super-majority straights. Jews chose blacks for two reasons. Profitability as Jews have raked in many billions off black sports, black music, and black sex. The other reason is Jews can use blacks to guilt-bait white Americans(with slavery consecrated as the 'original sin' of America even though the 'genocide' of Indians predated slavery), thus paralyzing white identity & pride and manipulating whites into serving the Other(mainly Jews) as atonement. Why do Jews make a bigger deal about blacks than about American Indians? After all, weren't Indians 'genocided'? But concentrating on the Indian Tragedy isn't good for Jewish interests. After all, Jews gained so much from Immigration. So, the notion of "immigration = 'genocide' of Indians" is problematic to Jews. Also, Jews have always owned Hollywood and made so many Westerns where Indians are little more than shooting ducks, and that makes Jews culpable in spreading 'hate' against Indians. And what Jews did to Palestinians is eerily similar to what was done to the Indians.
Another reason is that blacks are a more vocal and expressive people than the Indians. So, their hysterics make for better theater than the relative stoicism of the Indians. Also, as blacks have gained so much success in sports, music, and sex -- the three things Americans are most obsessed about -- , they've come to be seen almost as demigods by whites in US, Canada, and Europe. A lot of 'European' sports 'heroes' are now black, and white women flock to have sex with them, and cucky white boys stand in line to get their autographs from black stars. And white youth culture is mainly white boys imitating black rappers and white girls 'twerking' while fantasizing about sex with black men.
NCAA and NFL pretty much follow the same dynamics. College sports are about adulation of blacks as local heroes, and tons of white coeds put out to them while white boys sheepishly cheer for them. NFL is about black 'heroes' winning games and humping tons of white women and about white boys worshiping black men as super-jocks and super-studs. Because whites worship black prowess in sports, black song(rap is now the biggest genre), and black sex, whites are bound to feel more guilty about having committed wrongs against blacks. It's like Christians came to feel esp guilty about the death of Jesus because the Narrative says He was no ordinary man but the Son of God. It's like people get more upset about someone killing a lion than a hyena or coyote. Lion is seen as regal, the king of the jungle. More people get upset over someone killing a whale than a pig or lamb. So, even though American Indians suffered more, they are seen as dull and boring, a mediocre or inferior people. Whites may acknowledge that Indians suffered but don't get all hung up about it. But whites feel obsessive guilt about what they'd don to blacks, the superior race of sports, song, and sex.
Jews exploit this psychology because it could be used in their favor too. The reason why the Shoah is such a big deal is not because Hitler killed a lot of innocent people. Suppose Hitler spared Jews and killed only Gypsies. While the world would acknowledge it as a tragedy, they wouldn't make a big fuss over it 24/7 because most people regard Gypsies as a bunch of losers. Also, Gypsies don't have power and money to control media and set the Narrative. But Jews are talented and gained tremendous wealth to dominate media and academia. Also, precisely because Jews have demonstrated their mental prowess in science, medicine, letters, humor, business, entertainment, and etc, white people have come to regard Jews with awe, as the god-men of mind, wit, and soul. So, the Holocaust is seen as something even worse than a mass-killing of people. It's seen as something akin to Deicide, the murder of a godlike race of people.

Progs pretend to be about equality, but they are very selective and supremacist in their sympathies. Proggism is Sympa-Supremacist or Compassion-Supremacist where just a few groups are favored to hog and command most of the collective sympathy. Jews over Palestinians. Jews of Shoah over Ukrainians of Holodomor. Blacks over American Indians. Homos over straights. (Homos are revered for their style and vanity in current culture that is mainly geared toward narcissism and celebrity mania.) And of course, Diversity over Indigeneity.

Diversity is the product of Imperialism that destroyed Indigeneity. After all, the only reason why Hawaii is diverse is because whites conquered and then allowed mass immigration-invasion from Asia. So, the natives of Hawaii -- the REAL Hawaiians -- have been reduced to pitiful minority status in their own homeland. Indigenous people lost out to diverse invasive peoples. It is a sign of utter cognitive dissonance that progs say they are for both Indigeneity and Diversity. They are such idiotic NPC's that they aren't even woke to the illogical line of their (un)reasoning.

Muslim-Jewish Alliance Owes to Immigration -- Muslims will betray anything to gain access to the West and the Easy Life

How amusing to witness the rise of Zionist-Muslim alliance in the Democratic Party.

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.753161

I find this curious. Donald Trump, sincerely or not, condemned Bush's WMD lies and Iraq War. He condemned Obama and Hillary as destroyers of Libya and enablers of ISIS in Syria. He said he would strive for greater stability and peace in the region(though it must be said his record in Yemen, as continuation of Obama's policy, has been disastrous; and his Iran Policy has been worse than Obama's). In other words, less Invade, less Intervention.

In contrast, Hillary, as the Democratic candidate, was threatening WWIII with Russia over Syria, which means Middle East will blow up even more. Also, she and her globo-feminist cohorts were largely responsible for the chaos and destruction in Libya and Syria.

Now, you'd think most Muslims would side with Trump over Hillary and Deep State Democrats. Granted, the GOP has been just as belligerent(if not more so) than the Democrats when it came to the Middle East, but Trump ran in 2016 as the most anti-war candidate, thus alienating many Neocons in the GOP. And as President, despite his sometimes volcanic rhetoric, he restrained the hawks when it came to North Korea and Syria. For these reasons, one would expect Muslims to be more favorable toward Trump as the politician who is less likely to spread more hell-fire and brimstone in their homelands in the Middle East. And I think they would have been... if not for the issue of immigration.

Suppose the US has had a zero-immigration policy since 1965 and took in no one from the Middle East, North Africa, and Muslim nations. Then, Muslims would have no hope of entering the US. Under those circumstances, I think most Muslims living in their home nations would have preferred Trump over Hillary(and Democratic Deep State hawks). Their worldview would have more-or-less run parallel to the position of the Alt-Right and Paleo-Con types who call for no more wars. They would have reviled Neocons, Zionists, and Liberal Interventionists.

So, why do so many Muslims(there and here) side with the very Americans(Neocons, Liberal Zionists, Democracy-pushers, hawks, New-Cold-Warriors, etc) who are most hellbent on wreaking more havoc in the Muslim World? Why do they fear America First more than America Thirst(for oil and domination)?

Because... even though the Alt-Right, Paleocons, and America-Firsters are more likely to be for peace and non-intervention, they are also likely to be more anti-immigration-invasion.
For Muslims, entry into the West is like a drug. They crave it and dream of it, indeed so much so that they will side with the very people who are doing most to destroy the Muslim World, the very homelands of Arabs and Muslims.

In a way, America/West has a narco-drug effect on all the world. These non-white folks seeking access to the West will join with ANY SIDE that serves the role as the PUSHER-of-the-'dream'. It's like an addict will neglect his own house, family, and kids to get another fix of that smack or crack from the dealer.

The desire to go where the mammoths are(white wealth is mammoth meat to the migrant-hunters of the world) distorts all values. It was the desire to go to America that made Fabrizio betray Michael in THE GODFATHER. He didn't personally hate Michael or his bride. But he wanted to go to America so badly that he was willing to betray the very people who'd hired him and trusted him.



This craving for the Invite-Immigration-Smack makes Muslims form an alliance even with Zionists and Neocon War-mongers. Also, despite their noises about Islamic values and Middle Eastern pride, they privately prefer rule by whites than by their own cousin-humping kind.

People do care about tribe and culture, but they are still organisms and prefer the Good Life, the place where the mammoths are. This is true of anyone. Suppose one had to choose between one's homeland where it's hot, dry, and requires lots of work to get by AND another land where the temperature is nice and where fruits grow in abundance. One's cultural sense might cling to the homeland out of loyalty and heritage, but one's organismic self will want to go to the land of mangoes. This is true of animals in the wild. They go where the plants, game, and water are. Among humans, it's somewhat different because humans don't just live off nature like their primitive ancestors did. Humans build their own economies, and it just so happens that whites have proven most adept at creating the best economies and most functional systems. (Even if non-whites were to face discrimination in the West, they'd still live in a stabler and more orderly system where whites do things better than non-whites do in their own lands. So, even left-overs and crumbs from whites are more than what they get in their own homelands where they may not be subjected to discrimination but have so little because people are so corrupt, inept, and do a crappy job of running things.) Indeed, it's amusing that so many Third Worlders head to Sweden, a cold dark part of the world with long winters(much of it in total darkness). So, why go there? Because Swedes build, manage, and run good economies, whereas non-whites are dysfunctional even in nicer lands with more natural resources, good climate, and etc. One thing for sure, the non-whites are not going to Scandinavia for the weather. They are going to feed off white mammoths. (As a result, whites may go extinct just like the mammoths that couldn't survive the onslaught of migratory hunters.)

Because whites developed the Midas-touch, they were drawn to primitive and backward places in the Age of Empire and could make a positive difference. Whites could go to South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Asia, and etc. and build something from nothing. Even the great Chinese civilization was amazed by what the British could do with Hong Kong almost overnight. Turn a muddy island into a booming city in a short span. But the Age of Empire eventually came to an end. And whites were forced to go back to Europe from many parts of the world that they'd colonized. And for a time, non-whites believed they could do just as well as whites by building up their own nations... but only a handful of nations succeeded in this. And so, lacking the Midas touch, the ONLY way they could have the good life was by migrating to white nations. So, we are now in the Age of Demographic Imperialism. Reverse-imperialism, this time the migration of non-white peoples without the Midas touch heading to the lands of white people with the Midas touch. If, in the Age of Empire, white colonizers made something out of nothing in non-white lands, non-white reverse-colonizers will make nothing out of something as they leech off whites in ever greater numbers. Also, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs will create destructive black kids out of white wombs. Black leech-sperms will feed off white wombs to create horrible Negrolets.

The notable exception has been Israel. If the post-war West has been mostly about non-white migration-invasion to white nations, Israel was a concerted effort among Jews to favor cultural obligations over organismic wants. Materially, any Jew is better off in Europe or US than in hot and dry tiny Israel. But the call of culture inspired many Jews to settle in the Holy Land and defend it. But then, Jews, like white gentiles, are another people with the Midas touch, able to create something out of nothing. Jews know this, and Jews know others want what they got, so they erect barriers to keep their mammoths to themselves. But Jews in America fear that their mammoths might be taken by non-Jewish whites one day. So, Jews welcome more immigrant-invaders so that diverse gentiles will squabble over the white mammoth meat than salivate after the Jewish mammoth meat.

Things were much simpler right after WWII. Back then, neither the US nor Europe allowed mass immigration-invasion from the Third World. So, people in the Third World thought in terms of 'kick out imperialists' and 'do whatever is necessary to boost our power and sovereignty'. But ever since the West opened its door to immigration-invasion by non-whites, the priority of so many in the non-West is going to the West for easy mammoth meat than fixing their own nations and farming their own mammoth.

It's like how the slave trade distorted the economies of West Africa. While slave trade had always been a fixture among black Africans, the tremendous amount of wealth to be made from the Atlantic Slave Trade made so many blacks drop everything to go capture other blacks to sell to whites. Things got so bad that the Africans sacrificed humans to crocodile gods to stall the decline.

It's also like any gold rush. People hear about get-rich-quick opportunities and drop everything to look for gold. All these non-whites are addicted to White Rush. White lands are where the mammoths are, and it is the quickest and easiest way for them to attain anything in life. It might take a lifetime or many generations(or never) for many parts of the non-West to achieve anything approaching Western levels of success. But if you go to the West, they offer you sanctuary, benefits, favors, protection, housing, welfare, and etc. Also, there are lots of self-hugging white assholier-than-thouists who will defend you and even elevate to saint status.

In the US, Jewish power is undeniable. Jewish power may be less extensive in the EU, but Shoah Worship is stronger there than here. Also, EU nations are essentially servant-states of the US, and their intellectuals and bureaucrats take cues from ideas emanating from Harvard and Yale and US media.

Anyway, all this highfalutin talk of 'liberty', 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'proposition', and etc. are BS. It is really about nonwhite craving for white mammoth meat. It is organismic. Nonwhites pressure the white world to live up to 'high ideals' not because they prize principles but because they want access to easy white mammoth meat. If all of the US was one giant Detroit, would Jews or Muslims or any other people care if US was a 'proposition nation' or not? No one would want to come here, just like no one wants to move permanently to Africa.

Jews say the term ‘Globalist’ is dog-whistling about Jewish Power - We say the term ‘White Supremacism’ is dog-training by Jews to ensure White Submissivism - Jews are Not Anti-Supremacist; Jews attack 'White Supremacism' to protect Jewish Supremacism as the Sole God of Power

Recently, Jews attacked Donald Trump for using the term ‘globalist’. They contend it’s a codeword for Jews, especially because ‘white supremacists’ refer to Jews as such.
While it’s true that White National Liberationists do believe that Jews use globalism to further their agenda, they don’t dog-whistle about Jews. They don’t use ‘globalist’ to, wink wink, hint at Jewish power and influence. They go all out and mention the Jew. They say Jewish Supremacists do rule the US(that rules the world) and Jews use globalism to weaken gentile nationalisms. So, for White National Liberationists, ‘globalist’ is not a codeword for Jews. It is merely a description of Jewish strategy to expand their supremacist power around the world. Because gentile nationalism(that unites the native elites and native masses) is the most effective weapon against Jewish penetration and takeover, Jewish supremacists use globalism to weaken the bonds between native elites and native masses. White National Liberationists define globalism as a weapon of Jews, not as secret term for Jewish Power.

Now, there are some people who do use the term ‘globalist’(or ‘Neocons’ or ‘international bankers’) to mean Jews. And, surely Donald Trump knows that many people he designates as ‘globalist’ are indeed Jewish. Is Donald Trump anti-Jewish? No, he doesn’t dislike Jews for being Jews. But he knows Jews for what they are because he worked in New York all his life. And he knows that Jewish globalists are the most radically disruptive force in America. But for true-blue White National Liberationists, Jews are just Jews. Indeed, they take pride in saying it like it is and blurting it all out. No need for dog-whistling and code-words. Their way is to lay all the cards out on the table. They believe that Political Correctness and, before that, Culture of Sensitivity have held back honest discussion in American culture and society.

Perhaps, there was a time when it was good for social order to maintain certain proprieties and decorum. But that was when White America was predominant and felt confident enough to maintain the Order without being overly abrasive with the truth. Indeed, if the problem is manageable, it may be preferable not to say certain things for sake of peace and order. Suppose you’re a doctor and a patient is overweight but not grossly obese. Suppose the patient could be doing better by eating healthily and exercising, BUT you don’t want to upset her by calling her a fatty-fatkins, so you prescribe some drugs and offer run-of-the-mill self-care advice. Even though you didn’t speak the hard truth — that she really should lose more weight — , it’s not going to be fatal or unmanageable because she’s not TOO FAT.
But suppose your patient really is a hippo-woman, and her gross piggish obesity is THE reason for her serious health issues. In that case, you must speak honestly, even if it may hurt her feelings. You have to tell her, "Look, the reason you have all these ailments is because you eat like a pig, don’t exercise, and lug around all that weight like you’re a hippo, elephant seal, or a ton of dead gophers." Because truth often hurts, we often favor propriety over honesty for the sake of not hurting people’s feelings, and that is understandable. It’s like we can be tolerant of a dummy working at a low-level job. Suppose the dummy makes mistakes, but it won't be the end of the world since his job is of no great importance. Just to keep him employed, we could overlook his ineptitude... like with the Cliff Robertson’s character in the movie CHARLY. But suppose the job is something like managing a nuclear plant or operating a locomotive. In that case, we can’t be slack in our criteria and criticism because repercussions of something going wrong are too ghastly to imagine. Many people can be harmed or even killed by ‘mistakes’. So, when it comes to duties requiring the greatest of expertise and caution, we must be willing to ruffle the feathers and say it like it is. Indeed, consider how things got much worse in the Fukushima nuclear disaster because so many Japanese at all levels of government were willing to speak the truth. It was like the silence of skeptics prior to Pearl Harbor attack.

Likewise, consider the impact of the ‘mistakes’ of US foreign policy in Iraq and Libya. When men with immense power make ‘mistakes’ like that, it means devastation for entire nations and the ruined lives of millions. So, there are times when we must speak the truth no matter how many people end up with butt-hurt feelings and despite the fact that you may be fired or demoted. The fate of hundreds, thousands, or even millions may depend on it.
The world is now facing great dangers because no one in ‘respectable’ society has the guts to speak out about Jewish Supremacist Power that has gone pathological. Jewish Power is like an arrogant, spoiled, vile, and hideous Fat Monster-Man that is acting grossly and throwing up all over the place and making a total mess of things. When faced with such dangers, we can’t be like ladies and gentlemen obsessed with form and manners. We need to speak honestly and loudly and call out on Jewish Power. We can’t be like the restaurant staff in MONTY PYTHON’S MEANING OF LIFE who just keep serving the gross diner more and more(and then finally resolving the mess by having him blow up like a nuclear bomb and messing everyone else up).

We have now reached a point in history when we must speak the truth. Jewish Power is too big, too demanding, too corrupt, too megalomaniacal, too reckless, too insatiable, too remorseless, too shameless, and too murderous. Given what Jews have done to the world since the end of the Cold War, the craven silence is deafening. It’s rather like the silence of German society, high and low, when Hitler’s Wars began to turn everything into hell. The Culture of Consent & Silence was such that the fate of Germany became a one-man-show until the total collapse of Germany. Even though the US is too powerful to suffer defeat despite its imperialist ventures that have destroyed so many lives abroad, much of the world is suffering horribly because Jews feel entitled to have it all.
Also, even if the US can’t be destroyed militarily like Japan and Germany(indeed, even if the US were to act 100x worse than Germany and Japan in WWII combined), even many Americans end up suffering in other ways. Mass non-white immigration(engineered by venomous Jewish elites) has degraded and demoralized white Americans. Also, white gentile elite's allegiance to Jewish globalists than to the white masses has left so many white people feeling lost, confused, and directionless. It’s a fact that most people of any society lack agency or sense of purpose on their own. They must be led, just like the body must be 'led' by the mind. The white elites should be the minds of the white masses, but Jews cut the spinal cord between white minds and white bodies. Jews order white elites to serve Jewish supremacism and to attach themselves to non-white bodies of blacks and non-white invasive-immigrants. So, we have white minds serving Jews and representing non-whites but utterly neglecting the white masses that, on their own without representation and direction, grow disoriented, dispirited, and dissolute. (In the movie GET OUT, white liberals are so disassociated from their own identity that they want to literally attach themselves to black bodies.) The only worth of such people is to recruit them into the military and use them as cannon fodder in Wars for Israel. And their daughters are only good for sex workers for Jewish-owned industries.

Jewish supremacists see white elites as their managerial class and see white masses as cattle to be fed only to be slaughtered and sacrificed on the altar of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ that are really codewords for (1) Jewish divide-and-rule strategy of pitting various goyim against one another (2) Invasion, which is what ‘inclusion’ really is. When an Order is made to feel it must ‘include’ outsiders, it loses its defensive rationale to preserve its character and integrity. Suppose Israelis were made to feel that their nation must be about ‘Inclusion’. That would mean Israel must have open borders that allow ALL kinds of people to be ‘included’ into Israel. ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ sound kind of ‘nice’, but they are just smiley terms that mask power-grab strategies by Jews.

Anyway, if ‘globalist’ is a dog-whistling term among weaker members of the Right — because the courageous Right will always name the Jew instead of using codewords — , Jews employ ‘white supremacist’ as a Dog-Training term. Essentially, ‘white supremacist’ means ‘Bad Doggy’ because Jews see white people as dogs to be trained to obey Jews. Jews have turned colleges into Obedience Schools because only well-trained dogs will obey Jews. Jews see gentiles like humans regarded the big beast in Steven Spielberg’s WAR HORSE. It is appropriate that George Orwell told a fable about animals in his most famous work. Despite Jewish claims of ‘progressivism’, Jews regard themselves as the Chosen, the true humans, while the rest of humanity exists to serve Jews like animals. Thus, domestication is the key. Jews need gentiles to be (1) domesticated and (2) trained to serve Jews. After all, dogs can be trained to serve gentiles and attack Jews. Domestication and obedience training alone don’t assure Jewish supremacism. The gentile-beasts-of-burden must be trained to serve Jews and to attack the enemies of Jews. Consider two such dogs. John McCain is a well-trained pitbull that growls and barks at anything Jews hate. So, his career was all about barking at Iran and Russia. And since Jews told him that the ‘moderate rebels’ are the good guys in Syria, McCain the dog cozied up to them. Next, consider Amy Chua. To be sure, she’s a curious dog and even sniffed her master’s butt in WORLD ON FIRE pertaining to Russian-Jewish oligarchs. She sniffed the Jewish butt and went "Woof!" But, in the end, she's a cheerleader and groupie-whore of the Power, and there is no greater power than Jewish Power. So, in her latest book, she plays the loyal dog of the Jewish Master. There is NO mention of immense Jewish Power in POLITICAL TRIBES while she dishes out the cartoonish Jewish talking points on the Alt Right. Jews are tossing her lots of doggy biscuits for her good behavior.

Jews want whites to serve Jews, but this doesn’t come naturally to whites. After all, most people want to serve their own kind. Only suckers want to serve others. Jews certainly serve their own kind and, furthermore, want others to serve them. If Jews simply wanted to succeed as individuals, they could do well in professions. But they want power as Jews, and they work and coordinate their strategy across institutions and industries. Jews hire other Jews for media control. Notice most magazines and journals have Jewish editors hired by Jewish publishers. Notice how Elena Kagan filled up her law department with Jews galore. Jews are not content with success as individuals. They’ve grown accustomed to being the Supreme Rulers of America. But how can the 2% rule over America all on their own? Even with immense wealth and influence, the 2% can only do so much. So, naturally Jews need the support of gentiles, and the most crucial support must come from whites who form the majority and have the most talent(after Jews; some may say Asians have lots of talent, but they are just drones and grinds). While Jews play the role of rulers, elites, visionaries, owners, and prophets, they need a managerial class to run the system. And the bulk of such people come from white gentiles.

But, who’s to say white gentiles will suppress their own identity and interests indefinitely to serve Jews who are often nasty like Albert Brooks character in BROADCAST NEWS? (Brooks’ character has integrity but is a jerk through and through.) Just like dogs have to be trained to follow all commands, white gentiles must be trained to obey Jews. How? Jews researched and pioneered much of psychology just for this reason. It was to the devise the most effective ways to take over the minds of others. Psychology became a full-blown applied science. It came to be more associated with political science and marketing than with medicine. And Jews learned about the shame/guilt triggers and mechanisms of carrots/sticks in the brains. Jews know the power of ideas and icons, and they used their control of Hollywood, media, and academia to train gentile dogs into feeling so sad(and even guilty) over Shoah and eons of ‘antisemitism’. Since WWII was a horror that happened in Europe, white Americans had to be guilt-baited with something else: Slavery and Jim Crow. This ‘guilt’ is supposed to be eternal if Jews can help it. After all, today’s Jews are not going to live forever. If future Jewish descendants 200 yrs from now are still to be served by future white gentile descendants 200 yrs from now, ‘white guilt’ must still be going strong like the Energizer Bunny even then. It’s a 1000 Yr Guilt. All future children of Jews are to be served by all future children of gentiles. Partly, it will be because Jews are smarter and will make more money but also because future Jewish kids will be instilled with pride and righteousness while white gentiles will be instilled with guilt and shame. Guilt and shame will paralyze the moral pride of whites, and as such, whites will seek to serve the Holy Group that can offer them a bit of benediction and few redemption points for their service. Like Joseph K in Franz Kafka’s THE TRIAL, white gentiles can never ever be cleared of their guilt. Whites are seen as patients with a chronic infection that can never be eradicated. Thus, they must always do as the Jewish Doctor orders them to in order to keep their said 'disease' under control.

So, what happens when whites show any sign of white identity, white pride, white autonomy, white sovereignty, or white desire for emancipation? What if they get a just a bit uppity toward Jews. Jews use the stick on the dog and yell "white supremacist", which means 'bad doggy'. When Alt Right whites went into Wolf Mode at Charlottesville, the Jews unleashed the police dogs and Antifa dogs on the patriots. How dare these proud White National Liberationists assert their own identity and interests! To Jews, it was the equivalent of Negro slaves telling their white massuh, "I don’t wanna be your slave no more, honkey!" Even though white Americans are not technically slaves like blacks were, they are soul-enslaved to Jewish supremacist power. Whites in the military must fight Wars for Israel and kill innocent Arabs/Muslims. If Jews tell white gentiles that Russia is the enemy, white gentiles must bark at Russia. If Jews tell white gentiles that ‘gay marriage’ is the law of the land, white gentiles must obey. If Jews tell white gentiles that they must welcome being demographically replaced by massive non-white invasion-immigration, white gentiles must show happiness and enthusiasm. Whites are not chattel property of Jews, but white heart, minds, and souls have been infected and colonized by Jews. They’ve been soul-enslaved by Jews who mastered the art of political psychology.

Then, ‘white supremacism’ is not about real white supremacists. It’s about shaming and taming even the slightest sign of white identity and interest that is independent of Jewish approval. Just like the men on the chain gang in COOL HAND LUKE must ask the Boss permission for the slightest hitch from the work detail, whites may have a bit of independence here and there ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL of Jews. And these permitted expressions of mild autonomy must nevertheless be mindful that Jews are the best. So, Christian Evangelicals and Mormons are allowed to express ‘independent’ pride AS LONG AS they praise Israel 24/7 and align their interests with PC mantras such as ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’. It’s like black slaves in the Old South were allowed a bit of independence here and there AS LONG AS they never forgot who their real master was. So, a black slave might be allowed to set up an ‘independent’ trade as a blacksmith, but at the end of the day, he had to hand over part of the profit to the master.

In current America, Jews cannot own people as outright slaves. But through psychological manipulation, academic obedience training, and financial blackmail, Jews can effectively own the souls of white gentiles who end up doing the bidding of Jews. And that is why ‘white supremacism’ is just a dog-training order that means little more than ‘bad doggy’.

Looks like an AIPAC rally for gentile dogs

Why Philip Weiss’ Cure for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is Worse than the Disease

Mondoweiss: The Never-Ending Crisis of Zionism by Philip Weiss

There are so many things wrong with the above article, I don’t know where to start.

Now, kudos to Philip Weiss’ sympathy for Palestinians. In US politics, Sympathy for Palestinians is virtually forbidden. No mainstream politician dares to express any sympathy for the plight of a people who are now in their 50th year of Occupation(and never mind Nakba, the mass campaign of pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map to make way for the creation of Israel). Virtually all US politicians(at federal, state, and local level) are into Israel First, Israel First, Israel First. Same goes for the mainstream 'right-wing' media and mainstream 'left-wing' media. They never utter the term Nakba, and most Americans never heard of it even though the US played the most instrumental role in the mass pogroms against Palestinians.

Though Weiss is often right in his diagnosis of symptoms, his proposed cure will only make compound the problem. (It's like Marx was a better appraiser of modern economics than its solver.) Indeed, Weiss' proposed solutions are not unlike the mindsets and fateful decisions that led to the current mess. Weiss fails to understand that he's a universalist-imperialist who, in condemning nationalism, unwittingly serves as yet another puppet of globalist-imperialist open-borders. He fails to realize and acknowledge that violation of nationalism has been the true curse of the 20th century.

The current mess with Palestinians began with and under imperialism. Much of the Middle East failed to develop into a viable political entities under the Ottoman Empire. And then, the British Empire allowed Zionists to ‘immigrate’ into Palestine and gradually, the dramatically, take over from Arabs. That was the origins of the disaster. It was made possible by imperialist suppression of local autonomy and independence. And of course, Israel is now backed by the US, itself no longer a sovereign national entity but a war-mongering(culturally or militarily) hegemon that invades other nations financially & militarily and is, in turn, invaded by other nations demographically.

Weiss says the current plight of Palestinians is like what Jews suffered 100 yrs ago, but that’s a complete misconception.
For one thing, Palestinians are in their own lands, from which they’ve been evicted or on which they are occupied. Jews in Europe, in contrast, were living in other people’s lands. The violent reactions against Jews in Europe were, in some respects, like Palestinian intifada against Zionists. This was made all the worse due to imperialism. After all, why did the worst outbreaks against Jews happen in Imperial Nations? Because so many ethnic groups felt occupied under Imperialist rule and came to regard Jews as collaborator agents of the empire. Any non-Austrian gentile who resented Austrian rule came to distrust Jews as the agents and middlemen serving the empire. Or, it could be the other way around. The ruling ethnic group could come to regard Jews as radical agitators riling up the other groups against the imperial status quo.

Despite certain degree of ambivalence and even hostility toward Jews, sovereign nation-states, in general, treated Jews much better: UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, and etc. France was known for ‘notorious antisemitism’, but it didn’t have regular outbreaks of pogroms like in Eastern Europe where aspiring nationalism were suppressed by the empire, be it Germanic or Slavic. Granted, sometimes, Jews found the Imperial Order to their benefit. Diversity, as in Austro-Hungarian Empire, made it near-impossible for all gentiles to unite against Jews, as later were to happen in National Socialist Germany. The various gentile groups were too busy squabbling with each other to unite their forces against the Jews. But on the other hand, because so many groups felt so disenfranchised, occupied, and denied national sovereignty, they grew ever more bitter and came to scapegoat Jews as the source of problems. Imperialist Diversity weakens national unity among goyim, but it also intensifies their rage and bitterness, and that can provide dry wood for massive conflagration. And even though National Socialism was a severe case of nationalist antisemitism, the origins of Hitler’s rage were imperial(and he became most dangerous to Jews when he pivoted from German nationalism to German Imperialism). He grew up in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where ethnic tensions were intensifying due to Slavic and other hostilities. If he’d grown up in a secure Germanic nation, he might have regarded Jews as just a minority that should be tolerated. But he got radicalized in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where politics was hostile along ethnic lines because non-Austrians felt oppressed by Austro-Hungarian elite power. And since this bitterness was directed at ALL Austrians, even an ordinary civilian like Hitler could become ultra-ethnic in hostility. And WWI was the result of clash of empires, not of nations. Germans put pan-Germanicism above all else, and Russia pandered to Pan-Slavicism. And UK joined with France and Russia because it saw the rise of Germany as a threat to British Imperial Hegemony.

Hitler had a chance of making National Socialism work, but because he grew up under Imperial Mentality, his ambitions spilled across German borders and targeted Czech nation, then Poland, and then even USSR. That was his undoing. He wasn’t satisfied with German Nationalism. National Socialism turned into Imperial Racial Socialism for the ‘Aryans’.

But Jewish reaction to antisemitism also made the problem worse. It was right for powerful and influential Jews to do SOMETHING to help out their less fortunate brethren around the world. But what did Jacob Schiff’s support of ‘Russian’ Revolution lead to? A totalitarian terror state where millions of people were sent to Gulag and where 100,000s were summarily executed by secret police. Pogroms were terrible, but the casualties were in the thousands. In contrast, the Soviet Revolution, disproportionately led by Jews, killed millions and destroyed tens of thousands of churches. It even killed every member of Tsar’s family, kids included. This blooy radical behavior on the part of Jews led many European conservatives to side with Fascists and National Socialists as the lesser to two evils. And prior to WWII, that would have been the sane assessment because most of the mass horrors til then had been carried out by communists, many of whom were Jewish.

Weiss writes:

"The most brilliant Jew in the world, Franz Kafka came out of his office in Prague to see Jews being beaten and he went to Zionist meetings."

Here, Weiss sort of hints at how today’s problems are rooted in past reactions. Kafka obviously wasn’t the only Jew who reacted to events by showing interest in Zionism. Zionism was a strange hybrid. It was a reaction against both Imperialism and Nationalism. In some ways, Jews were jumping on the Nationalist Bandwagon. With each ethnic group demanding their own nation-state and sovereignty — further emboldened by Woodrow Wilson’s idea of national self-determination following WWI — , Jews figured they should demand their own nation too. But there was one problem. While Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croatians, Poles, and etc could look at the soil beneath their feet and claim it as their ancestral homeland, Jews could make no such claim in Europe. So, they had to look elsewhere, and the most significant piece of real estate was the Holy Land from which the Jewish people and culture originated.

But even as Jews caught the spirit of gentile groups calling for their own homelands, they were also reacting against gentile nationalism. Had the Imperial system continued, Jews could have carried on as a nomadic or mercurial group serving as middlemen among various folks. But with the rise of nationalism, such ambiguous identity was becoming untenable. Gentile national identities could become hostile to Jewishness, and even this hostility had a duality. It loathed Jews as a stubborn ancient identity that refused to assimilate with gentiles and convert to Christianity, but it also loathed Jews as a mercurial hyper-modern zelig-like chameleons who could adapt to any place and time.

Anyway, because European Jews couldn’t claim any land in Europe as their own, they couldn’t just oppose imperialism. If Poles wanted Poland, all they had to do was oppose Russian and German imperialism. Once Russians and Germans were gone from Poland, it was Poland for the Polish.
In contrast, even with the fall of empires, Jews were still without a nation of their own in Europe. They had to claim their homeland elsewhere, and it turned out to be the Holy Land. And since Palestine was dominated by non-Jews, Jews needed the support of Imperialism to gain access to the land. Jews had trickled in during Ottoman times, but it was under British Imperialist rule that Jews began to enter in much bigger numbers. Jews were looking to create a nationalist state but with the help of imperialism. Thus, Israel was created in the most paradoxical manner. It was to establish Jewish national sovereignty, but it could only be done by using an imperialist power to deny national sovereignty to the natives.

This was all the more complicated because European Jews were both the most powerful and the least powerful people. They were least powerful because they were minorities in all territories and had no land to claim as their own. Serbs and Slovaks were far less successful than Jews financially and culturally, but they still could claim the soil under their feet as their homeland. They were rooted whereas Jews were rootless. This rootless was a huge disadvantage to Jews, but it was also why they’d grown so powerful. Unable to stake their wealth on rootedness to soil, Jewish wealth developed via networks. It was ‘cloud-wealth’, like Google offers cloud-computing. So, even if Jews got kicked out of a certain nation, they might still have wealth stored in international networks. Even if they lost their homes and personal properties, their bank accounts could be forwarded to London or Paris. In contrast, if a ‘dumb Polack’ lost his home and property, he really had nothing left. Jews had Cloud Wealth wheres gentile simpletons had Earth Wealth. To be sure, not all Jews had Cloud Wealth, and many in Eastern Europe were dirt-poor. But because the Jewish Network existed, even the poorer Eastern European cousins soon learned to take advantage of it.

This duality of Jews as the most powerful people(with financial stake in just about every European nation and kingdom) and least powerful people(as a folks without homeland) made things all the more complicated in relation to Zionism. On the one hand, it was weak Jews pleading for a homeland of their own. They were unfortunate unlike other European folks who could claim the land under their feet as theirs.
On the other hand, it was a case of powerful Jews manipulating and bribing the Great European Empires to do their bidding… like what God did for the Hebrews in their departure from Egypt. Open up the seas and let Jews enter the Promised Land. It was a replay of Exodus — and even called such by Leon Uris the novelist — because the ancient story itself is paradoxical. On the one hand, Hebrews are a weak people in flight from the powerful Egyptian Military. On the other hand, Jews have all-powerful God on their side, and the Egyptians have no chance.

Anyway, if Weiss’ point is that today’s Jews must act on behalf of Palestinians like past Jews did for Jews-suffering-pogroms in Eastern Europe, he should think again because those efforts 100 yrs ago backfired horribly. It led to the rise of communism and death of millions, and then the counter-reaction of rise of National Socialism that led to WWII. Looking back, Jews should have been more sober in their assessments and courses of action. Jews overreacted and falsely blamed the Russian Tsar for the pogroms. This led to worldwide Jewish support for communism, the horror unleashed by which was many times worse than pogroms. And didn’t Zionism(yet another scheme to help suffering Jews), which eventually reclaimed the Holy Land by humiliating Arabs and Muslims, lead to the current state of affairs? If Jews really wanted a land of their own, rich and powerful Jews should have pooled their resources together to buy some land in some empty part of the world. A land the size of Israel in Australia, Canada, or some other part willing to bargain with Judea. With the power of the Rothchilds in the UK, I’m sure something along those lines could have been arranged. But Jews wanted the Holy Land. And this entailed war and ethnic cleansing. Worse, it led to occupation and Zionist imperialism on Muslim nations. Zionist nationalists asked for the white horse than took the cuddly pig. It’s like the scene in VIVA ZAPATA where Brando’s character offers a Mex kid a piglet but the kid insists on Zapata's great white horse.

Jews could have asked for a nation in some inhabited part of the world, and then it would have been a peaceful piggy-wiggy nation. But they wanted the War Horse of the Holy Land, and they’ve been riding that horse and trampling all over international norms.

That said, what is done is done and can’t be reversed. Israel is here to stay. Still, Jews failed to do it right. Jews could have done two things. Call for peaceful co-existence with Arabs, but then this would have entailed NO MORE JEWISH IMMIGRATION. Arabs could have accepted a Jewish-Arab-inhabited Holy Land IF Jews would agree to end of immigration. But Jews wanted endless Right of Return to all Jews around the world to Palestine, and that was something Arabs could not accept.

So, the inevitable result was war. But Jews didn’t do this right. If a people are going to ethnically cleanse a people, they need to go all out. Kick them all out, like what Andrew Jackson did with the Indians. Instead, Jews expelled most but kept enough to cause lots of trouble. The Rule of History is, “If you are gonna do it(even if morally dubious), do it ‘right’ and go all the way, but if you feel it’s wrong or not worth doing, don’t do it at all.” It’s like US military involvement since end of WWII. It’s been confused, with US getting embroiled in a serious way but not enough to really finish the job. Look at the mess in Iraq. And before that, it was Vietnam. Kennedy was wise about Cuba. Once he decided against intervention following Bay of Pigs, he stuck to his guns and let Cuba be. It’s like Chechnya. Russians had two choices: Just let it go OR go in big and utterly crush the rebellion. Neither would have been ideal, politically or morally, but there are times in history when half-heartedness leads to more and bigger problems.

At any rate, if the purpose of Zionism was Jewish nationalism, Jews shot themselves in the foot by letting too many Arabs remain in Israel and then occupying West Bank. The ONLY sensible rationale for Israel’s conquest of West Bank in 1967 would have been to push the remaining Arabs in Israel into it. Instead, Jews colonized the land, and now Jews got Diversity Hell in both Israel and West Bank. Diversity leads to trouble.

Weiss writes:

"Peace Now urges separation: 'the occupation corrodes Israel and its image, and will continue until Israel extricates itself from the Palestinians.' Jewish separation from Palestinians is a delusion. It is like whites separating from blacks in the U.S. Israel is 20 percent non-Jewish; and it rules territories containing 5 million Palestinians; and though the world has resolved to 'extricate' the Jews from the Arabs for 70 years now, the communities are intertwined more than ever, as Israeli Jews flood the West Bank and build more and more Jewish-only colonies."

If separation is a delusion, how were Jews able to carry out Nakba in 1948 when Jews were the minority and far less powerful than they are today? The real delusion is that Peace can be arrived via Diversity. Weiss has a good heart about Palestinians but he’s being naive. Justifiably or not, Arabs are PISSED. If Jews were to go for one-state-solution and allow Arabs equal rights, it will be the end for Israel. Palestinians who outnumber Jews in West Bank will rise up and commit horrible acts of violence once Apartheid regimen is lifted. And if Arabs have equal rights in Israel, then it will mean Arabs should be allowed to immigrate to Israel as well. The Right of Return for Palestinian Diaspora will spell doom for Israel as a Jewish state.
If you want lasting peace, Peace Now is somewhat correct. Its only problem is it doesn’t go far enough. All Arabs in Israel should be pushed to West Bank and all Jews in West Bank should be repatriated to Israel. It may be politically impossible, but such is the ONLY lasting solution. It’s like the only sensible solution for South Africa was separation. Let whites be HERE and let blacks be THERE. Instead, the 'rainbow nation' turned into bloody nation. Palestinians have a right to be spitting mad at the Jews, and for that reason, any notion of long-lasting peace under Diversity is a delusion. Weiss’ is being willfully naive and hopeful to stoke his ego as the Good Jew denouncing Bad Jews. There can be no ‘good Jews’ or ‘bad Jews’ in the current situation. It’s between sensible Jews and delusional Jews, and Weiss is also delusional.

Weiss mentions blacks in America and says it’s delusional to call for separation between whites and blacks. Weiss may be right about that: Whites may be stuck with blacks. But then, how did this become the case? Because of Diversity created by Imperialism. The US could be black-free IF whites had not practiced the Atlantic Slave Trade under the auspices of European imperialism. (Granted, later British imperialism did some good things by banning the slave trade of the Spanish empire.)
Anyway, the biggest problem of the US — the ghastly blacks — is the result of imperialism.
Diversity complicates matters, usually negatively, down the road if not here-and-now.

Whites understood this about Indians, which is why Indians were expelled as whites expanded territories. Whites knew it’d be problematic to integrate with red savages getting drunk, scalping skulls, and hurling tomahawks. Also, Indians had a legit claim to this land since their forefathers had hunted bison and gophers on it. So, for there to be peace, whites had to drive out the Indians and create a white nation. Even Emma Lazarus understood this, which is why she supported Manifest Destiny. She wanted more whites and Jews to come to America and turn red savages into wretched huddled refuse in Reservations. “Better you than me.”

But if whites got rid of white-red diversity, they recklessly increased white-black diversity? Why? Because if whites confronted reds as warrior savages wielding tomahawks, whites brought blacks as slaves in chains. So, whites figured they’d always have power over the Negroids. With blacks, it was white masters ruling over black slaves or servants. But whites didn’t consider the future where blacks might be freed and then use their stronger muscles and bigger dongs to destroy white manhood and colonize white wombs. It goes to show Diversity ends in disaster one way or the other.

Anyway, even if Weiss is correct that Jews in Israel and whites in the US must make do with Diversity since we can’t turn back the clock, he(and others like him) is still foolish because he wants to INCREASE Diversity.
It’s one thing to argue that some nations became diverse due to certain accidents or events in history, and therefore, people in such nations must try to make the best of it. Okay, fair enough.
But why should any nation willfully INCREASE DIVERSITY when history shows time and time again that such conditions lead to more tensions, more divisions, more distrust, more corruption, more hostilities, more confusion, and etc?

After all, look at the US and EU. It’s not about ‘racism’ vs ‘anti-racism’ but about Paleo-racism vs Neo-racism. Conservatives are Paleo-racists who want white nations and white-majority nations to emphasize white identity, heritage, and power. Progressive Neo-racists, contrary to being for racial equality, are for the supremacism of Jews and blacks over other races and for whites to be attacked and blamed for everything. Look at the phenom of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs being pushed by PC. It’s not about racial equality. It means that white women should reject white males as pathetic dorky cucks and surrender their wombs to the superior dongs and seeds of Negroids. Why does BBC series on the Fall of Troy feature Zeus and Achilles as blacks? Why are Christmas commercials showing white women going with Negroids? It’s not about racial equality but about how white women should go with black men as superior to white males. PC is just neo-racism with new configuration of superior races and inferior races.

Most people are either Paleo-racists or Neo-racists. Only a few are Tru-racists or Race-ists. The thing about Paleo-Racists and Neo-Racists is they deny their own racial biases and accuse OTHERS of ‘racism’ whereas Tru-Racists or Race-ists admit that everyone is consciously or subconsciously race-ist since it’s impossible not to see race and racial differences and their effects on society.

Even Weissism is a form of Neo-Racism because even if Weissism were to be implemented 100% in Israel-West-Bank, the result will be Jewish domination. Why? DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are much smarter than Arabs or People of Sand. Just consider. The US has tons of smart and capable Anglos and Germanics. But Jews beat them all. So, how are the Arab Sand People supposed to compete with Jews? Even if Israel were totally meritocratic and treated everyone in colorblind manner, Jews will totally dominate. It’s like blacks totally dominate sports cuz genetics in sports biologically discriminates against slower/weaker races. Israel would just go from Paleo-Racism that officially favors Jews over Palestinians to Neo-Racism where biology favors Jews over Palestinians.

For Palestinians to live in a nation of Arab dominance, it can’t have lots of smarter Jews. In a Weissian future Israel, the ONLY hope for Arabs would be the power of numbers and demography. Currently, Israel bans Muslim immigration, welcomes Jewish immigration, and pays special money to horny rabbinical students to have lots of babies. But under Weissism, there can’t be special Jewish privileges on immigration. And special money for Jewish breeders would go against the spirit of equal treatment under law. I mean, if horny Jewish rabbinical students should be funded to breed, why not for horny Islamic students?

In the end, Weissism is hardly different from Neo-conservatism. Weiss is a globalist-imperialist who ridicules national identities, national sovereignty, and national borders. He is for Europe being flooded by masses of Africans and Muslims, oblivious to the fact that the fate of Europeans will be like that of Palestinians who were flooded and destroyed by Jewish mass immigration.

Where Weissism is different from Neo-conservatism and most forms of Liberal Zionism is that he calls for the destruction of ALL nations, Israel included. I must admit there’s a refreshing aspect to such moral consistency in contrast to Neocons and Liberal Zionists who denounce identity and nationalism among goyim(in the name of spreading ‘liberal values’) but demand that goyim serve and support Israel as a Jewish state.

While moral consistency is better than moral hypocrisy, the core of Weissism is globalism, and that means no national rights, no national security, no national sovereignty for any people. Weiss seems to think that his values will lead to some Lennonite Imagined World, but it will have the opposite effect. It will turn all the world into the hellhole that is West Bank and Gaza.

Utopianism is imperialism of the mind. It is over-ambitious and deluded. What is real and realistic are peoples, cultures, heritages, and national borders. We need more of that.