The French Empire unraveled after WWII. But it was not a total loss. The French colonialists reconnected with the National Core. They returned home to France. Back then, French colonialists had a place to go back to. But what is France today? It is a demographic colony of Muslims, sexual colony of Africa, and political colony of the Jews. And Netherlands doesn't lift a finger to save White Boer Farmers in South Africa. New Holland's identity is 'multi-culturalism', which means that it belongs more to Africans and Muslims than to the Dutch themselves. It is now a crime for the Dutch to say, "My country belongs to my people", but it is wonderful for Africans and Muslims to say "We have a right to colonize and take over Dutch lands and wombs."
In the end, true nationalism is defined by Core Nationalism. National identity, interests, and territory become confused and muddled with imperialism. As a people gain dominance of other peoples and their lands, their sense of national destiny becomes entwined with that of other peoples. Thus, distinctions between the National and Imperial become unsure and contradictory. As Amy Chua discussed in her concept of hyper-powers, the conquering/ruling people must be 'tolerant' and 'diverse' in order to maintain a great empire. While a determined people can use brute force to conquer weaker peoples, it is nearly impossible to rule over, with brute force alone, such vast lands inhabited by different peoples. In the case of American History, white people could just remove the relatively small number of native folks and create a White empire-nation. But most empires were about one people ruling over others who vastly outnumbered the ruling/conquering people. Also, even though the conquered peoples were relatively lacking in technology and organization, they were not hopeless primitives like the American Indians who had no chance against whites. So, to have an empire, the ruling people must be reasonably 'tolerant' and pro-'diversity' over the conquered peoples. Empires are inherently diverse since they are about a people conquering and ruling over other peoples of different races, cultures, and religions. Also, in order to win over collaborators(or, better yet, converts at least in religion or ideology), the ruling people must be reasonably 'tolerant' and offer carrots along with the sticks. Nazi Empire was doomed in the East because its plan was extermination/enslavement. But in a sick way, even Hitler understood historical truths. An empire can survive in only two ways: Via 'diversity' & 'tolerance' OR eradication & homogeneity. He understood that while D&T method was useful and effective, it was ultimately doomed. All D&T empires eventually faded from history. The only kind of permanently successful empire is where one people take over, effectively exterminate or crush the natives, and become the ruling majority. Anglos could achieve this in North America & Australia and Russians could accomplish this in Siberia because they were met with only sparsely populated primitive opposition. But it was a tall order for Germans to pull off such a campaign against the Soviet Union that, in 1941, had 170 million people and advanced civilization. Easier to kill a gopher than a bear. So, if the German Empire were to become permanent and last a 1000 yrs(in Hitler's prophetic dream), the German Empire had to effectively be a Big German Nation. Not so much Germans ruling over others but Germans as both rulers and ruled in the vast Eastern territories. D&T method, while effective, usually led to the conquerors being either expelled or absorbed by the larger native populations. Mongols were absorbed into non-Mongol peoples or, in time, driven out by native folks. Alexander's Macedonian and Greek rulers eventually faded into the local domains that they conquered. The Aryan Conquerors in India may have used an extreme and elaborate system of race-separation ideology to perpetuate rule over the natives permanently. But despite DNA studies showing lingering differences among the various castes, lots of Brahmins in India look dark like the natives. Over 1000 yrs, they've been absorbed far more than they'd like to admit. Libido will do that over time.
Anyway, under the policy of 'diversity' and 'tolerance', an empire can grow and flourish. Initially, the ruling people nevertheless maintain a sense of 'us' over 'them'. While the conquered 'them' are offered carrots, they are still in an inferior position vis-a-vis the conquering 'us'. But as time passes, the conquerors come to rely more on the conquered for materials and manpower. Also, among the conquered, some perform their duties so loyally that they are accepted into the conquering tribe. There have been some cases where, over time, the conquerors and conquered merged into one people. This was especially true IF the either the conquering people or conquered people(or both) had weak cultural identity. Mongols were fierce and aggressive but had a barbarian culture. As such, they could be absorbed into more complex cultures. Or when an elaborate culture conquers a weak/primitive culture, the latter joins the former. Christendom and Islamic World converted and absorbed many peoples. And long ago, a few gentile tribes were absorbed into the Jewish Tribe with a most powerful sense of culture rooted in the Covenant. The merge is usually doable IF the conquerors and conquered are of the same race despite cultural differences. Plenty of Germanic and Slavic barbarians became 'Romans' or 'Greeks'.
But when a powerful culture conquers powerful cultures, neither side is willing to be fully absorbed into the other culture. This is even truer if the peoples differ in race as well as in culture. Latin America is an interesting case. Because the natives mostly had weak cultures, they were absorbed into the conquering Latin Culture. They took on Spanish names and language. And they accepted Christianity. Now, if the natives of Central and South America were white, they might have just become ONE with the Spanish. But as they were brown, strong distinctions and separations remain between the conquerors and conquered despite the effective cultural 'latinization' of the whole continent.
At any rate, empire eventually confuses the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered. This confusion is a double-edged sword. In some ways, it facilitates further integration between conquerors and conquered. If the conquerors come to identify more with imperial glory than with the national core, then they are bound to feel a closer bond with the conquered folks who've come to serve the empire. And if the conquered folks come to share in the pride of imperial glory, they are bound to look to conquerors not so much as foreign tyrants but rightful rulers. But this confusion also leads to all kinds of anxieties, paranoia, tensions, distrust, and resentment. Also, both sides realize that there has to be a limit to the merging of the two realms because there is the real danger of losing one's identity and culture forever. Then, it is hardly surprising that most empires faded in time. Latin America is in a strange kind of limbo state. In one way, it seems like a successful and permanent merging of conquerors and conquered. In other ways, it looks like an ongoing imperial project where something BIG might happen with drastic transformations in power politics.
Where nationalism becomes most vital and vivid is when empires fall apart. Such collapse finally decides what is Core Nationalism and Expansive Imperialism. It's like separating wheat from the chaff, the gold from the sand. Core Nationalism is muscular and lean, Expansive Imperialism is fat and round. An empire is like a person with excessive fat. He has eaten too much, and it has made him bigger. He carries a lot of weight, and can push others around. BUT, all that fat also serves as a burden. There are advantages to be sure. After all, a sumo wrestler gets a lot of leverage with the fat. But, he tires easily and has to keep eating and eating to maintain his size. Now, when a fatso decides to exercise and lose weight, does he shrink to nothingness? No, he will lose the fat, but he will reach a point where he is mostly lean muscle. That is the Core Person. Without all the fat, he may look diminished and won't win something like sumo matches, but he will feel healthier and lighter. So, if one wants to know what a fatso really looks like, the fatso must lose the weight. All the flab makes the fatso look like other fatsos. They are defined by fat that covers their body. But with exercise and healthy eating, a fatso will lose weight, and then he will really look like his true self.
This also goes for empire. Empire confuses the identity of a people. The conquering people may come to identify so much with the empire that they forget what they really are at the ethnic, cultural, and territorial core. Indeed, because they've come to covet the empire so much, they may feel that loss of empire will be the end of the world, the end of everything. But not so. Losing the empire finally reveals the Core Essence of the People and Culture. It is not total loss but loss of Imperial fat in exchange of re-emergence of the National musculature.
So, when the British lost their empire, they had their core in Great Britain. It still remained. After the French lost their empire, they had Core France, the land to which the French colonialists returned. When the Turks lost the Ottoman Empire, they no longer ruled over Arabs and Balkan folks, but they had the National Core in what is now Turkey. When the Japanese Empire collapsed in Continental Asia, there was still Core Japan. Austrians lost the empire, but they still had the Austrian Core. Russians lost the Soviet Empire but still have Core National Russia. And Germans lost their empire in WWII but still had the German national core.
And for the conquered peoples, the National Core remains even under Imperial Waters. Polish people and civilization were long submerged under Russian and Prussian Imperialism, but they remained as a steady rock that re-emerged once the empire subsided and receded from history. This was also true of the Greeks whose ethno-rock was long submerged under the Ottoman Imperial Sea.
So, true nationalism is Core Nationalism, and it reappears when a people lose the empire. They may be frightened that the loss of empire is loss of everything, but it's actually a realization of and a re-connection with the National Core. In the end, was it so tragic that the French in Indochina returned to France or the British in Kenya returned to Great Britain? Even with loss of Imperial Glory, there was National Integrity.
What is truly ominous and tragic about globalism is it is an attack on the Core itself. Apparently, it wasn't enough for the Brits and the French to lose their far-flung empires. They must lose their national cores as well. And not just them. According to PC, George Soros, and the UN, the attack on the Core must be universal. Even though Swedes and Poles didn't have overseas empires, they too must lose their cores. According to this article, even though Polish Conservatives mouth patriotic platitudes, they are collaborating with globo-homo capitalists to import tons of non-whites and spread Homomania everywhere. https://www.amren.com/features/2018/11/a-frank-assessment-of-nationalism-in-poland/ Also, rise of deracinating Pop Culture, anti-ethno-PC, and anti-life feminism have led to Child Dearth all over the Modern World. Women take jobs from men and then wonder why there aren't enough marriageable men around. It's because women took their jobs. Feminism is narrowly focused on female careerist empowerment while overlooking the fact that this leads to overall weakening of a people. While relative freedom for women was an advantage to the West, the West's greatest rise came when there was a balance between the ideal of equality and the reality of biology. Thus, Western women enjoyed more freedom and rights than women in other cultures, BUT they still performed their crucial biological functions as wives and mothers. This led to the triumph of the West. (If modern feminism had hit the West in the 18th century, there would have been no Rise of the West.) There was a sense of All-Empowerment for the entire society, and this required a complementary relationship between men and women. But materialistic feminism led to women seeing themselves as a separate and independent group apart from men. Instead of working with men to create a powerful society for all, women opted for the narrowest goals of personal/sexual entitlement. Of course, most women lost out in this order as only a handful women are going to succeed in the most glamorous fields coveted by most women addicted to celebrity and vanity. But the toxic mindset infected most women, and they lost all sense of what is GOOD FOR ALL or Mutual Empowerment. They just opted for the narrow empowerment of themselves as a separate group.
There was a time when even the loss of empire meant that a people would not lose all. Fall of empire meant that the conquered peoples regained(or conceived of) their own nationhood while the conquering peoples withdrew into their national core. Both sides got something. Liberation for the conquered, Re-connection for the conquerors. Imperialists returned home and reconnected with nation and kin... like Lawrence(of Arabia) who had enough of imperial ventures and returns home to Britain. Or the guys in THE DEER HUNTER who want to say goodbye to all that(imperialism) and return home where family and friends are. Fall of empire was like declaring bankruptcy. You lost lots of stuff, but you got to keep your core house and property. So, if you speculated in lots of bad real estate deals and got burned, you needn't lose your core home. But globalism says even the Core possession of a people/culture must be placed on the auction block or turned into something like a brothel. The culture and ideology of current UK is a whorehouse or a house-party. It is not a home where anyone would feel safe. In DUNKIRK, we see how the soldiers feel safe 'at home' as they make it across the channel. Today, London has been colonized by the Other. British Police looked the other way when girls were turned into sex slaves in Rotherham(or Brothelham). And yet, this is the the New Centrism, and anyone who calls for Core Nationalism is 'far right'... unless he happens to be an Israeli.
We are told endlessly that Global Warming will raise sea levels and submerge sea coasts all around the world. But even more alarming is the prospect of Global Swarming that may well submerge all the First World under the rising tides of Third World invasion egged on by globalist Jews.
Most Mexicans and Central Americans in the US are not criminals. If anything, it could be that there are problems with excessive organized crime & violence in Mexico because too many people are overly nice and passive. Too many passive Guillermos and not enough Wild Bills to take a stand against the bad guys. So, bad guys run free and kill freely... like in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN where the bandits push around the overly nice villagers, that is until white gringos arrive to protect them.
Still, even if most Mexicans in the US are not criminal and tend to be reasonably law-abiding(perhaps even more than 'white trash' elements), their increasing presence tend toward social mediocrity and cultural lethargy. (Indeed, this seems to be Steve Sailer's main gripe about Too Many Mexicans. They don't turn LA into Detroit but nevertheless turn it into Guillermopolis.) Much of Mexican-areas in the Southwest may be stable, but it's also so humdrum and 'lame'. Is it good to have such a large mass of passive people without agency(except for leaving Mexico to live in the US)? Having lots of Mexican neighbors may be okay -- and not dangerous like having black neighbors -- , but it also means social and economic stasis. Mexicans follow but don't lead. Also, even if these Mexicans don't commit crime, the fact that many of them do depend on government assistance of some kind will have a long-term depressive effect on society. White Flight from black is due to violence and mayhem. Whites generally don't run from browns on those grounds. But when Too Many Browns make for a depressed economy with low wages, many whites will leave just the same. The reason why white share of California population went down was not only because of mass immigration but mass flight to other states. So, obviously, the dramatic increase in Diversity meant something went wrong for many whites. It made them want to move out.
Could the GOP have earned the loyalty of Mexicans if it weren't anti-immigration in California under Pete Wilson? I doubt this. Even if GOP weren't 'anti-Mexican' -- these days, the mere opposition to more immigration is 'xenophobic' and 'racist' -- , the fact is Democrats will always offer more in terms of government benefits and holy victim pokemon points. At most, GOP can offer Mexicans an equal playing field and chance to be good fellow Americans. In contrast, Democrats offer them more government aid, favorable affirmative action, and elevated status as a 'victim group'. (Even though CA got rid of Affirmative Action, it lives on through many 'holistic' methods.) Of course, the majority of Mexicans will take the latter. It's the same thing with Jews. GOP is even more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party. The likes of Bush and McCain were more brazenly servile to Zionism than Clinton was. But the fact is Democratic Party is sufficiently pro-Zionist, and besides, Jewish elites prefer the immigration-diversity policy of the Democrats because it ensures Jewish domination in yrs to come: Turning whites into just another gentile minority is good for Jewish domination, or so the Jews think. Whites won't be able to politically or electorally gang up on Jewish power.
Now, let's suppose GOP could have won over tons of Mexicans by being Mex-friendly. Suppose Pete Wilson kissed brown babies all day long and suppose Texan GOP went full Jeb-Bush and hailed Mexicans and welcomed more brown immigrants. As a result, suppose the majority of Mexicans in Ca and Tx voted GOP, and in time, browns outnumbered whites.
But in the end, for many white American patriots, it's not about the Party but the Nation. What good is the GOP even if it wins elections IF it allows the browning of America? White patriots will take a white Democratic-ruled America over a brown Republican-ruled America. GOP is secondary to white patriotic interests. They support it because they see it as the less of two evils in the demographic transformation of America. If GOP was for mass-immigration and if Democrats were for preserving the racial composition of White America, most white patriots will go with Democrats. In the end, political parties are means to an end, not the end. It's like blacks went from voting Republican to voting Democratic because the latter offered them more stuff in programs and holy victim points.
Now, what is wrong with Ca and Tx turning majority brown IF most browns are nice-okay people? If the only priorities that mattered are social stability and economics, the browning of America might be tolerable. After all, large numbers of Mexicans may lead to some economic stagnation but nothing like the degradation in black areas of Baltimore or the jungles of Detroit. But white patriots have a historical and cultural view of what America is. It's not just about crime rates or economics. After all, Asians commit less crime than whites. So, if a white community were to become 60% Asian, it might have even lower crime. If the only thing that matters is crime rates, that would be ideal. But white patriots have a sense of connection to the land and its history. Now, amnesiac whites probably don't care. White Liberals and whites of Conservative Inc. don't have much in the way of memory and bond. But white patriots do have a sense of historical America, and they want to preserve it. And in a way, it is history that gives meaning to a people. History makes a person see a particular land in a special way. Surely, an American Indian looks upon the hills of South Dakota differently than a recent Chinese or Hindu immigrant does. The immigrant will look at the scenery and say, 'very nice'. But he has no sense of historical connection or claim to the land. But to the American Indian, there is more to the land than the land itself. It's a sense that this was the land of his ancestors who hunted, fought, died, and were buried. And surely a black in the South, if he has a sense of roots, has a different feeling about the land than a recent immigrant from Guatemala does. To the Guatemalan, some town in Georgia is just an economic zone to find a job. But to the Negro, it is the land where his folks were once slaves and picked cotton and sang coded songs that might have meant, "I'm gonna get even with whitey one day and whup his ass and hump his daughter." So, a Negro in the South feels a special attachment to the land. Or, take Jews and Israel/Palestine. Why did they feel this powerful need to choose THAT part of the world to create or recreate their homeland? Why not some piece of Africa or Siberia or North America? It was due to a deep historical sense that it was on that land that the founding stock of Jews received blessing from the Lord. Then, why wouldn't white patriots feel the same way about American history and territory? America wouldn't exist if not for white adventure, white conquest, white conception, and white creativity. Now, amnesiac whites don't care about the past. They just think of the here-and-now. And white PC-types see the past as one of 'guilt' and 'shame', so whites must welcome racial demise for atonement. But white patriots feel that white folks created something unique and great in the New World, and they should remain the dominant people on the land. This side of white patriotism cannot be appreciated with mere numbers on crime and wages.
Also, the danger of immigrants leading to Democratic domination has something to do with Jewish Power that has grown demented over the yrs. While non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, they don't command the heights. They supply the coal for the ship's engine, but they don't get to steer the ship. Jews control the Democratic Party, and so, when Democrats win, Jews get to decide and steer the future of America. Indeed, I would be less worried IF the Democratic Party were controlled by Mexicans like Guillermo. He seems like a nice guy and have no agenda beyond saying, "hello Jimmy" and getting chubby on tacos. I wouldn't mind if Guillermo were governor, senator, or president. Or the head of Harvard or Yale. But the fact is Mexicans supply the votes but don't control the commanding heights. They supply the feet but not the brains of the Democratic Party. And even Mexican and non-white politicians who do get elected just become puppets of Jewish globalists. Look at the Ocasio character from NY. As a street activist, she used to be pro-Palestinian. But headed to DC, she is suddenly with the Zionists. Look at Elizabeth Warren, the pseudo-Indian. She is just a squaw whore when it comes to Jewish Power. And Negro Obama was supposed to be a socialist who cared about Main Street. As president, he did little but bail out Wall Street, push Homo-Worship, and wage more Wars for Israel.
Now, if Jewish Power was only moderately liberal, it'd be no big deal. But it's gone crazy. It's pushing Homo-Worship as replacement for Christianity. It is promoting all kinds of degeneracy. In the foreign policy field, it's more Cold War with Russia and more neo-liberal or neocon wars or subversion. I don't think most Mexicans are that crazy. But when they vote Democratic, they are not really voting for Mexican power. They are voting for Jewish power that is hellbent on pushing 'hate speech' laws, taking away guns, spreading anti-white hatred, and waging more Wars for Israel. As for Asians, they do better than Mexicans in climbing the ladder, but what do successful Asians in the Democratic Party do? They are like Sarah Jeong who serves as whore to Zion. And that Yuree Koh bitch at the Wall Street Journal who helped to shut down Alt Right Youtube channels like the Killstream. We have all this talk of the New People, but we don't see anything like the New Elite. Indeed, would Jews support mass-immigration IF they regarded yellows and browns are real threats to their hold on Elite Power? No, they just see browns as easy votes and yellows as easy toadies. There is no Elite Equality in the US. Now, suppose anti-Israeli Arab immigrants have higher IQ than Jews and, as immigrants, are poised to reach the top and take over elite power from Jews. Would Jews push for mass-immigration? I think not.
Anyway, even if most Mexicans don't commit lots of crime in California, they(and Asians) did totally change historic California. If one is amnesiac or purely materialistic, I suppose it doesn't really matter. (Indeed, it seems the problem with white Californians is they went from GRAPES OF WRATH mode to 'Good Vibrations' mode. Too much affluence and leisure robbed them of their worker-warrior spirit.) But if one has a sense of history, it is a great loss.
The same applies to the Palestinians. Under Jewish-Zionist rule, many Arabs have done pretty well in Israel. They are materially better off living with Jews than they would be otherwise under Arab rule. After all, Israel is a first world nation, and even Arabs have lots of opportunities there that Arabs in Arab-ruled nations don't have. So, if materialism and individual well-being are all that counts, many Palestinians(those allowed to stay in Israel) certainly benefited from the rise of the Jewish State. But if they have a sense of history, they feel the tragedy of how Palestine was wiped off the map and many of their brethren were expelled from the land. Palestinian individualist-materialists are happy to live in modern and prosperous Israel. But Palestinian patriots with a sense of history feel the pain over the fact that their homeland was taken by another people and that many of their brethren live under occupation in West Bank.
The term 'deep' is problematic because it implies that the Power comprises a set of institutions, the workings of which are hidden from view.
It's really the extended interconnections among institutions and industries than the hidden depths of a core institution that defines the true character of the so-called 'deep state'.
It's about the connections among intelligence services, Wall Street & Federal Reserve, Ivy League, Hollywood, oligarchs, big media, Pentagon, and long-term career politicians(grown totally cynical). Now, surely all those institutions and industries have varying(and even contrasting) viewpoints and interests. There is the danger that they will work against than with one another. Then, what is the Core Intersectionality among the institutions and industries that keep them all within the gravitational field of power? It is Jewish Power, not only because Jews are immensely rich and powerful but because they are a Holy People by rules of PC.
Big Media get to decide the Narrative. It is pro-Zionist, promotes Holocaust as a religion, and denounces any whiff of anti-Jewish criticism as 'antisemitism'. Elite Academia is dominated by Jews who claim to be 'liberal' but are mostly ardently pro-Zionist and Jewish-supremacist, like Paul Krugman. There is a nexus of Jewish media and Jewish academia. Jews are immensely powerful on Wall Street and control finance as their tribal waterworks. They can turn the faucet on and off when it comes to money supply and lending. Also, with the control of the Fed, they hold a gun to the head of the economy.
Jews control Hollywood, and it almost never gives us Jewish villains or movies about the Nakba Pogroms that wiped out Palestine. Even crazy Jews are promoted as lovable and funny. Jewish Neurosis has been the fount of the New Normal. Also, Hollywood made many Shoah movies designed to 'sacralize' Jews and many anti-white movies intended to paralyze white pride and power.
So, even if non-Jewish whites are heavily represented in elite institutions and industries, they are not allowed to have moral pride and confidence like their forbears, the tough & brave white folks of old. So, no matter how much wealth, privilege, and leverage they have, they must feel as if they don't deserve those advantages, indeed even as if the assets were STOLEN from others. In order for white businessmen, politicians, and other figures of significance to feel justified, they must associate themselves subserviently with Jews(and blacks & homos, the two allies of Jews, though the alliances are getting a bit weird because Jews now promote Muslims as semi-holy-victims of Evil Trump. It's risky because if Americans are made to cheer for Muslims, it will be more difficult for Zionists to push Wars for Israel against those 'noble' Muslims).
The crucial power of the Narrative illustrates how Money isn't enough. The Shah of Iran was immensely rich, but he had little respect among his people because he was seen as the illegitimate puppet installed by US imperialists. So, without control of the Narrative, even the richest and most powerful people are on shaky legs. It is the Control of the Historical Narrative(and power of idolatry & iconography) that determines whether a people are justified or not. When whites controlled the Historical canon, they had effective control of the Narrative. While admitting the tragedy of Indians and blacks(slavery), they also emphasized the redemptive and transformative role played by Great Whites in the US. But once history came under control of Jews, it emphasized whites as illegitimate robbers and destroyers of other peoples. Every group was compelled to seek justification and elevation by defining itself in terms of 'victimhood' vis-a-vis whites. "How my people were wronged by whitey" became the obligatory essay for every group in the PC contest of who-are-holier-than-others. To divide white power, Jews also encouraged white women to see themselves as victims of White Males. The Official Dogma of the US conferred blessing upon white women ONLY IF they renounced white men, the scapegoat of every social ill in the nation(and the world).
Given the Rules of Current PC, America can only be redeemed by Jews, blacks, and non-white immigrants(who, like immigrant Jews of yesteryear, supposedly arrive guilt-free without the stain of having perpetrated the 'genocide' of Indians and slavery of blacks). Apparently, America can be saved by homos as well because Homomania is the designated replacement for Christianity(loathed by Jews) as the official neo-religion of the West.
Since politicians depend on money, they have to rely on Jews. Also, as the Narrative extols & sanctifies Jews but reviles & de-legitimizes whites, all politicians(despite being overwhelmingly non-Jewish white) cannot stand up for white identity but instead must serve Jewish identity and interests. And so, we have the familiar mantras from the white running dogs of Jewish Power: Israel! Israel! Israel! Down with Putin, the New Hitler! And, of course, we must have several Holocaust Days, Jewish Month, and Happy Hannukah on par with Christmas(even though Jews are only 2% of the population). So, Jews got Big Media, Wall Street, Ivy League, and Congress.
Now, to a large extent, Jews gained power in these institutions and industries through merit and ability. But when power keeps accumulating in a people and if that people have been 'sacralized' and shielded from scrutiny and criticism, things began to rot and fester. One thing for sure, if Bernie Madoff hadn't been Jewish and known the right kind of people, his scheme would have been uncovered much earlier.
Now, one could argue that the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the military should be more independent of Jewish Power. For one thing, the military draws people mostly from non-Jewish white men who lean conservative. The rank and file of CIA and FBI hire people by merit, not by elections where politicians have to suck up to rich bosses like Saban and Adelson.
So, how did intelligence services become shills of Jewish Power and globalism? The heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA are appointed by the president who is just another politician(bought and sold by oligarchs and big donors), and they have to be approved by Congress which is a parliament of whores to the donor class. Also, Big Media can turn on or off the heat on the Intelligence Services. If CIA, FBI, and NSA do what the globalists want, the media go along with their agenda. But if they turn against globalism, media will feign outrage and turn up the heat on them.
Also, the people who work in elite government were educated in Ivy League schools under globalists, many of whom are Jewish. And since they rely on Jewish-dominated media and think-tanks for their Worldviews, they themselves have become mentally colonized by globalists.
Besides, most people who work in such institutions are careerists first and idealists second. They will do ANYTHING to move up the ladder to gain status and access to Nice Things. Players like Edward-Snowdens are rare and weeded out either through principled resignation, dismissal, or acts of defiance(as Snowden pulled off). Meanwhile, cynical toadies, servile enforcers, and Jewish supremacists rise higher up the ranks.
As for the military, it's been castrated by globalists with all this homo-ism, feminism, tranny-ism, and diversity-ism. Even though much of the US military, especially at the top, is still a bastion of non-Jewish white conservative power, it is on the moral defensive against the reigning cults of the US that are Diversity, Homomania, White Guilt, Feminism, and esp. Jew Worship. As a result, not unlike rich white businessmen, the white generals in the military lack autonomy of moral pride. As white males, they are on the defensive and must prove their worth ONLY BY sucking up to Zionists, Magic Negro cult, feminism, homos, and trannies. They lack Moral Autonomy and rely on Moral Dependency to justify any power or prestige they have.
Essentially, Jewish Power is the intersectionality of the Deep-Wide-State. Whatever differences may exist among various institutions and industries, however much they may want to tear each other apart, they are all united in their total obeisance to Jews and the Jew-chosen dogma-and-narrative. Without the Jew Glue, the current deep-wide-state would begin to unravel and fragment as America is now such a confused place.
Jews fear that others may notice this. Now, it's inconvenient for Jews if there are only Jewish fingerprints and footprints in all networks of power and privilege. People will feel that Jews, far from being a Holy Victim People, are the conniving masters of everything. So, Jews promoted Homomania to make it seem as though it's the homos who are really in charge. And homos, in their vanity, fell for the bait... like the gay-ish dummy in IVAN THE TERRIBLE Pt 2: https://youtu.be/XEfDe4fvfFA?t=1h4m14s Of course, Jews also invoke Diversity and Inclusion to create the impression that the elite institutions and industries are filled with so many interests and voices, but in fact, it's just a chimera because most members of the Diversity Coalition rarely reach the true heights of power and because even ones that do reach relatively high(especially Asians who do well academically) lack the 'sacral' value that confers pedigree and authority as the Holy Power around which all revolve around. While Asians don't carry an albatross of 'guilt' around their necks like Whites do, they don't have the pontiff's hat and staff either. So, Jewish Power and Prestige are what keeps the 'deep state' together. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Magic Jew Factor were to vanish in American Power.
Consider the soul-and-social disease of Homomania. Like cancer, the diseased ideology or pseudo-religion of Homomania does not remain static. It spreads and spreads, which is the nature of lies. After all, a lie can perpetuate itself only by covering itself with more lies. Thus, lies confirm and protect one another.
Granted, most lies are ordinary, all-too-common, and all around us, like germs. As such, they are mostly harmless. But when lies are sanctified by institutions, mendacity is officially(and even 'spiritually') favored over veracity. And the elevation of Homomania had exactly that effect. It didn't merely put forth a lie but elevated and enforced it as the New Truth while suppressing the Real Truth that could expose the lie.
Now, it is a fact that some people are born homosexual. It is sane and sound that we should acknowledge this fact and allow homos to do their own thing as they can't help feeling the kind of lusts that they do. So far, so good, and no problem.
But then, the lies began. The lie said a homo man's anus is equal to a woman's vagina as a sex organ. The lie said homos can be 'parents' and 'have children' even though homo 'couples' only pretend to be parents while adopting children created by real sexuality involving male and female interaction. In a world dominated by vile and venal Jewish globalists who'd taken over the media, academia, and the courts, such insane lies were given the official stamp of approval of representing the 'progressive' evolution of society and human values.
Initially, the lies of homo propaganda were disturbing and disgusting but not necessarily fatal to a society swirling with countless lies and conceits of all kinds. They constituted merely one more School of Thought or Cult of Opinion(like on UFO's). But the media and academia, controlled by Zionist-globalists, began to push these lies as the New Normal and then as the Holy Truth to be associated with 'rainbow' colors. Thus, homo fecal penetration and tranny genital mutilation became synonymous with 'pride'. A lie wrapped in the cloak of sanity, health, and even sanctimony gained adulation and adoration as a kind of neo-religion.
Jews understood that an idea can be open to debate, scrutiny, skepticism, and/or invalidation AS LONG AS it is regarded as an idea. After all, ideas are rational units in the mind, and their veracity is to be decided or settled by constant debate and back-and-forth discussion. As such, ideas are not sacrosanct and always open to further discourse. As such, an idea is always vulnerable to future argumentation UNLESS it gains the aura of sanctimony. And one way to achieve this is to elevate the object most closely associated with the idea as something holy. This requires the use of 'idolic' or iconic image of the object closely associated with the idea. Take the idea of 'antisemitism'. One could argue the validity of liking or disliking Jews as an idea in relation to Jewish behavior. After all, a rational mind need not see Jews as eternal heroes or eternal villains. As there is good and bad in everyone and every people, one could argue that 'antisemitism' or anti-Jewish sentiments are sound in some circumstances while unsound in others. BUT, if Jews are 'sacralized' by use of emotionally charged images & sounds, then the idea of 'antisemitism' takes on the aspects of taboo. Once Jews are regarded as holy, 'antisemitism' can only be bad because it would be wrong to feel animus toward a sacred & tragic people. Thus, an idea becomes something like an 'ideol', or idea-as-idol. It is no wonder that 'antisemitism' has only one meaning in the West. As Jews are regarded as quasi-holy, we are obliged to harbor near-spiritual feelings about Jews. Such sense of worship precludes rational, skeptical, and critical thoughts on Jewish power, reach, and influence. Since Jews are sacred, everything they do must be holy, and that means being anti-Jewish can only be evil. We MUST admire and praise Jews at all times. This is the difference between religion and philosophy. In religion, some things are sacred and protected by taboos. In philosophy, everything is open to further discussion and debate. So, to shut down debate, an idea has to be restricted by taboo, and this is done by 'sacralizing' the thing most closely associated with the idea. Jews not only made it very difficult to think rationally about Jews but about homos as well. Prior to their 'sacralization', homos were fair game to all kinds of criticism and scrutiny. Homosexuality was a subject, not a sacredness. One could argue all the pro's and con's about homosexuality. As long as it remained an idea for further debate, the homo agenda was stalled. So, in order for Jews to elevate the homo agenda into Homomania, a delirious & rapturous near-worship of Homos and their ways, Jews needed to bless the homos as something akin to secular saints. Jews needed to turn fairies into angels. That way, it became almost 'sacrilegious' to cast negative aspersions on homos or anything associated with them. It's one thing to be critical of homos as people. But how dare anyone put down homos as angels? And so, any critical view of homos came to be condemned as 'homophobic' heresy. Once the idea became an 'ideol', debate and discussion effectively came to an end. As New York Times said about the matter, the 'debate was over', and that was that. Jews came to play the role of god.
Furthermore, those who spoke the truth about homosexuality were denounced and demeaned as 'homophobes'. In other words, those with veracity on their side were apparently afflicted with mental illness while those pushing the Big Lie were on the side of doctors and angels. Then, it's not surprising that homosexuality and tranny business quickly went from 'pride' to full-blown quasi-spirituality, a 'queer christianity' or Queertianity. As the post-modern epiphanies of 'pride' and miracle, their symbols were to be displayed in churches — an act of institutionally sanctioned vandalism — , and all groups were expected to seek benediction under the homo flag.
Now, things are getting even more dire. Since the pedophile community has close links with the homo community and since so many elites in Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Las Vegas lust after young kids as sexual objects, there appears to be a gradual slide toward normalizing pederasty as well. Jews control globalism, and Jews chose homos to be their main right-hand man/woman. As masters of vanity and narcissism, homos & trannies exploited their domination of arts, fashion, & entertainment to make celebrity & hedonism the centerpieces of Globo-Culture. And if society is all about wanton pleasure of the powerful and privileged, then the well-connected pederasts with close ties to homos who have close ties to Jews must get their jollies too.
Thus far, pedophilia and pederasty remain in the realm of ideas. As pedophiles and pederasts haven't yet been 'sacralized', open debate about them is possible. If anything, because society adores children as innocent angels, there is something close to a taboo about rationally discussing the merits and demerits of pederasty and especially pedophilia. When it comes to children, especially their own, most adults are not willing to 'go there', and for good reason. As children are physically and psychologically underdeveloped, most people would be seriously appalled by 'rational' discussion of children as possible sexual agents. And yet, because our culture is so sexualized and even market 'pornification' to young ones -- the likes of Ariana Grande is marketed to pubescent girls as 'role models' -- , there is a cultural tendency to treat children as sexual creatures. Thus robbed of their innocence, their utility can be discussed as if they're adults. This is paradoxical because the sickness of pedophilia/pederasty is an attraction to pre-sexual 'innocence' as a sexual fetish. So, the pederast, especially pedophile, denies the innocence of children(as unfit for sexual activity) while being attracted to that very innocence as sexual fantasy. Our decadent and degenerate culture has become not only insanely homo but alarmingly pedo because there is now so little concern among social critics about the easy accessibility of porn to even children and the marketing(even by Major 'family entertainment' Corporations like Disney) of 'slut' fashions to little girls(whose mothers themselves grew up on nothing but junky pop culture, their only cultural reference). What happens when kids are no longer seen as innocent angels but as sexual creatures? Rational discussion of kids as sex objects will be normalized. And then, what if the mantle of angel-hood(taken away from children) is transferred to the pedos who are, after all, the bosom-buddies of the holy homos who, in turn, are best-friends-forever with the holy Jews? A world in which we can rationally talk about children as sex objects but cannot speak critically of angelic pedos(as yet another 'sacralized' group) lest we commit the heresy of 'pedophobia'? It sounds outlandish now, and I don't think society will ever embrace pedomania, but who knows what a society so far gone in degeneracy(as ours is) is capable of? Especially since the 1990s, it seemed the Power could pretty much get whatever it wants. And the Power is growing increasingly shameless and monstrous in its tastes and lusts. A world where adults never mature past the teen mentality, a world where glitzy whores are praised as 'wholesome' role models for girls. A 'whoresome' world.
Also, it is the nature of cancer to keep growing. Homomania is a cancer of the Big Lie, and it won't stop. Degeneracy seeks validation by sprouting more(and stronger) degeneracy as the New Normal. More degeneracy means what was once shameful becomes shameless and then even 'sacrosanct'. There is safety in numbers, after all. So, lies and degeneracy multiply inexorably and spread their cancer cells far and wide. A mere lie is just another lie. A lie wrongly sanctified as the 'new truth' won't stop growing. It must spread and spread to seek strength in size and numbers as a lie is always paranoid of the truth that may expose it to light. Empowered Lies are like vampires, essentially parasitic, sucking on the blood of the living, always on the lookout for new 'converts' to the coven. Spreading like rats and roaches but always fearful of the light of truth that can expose them and do them in. It's been said that Bram Stoker's DRACULA was meant as an allegory of Jewish Subversion. INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE the movie has been interpreted by some as an AIDS allegory. Then, we can see some patterns of thoughts and behaviors that tie the Jews and homos together. And in the sickness between them, there may rise the monstrosity of pedomania, yet a new cancer.
Lance Welton: It follows that the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to believe that people are being racist towards you... Members of minority groups who have low intelligence are going to believe that they are the victims of racism... Northeast Asians and Jews — even though they’re just as likely to be victims of racism — do not display the same behavior patterns because they have high intelligence, meaning they do quite the opposite of what races with low intelligence do.
The above comment is so wrong. Jews are high IQ but see 'antisemitism' EVERYWHERE. ADL is funded by rich Jews, and it sees Nazis on every street corner. High IQ Jews say even legit criticism of Israel is 'antisemitism'. Even noticing that Jews control Hollywood and Las Vegas is deemed 'hateful' and 'extreme', even though Jews brag about their success in those fields.
Also, blacks didn't used to complain as much. Black politics got charged when it came under the influence of Jewish and White Radicals who encouraged blacks to see 'racism' everywhere. In fact, lower-IQ blacks were incapable of coming up with all these fancy theories and concepts that supposedly explained all their problems on OTHER forces. As for Asians, they are copycats. They may be smarter but their mental attitude is 'study and obey' the prevailing power. So, in our PC culture, so many high IQ and ultra-educated yellows do nothing but parrot all the nonsense about how they are victims too. They screech about how they are NOT some 'model minority' and whine about 'micro-aggressions'.
It's worth noting that there are key differences among blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics. While American Indians are economically depressed and suffer from a host of social problems, their communities are nowhere nearly as violent as black ones. There is no American Indian Baltimore.
As for Hispanics, it's a useless category as it includes Cuban whites, Dominican blacks, Mexicans from white to brown, and etc. So, there is a huge divergence of achievement among Hispanics. Cuban whites who fled from Castro have done very well in the US. And generally, white Hispanics are much better off than Indio 'Hispanics' who shouldn't be called 'Hispanics'(just like American Indians are NOT called 'Anglos' even though they speak English). Also, the problems of brown Indio 'Hispanics' should be laid at the feet of White Hispanics(the real Hispanics) who first conquered the New World, spread diseases and committed mass 'genocide', raped tons of women & created mestizos, and then imported millions of Africans to mess things up even further. Later, white Hispanics in Latin America welcomed mass immigration from Europe to make their nations whiter as the elites feared the Rise of Color. But because 'Hispanic' in the US means everyone from white Hispanic to non-white 'Hispanics', the white ones get to pass themselves off as People of Color and play 'victim' of Blanco Gringo. It is so lowdown and dirty.
Why are White Hispanics such weasel-like louts? One reason is Latin Culture has always been more sleazy and sneaky. (Same with Greeks too. As Southern Europe was invaded by non-Europeans, the culture became less trusting and cohesive.) But another reason for weasely Latin perfidy and dirty tricks is the Long Resentment between the Germanics(Northern Europe) and Latins(Southern Europe), with France being a mix of the two. In early history, Southern Europe had a decisive advantage over Northern Europe. Climate was milder in the South, and Southern Europe was closer to the cradle of civilization in the Near East and North Africa. So, Southern Europe developed earlier, and for a long time, the Southern Europeans invaded Northern Europeans and often used them as slaves, servants, or mercenaries.
But the South was eventually overrun by Northern Barbarians in the Fall of Rome. Even so, it seemed as though Southern Europe still had more hope than the North. Byzantine(not Latin but continuation of the Roman Empire) survived, and the Renaissance kicked off in Italy. Also, Rome was the center of the Church, and until the Reformation, there was only the Catholic Faith for all of Western Europe. Through much of the Renaissance, the Latin parts of Europe generally outshone the Germanic/Celtic parts. But, over time, the North and South split along theological lines, with North becoming mostly Protestant and the South remaining mostly Catholic.
And then, there was the rise of Great Britain. Perhaps, the first Great North vs South war(or Anglo-Germanic vs Latin South war) was the naval battle between England and Spanish Armada. England won and became the outpost of Anglo-Germanic Protestant might. The English were essentially a Germanic people who developed a greater sense of independence. So, 'Anglo-Germanic' for English folks is valid.
Still, the Latin Catholic nations dominated much of Europe. Spain, Portugal, and Italy were all Catholic and Latin. France and rising Austro-imperial power were more complicated. France was a strange mix of Latinism and Germanism, far more than Spain. Still, it was a nation with Romantic language and Catholic faith. Austrians were Germanic but Catholic.
At any rate, the Latin-Catholic powers seemed dominant on the European continent even though Anglo-Germanics were gaining gradual supremacy of the seas. But then, there was the rise of Prussia. Though small, it was tough as nails. It was the wolverine of Europe. Pound for pound, the most impressive power. But, it was when Prussia united Germanic lands into the modern German Nation that the Germano-Protestant powers became dominant on the continent. By taking the nationalist idea from the French Revolution, the Germanics began to come together. And unified Germany was bigger than France and had stronger work ethic.
So, while Anglo-Germanics gained supremacy of the seas and gained dominance in the New World, the Teutonic-Germanics were becoming the supreme power on the continent. Now, Anglo-Germanics could have forged an alliance with Teutonic-Germanics, but England saw rising Germany as a crude upstart power and made a gentleman's agreement with the French Empire to suppress German ambitions.
Anyway, all throughout the 19th century, the world witnessed the rapid expansion of Anglo-Germanic power and Teutonic Germanic power. In contrast, even a unified Italy couldn't do much. Spain and Portugal were mired in backwardness. In terms of power, France was somewhere between Latin South AND Anglo-Germanic & Teutonic-Germanic North. It made considerable progress but was outpaced by the Germanics in everything but the arts and wine.
Therefore, the Catholic-Latins came to envy and resent the Anglo-Germanic and Teutonic-Germanic North. It was bad enough in the Old World, but the patterns were repeated in the New World. Anglo-Germanic founders and Teutonic-Germanic immigrants(Germans and Scandinavians) were so much more capable than the Latin-Catholic folks who founded and settled Latin America(Mexico to all of South America). Indeed, even Latin-Catholic territorial claims on the North America passed over to Anglos and Germanic by sale(Louisiana Purchase) or Conquest(Florida and later the SW territories). In both the Old World and New World, the Anglos and Germanics did so much more than the Latins. There were many theories as to why. Was Protestantism more conducive to building a nation character of honesty, diligence, sobriety, and work ethic? Were Northern Europeans of higher IQ and stabler temperament due to racial homogeneity, whereas Southern European blood became mixed with Turkic, Arab, and African blood? (After all, even Northern Italians joke that Africa begins in Southern Italy. And the Spanish, upon liberation from Moor rapist-imperialists, were very mindful of bloodlines since so many Spanish women had been sexually taken by the North African Muslims who were hornier than the Pakistanis of Rotherham.)
Because the Latin-Catholics lost so badly to the Protestant-Germanics(of whom Anglos are a part), they've been looking for ANY excuse to either (1) take from the North or (2) destroy the North, thus removing the object of their envy. What Latins considered as their fatal inferiority came to be invoked as a point of their superiority. In the past, the idea was that Northerners were more fortunate because they were More White in contrast to Southern Europeans who, either by conquering or being conquered by others, had become more mixed in blood. So, while an average Englishman or German looked very white, many Southern Europeans looked 'swarthy' and even Arab-like or Turk-like, even a bit Negro-like. OTHELLO is set in Italy, not in England or Sweden.
And this pattern repeated itself in the New World. Whereas Anglos came as men & women and had many white kids who grew up to settle North America, Spanish and Portuguese mostly came as Men Only and had no choice but to mate with native women. The result was the Mestizo. Also, whereas there was a sense of unity among all white folks, rich and poor, in North America, the Latin white elites didn't much care about their poorer white kin. They were all about their own upper crust privilege. So, the poorer Latin whites had no choice but to mix with the darker skinned folks.
Anyway, for much of the 20th century, many educated people saw this race-mixing and Diversity as the great bane of Latin America. So, they desperately tried to encourage mass immigration from Europe so that Latin America would become whiter or at least could maintain a sizable white population against the Rise of Color as non-whites bred faster.
But after WWII, Jews took over the US, the center of world media and academia. And the New Official Line was that 'white purity' is evil while Diversity and Race-mixing are the most wonderful things. So, almost overnight, Latin America was supposed to feel so PROUD of its greater diversity(in nations where whites were often the minority) and mixed-race-ness, whereas Whites in the US and Canada(and UK and Sweden and Germany) were supposed to feel ashamed and deficient for their relative purity and homogeneity vis-a-vis the Latin South.
So, Latin America became the New Model for the US, just like North Africa became the New Model for Northern Europe. Of course, it begs the question... if Diversity and Race-mixing are so good, why are so many mixed-raced people trying to flee from mixed-race Hyper-Diverse nations(where whites are the minority) to Whiter Pastures of North America? If Diversity is wonderful and if Homogeneity(relatively speaking) is awful, then people in more homogeneous nations should be moving to more diverse nations. But it's the opposite! People flee from the Diversity of Latin America and go to whiter America, just like Asian-Indians flee from ultra-diverse India and move to Canada. And peoples from racially diverse and mixed North Africa try to move to white Europe, especially the North. If people move from multi-and-mixed racial Diversity to White Homogeneity, then it must mean White Homogeneity is more appealing and precious. Then, it means White Homogeneous nations should keep their valuable white homogeneity. And they used to. Indeed, they used to be proud of it. But because Jews gained control of the Dogma and Narrative of the West, white people in homogeneous nations have been made to feel racially deficient and soulfully diseased. They can only be cured by the Vibrancy of Diversity or VD. So, the fact that non-whites, mixed-raced folks, and minority-whites flee from Diversity to find better life in White Homogeneous(or White Majority) nations has been altered by the PC Narrative into a fairy-tale of generous non-whites coming to white nations to gift the lame white-bread people with the wonders of Diversity and Vibrancy. Even though the Diverse Masses are coming to TAKE FROM WHITEY, the Narrative portrays them as a people who come to GIVE TO WHITEY.
In the real world, people run from Diversity-as-disease to White-Homogeneity-as-cure, but the Narrative has flipped what is actually happening to a case of people from the Third World bring the priceless gift of Diversity to the White World diseased with Homogeneity. People are such suckers that so many fall for the hype than see the truth.
Anyway, it's the continuing saga of Latin South vs Germanic North in European History. South had a huge head-start because of milder climate and access to the cradle-of-civilization in the Near East and North Africa, BUT the South — Greco-Roman-Latin Civilization and the Near-East-North-African Kingdoms fell into stasis or stagnation, whereas the North, for a variety of reasons, came upon a combo-formula of economics, politics, theology, and philosophy that kept pushing it toward new discoveries and triumphs, leaving everyone in the dust. This Northern Triumph could have been maintained with the alliance of Anglo-Germanic and Teutonic-Germanic peoples, but such failed in the Old World. In North America, the Teutonic-Germanic Americans just became part of Anglo-Wasp America, and the united power of Anglos and Germanics fueled American Greatness; but in the Old World, the rivalry between Anglo-Germanics and Teutonic-Germanics led to World War I that crippled both powers. A second chance at an alliance arrived in the 1930s, but the Nazis were pathological, and UK played the cards poorly, leading to WWII that spelled doom for both UK and Germany as major world powers.
That left the US as the great Anglo-Germanic power, but it wasn't long before the ambitious Jews took over as the elites of America and went about altering the Dogma and Narrative, whereby Whiteness was diagnosed as the Main Disease not only of America but of Europe as well, a disease that can only be cured by Massive Diversity Immigration-Invasion. Supposedly, the Latins were better than Anglos and Germanics because they(Spanish, Portuguese, and French) had been more into race-mixing with non-whites. Never mind that all these race-mixing were done under unequal circumstances where white men effectively carried out massive sexual imperialism against non-whites. Mestizo, after all, is essentially the product of Civilizational Rape, just like the Vietnam War led to white-and-black sexual imperialism and domination over Vietnamese women. The so-called 'progressives' claim to be anti-imperialist but they are ecstatic about the history of Sexual Imperialism and Civilizational Rape simply because Jews insist that nothing is more wonderful than race-mixing(even though, oddly enough, Jews have no problem with Israel doing everything to discourage Jewish mixing with non-Jews).
When white people in the past favored homogeneity over diversity, the Latin South was not proud of its mixed raced-ness. If anything, they tried to become whiter. After all, people noticed that, generally speaking, whiter nations were better off than swarthier nations in Europe. And even in a place like Italy, the whiter North was better off than the swarthier South. The color complex was amusingly portrayed in the Italian movie BREAD AND CHOCOLATE.
The swarthy Southern Italians eyeing the fair-skinned blonde 'Nordics':
An Eye-talian dyes hair blonde and tries to pass as 'Aryan':
The affluent blonde Northern Italians and their Swarthy Southern Italian servant: Notice the main divide is class-and-locale than ideology.
And in many Spaghetti Westerns, Italians often play the Mexican characters.
As the post-war ideology of the West increasingly became anti-imperialist, the Latins in both the Old World and New World began to identify with the Third World. So, the Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo made BATTLE OF ALGIERS. Since the Latin South couldn't compete economically or technologically with the Anglo-Germanic North, they settled for the crutch of Moral Upmanship. Since the Latin South was swarthier in Europe and more racially mixed in the Americas, it could posture as the part of the non-white alliance against Evil Whitey. So, their mixed-raceness that had been seen as a stain became a sainthood.
Che Guevara was white, but he spoke of all of Latin America as one united mestizo race. He spoke of this as a matter of pride while overlooking the fact that this Mestizo was the product of European conquest, 'genocide', and rape of the brown natives(as well as importation of millions of black slaves who also took part in the rape of natives due to lack of available womenfolk).
See the video at 2:15.
Much of the idealism among Latin Whites is really just a crutch. They are soar that the Germanic North beat the Latin South in both the Old World and New World. Since Latin whites were surpassed by Germanic whites and since much of Latin America is hopelessly lost to the Rise of Color, the Latin Whites came to pretend that their failure actually has been a spectacular success because of all the Diversity and Race-mixing. But if it's such a success, why not just stay there in the El Dorado of Mestizo-hood? Why do people in Latin America, white and non-white, seek whiter pastures in the US or Gringoland? Because deep down inside, they know the Gringo-Blancos did much better and achieved so much more. So, they want access to that bounty. But they also want to destroy it because it reminds them of their own comparative failure in the South.
The pathetic thing is so many whites in the Anglo-Germanic North have fallen for this PC nonsense about Diversity because their media and academia have been taken over by Jews who smear any desire to preserve white nations and communities as 'far right' while any plan to transform the West with Third World demography is now called 'centrist'. So, Macron's desire to turn France into North Africa(or even Sub-Saharan Africa) is 'centrist', while the desire of the French to preserve their nation as a European nation is 'far right' and 'extreme'. It is part of Jewish WOW or War on White.
Still, it's one thing to virtue-signal and another thing to face the reality. Italian Ideology had long been controlled by the Left(even through many moderate rightist governments) because the Italian Right was disgraced with defeat in World War II and the ignominious death of Mussolini. Italians loved to spout off about Marxism and etc. It had one of the biggest communist parties and so on. Post-war Third Worldism gave Italians something to be proud of. As they were swarthier and 'darker' than Northern Europeans, they could pretend they too were in the struggle against Western Imperialism. But this was fun when Italy was mostly Italian. But in recent yrs, Italy has been filling up with foreign invaders from Middle East and Africa, and this kind of virtue-signaling isn't very fun when Italian girls are being raped by Africans. Also, even Italian Organized Crime is meeting stiff competition with new gangs and thugs from places like Nigeria. Furthermore, virtue-signaling about Diversity and Brotherhood with the Global South isn't very fun anymore since the Germanic North has embraced it with even greater fanaticism. What's the point of saying 'We Italians are proudly darker than your pale nazi Swedes and Anglos' when Northern Europe is now further gone with PC lunacy and working even harder to become North Africa and Arabia? Then, it's no wonder that a nationalist party came to power in Italy.
As for why blacks have so many problems in the US, it's not just a matter of lower intelligence. Lower intelligence doesn't necessarily mean greater aggression. One thing for sure, sheep are dumber than wolves but less aggressive. There are many low-IQ people like Forrest Gump who are mild in temperament. The problem with blacks isn't only lower intelligence but greater aggression. We see problems of greater aggression among well-to-do blacks too. One study showed that middle-class blacks are more prone to criminality than poor whites are. This is why a low-IQ black is more likely to be more violent than a low-IQ white guy or American Indian. Another problem is blacks are more muscular and tougher, and that fills them with thug-pride and gangsta-arrogance. It's like Jack Johnson didn't just beat white guys but taunted them. He played with them like a cat plays with mice. And Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson took pleasure in beating up their opponents. If most blacks were built like Gary Coleman or Emmanuel Lewis(despite lower IQ), they would be far less arrogant, aggressive, and violent. Suppose some low-IQ black thug is glaring at you and acting threateningly. He acts like he owns the place. But suppose a Race Fairy appears and uses her wand to turn the tough Negro into a short Pygmy. His behavior would change immediately because YOU can now kick his ass if he talks shit. It's like Sylvester the Cat that constantly chases after tiny Tweety is frozen with fear when confronted with Mega-Tweety.
Blacks act wild and crazy because they think, "I can whup dat white boy's ass". So, they often beat up teachers and disrupt classrooms. Even many teenage black kids are much bigger and stronger than teachers. Some black kids are stronger than teachers even by 6th grade. Another problem is that blacks love to have fun and can't control themselves. Due to evolution that favored the warrior-and-dancer genes, blacks are more prone to act wild. Even White Liberals who officially disdain racial stereotypes have featured blacks in movies like LILIES OF THE FIELD and SISTER ACT where the more 'natural' and 'instinctive' Negroes teach lame square white folks how to cut loose, sing, and dance, shoo!
Their culture revolves around 'muh fist', 'muh holler', 'muh dic*', and 'muh booty'. Of course, not all blacks are like this, but plenty are. Their entire cultural interests revolve around saying stuff like "Ooh ooh, it's naaaaaasty!" or "He a baaaaaad mothafuc*a!" So, blacks feel ultra-contempt for the weaker races. But because blacks are so into 'muh whatever', they often fight among themselves over who be 'baaaad'(which means good) and who be 'naaaasty'.
Now, Lance Welton mentions that Asian kids are more vulnerable in integrated schools because they are smaller and weaker, and that is true. But he doesn't mention that white kids face the same problem with blacks. Why is it that in many integrated schools, the violence is usually black on white and the sexual relationship is black male and white female? It's because black guys usually beat up weaker and slow white guys, and white girls go with black boys because females like alpha males over loser-beta-males and seek more sexual pleasure with bigger dongs(that, according to medical science and pop culture, favor the Negro over the Blanco).
Now, April Benner can't speak the truth because she's an NPC. She's like a hound who is only capable of chasing after the Correct or Mandated Scent. The PC scent says 'Whites are to blame for everything, and blacks are sacred and blameless no matter what they do'. So, her 'intellectual' trek seeks a pseudo-academic rationalization that expiates blacks of all wrongs and places all the burden of black problems on whites.
Now, if she is Jewish, she could be promoting White Guilt to paralyze white identity and white pride because the ONLY WAY Jews can make whites serve Jewish Supremacism(the real dominant power in the US) is by shame-whipping whiteness. Unable to feel autonomous pride for what they are, white folks can only serve the Identity of another people, and of course, Jews rigged the Narrative so that Jews are the most sacred of races. It's no wonder that all those white politicians who denounce white identity and white pride go out of their way to praise Jews & Israel and serve as deranged attack dogs against whatever Jews hate: Russia, Syria, Iran, Palestinians, and 'fellow white people'. Current US policy is the Culture of Jewish Hate. If Jews hate something, we must hate it too, like a dog must growl at whatever its master orders it to feel animus against.
If Benner is not Jewish, she is likely a cuckette who's been brainwashed by PC and can't think outside the NPC box. Furthermore, it's nearly impossible to think freely in the academia that is geared to favor only PC voices and weed out dissenters from the 'right', as Jonathan Haidt documented. Academia is just an echo-chamber, and I doubt if Benner has the guts or spine to deviate from the PC Narrative.
I can’t help thinking Patrick Little is a federal agent or some shill of globo-homo Jewish Supremacism. I have no smoking gun, but gut instinct tells me something is not quite right about his persona. With Paul Nehlen, his kooky direction wasn't all that surprising because, let’s face it, the guy isn’t very bright. An immature dimwit and goofball(who, as it turned out, was only ‘larping’ as a mainstream candidate), he was easily manipulated by 4chan trolls and the like. He went from a semi-serious candidate to something like the Pee-Wee-Herman of the 14/88 crowd simply because he was flattered by all the ‘love’ he got from trolls and nutters.
In contrast, Patrick Little comes across as a bright guy with a sharp mind. So, unless he happens to be funny in a head(a real possibility, I suppose), it’s safe to assume that he’s putting on an act. But for whom? As a general rule, when something happens, it’s useful to ask, "Which side benefited most from it?" Then, it is also useful to ask "Which side was most harmed by it?" With Patrick Little’s series of ‘campaigns’(or stunts), it’s obvious that the biggest casualty has been the Moral Stance against Jewish Supremacism. If Patrick Little had started out as a hotheaded Neo-Nazi blowhard, the only thing he would have discredited is 14/88 nonsense. Instead, Little arrived on the scene by denouncing Zionist Imperialism, Jewish Supremacism, and Globo-Homo craziness that swept over the West(and even the Rest). These were all morally sane, tenable, and necessary positions. If supremacism is toxic and must be rooted out in the US, all honest and rational people should admit that the dominant supremacy that animates the American Way(at home and abroad) is Jewish Supremacy. It molds and holds everything from finance, high-tech, gambling, media, entertainment, law firms, courts, Pentagon, and whore politicians. Jewish supremacists sound alarm about ‘hate speech’ to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend, but the truth is that American Hate is mainly defined by Jewish control of US foreign and domestic policy. US favors Zionist Imperialists over Palestinians who live under Occupation. Why? Because Jewish Supremacists love Zionism and murderously hate Palestinians. Jews control Pop Music industry and have used Rap music to spread virulently murderous messages of street thugs, promoting gang violence that killed countless lives. Jewish anti-white hatred and anti-Christian contempt are spewed by the Jew-run media 24/7. Jews push for White Genocide by promoting replacist Mass-Immigration-Invasion and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs that implies that INFERIOR white men must surrender their women to SUPERIOR black men). US animus against Iran, Syria, and Russia is all the result of Jewish globo-homo hatred against defiant nations that won’t kowtow to the demands of the Empire of Judea(EOJ).
If the US were truly a white supremacist nation, would the main themes of media, academia, and the Deep State be ‘white people should be overrun and replaced with non-whites’, ‘white women must reject inferior white men and go with superior black men’, ‘white Americans must hate white Russians’, ‘Western Christianity must be replaced with Homomania’, ‘Southern Heritage must be destroyed’, ‘white young ones should worship rappers’, and etc? Seriously, if the US were truly run by ‘white supreamcists’, as so many Jews hyperventilate all the time, would those be the biggest current themes? Then, why are those themes so predominant in so many areas of American Life and Thought? Why did so many white people fall under the sway of such hateful and demented anti-white craziness? It’s because the US is really a Jewish-Supremacist nation, one where globo-homo Zionist-imperialists get to program the media and rig the system to push policies that are deemed ‘Good for Jews’ and ‘Bad for Whites’(or 'Bad for any people hated by Jews').
For those reasons, it is a moral imperative for all good white people to stand up to Jewish Supremacism and its culture of hate, contempt, murderousness, hubris, toxicity, duplicity, and hypocrisy. When faced against an immoral power, the most potent weapon is a moral argument. The Goliath of Falsehood fears the David of Moral Truth. And initially, despite his outlandish antics, Patrick Little garnered attention as a loud, brazen, and courageous speaker of truth to Jewish Power. Even though he had zero chance of becoming Senator of California, he entered the race to make his case against tyrannical Jewish Power and globo-homo imperialist reach around the world. And because of this, he garnered sympathy from individuals of all stripes. As a clever trollitician, he could have spread many effective memes highlighting how the US is really ruled by power-hungry Jewish Supremacists and how all of humanity(not just white people) have so much to lose as the result of the machinations of men like George Soros and institutions in the US and EU that are essentially controlled by Jewish oligarchs and their agent-enforcers. Surely, any sane person would have learned from the David Duke case that it makes no sense to be associated with KKK or Neo-Nazi nonsense. Now, Little didn’t join the KKK(like Duke stupidly did once) or the American Nazi Party. But by spewing Neo-Nazi talking-points, Patrick Little effectively associated his initial morally valid condemnations of Jewish supremacism with a form of White Supremacism. If your moral objective is to condemn supremacism(of Jews or any other group), how does it help your argument to support or apologize for the supremacism of your own race? What’s the point of morally condemning Jewish supremacism to argue for White Supremacism? Now, Little will deny that he is any such, but by regurgitating much of 14/88 nonsense on Hitler and the wonders of Nazi Germany, he has associated himself with a supremacist ideology that triggered a war that killed 50 million white people in Europe.
Now, why would Little do this? He doesn’t seem like a dumb person. He comes across as sober and intelligent. Why would he do something so reckless and retarded? Why make a moral case against Jewish Supremacism but then morally discredit oneself by shilling for German Supremacism of the Nazis. If Hitler and Nazi Ideology weren’t supremacist, what is?
One possible explanation is that Patrick Little became so angry with Jews that he came to endorse anything associated with anti-Jewishness in kneejerk fashion. If true, it means Little is too unhinged and impulsive to be a moral voice. A moral person must try to maintain his equilibrium of honesty and integrity against the pressures of passion. Now, given what so many Jews are doing to the white race, Palestinians & Arabs, Russians, Iranians, Christians, white people, and decent folks around the world, it is understandable why so many people are angry with Jews and even hate them. According to ADL and such vile organizations, there is something wrong with ‘not liking Jews’ as if it is the duty of all of mankind to like Jews. But why? Liking or hating a people should always be conditional. If Jews are good to you and act with honor, there are reasons to like them. If Jews treat you horribly, why should you like them? It'd make good sense to dislike or hate them. But, by the logic of ADL, Jews should be unconditionally revered like they’re gods or something. We must make offering to the Great Jews no matter what they do to us. Jew-Worship is like a pagan practice of mass-human-sacrifice, one where amoral gods must be obeyed and appeased no matter what they do. Jew-Worship says Jews are like a race of gods, therefore we must revere and obey them regardless of whether they are good or bad. Indeed, because Jews are so ‘holy’, whatever they do and demand must be ‘good’. With Jews, good-or-bad isn’t determined by rules but by identity, i.e. Jews are good because they are Jews, and what Jews do is good because Jews did it. So, if Hungary shuts its borders to mass-invaders, that is bad because Jews don’t like it. But if Jews do the same in Israel to protect the borders, it is good because Jews like it. Jews are the master, and we are dogs for whom the issue of 'good or bad' is simply a matter of 'master likes it' or 'master hates it'. We are to have no moral agency of our own. White people having moral agency is 'white supremacism' in the Jewish Supremacist Rule-book. It is a case of bad uppity doggy that won't no longer fetch the slippers and the newspaper. Only Jews get to decide, and white people exist only to obey and agree. Jews got the rod, and whites just nod.
With Jews, moral rules are impossible in the Current Year because Jewish supremacist power insists on a kind of ethno-nihilism. What is GOOD FOR JEWS is good. That’s just about it. And what Jews deem as BAD FOR JEWS is bad because it displeases Jews. So, good or bad is a matter of Jewish pleasure of displeasure. This is obviously supremacism, and Patrick Little made a splash by calling out on Jewish arrogance, contempt, and hypocrisy. His campaign seemed like a stunt from the beginning, but it was spunky and feisty. And he won respect from various peoples and groups because he was willing to say what the Establishment Parties were afraid to say.
The True Sinead McCarthy
But what did he soon do? He began to talk 14/88 nonsense about Hitler as a great man and how WWII was entirely the fault of everyone but the Germans. Alarm bells should have gone off here. Little’s shtick is so much like that of Sinead McCarthy, a red-head who appeared on the Counter-Culture Right a few years ago. She thrust herself as an irreverent maverick unafraid to poke fun at sacred cows. While some of her stuff was willfully offensive and outlandish, people excused it as your typically racy troll behavior. But it wasn’t long before she pushed for Flat Earth Theory and began to accuse every other person in the Alt Right as ‘homosexual’. Then, it became obvious that she was either a total kook or an agent for an organization like SPLC, especially as photos emerged that exposed her as part of the POC gang(and possible 'mudshark').
What do Little and McCarthy have in common? They seem to be rather bright and knowledgeable about lots of things. So, why would Little make so much good sense about Jewish power and then sabotage his own moral credibility with boilerplate apologia for Hitler and Nazis? And why would Sinead McCarthy, who billed herself as a rebel and maverick, claim to believe that the World is Flat? How can someone be skeptical about the Jewish Narrative but so trusting of the utter nonsense of Flat Earth Theory? It seems McCarthy’s shtick was to associate any opposition to Jewish Power & Narrative with cuckoo astronomy & superstition. And it appears Patrick Little’s plan is to keep associating moral opposition to Jewish supremacism with support for Hitler and Nazis who stood for Aryan Supremacism.
Thankfully, few people take Patrick Little seriously anymore, just like most people in the Dissident Right dropped McCarthy like a hot potato once she began to spout nonsense about the World being Flat and how every other guy in the Alt Right is a homo. It just goes to show that we need to be vigilant at all times against infiltrators... or nutjobs.
Progs are a funny bunch. They call for Indigenous Peoples Day and then say Diversity is great. But it was Diversity that destroyed the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Take Latin America. Spanish imperialists conquered, spread disease, carried out genocides, and committed mass rape. That led to Euro-Indigenous diversity. And then, Spanish, Portuguese, and Jews imported millions of black slaves into the Americas. More diversity. So, Diversity has been the bane of the indigenous peoples.
In North America in the 19th century, more immigration meant more diversity and less territory for the indigenous peoples who got squeezed out of their lands by expanding Diversity of Anglos, white ethnics, Jews, and black slaves. America used to be All Indian but mass immigration of whites & Jews and importation of blacks made North America more diverse, and that led to the destruction of indigenous or original peoples.
So, it is about time that White Americans stop immigration and denounce Diversity. It would be a Moral Imperative. Proper assessment of White Guilt in America must address the fact that the main victims of White/Jewish Immigration were the Indians. Therefore, because North America was once Indian land, white folks must stop further immigration-invasion and help Indians to regain their footing in their ancestral turf. It was bad enough that Indians lost the lands to whites. There is no reason for them to lose it to immigration-invaders from all around the world. Since white people took the land from Indians, their main moral duty should be to stop further invasion and be nice to Indians. Since the whites didn't take America from peoples around the world, all those non-whites have NO MORAL CLAIM on America. So, on the issue of 'white guilt', whites may feel some measure of guilt toward Indians since they took land from them, but white Americans need feel NO GUILT toward the world since whites didn't take land from non-whites around the world.
The main question is, "Does America belong to the American Indians or to the World". The answer is it belongs to the American Indians. Since whites took it from the Indians, white priority must be to defend America from further invasion and revive Indian pride and prestige. But in our crazy Ellis-Island-centric nation, there is this crazy notion that whites have some moral obligation to open the US to all the world? But why? If America once belonged to Indians and if whites took the land from the Indians, then white moral obligation should be to prevent further invasion of Indian lands and to help Indians regain footing in their ancestral-sacred homeland. (If Jews had a right to regain their sacred homeland after 2,000 yrs, then American Indians have a right to regain territorial security and resurgence of pride in America, their sacred-ancestral homeland. That calls for end to immigration-invasion and promoting Originality over Diversity. While American Indians can't take back America like Jews took back Israel/Palestine, they can regain pride and stand proud once again IF all Americans recognize Indians as the Original and Truest owners of America as a 'sacred spiritual land'.)
Another way to frame this question is, "Does America belong to the Indians or to the Jews?" If we believe that the original claimants of America are the Indians, then we must address the fact that mass-immigration-invasion has been bad for Indians. Sure, it led to the creation of a great nation, but it also led to collapse of Indian folks and cultures. So, if we believe that, in the most sacred and spiritual sense, America belongs to the Indians(who'd been here for 10,000s of yrs before whites and others), then Americans must prioritize the matter of "Is it good for the Indians?" And future policy must be predicated on IIGFTI. Since mass immigration-invasion and Diversity destroyed the Indians, we must stop further mass-immigration and Diversity-mongering. We must favor demographic defense and originality(over diversity because diversity wiped out much of the original peoples).
But the US is currently under the rule of "America belongs to the Jews". So, "Is it good for the Jews?" or IIGFTJ is the modus operandi of US policy. Because Jews figure that more non-white immigration-invasion will lead to further Diversity that makes for weaker racial-national solidarity among goyim who will be divided among themselves, they see it as being GOOD for Jews.
But if American Policy is calibrated to favor and serve Jews, it means the US belongs mainly to Jews. But why? What claim do Jews have on America? Whites didn't take it from Jews. If anything, Jews were co-conquerors of America from the Indians. So, if anything, Jews must share in the White/Jewish Guilt of Imperialism and Genocide of the Indians. (And since Jews also took part in the slave trade, they must share in Slave-Trade-Blues. Imperialism + Slave Trade = Diversity. Celebrating Diversity is to apologize for imperialism.) Indians do have ancestral claim on the Americas. They were the original peoples. But by what right do Jews claim America as theirs? Why should American Policy be predicated on IIGFTJ?
Indeed, they have even less rightful claim than do the Anglos and Germanic who'd done most to found and settle the nation. There were Jews from the beginning of America, but the mass influx of Jews came later. So, Jews have no special claim on America. Granted, Jews can say they contributed a lot to American wealth and enterprise and science and culture, and that's all true. But that is still not an organic claim. After all, China and India have invested a lot in Africa and built the economies there, BUT they can't make claims on those nations that 'spiritually' belong to black Africans.
Now, for a long time, the main claimants of America used to be Anglos and whites, and for good reason. The argument was, "Sure Indians were here first, but they were savages and there weren't too many of them. So, the America as a modern nation is a white European creation." In other words, American Civilization was not something that the Indians had built but was stolen by whites. Whites built it from scratch. So, on that basis, whites could have legitimate claim and pride of ownership. And this was a sound argument. But Jews took over media, academia, & Narrative and spread the notion that Whites are the Most Evil People. So, white pride in anything is evil. It's even controversial to say "It's okay to be white."
So, for the time being, whites are best off using the Indians as moral shield. Whites must promote Originality over Diversity. Indians were the original peoples of America. So, if White Guilt is to be properly conceived, it must address the fact that Originality was largely wiped out by Diversity(the product of imperialism) made possible by whites(who opened the New World to Diversity-Invasion). So, in order to properly atone for their historical 'sins', it is time for whites to end immigration-invasion and diversification of the Americas and focus on restoring Originality of the Indian folks. It may be the most effective way to scalp the globo-homo yarmulka.
The moral discourse can pit one form of White Guilt against another form of White Guilt. The White Guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" or the White Guilt of "Is it good for the Jews?" In the Americas, the white guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" is surely more legitimate since America was taken from the Indians who suffered a kind of 'genocide'. In contrast, whites using their 'guilt' to serve Jews makes NO SENSE in America because whites didn't take America from Jews. Furthermore, Jews participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians along with whites. Jewish merchants sold guns to whites to kill Indians with. Jewish banks, along with Anglo ones, financed Manifest Destiny, a lebensraum plan against the Red Savages. Emma Lazarus called on more Immigrant-imperialists.
So far, many on the Right have regarded 'white guilt' as anti-white, but it can be made pro-white. By properly assessing American History, whites can make a moral case that 'white guilt' must prioritize what is good for Indians since they were the Original Peoples with a sacred tie to the land. Also, as white expansion destroyed so much of pristine wilderness, white guilt must also commit itself to restoring more natural habitats in every state in the Union. But there is no sound 'white guilt' argument in favor of serving Jewish supremacism or allowing immigration-invasion from around the world. After all, whites didn't take America from most peoples around the world. Also, non-white ancestors around the world played no part in the building of America.
The real problem of American PC isn't 'white guilt' per se. It is the perversion of 'white guilt' to favor peoples who have no moral claim on White Americans at the expense of peoples who do have a legitimate claim on 'white guilt'. No people have a more valid moral claim on White Guilt than do the American Indians, the Original people, BUT the current 'White Guilt' is manipulated to make white support "Is it good for the Jews?" and Diversity-invasion of non-whites who are coming off to leech off the achievements of another people on a land taken from the Indians. Imagine if you killed someone, but your 'guilt' is milked not to make amends to the aggrieved family of the victim but to offer endless 'compensations' to OTHER people who weren't victimized by you. 'White Guilt' is now milked not by the aggrieved calf but by weasels and leeches from around the world.
It’s a matter of Valid White Guilt vs Corrupted White Guilt. American Indians aren’t big in numbers and don’t have much wealth and influence. But they have tremendous moral capital IF white folks were to play it right. If ‘white guilt’ is so central to the Current Political Culture, then White Patriots must raise the crucial question of "Which people have the most legitimate claim on White Guilt?" American Indians or some Asian-Indian lowlife who sucks up to Jews to gain wealth and privilege? (And let’s not confuse the Original Peoples of the America[s] with low-life weasel Hispanics who, as the First European Imperialists in the New World, pioneered the ‘genocide’ of the indigenous folks. As for blacks, why are recent African Immigrants getting Affirmative Action set-asides meant for black Americans of slave ancestry? It goes to show that White Guilt went from a semi-legitimate ideal to a get-rich-quick scheme for thieves all around the world.) The disgusting fact of PC is that most people who make claims on White Guilt have NO LEGITIMACY whatever. And yet, these Frivolous Claims are taken seriously to allow endless immigration-invasion while the True Tragedy of the American Indians go unaddressed.
Anyway, one way forward for the White Race is to do what the White Vampires do in TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE. Form an alliance with the Indians against the Nihilists of Degeneracy and Invasion.
