Why Law-and-Order Issues are so Problematic in the US(and the Africanizing West): The Clash of Reality of Black Criminality versus the ‘Idology’ of Black Holy-Schmoliness — Virtue vs Vision — Italians and Swedes

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-trump-capturing-the-law-and-order-issue-137355

Patrick Buchanan has written a column about how Donald Trump can own the Law-and-Order issue in politics. In many ways, he is correct that many Americans are concerned about law-and-order, the need to deal with problems of crime and violence that have infested and even devastated many communities across America. Indeed, even entire cities have been overcome with crime and violence. Consider Detroit and Baltimore. And half of St. Louis and one-third of Chicago have very high crime rates. Given the fact that no one wants to be robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered, the issue of Law and Order should be clear enough and its appeal should be obvious. What sane person would choose disorder over order? What person would want to live in a town or city overrun by criminals than maintained by lawful peace? While plenty of Americans have romanticized outlaws, gangsters, and the like in entertainment, most Americans don’t want to live in a dangerous neighborhood where their loved ones could be harassed, attacked, or even murdered. No one wants their homes or apartments to be burglarized or invaded. Naturally, in a time and place where crime has gotten out of control, it’s only natural for people to be on the side of the Law against the Outlaw. And on those grounds, Pat Buchanan should be correct that Donald Trump has much to gain by running as a Law-and-Order President.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Republicans dominated the Presidency from 1968 to 1992 had something to do with the perception that they were tougher on crime as opposed to ‘bleeding-heart’ Liberal Democrats who'd become overly dependent on blacks as their constituents. And despite the Liberal Media’s bias, too many people became all too aware of the connection between blacks and crime. They witnessed entire cities fall into ruin as the result of out-of-control black behavior. The problem wasn’t just in the streets but at work. Black workers were more likely to misbehave, steal, and cause trouble. Even blacks who weren’t outright criminal had all sorts of behavioral problems. There was a time when New York, the premier city of wealth and power in the US, nearly went under due to rising crime, and of course, it was mostly black crime. The great housing projects that were supposed to improve black lives in the 60s and 70s only concentrated black criminality that festered and got worse. The environment-centric solutions hardly solved the problem, and if anything, it was like something out of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Post-War ideological trends posited rather dogmatically that all humans were more-or-less alike and that their behaviors could be fundamentally altered by external factors such as housing, schooling, and the like. It was as if humans were like pigeons inside B. F. Skinner’s experimental boxes, and the ideology underpinning the housing of blacks in huge projects was that modernity, efficiency, and symmetry would make blacks act in more orderly and productive ways. Such macro-experiment totally overlooked the possibility that blacks may be different internally at the genetic level due to 100,000s of years of evolution in Hot and Wild Africa.
Even though Modern Liberals believe in evolution, their ideological hangups have made them unwilling to accept certain implications. Evolution is about processes of divergence and change. For example, suppose there is a small race of humanoids, and those within the tribe more-or-less share the same gene pool. Then, suppose the tribe breaks up and go separate ways. Some remain in the same place, but others move to other areas that are either hotter, drier, colder, and have vastly different flora/fauna. As the various groups would now live in different environments, they would come under different evolutionary pressures that select for distinct traits as favorable. Obviously, a very hot environment will favor certain traits over others, and a very cold environment would likely choose for ‘opposite’ traits to those favored in hot regions. Furthermore, there are ripple effects to selection that have little to do with survivability. An environment that selects for certain traits may set off mutations that lead to further alternations that make the organism(and its kind) even more different from others of its kind living far away under different environmental pressures. For example, if a tribe of humanoids go separate ways and if one ends up in an extreme cold environment while another ends up in a very hot environment, they will diverge from each other in ways other than adaptability to climate. As the environment selects for traits that are better adapted to the cold, the changes may set off cascades of mutations that change the organisms even further. The same goes for those who adapt to an extremely hot climate. For example, blue eyes and blond hair are not necessary for survival in cold climate, but they arose due to mutations of those who adapted to cold climates and by relative ‘inbreeding’.

Anyway, the theory of evolution would make no sense IF organisms didn’t diverge and change from one another. No honest person can claim that the various human races are all the same and interchangeable in their abilities and aesthetics. The races are clearly different according to looks. PC types may argue that we must go beyond looks and focus on souls, but looks do matter, and aesthetics is a valid reason for wanting to preserve certain species, races, and breeds. If looks don’t matter, why do people react so strongly to ivories on an elephant, the mane on a lion, feathers of a peacock, stripes on a zebra, or fur on a mink? Is a peacock plucked of feathers the same as a peacock with a full dress of feathers because their 'souls' are the same? Is a lion shaved and devoid of fur/mane the same as a lion with natural fur and mane? People rely on looks to make the most important decisions of their lives, like finding a mate and buying a house. And in deciding which dress to wear. Looks DO matter, especially to eye-centric humans with complex sense of aesthetics and design. Organisms are the designs of nature.
Obviously, looks are not everything as beautiful people can be wicked and ugly people can be good-of-heart. The Left came to believe that all individuals were, more or less, same of soul upon birth. They were born with blank-slate souls that could be made good or bad depending on the environment, education, and culture. So, at the very least, no matter how ugly someone may be on the outside, he or she has the same chance to be a good person. But as it turns out, inner beauty/ugliness is also largely genetic though inner beauty doesn’t necessarily correlate with outer beauty(just like good looks don’t guarantee a lovely voice). It also turns out that not only are the various races different in outer looks but in inner temperaments. Blacks are more likely to have aggressive, rancorous, and troublesome personalities. Granted, a loud and boisterous person can be good-natured whereas a gentle and cordial person can be psychopathic, but generally speaking, a race that tends to be overtly aggressive and wild will tend to be more destructive of social order and peace. Even though blacks have the ‘ugliest’ and most savage inner souls, so many non-blacks are fooled by black vocality that, in its bellowing tremor, can create the impression of a deep-souled Negro, as when Paul Robeson sang "Ole Man River".

Especially the West, having been molded for so long by Christian theology, has a tendency to conflate the Negro voice with spirituality when, if anything, the core urges that drive the Negro soul is ‘muh booty’, ‘muh fist’, ‘muh dick’, and ‘where da white women at?’ Especially because of founding of America as New Jerusalem and the national ‘sin’ of slavery, white Americans have projected their hopes and dreams on the Redemptive
Negro. By rising from slavery to pursuit of happiness, the Negro is seen as redeeming the American Enterprise. By forgiving and healing white souls(stained with ‘white guilt’), the Negro is seen as the angel that can cure White America. Also, having been the most savage race to have been brought to America, the elevation of Negro to civilized status is seen as the greatest pride of the West, i.e. if the West, for all its ‘sins’, took a bunch of savages and turned them into civilized folks, it will have proven its worth. So, the Dream is that the Negro saves the white man from ‘white guilt’ in return for the white man having saved the Negro from savagery. Of course, the latter part of the equation is no longer muttered as it’d be deemed ‘racist’, but it is nevertheless felt strongly in the white subconscious. After all, why are whites most concerned about bringing progress to black Africa? Because it is the most daunting task as Black Africa is by-and-large the most savage and backward part of the world. While it’s no longer fashionable for whites to say, "We must bring the light of civilization to those black savages living in darkness and ignorance" — whites must only say that blacks are so holy & special that only Black Magic can redeem and cleanse the white race — , so much of what white elites do in relation to Africa & blacks suggests excitement over the most challenging task of transforming blacks from poor backward savages to not only civilized folks but the holy god-men of White Cucky-Wuck Fantasy.

Bill Gates as the Great White Geek

Anyway, why is Law-and-Order such a controversial issue in America? Naturally, most people of any nation would prefer peace and stability secured by law & order. Who wants to live in a world of criminality? We might get kicks from gangster movies or Western flicks with outlaws, but we want safe neighborhoods where kids can play and where old people can walk to the neighborhood store without getting mugged or beaten. I can’t imagine a politician or leader who gains mass support as the representative of crime and disorder. To be sure, there have been nations where criminal elements have pretty much gained control of society. This was once(and may still be) the case in Sicily. And it’s been well-known that drug-cartels have amassed tremendous hold over certain Latin American nations. There, law & order is hardly an issue since outlaws have the upperhand. If there is to be a kind of social order, it is essentially rule by warlords. ‘Peace’ is guaranteed by might than right. It’s a world of guns and bullets than law and order. In such a world, the people may prefer the better-organized and ‘scrupulous’ gangsters(those that have some honor-among-thieves) than out-of-control delinquents, the kind seen in the Brazilian film CITY OF GOD. In contrast, while the Italian mafia did terrible things in America, they kept the streets in their own neighborhoods safe.


It’s been said that organized crime played a big role in Italian-American neighborhoods and Chinatowns across America. Partly out of fear of gangsters and partly out of reliance on them(due to deep-seated distrust of the Law that was seen as corrupt, uncaring, or ineffective), the people of the community stuck with their own kind even if criminal because they were a ‘known quantity’. Thus, tribalism affects the way people see Law & Order.
Ideally, while most people prefer the clean workings of law & order over crime & corruption, they may side with criminal elements of their own kind over law & order that seems to be dominated by the Other. Out of bias, loyalty, familiarity, sentimentality, and/or fear, many Italian-Americans sided with the mafia over the Law. While they understood the dark side of organized crime, the mafia was ‘one of us’, part of Italian-American power and muscle. Just like some people prefer tyranny by their own kind over greater individual freedom(and even better governance) under foreign rule, people may have clouded views of law & order when the Law is perceived to be controlled by the Other whereas the criminal elements are seen as members of the community.

For example, there are plenty of Jews who will side with Jewish criminals(often white-collar) and gangsters over Law & Order. Jewish Power pulled all manner of strings to ensure that monkey-boy Obama would pardon Jonathan Pollard. Even Liberal Jews who kvetch so much about ‘social injustice’ are reliably silent about illegality, criminality, and pathology among their own kind... which is why the likes of Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein had been able to get away with SO MUCH bad behavior for SO LONG. The matrix of Jewish media, Jewish legal power, Jewish finance, and Jewish deep state ensured a kind of Omerta(or 'schmerta') among Jewish elites. They were like ‘made men’ and had license to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and even kill, indeed get away with just about anything. Sure, when some Jews get too greedy and take too many risks to the point of endangering the entire enterprise, the Jewish Power will sacrifice the Crazy Jew who's giving the Jewish Community a bad reputation no matter how much Jews try to keep it all under a tight lid(or yid). It seems Jeffrey Epstein went too far, and even Jewish Power figured it was better to sacrifice him than go down with him(as there are surely plenty more of such fiendish Jews working behind the scenes to pull all sorts of dirty schemes). Italian-American community has been the same, albeit in a cruder, way. While, theoretically at least, Italians in a purely Italian community may prefer law-and-order over criminality, certain factors have made Italians(in the homeland and abroad) notorious for their associations with crime and corruption. One reason is it took longer for Italy to coalesce as a modern nation-state. Thus, many Italians’ first loyalty was to a region than to the nation. Also, in contrast to Northern Europe, Italians were considerably different genetically, especially between north and south. While traditional Britain had problems among Scotch and English, at the very least they were racially identical and looked it. In contrast, while a northern Italian might look more Germanic, southern Italian might look more like an Arab or North African. Thus, instead of southern Italians working with relatively cleaner northern Italians to fight crime, many of them chose to side with the local mafia against national efforts to root out organized crime. Furthermore, the egotism and family-clanism of Italians made civic mind-set harder to come by. The egotism and vanity made Italians prioritize MY needs and wants above all other considerations. And the family-clanism meant that Italian parents, especially the mothers, were willing to go to any length to favor their own kids over the good of society. So, an Italian mother may appeal to the local mafia, boss, or chieftain to favor her son over the sons of other families who are more deserving by meritocracy. Too many Italians think ‘me over my family’, ‘my family over my town’, and ‘my town over my country’. Furthermore, for all their big talk, most Italian men are mama's boys. Indeed, they make a lot of noise as a kind of bluff precisely because they fear real confrontations that test their mettle. Being essentially cowardly, Italians would rather bend over backwards to criminals than be like Wyatt Earp and take them on.

It’s hard to maintain steady and stable law & order with a people with such mentality. Sense of civic duty is best guaranteed in an order where most people feel that the good of the whole trumps ‘myself’, ‘my family’, and ‘my clan’. A good society needs to be fair, and fairness must be decided by equal application of law and order. The good must be rewarded and bad must be punished regardless of who/whom. Some might characterize such principles or idealism as ‘universalist’, but paradoxically, universalism works best as a closed system within a particularism. Take Sweden before it went crazy under the influence of Jewish PC. Nearly all people were Swedish. They were one people in looks, culture, and history. And Lutheranism had long instilled qualities of sobriety, order, and earnestness. Also, Northern Europeans tend to be genetically more disposed to severity. Even as marauding Vikings, the Nordics were more sullen and heavy in their emotions than, say, the Jafro-Jiving black savages of Africa. This lack of color in personality made for a more even temperament that adopted Christian values and respected authority with greater sense of duty and trust. So, among such a people with particular-commonalities of looks, feelings, and thoughts, a Trust Society of ideals, values, and law & order could arise. In other words, universal principles of right-and-wrong secured by law-and-order was possible ONLY BECAUSE the people of Sweden saw each other as part of a close-knit national family with so much in common.


The key distinction between Italy and Sweden was peoples in the two nations were anxiety-ridden about different things. Italians fretted most(to the state of paranoia) about the possibility that other Italians might lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them. In contrast, Swedes were most anxious and ‘paranoid’ about being regarded as liars, cheats, and thieves by other Swedes. Italians worried that other Italians might be ‘get the better of me’, whereas Swedes worried that other Swedes might regard ‘me as not good enough for their standards’. So, Italians saw life as a game of out-cheating other Italians, whereas Swedes saw life as a duty of gaining the trust(and approval) of other Swedes. It just goes to show that an attitude or outlook can have a profound ebb-and-flow ripple effect from soul to society and back from society to soul, on and on.
Between traditional Italy vs traditional Sweden, the latter comes across as much better, a well-ordered society of rule of law, fairness, and trust. In contrast, Italy comes across as a cesspool of egotism, corruption, and pettiness. Sweden seems about higher principles over petty privileges, whereas Italy would be the opposite. However, Sweden could maintain such ‘universal’ ideals of justice ONLY IF it remained a nation of Swedes, a people of common looks, shared culture, familiar values, and similar temperaments. But because universal values worked so well inside Sweden, the foolish Swedes thought theirs was an ideal microcosm of a universal nation, and decided to become a ‘moral superpower’ by sending tons of aid to Africa and flinging open Sweden’s gates to the world. But Swedes in Africa made no progress in improving the lot of blacks who have different attitudes, cultures, values, temperaments, and IQ. And newcomers to Sweden from Muslim world and Africa could not become good New Swedes because they are so genetically and culturally different. Needless to say, blacks are the MOST problematic. But it was made even worse by ‘multi-culturalism’ that contradicted the whole Swedish project of being a universal moral super-power. After all, if the Swedish experiment had worked out so well because the Swedish Way is the way-to-go, then newcomers should be pressured to think, act, and behave like successful Swedes as much as possible. But multi-culturalism said Sweden should welcome foreigners and let them stick to their cultures of origin. But why? Didn’t it ever occur to the Swedes that the foreigners made a mess of their own nations largely due to their cultural attitudes and behaviors?
Even though much of Swedish attitudes and values were rooted in the severe strains of Lutheranism, the source of much stress but also strength, the modern Swedish lost faith in religion and sought out a new faith... and found it in the figure of the holy-holocaust Jew. Swedes, regarding Jews as a wise & saintly people who’d survived the Shoah, earnestly believed that Jews would only bless them with the best advice and most wonderful lessons. Little did they realize that the Shoah, though horrific and evil, was partly the product of Jewish behavior driving goyim to madness. (The Holocaust was also the culmination of a special kind of German madness, but things got far worse in friction with Jewish radical madness.) Little did naive Swedes understand that Jews primarily favor their own tribal interests, have a special animus against Christian Europe, and harbor fantasies of vengeance against all white goyim(over the Shoah and for other reason, such as vicious envy that, for some inexplicable reason, God made the filthy ‘goy’ Aryans more handsome than the Chosen Jews). Swedes, being earnest & sincere and having been rendered respectful to higher authority under its localized version of ‘universal values’, trusted the Jews whole hog. The result was dire Diversity. And of course, decrepit decadence, supposedly a magic cure from all that dark and heavy Lutheran neurosis that must be totally expunged from the Swedish soul. (While Lutheranism had its dark side and negative as well as positive impact on Sweden, did any Swede ever study the impact of jungle ugabuga culture on black Africans? Apparently not.)
In a way, the relatively enclosed and homogeneous world of Sweden was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because the shared looks and laws made for a more cogent, coherent, and consistent society, a place where higher principles of ‘universal justice’ could prevail over petty passions. But this culture of trust in societal justice made Swedes all-too-trusting of both moral and political authority. And as every Swede was so anxious to be seen as a Good Swede by other Swedes, he or she was willing to show that he/she was with the program to make for a better society, a better world.

Now, who owns moral authority and sets the cultural tenor of society? At least in traditional Sweden, there was the power of church and community. But in late-modern Sweden of atomized individuals, the moral authority and cultural hegemony were determined by academics, politicians, public intellectuals, and artists. And as the culture of the West as a whole came to be shaped largely by the US that came under Jewish control, Swedish minds from top to bottom just became putty in the hands of Jews. Even if Swedes mostly did it to themselves, their elites and intellectuals were indirectly shaped by ideas emanating from the US. Also, as Jews became the Holy Holocaust people especially beginning in the Sixties, the Swedes(like so many in the West) were largely without critical defenses against Jewish power and agenda. Jews were seen as akin to a sacred god-race, and this allowed Jews to define the taboos of the West, and the #1 taboo became Thou Shalt Not Doubt or Question the Jew... for that would be the gravest of all sins, which is ‘Antisemitism’. Because of their trusting character and anxiety-for-approval, Swedes wholeheartedly came to embrace the new gods of Diversity, Feminism, Globo-Homo-Mania, Afromania, and the Cult of White Guilt. If Swedes of the past invested their sincerity, trust, and earnestness in God, Church, and Community, the atomized late-modern Swedes committed their goodwill to Diversity, Feminism, and Globo-Homo. And since trusting Swedes have a hive-mind, they had no defenses against the expanding horror. Even now, the average Swede is most anxious about "Will other Swedes consider me as unworthy?"
This goes to show that Swedes, though smart and capable, are incapable of independent search for truth, meaning, and justice. They can be very good at devoting their energies toward certain ideals and objectives, but they(along with most of the white race) cannot find the Truth for themselves. Rather, this truth has to be provided by the Other, those with greater prophetic vision and zeal. Because the white world lacked for prophets, it adopted Christianity, the creation of heretical Jews. White Christendom worked very hard at serving the Faith, but white folks failed to come up with a faith of their own. And in the modern era that saw the ebbing away of old-time religion, white people were once again incapable of discovering their own truths and therefore fell under the sway of the ‘truths’ as revealed by Jews with the power of radical will and prophetic personality. These so-called ‘truths’ could actually turn out to be falsehoods, lunacies, or even evil ideas, but they had the power to captivate and hold sway over countless millions due to sheer conceptual grandeur, intellectual drive, moral passion, and/or iconic power. Swedes, like most white folks, despite all their intelligence and ability, failed to dream their own dreams and envision their own destiny. And so, one had to be supplied to them, and it came from Jews whom the Swedes trusted and revered as the Holy Holocaust people, indeed as if every Jew were a kind of modern Moses-Isaiah-Jesus rolled into one. But in fact, they were fooled by the satanic venality of Jews who were really seeking vengeance(against all of Christendom and Western Civilization) and hegemony over the entire world. As far as Jews were concerned, Sweden as a peaceful and prosperous homogeneous white nation might send the wrong messages to whites around the world. Whiteness = Success. Such might signal that whites do best in a world of their own. But such a world might exclude Jews as the Other. Therefore, Jews went out of their way to pathologize whiteness and homogeneity so as to persuade whites that there is something wrong with the too-whiteness of their world that must be ‘enriched’ with Diversity. And stupid whites, in moral awe of Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, swallowed the BS hook, line, and sinker.

Now, one may ask, "But if white nations fail and fall apart due to Diversity, won’t white people finally wake up and realize that white homogeneity was better and it’d been retarded to trust the Jews?" Yes, effects of Diversity may make white people realize their grave mistake of trusting Jews, but then, it'd be too little and too late as their nations would have been already lost forever to Diversity. As such, they will have to live in a world where various goy groups are constantly at each other’s throats, in which case Jewish globalist-hegemonist elites can play their game of divide-and-rule among the lost and confused gentiles. With Jews, You Lose. Swedes have long ways to go before they fully realize that they’d been played for fools, but they eventually will one day. And as they look back and wonder why they weren’t able to stop the horror in its tracks, they’ll realize it was due to their Anxiety of Trust, i.e. each Swede was most hung-up with neuroticism that fellow Swedes might regard him or her as unworthy in his/her sincere commitment to ‘goodness’ and ‘justice’. And perhaps they will even realize that their fatal error was in having allowed the vile, venal, and vicious Jews to masquerade as the Wise People bringing the gifts of reform and redemption to all white folks around the world.

The lesson to learn here is that a people with strong set of virtues but without the will of vision can be led to serious self-harm by those who control the vision thing. Indeed, we saw this with Germans and Japanese in World War II. Germans and Japanese had many virtues such as courage, loyalty, hard work, dedication, willingness to sacrifice, and honor. But as most Germans and Japanese lacked the power of personal vision, they relied on some other to supply them with the vision. If the vision was good, all their virtues went toward serving that vision. But if the vision was bad, all the virtues were wasted in service of evil. It’s like dogs. We appreciate dogs for their natural ‘virtues’ of loyalty and dedication, but as dogs lack vision, their ‘virtues’ always go toward serving the ‘vision’ supplied by the master. A dog’s ‘virtues’ can be used to save or kill a person’s life. Whether a dog is used to track down an innocent man or guilty man, the dog is only capable of the ‘virtue’ of commitment. It cannot conceive of its own vision. As Germans had many virtues, they could have done great things IF Hitler who supplied the vision was a truly good man. But Hitler was a pathological demagogue, and so, the German virtues of courage, loyalty, and hard work were ultimately put to horrible waste and evil. This is what happens when a people with virtues but without vision(let alone prophetic will) come under the spell of an evil vision. What Hitler did to the Germans, Jews are now doing to the West. As white folks lack the power of vision, it is supplied by Jews who do have it, even if it has grown satanic over the years. Jewish Power of vision elevated Holocaust-Worship, Afromania, and Globo-Homomania as the new trinity.

Ultimately, in terms of power politics, it doesn’t matter if the vision is good or evil. The fact is those without vision will always go with those with vision, even if evil, especially as even the most evil vision presents itself as true and just. Unless the evil vision can be met with good counter-vision, people will fall under sway of vision. Virtues are good but are always in the service of something. Courage is a virtue, but in the service of what? Courage doesn’t decide if it will fight and die for Nazism or Communism. Rather it is the vision that commands the virtue of courage to serve its agenda. In our times, Jews supply the vision of the world: Israel is so great, Iran is so terrible; US as globo-homo empire is so wonderful whereas Russia is evil; the West must be remade by Diversity and ‘Inclusion’, even if it means the US, Canada, and Europe are swamped by blacks and other non-whites; the Jewish vision says any white who says NO to Open Borders is a ‘racist’, the worst thing in the world; Man is a ‘woman’ because there are infinite numbers of ‘genders’ that are fluid; and so on and on. As crazy as these ideas are, they are Big Ideas, and Jews have the chutzpah to dream them up and have the financial/media power to disseminate them. Also, as the Holy Holocaust people, they have the godlike visionary power to determine what the taboos are, and of course, the main taboo is to ever doubt the wisdom and all-knowingness of the Master Jew who must be obeyed. So, white people, especially those of Northern European extraction, still have lots of virtues(of hard work, dedication, commitment, seriousness), but all such virtues are befouled and wasted in the service of Jewish Supremacist satanic craziness.

The perverse irony is that when the vision is bad, lack of virtue is better than virtue. Indeed, Germany would have done far less harm under Hitler if the German people were more like Italians in their lack of virtue. Imagine if German soldiers were lazy, cowardly, craven, clownish, dishonorable, and lacking in scruples. Hitler couldn’t have done much with such a people to cause much harm to the world. He would have barely invaded Poland and would have been soundly thrashed by France, and never mind a war with Russia, which would have been impossible with human material lacking in virtue. This is why white people must wake up and shake free of the Jewish vision that is misusing white virtues for evil purposes around the world. No, Jews are not a holy, wise, and perfect people. Blacks are not Magic Negroes or Afro-Angels. Homos and trannies are NOT our moral betters who should be celebrated 24/7 all year round. And it is perverse that entire nations and peoples must be destroyed in the name of what is good for Israel, Israel, Israel.

When we look at Sweden vs Italy today in relation to the migrant-crisis and immigration-invasion, it may seem weird that Swedes with more virtue are faring worse than Italians with less virtue. But this is because virtue, in its earnestness and commitment, is more eager to serve the currently BAD vision of Sweden supplied by venal Jews. Swedes are being goody-good agents of a baddy-bad idea, and that makes things worse. Doing bad things in a bad way is less dangerous because incompetence, laziness, or inattention messes up the plan. It is when people do bad things in a good way that the greatest harm is done. Because virtue plays by ‘universal’ rules, the virtuous tend to operate with hive minds. They know what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, and coordinate their combined efforts in the name of the ‘good’(which could actually turn out to be ‘bad’). Why the hive mind? Because virtue becomes meaningless if everyone decides what is good or bad on his own. Rather, virtue is widely recognized only because most people agree that it is in the service of ‘good’. And yet, this is the very danger of Sweden. When the vision is bad — the current vision of Sweden is absolutely horrifying — , it would actually be better for society if people grew cynical & sardonic as individuals and began to doubt and question what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. They need to be more ironic than iconic in their mode of thinking. But Swedes are too virtuous in their hive-mind to really question that vision that has cast an evil spell on the nation.
In contrast, the wily Italians of late have been more willing to doubt the Jewish-infected vision of the Open Borders agenda of Afro-European Union. Though the lack of virtue has led to so much corruption, crime, and inefficiency in Italy, its one saving grace has been the greater cynicism about the Vision. Also, while petty Italian egotism has often undermined civic-mindedness, it has the advantage of being less willing to get with the globalist program of what it means to be ‘Good Europeans’. In contrast, the virtuous Germans with their greater zeal to be ‘Good Europeans’ have invested their civic-mindedness toward mindlessly welcoming the Merkel Millions from war-torn countries destroyed by Wars for Israel.
If white people in the West had their own power of vision, they would condemn Jewish Power and its Wars that destroyed so many Muslim/Arab lives. White people would condemn Jews for having created the Refugee Crisis by working with Saudis to foment strife and mayhem all over the Middle East and North Africa.

But lacking their own vision, most white people just rely on Jews to supply the Vision, it being "White People stained forever with ‘racism’ must redeem themselves by taking in tons of desperate refugees, or else they are heartless evil ‘xenophobes’." Notice how the Jewish vision never touches on the fact that it was mostly JEWISH POWER that pulled strings to destroy Arab/Muslim nations and force so many millions into refugee status. Never mind the Jews turning Arabs into homeless nomads. Just focus on how white people must be good & kind and welcome all those refugees into their own countries(while Israel and Saudi Arabia refuse to take any). It goes to show that virtue without vision is like being a dog. Without the power of vision, a people will always be servants of those with vision. When the vision is bad, it’s better to be a cynical and petty Italian than a do-goody Swede. At least, you’ll be more likely to save your own hide instead of earnestly working to sacrifice your entire nation to the Other. (In a way, it’s almost as if Hitler’s wishes are coming true. Facing defeat, Hitler damned the Germans for failing him and ordered Albert Speer to lay waste to all of Germany. Germany would have to vanish with him for its ‘sin’ of having failed to live up to his dream. Alas, Germany survived. But today, Germany and other European nations seem to have an Hitlerian will for self-immolation even if, ironically enough, in the name of anti-Nazism. Hitler wanted Germany and Europe destroyed forever for having failed Nazism. Today’s cucks want the West destroyed forever for having failed the Jews in WWII.)

Blacks are So Holy that we must convince ourselves that this is Beautiful. It sure is Bootiful.

Anyway, what is the problem of Law & Order in America(and West in general)? Why are so many people troubled by Law & Order issues when it’s so obvious that Lawfulness is preferable to Criminality? It’s because the demands of Law & Order violate one of the biggest idol-worships of America: Afromania. The problem is BLACKS commit crimes and acts of violence in far greater numbers than other groups do. Now, if there were no special love or consideration for blacks in the US, calling for more law & order to suppress black violence would hardly be a problem. Furthermore, if the US especially valued white lives, the call for law & order to suppress black violence would be even greater. Indeed, when the US was a pro-white white-majority nation long ago, whites felt no compunction about meting out harsh punishment to those who harmed white people. So, when Red Savages raided and killed white settlers, white rage united white folks in their wars on Indians. When Arab-African pirates raided American ships and enslaved whites to be sold into slavery, White America used its navy to crush the darky pirates. When a black thug raped a white woman or murdered a white man, white community came together to hang the Nasty Negro from a tree. When Mexicans slaughtered the white men at Alamo, white Americans got riled up and fought even harder to crush Mexico. When the ‘Japs’ attacked Pearl Harbor and massacred 3,000 white folks, a White America got so angry that it led a semi-genocidal war on Japan. So, if the white race were still seen as the essential and archetypal folks of America and if it was well-known that nasty Negroes were robbing, raping, and murdering too many white people, White people would totally be for more Law & Order to put the vicious blacks in their place.

But the fact is white folks lost their place on the American pedestal of worthiness. Initially, the idea was whites are good but so are non-whites, so the latter should be given equal place at the table. If whites are good, they should support equal protection under the law for all races. As a morally compelling argument, whites decided to de-racialize Americanism so that whites and non-whites could both be good citizens. But then, the Jewish control of academia/media and the white elite vanity of virtue-signaling especially blamed the white race for the troubles in the West. It went from ‘whites are good and so are non-whites who should be treated equally’ to ‘whites are not-so-good while certain peoples, especially blacks and Jews, are especially good’. And then, Jewish Power began to elevate the Shoah from a tragic historic event to some kind of neo-religion that must be worshiped. And the black narrative went from morally compelling to spiritually compulsory. Every American has to worship MLK(and revere Mandela) as god-men. With such premise, every year saw greater elevation of Jews and blacks(and then homos) to higher status while whites were increasingly demoted, degraded, and defamed as more a human plague than a human race.
It got even more ridiculous, what with white women being encouraged to side with Diversity, Jews, and homos against white men. Never mind the white world gave most freedom to women. Never mind white women were there alongside white men in the imperialist conquest of the world, therefore no less guilty(if ‘white guilt’ is to be believed). Never mind Jews see white women as whores and commodity to buy and sell. Never mind white women were created by straight white men, whereas homo ‘sex’ of fecal-penetration never created a single life. If anything, white women SHOULD side with white men, and Jews feared that very unity. And so, Jews devised an ingenious strategy. If Jews attacked white men and white women equally, white men and white women would found themselves in the same camp. To drive a wedge into the crucial unity of white men and white women, Jews especially vilified white men while offering moral amnesty to white women via feminism AS LONG AS white women identified themselves as just another victim group of Straight White Males. So, white women would be spared the full brunt of accusation of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’ IF they sided with Jews, blacks, Diversity, and homos against straight white males. And so many white women took the bait, but then, the female nature is essentially whore-ish, and women will go with the Power. As Jews held the power, so many white women became mental putty and bodily pooter in their hands. Jews are very clever. They understood that the white race would be stronger IF Political Correctness equally condemned white men and white women equally. Both would end up on the same boat and would be forced to work together as fellow moral lepers. Jews know that the most crucial unity of a people is between men and women, and that’s why Jews offered grace and forgiveness to white women IF they were to betray their own men and side with POC, blacks, and Jews. It’s like German women were offered protection IF they put out to Soviet Occupiers. Otherwise, they could be gang-raped or treated as badly as the German men. Jews pulled the same trick with Latin American whites. They knew that if they charged Anglo-American whites and Latin-American whites equally of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, both groups would have no choice but to form a coalition. So as to divide the white race, Jews offered grace to Latin American whites(who could pretend to be ‘people of color’) AS LONG AS they worked with Jews against Anglo-American whites. Of course, Latin American whites, being generally venal and craven, took up the offer, and it was also because of their burning resentment against White Americans as having achieved so much more than Hispanic Whites who settled the New World south of the US. Jews remembered how Italian-Americans simply became a part of White America, with many of them becoming conservative Republicans, and Jews also remembered how white Cubans who fled Castro became some of the most rock-solid Republicans. They were not going to make that mistake with future Latin American whites who came to the US. So, just when Jews went out of their way to vilify, dehumanize, and demonize whiteness, they offered an olive branch to Latin-American whites as honorary People of Color IF they were to side with Jews against American Whites. This is why we see so many whitey-white Latin-Americans in the US pretending like they have more in common with Indios and brown Mestizos than with other Americans of European extraction. Jews are so clever.

Currently, Law & Order issues in America are problematic because whites have been condemned while blacks have been consecrated. The ideology-of-idolatry or ‘idology’ of America would like for us to believe that blacks are noble-souled folks while whites are intrinsically a bunch of nasty a**holes. Indeed, Law & Order would be extremely popular in America if whites committed most of the heinous crimes while blacks were the main interracial victims. So many people would call out for more Law & Order to suppress white criminality, especially to save the Noble Negroes from Wicked Whites. Then, Law & Order would be aligned with the ‘Idology’ and PC Narrative. But the reality says otherwise. It says that blacks, despite being 13% of the US population, make up the majority of super-thugs, and black crime in most areas is way out of proportion to their population. This led to the Crime Complex of America. Under the influence of PC, so many Americans(including Conservatives) want to believe in the nobility of blacks and the need for whites to do more to bring forth a truly just society. But reality makes mincemeat of that conceit because, by and large, blacks are NOT noble and, if anything, often rude, nasty, obnoxious, vicious, savage, demented, cruel, and unscrupulous to the max.


"Montage of mainstream media spreading fake news that #JussieSmollett was attacked by white men in MAGA hats."

American reality is at odds with American ‘spirituality’ of Magic Negro Worship. Granted, due to the influence of sports and rap music, many whites admire blacks for the badass-thug-value, but even that is a kind of ‘spiritual’ worship, albeit of a demonic nature; it assumes that blacks have superhuman powers of masterfulness. It’s like the cucky-wuck Rock critic Dave Marsh and dorky-shmorky documentarian CucKen Burns babbling endlessly about how blackness is so awesome and white folks would just be lame white-bread nothings without the black prometheus having gifted them the rhythm and beat. It’s as if blacks have real souls with burning fire whereas whites only have frozen souls, and so, white ice can only be thawed by the heat of black magic. The end-logic of all this is ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs on the premise that the black dong can warm the white pooter and plant the seed to produce the New Superior Race of Afro-Europeans. Black male meat must rub with white female meat to create the heat to ‘redeem’ the white race from an Ice People to a fellow Sun People. No wonder then that EU has become Afro-European Union, what with the likes of Emanuel Macron and Boris Johnson calling for endless millions of more Africans to come ashore and take white women while white men are reduced to pathetic cuckery.

But the fantasy of black nobility crashes against the reality of black savagery. All those black Africans in Europe will only spread the kind of mayhem and chaos that defines Sub-Saharan Africa. Even in North Africa and Middle East, the infusion of black genes among the Arabs and Egyptians hasn’t done any good. Indeed, the darker Arabs are generally far less accomplished than lighter Arabs. Consider the Arabs of Sudan or Yemen. And the black genetic material among southern Italians, Portuguese, and certain Latin Americans hasn’t turned them into Magical Sun People. If anything, North Africans would rather move to the White West than stay put in their own nations and, for sure, they do NOT want to move to Sub-Saharan Africa. Only in the silly fantasies of brainwashed white cuck minds are scum like Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey the Hope of Mankind. Obama and Oprah have been nothing but ultra-grifters and egomaniacs who hustled white minds(turned into mush by Jewish control of academia and media) to grab the crown or to rake in the millions. Their status as national phenomena would not have been possible in a sober, serious, and sane nation grounded in reality, truth, and honesty.

Though there have been great religious movements in American History — beginning with the Great Awakening —, the dark side of mass-mentality set off by such events was the preference of Hope & Fantasy over Truth & Reality. Even secular America has carried on with this tradition. Since God and Jesus are no longer so relevant, people fall over themselves in rapture over Israel-Israel-Israel, Magic Negroes, Globo-Homos, and Jewish advertising campaigns. Such blind and gushing mind-set has a hard time processing reality, especially as ‘spiritual’ thought comes with powerful taboos. Since Jews-and-Israel are so sacrosanct, anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power must be a Vile ANTI-SEMITE. Since Negroes are so noble and wonderful, anyone who sees the dark side of blackness must be an Evil RACIST. Since Homos are so fabulous and sensational, anyone who sees the degeneracy of globo-homo worship must be a Despicable HOMOPHOBE. It’s virtually impossible to have a sane, sober, and/or serious discussion with people under such a spell. It’s like trying to convince a person infected with rabies that water isn’t harmful. Rabies isn’t called hydrophobia for nothing. It’s like trying to discuss the verity of religious claims with a True Believer. No matter how much you try to convince him or her that there is no evidence of miracles, they will insist on faith and, furthermore, condemn you as not just a non-believer but an agent of the Devil.

Blacks are like cows in India. To any rational mind and fairminded observer, it's obvious that letting cows run loose is bad for traffic, costly to society, and endangers many lives. But but but, Hindus in India believe cows to be sacred, and there isn't much that can be done about all the troubles they cause. Spiritual-thinking comes naturally to humans, but the downside is it can override reason and honest assessment of reality. Because cows are thought to be sacred, too many of them have been allowed to roam freely in India and wreak havoc in crucial sectors of society. Likewise, because blacks are regarded as holy, too many are allowed to romp and stomp around freely, and if they get way out of hand, we mustn’t blame 'blacks' because blackness is sacred; instead, we must focus on some other aspect of the perpetrators, such as their status as 'youths' or 'teens'. (And holy homos are allowed to take over entire cities in June and celebrate degeneracy, and of course, holy Jews have the license to mess up entire areas of Middle East with Wars for Israel[as the Neo-Crusades] and use Wall Street to rape entire economies. As we mustn’t badmouth the holy, we must just keep chanting 'Israel is our closest ally' and ‘God blesses those who bless the Jews’.)

It’s not enough to timidly assert, "It’s Okay to be White". People must wake up to reality and grow a pair and say the obvious: "Blacks are not sacred, blacks are not holy, blacks are not magical." Just because a people were treated unfairly in the past and because their story has been turned into a fairytale doesn’t alter the fact that, IN THE REAL WORLD, blacks are especially problematic and more prone to violence & psychopathy than the other races because of 200,000 yrs of evolution in the Dark Continent than 200 yrs of slavery in the New World. A myth that would have the most savage race be the most saintly race is worse than foolish. It is fatal to civilization.

Dangers of Jewish Ethno-Stalinism or Tribal-Dictatorship — Biggest Contradiction of Current U.S. Power is between Jewish Power and Universal Principles — End of History and Beginning of Beastory — How Jews are METO(More Equal Than Others) over the Rest of Us

What was one of the most striking features of Stalinism? It was premised on communist principles of equality and justice for all. Stalinism was nothing new in terms of tyranny as brutality and repression have been around since the beginning of history. What made Stalinism perverse was the contradiction between its principles and its practice of power. Granted, the very term ‘Stalinism’ implied a perversion of communism from a universal-egalitarian ideal to a cult of personality, an idolatry centered around an individual elevated to quasi-divine status. At least in this respect, communism was a bigger moral failure than Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, ‘ideologies’ that openly and honestly insisted that a strong leader with power of vision and charisma should rule and define the destiny of his people. Though Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were anti-individualist when it came to mass politics, they were ultra-individualist when it came to the Great Leader, Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. Presumably, such a man was so awe-inspiring that he needn't operate by the rules of ordinary folks. He belonged to the pantheon of the greatest men in history. It was as if they were imbued with the stuff of myth. In the 19th century, many Romantics regarded Napoleon that way, seeing him more as god-man or force of nature than merely a military leader or historical figure. A man of destiny.

In contrast, communism claimed to be about ideas and principles than idols and power. Sure, communists would have to gain and even monopolize power to realize their Utopian project, but the end-result of such monumental endeavor would be a world in which all peoples would be equal in freedom, work, justice, and responsibility. Granted, modern communism came to be defined by Karl Marx(though communism as an idea predated him), just like much of modern psychology came to be, at least for a crucial period in the 20th century, shaped by Sigmund Freud at the expense of other more empirical but less imaginative experts. Some may argue this was 20th century communism’s fatal error, the allowing the thoughts of a single individual to exert such vast influence on an idea and movement. Beginning with Marxism, communism was less a generic idea of social justice based on collective ownership of property than the prophecy of an individual who, as Modern Moses, insisted that communism must be something more than a blueprint formulated in the minds of men: It was a historical inevitability that no will or power could stop. It was only a matter of when. Prior to Marx, communism was more a matter of social philosophy than grand history, i.e. communist ideals arose from the minds of men, and communist reality could be achieved only by the determination and will of men committed to revolutionary change. Without such conscious will and decision-making, communism would never be realized in the world. In other words, communism was the will of man. Men had to make it happen. As such, it was kind of humanism. Early communists were like the pagans who believed in a plurality of gods and heroes. Nothing was certain, and history was determined by the clash of wills and visions of men. The winners would decide history.
In contrast, Marx believed that consciousness follows material conditions. Though an atheist, Marx believed in a power beyond the will or wish of men. This power was History, a monomaniacal force like the Jewish God. Just like individuals are helpless and powerless before the one and only God, mankind cannot do anything to change the course of History. People can only be agents of History, like people are only pawns of the one and only God. At most, people can try to understand this uber-power; and when this power demands change, one must be ready to ride the waves or be swept aside. According to Marx's view of History, as economic factors change, social relationships also change, and such shifts affect the way people view reality and their place in it. There is a historical logic and dynamics beyond what people may wish to think or believe. Also, most people cannot think or imagine beyond the material limits of their reality. The material reality must change before the mind follows and changes accordingly; it's like in evolution, organisms react/adapt to the changing environment. Economic reality changes with the evolution of production that, in time, comes to favor one class over another. The rise of trade eventually came to favor the merchant-bourgeoisie over the aristocracy. And as Marx saw the future, the dire contradictions within capitalism must inevitably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. While Marx wasn’t averse to individual will and commitment — indeed, one of his boastful comments was that the role of scholar isn't merely to study but change the world — , he thought the Revolution couldn’t be hastened or delayed by much. When it will happen, it will happen. It’s like a pregnant woman may try to have the child earlier or later, and she might alter the date of birth by a few days, but the fact remains most children are born after around 9 months.
Because of Marx’s elaborate theories and deep intellectualism, many communists convinced themselves that Marxism wasn’t really a personality cult but merely the best and most complete theory of communism as revealed by a great thinker. Supposedly, it was like Darwinism that merely attributed the discovery of evolution to the English scientist: Not a reverential cult of Charles Darwin as a know-it-all genius but credit due to the man who first worked out the basic theory of how evolution works. Likewise, Marx was seen as the first social scientist who figured out the true working dynamics of history. Still, whereas Darwin was respected as a great scientist, Karl Marx did come to be revered as a near-divine figure in the communist canon. Perhaps, the theme of justice is more powerful and emotionally charged than the theme of facts. Whereas Darwin merely figured out how biology works(on the amoral level), Marx figured out how history ultimately works to bring about a just world for all mankind. Truth is like ice, cold. Justice is like fire, hot. That mankind may have evolved from apes was mighty interesting, but it didn’t do anything to improve the lot of man, but the idea that material history eventually resolves its contradictions by toppling the exploitative class in favor of the toiling masses was deeply heartening to many who’d gone through the often traumatic Industrial Revolution.
That said, because Karl Marx remained a thinker all his life and never gained political power, his official status was that of a man of ideas. One might even say Karl Marx was too good and pure to dirty his hands in the world of politics with its betrayals and compromises. Similarly, Moses remained a prophet but never became king. And Jesus preached ideas and died for them but didn’t go about the ‘petty’ business of setting up organizations to spread the Gospel far and wide. Muhammad notwithstanding, when the man of principles also becomes a man of practice, much of the luster is lost.

It’s usually the case that the thinker or prophet retains a degree of purity in that he dreams big dreams and dies before his theory is put through the wringer of practice that has a way of mucking things up. After all, even the most pristine, cautious, and well-thought-out plan often goes wrong when put into action. Even the most powerful thinkers cannot foresee all the details and complications. Also, those who involved in the practice often turn out to be madmen, incompetents, hustlers, opportunists, egotists, or deeply flawed individuals. And for this reason, it’s hardly surprising that the failure of communism was usually blamed on men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao than on Karl Marx himself. Plenty of True Believers insisted that the practitioners of communism misinterpreted, betrayed, abused, or perverted True Marxism. The chances are that a system ruled by Marx himself would likely have failed too, but we will never know as the Great Man died before communism became a real political force in the world.

What we do know is that communism, as practiced by men like Vladimir Lenin, Bela Kun, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and etc., proved to be failures. Granted, not all communist nations were guilty of mass-killings, and furthermore, plenty of grisly acts were committed by right-wing and capitalist nations in the 20th century. But in the end, communism failed to deliver all the things it promised. It lost to capitalist nations by standards of materiality, freedom, and justice. If communist nations had produced less goods but nevertheless managed to offer more freedom or justice, that would have been something. But over time, it became more apparent by the day that capitalist nations were not only able to produce more goods but procure greater progress in justice and freedom. In contrast, not only did communist nations lag in technology and consumer goods but failed to deliver freedom and justice as promised. Diehard purists may argue that Marxism cannot be blamed for this because communism came to power in mostly pre-industrial nations, thereby turning Marx’s theory on its head. Marx argued communism would follow late capitalism and then the proletariat would inherit the earth from the fallen bourgeoisie. Marxism was a theory of inheritance, not installation, of industry. After all, Marx himself argued that no force was as revolutionary and transformational as capitalism, and for that very reason, despite its evils, it was an absolutely crucial stage toward the development of communism. Just like there must be night before dawn, there must be capitalism before communism.

As no fully developed capitalist nation turned communist, we still don’t know if post-capitalist communism will work wonders or not, but we can still guess as to how such a system will turn out. While the U.K. didn’t turn communist after World War II, the Labour Party did nationalize many key industries, and that didn’t do much for the economy. If anything, the more market-oriented European economies did better. Also, the paucity of material incentives in communism makes one wonder if a capitalist-made society will remain prosperous for long under the new rules. And facts of human nature suggest communism is, at best, over-zealous idealism blinded by narrow definition of ‘justice’. Still, given the rising contradictions of capitalism in our globalist world, it is safe to say that the End of History(as suggested by Francis Fukuyama) failed the understand the power dynamics and its implications for the future.
In terms of Fukuyama’s definition of ‘History’, he was more right than wrong. The end of the Cold War witnessed the closing days of the battle of Big Ideas. Oddly enough, the smaller, humbler, and more moderate ideas had won over the Big or Grand ones. Moderate Liberalism won out over Radical Leftism with its Macro Theory of History. And seemingly, moderate nationalism and moderate internationalism won out over ultra-nationalism that was once synonymous with imperialist ambition. In a way, one might say it was the triumph of the Anglo/American model over others, far left and far right. But one wonders if Anglo/Americanism won out mainly because of its wisdom and good sense or its good luck. While one can find much that is praiseworthy in British-American ways & values, would Anglo/American power have been so great if not for the superb luck that Anglos got to conquer, settle, and develop North America, the best land in the world? And were ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ really crucial in the development of the United States as a great power? Suppose Imperial Germany had taken North America and developed it along autocratic lines. Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful with all the land and resources utilized by a talented and hard-working people? Indeed, when we compare liberal democratic UK and autocratic Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the latter was gaining over the former. So, perhaps, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ have been over-emphasized as the reason for the power of the United States.
Anyway, the closure of the Cold War did bring about something like the End of History in that people were no longer into mega-ideologies. According to Fukuyama, this was due to the fact that ‘liberal democracy’ triumphed over the final Big Idea of Marxism, the grand theory that claimed to hold the key to the workings of history and culmination of justice. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’ made no such claim and made incremental progress based on liberty, empiricism, pragmatism, individualism, ingenuity & innovation, and free flow of ideas. Instead of one Big School dictating the Truth, liberal democracy allowed many schools and shops to bloom and offer their ideas and products in the marketplace of choice. Termites won over the elephant.

And yet, Fukuyama was wrong in one significant way. Though he valued liberal democracy for its freedom, moderation, and pragmatism, he also elevated it as the Final Idea that would define and dominate the world. The problem of such view was in assuming that The Idea has final power over the Forces within the System. According to Fukuyama, since Liberal Democracy prevailed over Communism(and Fascism), the dominant force in the West is Liberal Democracy, i.e. nothing, no one, and no group in the West can become greater than Liberal Democracy that is all about ‘individualism’, ‘liberty’, ‘free speech’, ‘rule of law’, and etc. But in truth, ideas have no life of their own. Even though every idea favors something over something else, it is also malleable in the hands of those who have the power, especially lots of power. Also, Liberal Democracy doesn’t preclude the monopolization of power or dominance by a certain group. The sheer prevalence of blacks in the NBA and NFL is obvious proof of that. Thus, the End of History with Liberal Democracy as the Final Idea can easily lead to the Beginning of Beastory with the most talented, intelligent, strong-willed, egotistical, maniacal, and/or organized groups using liberty and freedom to accumulate the most power for themselves. And with such monopolization of power, they can easily manipulate the Rule of Law and ‘liberal democratic’ principles to serve their narrow tribal and/or egotistical principles.
Granted, under a system like the US, no group will be able to gain the power wielded by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but given the current condition and global trajectory, it is very possible for a few groups to gain such market and elite dominance as to dictate their agenda and narrative to the rest of us. The passing of Big Ideas from the world stage doesn’t guarantee that the moderate rules and principles of Liberal Democracy will hold sway over all the world or even the West. This might have been the case IF everyone and every group in the West were equal in talent, intelligence, drive, ambition, and egotism, but the fact is certain groups are far more talented and driven than others. As such, they will gain so much more power in a state of relative freedom, even entire monopolies. Just like liberalism in sports only led to black domination and near-monopoly in many position, liberalism in industries and institutions led to the pre-eminence of Jewish power in so many areas, indeed to the extent that we live under what might be called the Ethno-Stalinism of Jews. Thus, the beastly ambitions of certain groups gain a stranglehold over the principles of Liberal Democracy. It is the Beginning of Beastory.

What is the similarity between Stalinism and Jewish Power in the US? Josef Stalin was the leader of a communist state where everyone was supposed to be equal in power, property, and justice. Now, given the nature of reality, it was hardly surprising that the leader of a communist nation would be ‘more equal than others’(or METO). Such is to be expected even from the most principled leader in the most principled community. But Stalin wasn’t mildly METO over the people of the USSR but totally METO over them. The rules that applied to others didn’t apply to Stalin at all. He could do just about anything and get away with anything. He wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god over men. While he could condemn millions to imprisonment or death, others could hardly criticize him. Indeed, it was deemed a crime to show insufficient enthusiasm for the man and whatever he muttered. Such tyranny would have been less perverse IF the USSR had been founded on the principle of Stalin-Worship, but it wasn’t. As brutal and ruthless as communism was from the beginning as a political movement, the idea was that radical will and violence were necessary to sweep away the old decrepit order to make way for the new where all would be equal. Of course, such outlook was hardly unique to communists. The US in World War II was willing to use ruthless means to defeat the Evil Enemy so as to lay the groundwork for a New World Order amenable to US interests and ideals. Many people rationalized communist violence in the same manner that others had justified violence in the name of Christianity, Islam, Homeland, Enlightenment, Civilization, and/or Freedom. Most white Americans acknowledged the tragic dimension of taking land from American Indians but believed it to have been justified as savagery and wilderness gave way to towns with schools and churches for womenfolk and children. In that sense, communist commitment to violence as a force of change was hardly out of line with historical narratives: Means justify Ends.
But Stalinism’s hyper Cult of Personality was something else. It didn’t merely compromise communist principles but totally overrode them, in effect turning the USSR into a kind of Stalinstan. And for Stalin to have more individual worth as the infallible leader — so infallible that even when events proved him to have been wrong, everyone had to make believe HE was right and history was wrong or ignore or rewrite history altogether — , the people of the USSR had to have less individual worth as citizens of the state. In time, Stalin wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god among minions. While the lives of millions could be expended by a mere twirl of his finger, no one could find fault with any aspect of the man and his erratic whims. If he said black is white and white is black, you had to nod along and agree. If he changed his mind, you had to agree again, but he might have you killed because, earlier, you had been ‘wrong’. Never mind that you’d only agreed with the Great Man because he’s always right. But if one man is always right, then all those around him bound to be always wrong because they lack the immunity of the Great One. Stalin could change his mind all the time and be right at every turn because the only law he lived by was "Stalin is always right". That gave him immunity from being wrong. So, he could go from A to B to C, and he would have been ‘right’ in all three cases because he is always right. But as those around him had no such immunity or license, they would have been wrong at every turn because they also switched positions from A to B to C. If the current state says C is correct, those who’d pledged to A or B would have been wrong. But of course, Stalin was never wrong because he was right even when he was wrong because he was above the law, with the only law applying to him being "I’m always right."

We see something like Stalinism with Jewish Power, though some might call it Political Trotskyism as most Jews preferred the Jewish Trotsky over the Georgian Stalin. By ‘Political Trotskyism’, we mean the nature of Jewish Personality and Will to Power than the Marxist-Communist ideological underpinnings of Trotskyism that no Jew(at least in power) believes in anymore. In the US, Jews are not merely somewhat METO(more equal than others) but totally so. Jews are always right, even when wrong. And goyim are ‘wrong’ even when they agree with Jews and reiterate what Jews have said. Plenty of Jews have said the Tribe does own the media. They said it with pride. But if goyim agree and say Jews control the media, they are denounced as ‘antisemitic conspiracy theorists’ and dragged through the mud. Jews claim to push for mass-immigration and celebrate the prospect of whites becoming minorities in their own nations, but if whites notice as much and say Jews are behind Diversity-mongering, they are attacked as ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’. Jews can say whatever they like. They can even brag about their sinister plans for other races and nations. They can taunt others and spew bile, but if you, as goy, take notice of Jewish attitudes as particularly Jewish, you are ‘wrong’ and denounced as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Just like Stalin was always right(even when wrong) and his victims were always ‘wrong’(even when right), the same kind of dynamics exists between Jews and goyim. The charter of the Jewish supremacist organization ADL is premised on the notion that in 99% of Jewish-Goyim relationships, Jews must be ‘innocent’ and goyim must be ‘guilty’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to stereotype, demean, defame, and pigeonhole certain groups of goyim(especially whites) as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and/or ‘hateful’, but goyim better not notice general patterns of behavior among Jews(unless such happen to be positive and flattering).

As with Stalinism, it is the sheer hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Jewish Power so repulsive. Unlike Ivan the Terrible who ruled openly as an iron-fisted tyrant in the Age of Tsars, Stalin ruled as Secretary General of a ‘republic’ committed to equality, justice, and liberation. So, the sheer discrepancy between what the USSR claimed ideologically and how Stalinism operated in reality was absolutely outrageous, so much in fact that Stalin had to tighten the totalitarian screws to make sure that no one said the Obvious: Stalinism was Tsarism x 1000. Though there were some social improvements and certain impressive achievements in the Soviet Union, if the system was equal in anything, it was in forcing blind obedience to the State that went from Stalinist dictatorship to oligarchic one-party rule.


*Incidentally, it appears Jews at Youtube manipulated algorithms so that if one searches for "Stalin Netanyahu applause ovation", no video that draws comparison shows up even though MANY have observed the oddity or similarity. It goes to show that Google/Youtube isn’t really ‘leftist’ but Jewish-tribal-supremacist. If Google Jews were truly ‘leftist’, why would they cover up for Netanyahu’s regime that is more ‘far right’ than even the most right-wing government in Europe? If Jews are so ‘liberal’, why do they push for Anti-BDS legislation that silences and destroys the lives of those who call attention to injustices faced by Palestinian underdogs?*

With Jewish Power, we see the same kind of contradiction in the US and the West in general. Jews make the most noise about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘freedom’, and yet most of what they do is to secure special privileges, supremacy, and hegemony for Jewish Power. Indeed, more often than not, what Jews SAY is merely a convenient cover for what Jews DO. Jews TALK to distract us from how they WALK. Think of a Jew who walks to Point A while making so much noise about how he’s headed to Point B. We need to judge by what Jews do, not by what they say. But even what they say go against what they say. Jews say the New America is no longer about Eurocentrism or ‘white privilege’ but about equal rights and respect for all groups, but in the next breath, Jews insist that America must regard Israel as its closest and greatest ally, and that all Americans must be especially sensitive to Jewish feelings uber alles. Never mind all the anti-Muslim movies made by Jewish Hollywood. Never mind all the anti-white movies(usually set in the American South) produced by Jews. Jews also make lots of movies and TV shows with evil Russian monsters and yellow-peril villains. So, Jewish Power can defame and demean any nation or people, casting it or them as the Enemy of America. Jews can declare Iran or Russia the Great Enemy, but if Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers try to draw people’s attention to the plight of those in the West Bank and Gaza as the result of America’s blind and mindless support of Zionist tyranny and terror, they must be shut down with Anti-BDS laws and resolutions. This is why Jewish Power is essentially ethno-stalinist. The stark difference between what Jews say in one moment AND what Jews say in other moments(and really DO) is totally outrageous. And just like Stalinism could perpetuate itself only via totalitarian tyranny that compelled the tyrannized to exclaim that they were equal, happy, and liberated under Stalin’s rule, the ethno-stalinism of Jewish Power insists that we all tell ourselves, others, and our Jewish masters that there is nothing more American as Apple Pie and 1776 as praising, flattering, revering, serving, obeying, and worshiping Jews. We must love Jewish Power like Winston Smith loved Big Brother in 1984. Unlike with Stalinism, heretics are not dragged off to be shot, but ethno-stalinist Jewish Power is very effective in maintaining control because Jews know that the fate of the nation is decided by a handful of elites. So, as long as Jews can buy off politicians and threaten goy economic elites with total ruin(by defaming their reputations as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic') if they deviate from the Judeo-centric Narrative and Dogma, just about everything is under control.
Also, as Jews have perverted the freedom of so many Americans by addicting them to hedonism and vices, so much of American liberty doesn’t go toward seeking truth and real justice. Generally, half of Americans only care to use their freedom for mindless pleasure, and the other half of Americans, having been molded by media/academia controlled by Jews, have a hard time conceiving of truth and justice beyond what they’ve been spoonfed since kindergarten. They grew up with the ideology and idolatry as controlled by Jews.

For a truer America, we need something like ethno-de-stalinization, just like the Soviet Union sought to de-Stalinize itself after the tyrant’s death(or murder) in 1953. But it’s difficult to change old habits, and vestiges of Stalinism remained to the very end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was that failure to truly root out Stalinism that prevented real reforms that could have made for a better system. Likewise, our de-ethno-stalinization must be total and absolute. It must not be a half-measure, especially as Jews have virulent personalities and radical wills. Just like there is no moderate way to deal with cancer, there is no soft way to deal with Jewish Power gone cancerous in the West.
Cancer is perversely contradictory in that it's about more life that leads to sure death. Cancer produces more cells, thus more life, but it also disrupts balance within the organism. Likewise, Jewish Power works like a contradiction. It speaks of more equality and justice, more progress, but just about everything that Jewish Power does is really to increase and maximize Jewish Power at the expense of all else. Jews are pushing for More Diversity not because they want to share power equally with all groups. No, it is only to create divisions, distrust, and strife among goyim so that Jews at the top can play goyim against one another. The result will be a society that becomes even more unequal and unjust, much like California where the rich(especially Jews) keep getting richer while too many people fall through the cracks and live in a state of ethnic, cultural, and political distress. And if indeed California is the future of America, we can look forward to a one-party state. It is time to wake up, see Jewish Power for what it is, expose its obnoxious & radical hypocrisy, and implement a drastic program of de-ethno-stalinization.

If White People give up their Special Claim to the United States, WHO should have Ownership and Control over the American State? — Anglo-America’s Fatal Misconceptions about Jews and Blacks — The Social Psychology of Homeland

If white people have decided to relinquish their ownership of America, who shall the United States belong to? By historical rights, the United States should be a White Nation. While, in the 'spiritual' sense, we can acknowledge that the American Indians have had the deepest and most special connection to the land — as they've been here for many eons prior to the arrival of peoples from the Old World — , the nation that came to be known as the 'United States' or 'America' is almost entirely the creation of the Anglo-Germanic founder and settlers. Even acknowledging the key role of black labor in the development of Early America, it was the vision, skills, rules, values, and the culture of whites that made possible the rise of a nation that wasn't only distinct from those of the Old World but those of Mexico, Central America, and South America, the so-called parts of Latin America. The simple fact is No Whites(Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Europeans[non-Anglos who became Anglo-ized as white immigrants in the US]), No America. America as a modern nation is simply inconceivable without white Europeans, especially those of Anglo(and Dutch, Irish, and Germanic)stock who laid down the foundations and supplied the labor guided by Protestant Work Ethic(that, in time, came to affect the Catholic Irish as well). Only a moron or liar would dispute the historical fact of No Whites, No America.

Granted, it's likely another kind of nation might have arisen in North America if it hadn't been for the Anglos(and Germanics, Irish, and Dutch). If Anglos had kept out of the New World, the French might have settled North America and built an impressive Franco-American civilization. Or if the French had also kept out of the Americas, perhaps most of North America would eventually have been settled by Russians from the Northwest(via Alaska) and by Spanish from the South. Or, if the Chinese and Japanese had been more adventurous across the seas, they might have settled parts of the West Coast. Those are all maybes, but what actually did happen is that the Anglos and the Germanics(that would include the Dutch and Scandinavians along with Germans), two of the most accomplished and talented peoples on Earth(apart from the French) at the time, managed to settle most of North America and in time gained overwhelming preeminence over it. As such, the main credit for the creation and development is with them. But, it is true enough that the land was taken from the indigenous natives who, though wild and savage, were proud warrior folks with deep and even 'sacred' connection to the land. Also, as Northern Europeans couldn't produce enough babies fast enough(and in time, birthrates would precipitously fall among their kinds) to settle the vast territories of North America, the American colonies brought over black slaves. And then, to put down railroads and man the factories, the US let in lots of immigrants from other parts of Europe, south and east. Blacks would long remain a problem, not so much because of the color of their skin but because they're naturally stronger, tougher, more aggressive, and more pathological(as well as having lower IQ, but then it is a good thing that blacks have lower IQ because black psychopathy + black thuggery + high black IQ would have led to even more problems; the last thing we need is blacks with the IQ of Jews as well as the muscles of simians; after all, animals are stronger than humans but dumber, and only a fool would wish gorillas, lions, and bears were as smart or smarter than humans as humans would be threatened not only physically but intellectually by the beasts). Chinese arrived to work on railroads, but their number was limited, not least because of immigration restrictive laws that came to regard mass Asian immigration as 'yellow peril'. (White Americans feared mass yellow immigration like Palestinians feared mass Jewish immigration. Back then, white Americans were able to stem the yellow tide from Japan and China, the most populous nation on Earth, whereas Palestinians weren't able to put a stop to the Zionist tide that eventually overran the Arab population. Today, Jews in Israel are able to prevent the Right of Return by Palestinians, but white Americans aren't able to do much about the endless non-white immigration that threatens to reduce whites to a minority in the very nation they founded and built.)

As for non-Anglo and non-Germanic immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, they proved to be white enough. Most Eastern Europeans, especially Central European Slavs, were almost as pale-faced as the Anglos and Germanics. Southern Europeans, in contrast, especially from places like Southern Italy and Greece, were swarthier and less white, but they were still white enough to gradually and eventually assimilate into Anglo-America. Also, despite their fallen status in modern times, Greeks and Italians had tremendous cultural capital as Western Civilization would have been inconceivable without Hellenic and Latin roots. In a way, the United States was like a final culmination of what really began in the democracy of Athens and evolved in the republics of Rome. Even though the once barbarian-northern Europeans grew to greatness whereas the once advanced-southern Europeans fell on hard times, there was a deep historical and cultural connection between them. In time, even Southern-European Americans became more-or-less Anglo-ized and in effect became Anglo-Europeans of the New World. Also, as Southern European Americans were outnumbered by Northern-European Americans, the majority of them were mindful to fit in with the Northern-European-American models of behavior, manners, and work. Thus, they soaked up aspects of the Northern Protestant Work Ethic, something that was absent in Latin America where, in most cases, Southern European Latinos set the template for majority populations that were Mestizo and/or Indio. Despite Italian-American criminality, most groups that arrived in the US came to admire the vision and achievements of Anglo-Germanic Americans and sought to be a 'credit to their race' by living up to the American Model as forged by the Founders and Settlers.

And the fate of America might have been a happy or happier story if not for the fact that many of those 'Eastern Europeans' were actually Semites, the Jews who arrived with a different mentality and attitude. Even as the poor immigrants from places like Poland, Italy, Russia, and etc. were grateful to start anew in America, they still fondly harked back to their nations of origins as spiritual homelands. They appreciated the freedoms and opportunities in America, but there remained a sentimentality and nostalgia for the nations from which they came. They'd left for America out of ambition, not out of hatred for their own nations and peoples. They may have been disgruntled by the poverty and backwardness of their nations of origin, but they still felt attachment to their old homelands, and many of them tried to recreate the Old World in the New World, as in German-towns and Polish-towns. In contrast, many Jews left Old World Europe for New World America with something bordering on real hatred. Whereas most white Americans felt, "Even if nothing works out here in the New World, there is my homeland in the Old World, the one I might return to", the Jews came to the US with a "Don't Look Back" attitude. It was the attitude of the ancients leaving Sodom or Egypt. They weren't leaving their homeland but the land of hostile strangers. While many Irish-Americans were haunted by bitter memories/stories about poverty-stricken Ireland, it was still their beloved homeland. In contrast, Jews never felt that way about Poland or Russia. John Ford made THE QUIET MAN as tribute to lovely green Eire, but the typical Jewish movie about the Old World was something like FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. (Even the Coen Brothers are more sentimental about the Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING than about Jews in their other films. Because the Irish have a homeland, they feel home away from home. Even when things go badly for them in America or elsewhere, they can at least say, "There is a place called Ireland where MY PEOPLE live" and hum to "Danny Boy". It's the difference between Steve Martin and John Candy in PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES. Even when everything goes wrong, Martin's character knows he has a home and family that waits for him whereas Candy's character is forever a wanderer with no place to call home, no place to return to. THE SWIMMER is ultimately tragic because Burt Lancaster's character no longer has a home, unlike Odysseus who still had a loyal wife and son waiting for him. The Irish in MILLER'S CROSSING feel at home even away from home because they know Ireland exists even if far away. In contrast, the Jews seem more restless in MILLER'S CROSSING and BARTON FINK, especially as the stories take place in a time prior to the creation of Israel. Having a homeland can even sweeten the worst tragedies. Irish remember the Potato Famine with great angst, but they still love the land on which their ancestors perished. In contrast, Jews feel no such attachment to the killing fields of Eastern Europe upon which Nazis and their collaborators mowed down countless Jews.) And this is why Jews became especially covetous of the United States. If most white groups felt that they still had a dear homeland to return to(or dream about) even if nothing good came of them in the New World, Jews felt they better make it in the New World because they could never feel truly at home in the Old World, especially as the rise of modern nationalism made things difficult for Jews who were regarded by various ethno-national groups as parasitic and rootless.


Jews appreciated the blank-slate aspect of America, the idea that it was a land where arrivals could start anew without the old baggage. It was like a criminal having his past history wiped clean off the record. The hope was that Jews would be regarded merely as fellow Americans and free individuals without the deep-rooted prejudices of the Old World. And yet, Jews were bound to be problematic because, even as they were excited by the blank-slate aspects of Americanism(whereby anyone or at least any white person could become 'American' and judged on the basis of meritocracy than identity), they insisted on clinging to their ancient identity, heritage, and even hatreds. Even as Jews were relieved that America was less 'antisemitic' than the Old World, they remained nasty, hostile,and contemptuous toward the goy population, often animated by bitterness, resentment, and envy.
Furthermore, Anglo-Americans had contradictory reasons of their own for having welcomed in all those Jews. On the one hand, it was that very ancient pedigree of Jews that made Anglo-Americans romanticize them(in the way that bohemian types romanticized Gypsies and the way that Counterculture types in the Sixties romanticized the Hindus and Eastern Mysticism). Especially because America broke free from the British Empire, there developed the conceit of a New Civilization. In fact, United States was essentially a continuation of British(and Germanic) Civilization, but the narrative of Independence & clean break from the Old World made Americans eager to gain cultural credentials. Without the myth of 1776, the American colonies(remaining part of the British Empire) would have regarded themselves as continuous in terms of history and heritage in its loyalty and connection to the Motherland of England. But 1776 became for America what Anno Domini was for Christianity. The vision of a New Beginning.
Never mind that Christianity grew out of Judaism and that America grew out of Britain. To validate the New Idea or New Nation as legitimate and even superior, the break had to be emphasized over the continuation. But this was easier said than done as America, in contrast to Old World Europe, was indeed 'shallow' in history and culture. It couldn't boast of Athens, Renaissance, Shakespeare, or Mozart. Also, many white goy immigrants who came to the New World came without much culture or learning. Many were barely literate and were hardly in a position to contribute much to the development of American Culture. They came mainly to supply manpower to build a new nation by working on farms and factories. But Jews were different. They were more educated, more literate and cultured. Also, more of them were involved with ideas, philosophy, and history. Thus, Anglo-Americans came to appreciate Jews as the instant-bringers of Culture/Heritage to America. Paradoxically, precisely because of America's conceit of rupture from the Old World, it craved something of depth and heritage. It's like a man who breaks free from home may exult in newfound freedom but soon finds himself hankering desperately for a new sense of home. (Replicants in BLADE RUNNER are psychologically unstable because they have no sense of past, no prior memories.) As America broke with Old Britain, it sought cultural sustenance in connection to something with even deeper pedigree. No people were as ancient as the Jews.

In a way, this was rather ironic because the US was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism. And yet, the very enterprising, adaptive, and venturesome ways of the Jews struck a chord with Anglo-Americans who entertained the Ideal of the New Jew. The idea was that Jewishness had been perverted and distorted in the Old World because of repressions and prejudices, but the New Jews of America would become wonderful Good Americans in the open and healthy air of freedom and liberty. (And Jews flattered Anglo-Americans for harboring just such delusional sentiments about Jews. Much later, American Conservatism would similarly romanticize the Neocons as Jews who would finally see the light and become Good Americans via baptism by Conservatism Inc. In fact, Jews cynically toyed with naive Conservative minds to take over the movement to push Jewish Supremacism in cahoots with Jewish 'Liberals'.)
Another reason why Anglo-Americans developed a certain feeling for Jews had to do with the rootless nature of Americanism. After all, if the vast continent had to be settled, it wouldn't do for too many Americans to put down roots in any one place. They had to keep moving, especially Westward to take land from the Indians and even Mexicans. Thus, unlike Greekness or Polishness, Americanism wasn't defined by vertical roots but horizontal movement. Thus, Americanism had to be defined in a portable manner. One wasn't American because he was tied to a particular territory in the New World but because of the portable bag of ideas he carried within his heart and mind at all times. So, even if he left Pennsylvania for Ohio and then for Iowa and then for Idaho and then for Oregon, he was an American because what really defined him was the Narrative, Outlook, and the Constitution.
In a similar way, the Jews, especially following the great Exile from Jerusalem, survived as identity and culture in the Diaspora because Jewishness came to be identified with the portability of their Narrative and the Law. Of course, the difference between American Mobility and Jewish Diaspora was that whereas white Americans felt 'at home' even as they moved from home to home across the great spaces of America, Jews had always felt away from home even as they settled in various parts of Europe, Arabia, and North Africa. A Jew in France wasn't really French, a Jew in Poland wasn't really Polish, a Jew in Germany wasn't really German, and etc. And yet, Jews were promised that a Jew in America could truly become an American and as such was truly 'at home' no matter where he lived in the United States. For a people who hadn't had a taste of homeland for nearly two millenniums, the American Dream was intoxicating for Jews. Just like a famished person over-eats upon being presented with food, Jews gorged on the idea of America as 'homeland'. And yet, there was the paradox. America could be a homeland for the Jews precisely because it wasn't the homeland for a particular people. A nation like Poland or Russia couldn't really be the homeland of Jews because, even if Jews there were allowed to live in peace and prosperity, there would be the constant reminders that Poland really and mainly belongs to the Polish and Russia really and mainly belongs to the Russians. In contrast, if America belongs to no particular people, then it belongs to all the world, and that means Jews could claim it as much as any other people. There was certainly an aspect of Americanism that suggested as much, at least as a Dream, but the American Reality was very different. In fact, America was a specific racial and cultural creation, and it couldn't have been created by any other people. Pete Buttplug(aka Buttigieg) says 'white supremacism' will ruin America, but America wouldn't exist in the first place if not for 'white supremacism' and 'racism'. And this would become a great contradiction of Americanism. But there is another contradiction, that between Jews seeing America as belonging to the whole world(including the Jews) and Jews seeing America as belonging to themselves to own as their empire.

Is there any way White Americans can reclaim the United States as essentially an extension of European Civilization? Maybe, maybe not, but it seems unlikely. If things continue as usual, the US will become a giant California. As Texas is poised to go Democratic in a matter of years, the GOP won't be able to win elections again UNLESS it becomes just another Democratic Party. But then, it's been useless on the issue of immigration and demographic Replacism for as long as anyone can remember. After all, the mantra of both parties became DIOS or Diversity Is Our Strength, a suicidal chant programmed into white minds by the Jews. But then, once US loses its core identity and meaning, most peoples, white and non-white, will lose their sense of identity, heritage, and history.
If Americanism is defined merely as a futurism, most Americans will have little or no sense of the past and just look forward to the latest fad/fashion or trend. They will be like kids who, having no sense of the past, just look forward to new thrills and excitements. Kids are born with blank slate memories. Unless they are taught of the history of their own people, they know NOTHING. Historical memory isn't passed genetically. This is why kids are mainly fixated on the next meal, next prize, next cookie & candy, next thrill, next excitement. And Americans, even in adulthood, have become like kids. Instead of turning into grownups, they become 'growndowns' as their mentalities are focused on new razzle-dazzles: New sports seasons, new blockbuster movie, new pop song release, etc. While those who ONLY look backward will be mired in the past and fail to make progress, those who've mastered the art of looking forward and backward(like the Roman god Janus) will have a decisive advantage over those who only look forward(or backward). The Amish won't amount to much because they only look backward. But those who only look forward will lose out to those who look forward/backward... and eventually even to those who only look backward(as ultra-traditionalists at least have something deep to cling to). While those who only look forward may succeed as talented individuals, they haven't any deep theme to bind them with others of their kind and with their ancestors. A white forwarder thinks and feels as an individual. If smart and talented, he may do remarkable things in science/technology/arts. If untalented and stupid, he will likely wallow in insipid thrills of the moment. But in either case, he can only succeed or fail as an individual. He isn't part of a history, culture, or heritage(that serves as the great equalizer and uniter of the successful and unsuccessful within the race). Even if successful, his money is all about himself. Or, lacking a sense of belonging and history, he will likely donate his money to the latest fads and fashions in 'social justice', like Fund the Magic Negro or invest in Globo-Homo.
In contrast, if you're backward-looking as well as forward-looking, then you not only work towards individual success in the future but feel a powerful sense of connection to the past(with its deep history and line of ancestors). This is why Jews and Hindus are now favored over the deracinated whites who only look forward as Futurist Americans. Looking only forward, they've forgotten where they've come from and who their ancestors are. Also, under Jewish control, the only thing they know about their own past is now associated with 'white guilt' and 'white shame' for all the wrongs ever committed. In contrast, even as Jews(and Hindus) push forward in science/technology and etc., they also feel a powerful connection with deep roots of history, culture, and heritage. They understand that a tree, in order to grow higher, must rely on roots to draw water and nutrients deep in the soil. Also, it is the roots that provide balance and stability so that the tree can remain standing against the wind and other forces. This is why Jews and Hindus want the power of History(backward-looking) only for themselves while they urge whites to look only forward to the Great Future... of Diversity. If whites had a powerful sense of history, they would object to Diversity. They would feel proudly white and struggle to keep their domain as white as possible. But under Jewish mind-control, whites have either forgotten their glorious past or been told that it was all shameful and evil, therefore requiring the smashing of White Idols and erasure of White Icons to make way for the redemptive symbols of Diversity(and oddly enough, Globo-Homomania, as if celebration of homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting has the magical power to wash whites of 'guilt'). This is why Jews and Hindus live in the past, present, and future, whereas the great majority of whites only live in the future. And if the future is anti-white or less-white, whites don't mind because their lack of white-past-ness has failed to instill them with the requisite sense of identity, glory, and pride that would want to make them defend what they're about. Suppose Jews only looked forward and never backward. Why would they care about Israel or the Holy Land? Why would they care about the meaning of Jewishness? Why would they care about what happened in the Shoah? Furthermore, suppose Jews allowed non-Jews(especially those who are hostile to Jews) to rewrite Jewish history so as to selectively shape the Narrative to make Jewish History look pretty bad. Then, most Jews will prefer to look only forward because looking backward would be pretty depressing OR will look backward only to feel guilty about their shameful past, which would only embolden to make amends to rest of humanity by committing to do everything possible to erase the evil Social Construct of Jewishness that has done so much harm to the world. But in our world, Jews have the upper-hand over whites because whereas Jews, like Janus, look backward to look forward, white folks only look forward for atomized success/thrills or look backward only to wallow in 'white guilt'. Of course, there are plenty of whites, especially libertarian-types, who look only forward without much in the way of 'white guilt', but having no sense of roots or pastness, they have no compelling theme with which to link up with other white folks to form a united racial front like the Jews(and Hindus) have done for themselves.

The great fatal mistake of White America was to trust the Jews. Why did Anglo-Americans so miscalculate the Jews? It was because they imposed their own ideal of the Jew onto the Jew, and the psychological savvy Jew read the White Mind and, at least partially, played the role of the Ideal Jew just enough to hoodwink whites. It's like whites also had this ideal vision of the Noble Negro as a credit to his race. This had little to do with the Real Negro. It's like some people have this romantic view of Gypsies as free spirits and soulful folks when, if anything, most Gypsies are a bunch of petty crooks and idiots. It's like boomers of Counterculture had this rosy view of Hindus and Eastern Mysticism when, in fact, too many Hindu gurus and the like were egotists, frauds, charlatans, or madmen. Also, contrary to the notion of Asian-Indians living in harmonic-karmic relation to spirituality and cosmos, most dotkins were petty, stupid, nasty, greed, and materialistic bunch whose main wishes during prayer was More Money. The Counterculture fools also idealized the American Indians as the children of nature who'd communed peacefully with animals and trees before the arrival of Evil White Man. While one can acknowledge the deep 'spiritual' connection between Indians and pre-Columbian America, the fact is the Red Savages were brutal folks(like the ones in Michael Mann's THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS).

Generally, the powerful are more likely to weave idealized misconceptions about the Other. As they got the power, they feel free and secure to romanticize weaker groups. And as they control the information and narrative, they can create myths of the Other and then prefer the Myth over the Reality. Having all that power and security makes them feel magnanimous, a noble trait. Such illusions aren't particularly dangerous IF the Other has little or chance of gaining real power. White Americans can idealize and even idolize American Indians or Eskimos all they want. The fact is the Indians or Eskimos are never going to amass the kind of power to threaten whites. But when whites came to prefer myth over reality in regard to Jews and Negroes, it was a fatal mistake as Jews had the will, talent, and means to gain great power; and blacks had the numbers, muscle, and arrogance to do real harm to weaker and wussier whites. Of course, powerful whites initially idealized Jews and blacks when the latter groups were much weaker. There was a time when blacks were indeed second-class citizens in the US. Also, as blacks feared white power and reprisals(that could sometimes be very violent) back then, they tended to behave better, and this made certain elite and/or reformist whites to feel special sympathy for the Tragic Groid. Likewise, there was a time when most Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe looked like a pitiable lot, the kind lamented in the Bob Dylan song, "I Pity the Poor Immigrant".


There are two realities. Reality as it really is and 'Reality' as one sees it. The latter may be called 'Seeality'. This is why so many marriages go wrong. Suppose one person idealizes his/her partner as the most wonderful lover. He/she becomes so besotted with the idea of love and being wedded to the other person that he/she ignores all the hints, clues, and signals that, maybe just maybe, that person is NOT the dream-partner or ideal soulmate. One's dream, passion, illusion, hope, and/or compassion blinds his/her vision to the Real Person. Such illusion can exist between humans and animals too. Why do some people end up dead mauled by animals? Because they insist on seeing certain animals as their 'friends' or even 'family members'. One person convinced himself that the alligators he'd raised regarded him as a 'friend'. He projected his humanness onto the mega-reptiles that, in time, killed and ate him. Just like American Indians who aided early white settlers had no idea of the true nature of white folks, Anglo-Americans had no sense of the Real Jew, not least because white minds were clouded with the vision of the Ideal Jew. When Jews washed ashore poor and powerless, Anglo-American elites were blinded by compassion and idealism, the notion that America is so wonderful that even Jews, who had a long troublesome history with Christendom in Europe, would become Good Americans and get along as capital fellows with white Christian folks. Instead of trying to figure out the Real Jew, they imposed their idealized view of the Ideal Jew on the Real Jew. Later, as Jews gained in power at the expense of Wasps, Anglo-Americans concocted new hopes that, once again, ran counter to reality. Liberal Wasps saw Jews as committed crusaders for justice for all mankind while Conservative Whites hope that Jews would eventually come to realize their own deep conservative roots, learn to bury the hatchet with white Christians, and invest their great wealth & influence for the good of Western Civilization. Neither bunch of whites had the wherewithal to see the Real Jew for what he really is. White folks will remain hopeless unless they come to See the Real Jew at last. Likewise, Europe will become Africanized and turned into a hell unless white people there See the Real Negro at last. Due to Jewish control of media/narrative and black success in sports/pop-music, too many white folks have this notion that blacks are tragic-magic, the redeemers of much tainted white civilization, i.e. the white world can only be redeemed if white lands, white wombs, and white everything are touched and healed by Black Magic. Reality will be the biggest human tragedy ever, what with savage black Africans rampaging through Europe and Africanizing everything they see and touch... just like the Siafu African ants in THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLE lay waste to everything in their path. Black destructiveness is so obvious that one would think white folks would have woken up by now, so why are so many of them still asleep? One reason is Jews and privileged cuck-whites(who are are sheltered from the racial reality) control the media and spread the image of the Magic Negro that become the 'seeality' for countless whites. Another reason is the song-and-dong factor. So many whites are so addicted to black music and so many white women are so into jungle fever that they mainly associate white surrender to blackness as pleasure in dance and sex. Another reason is 'guilt' and fear. Even whites who know the truth about blacks are nevertheless infected with 'white guilt' and feel paralyzed to saying anything negative or alarming about the ghastly 'groids'. And there is the Fear Factor as anyone even slightly associated with 'racism' will be fired, destroyed, blacklisted, and even physically attacked(with full blessing of the Power).


At any rate, if indeed White America is lost(because white folks just don't have the necessary will, courage, unity, confidence, pride, organization, or good sense), then... to whom should America belong? To all the world, what with the US as Immigration-Nation? If whites relinquished the title of the rightful owners of America, then it seems the only 'fair' and 'just' outcome would be America as free-for-all for all the world. Suppose a pack of wolves bring down a moose and claim it as their own and gorge on it. But then, suppose the wolves figure, "We had enough, and the remaining moose meat isn't simply ours but for all of you", the 'you' being all the other creatures who've gathered around the mass of meat: Coyotes, badgers, eagles, hawks, buzzards, weasels, raccoons, foxes, Gila Monsters, carnivorous turtles, cougars, bears, wild pigs, and etc. If the wolves no longer claim it, then the feast should be a free-for-all for all creatures great and small. It would make no sense for wolves to give it up to all the other animals ONLY TO have one particular species make special claim on it. Ideally, the wolves should have kept it as they'd brought down the moose. But if wolves lost their good sense and decided to share the meat with all the creatures, then it should belong to all equally. But suppose weasels come forth and say that THEY should have special claim to it... even as weasels argue that it was good on the part of wolves to hand it over to the other animals in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice'. But if so, why should the weasels have special claim on the moose meat, taking the choice parts for themselves while doling out only second-rate and third-rate meat and innards for the other creatures? Indeed, IF one particular bunch of creatures must have claim over the meat, it should be the wolves because they brought down the moose. If the wolves give up their claim to the meat, then NO OTHER bunch of creatures should lay special claim to it. They must all share the meat equally. Then, how ridiculous it would be for the weasels to insist that the meat belongs especially to their own kind.

Such is the dilemma facing Future America. There used to be White America that was founded, made, and claimed by whites as their great domain. It was the America of THE BIG COUNTRY, the magnificent William Wyler Western. Whites were takers of the land and makers of the nation. They had every reason to lay special claim on it. But, especially under the influence of rising Jewish Power that pushed the Immigration-Narrative over the Founder-Settler Narrative, there developed the idea that America must be the land for all the peoples of the world. Apparently, America is too big, bountiful, blessed with over-abundant resources, and filled with potential for it to be greedily hogged by one bunch of people. Something that magnificent, wonderful, and incredible has to be shared with all the world.
For whatever reasons — idealism, magnanimity, generousness, compassion, gullibility, fear of rising Jewish power, fear of black rage, madness, stupidity, & apathy, naivete, greed for cheap labor, etc. — , whites decided to forsake their special claim to America and re-brand the nation as a Proposition Nation of Immigration and Diversity(and 'Inclusion' too). This was a terrible decision on the part of whites, but madness on such scale could hardly be reversed. It's like when the lord made the rash decision to relinquish his power to his sons in Akira Kurosawa's RAN, there was nothing to stop it. He had the power to give it up, and he did. There was once a time when white folks could have kept the title as owners of America, but they made the fatal decision to open America to all the world. Imagine if some rich guy is persuaded to withdraw all his money from the bank and hand it over to the people. It'd be most retarded, but if he's going to do such a thing, then the fair thing would be for him to throw all that cash into the winds from a high tower so that everyone below has a equal chance of getting some. But what if the very people who goaded the rich person to give it all away also convinced him to hand over most of the money to them so that THEY would decide who gets what. What would be the purpose of surrendering one's own money to The People IF the bulk of the cash actually ends up in the hands of a tiny cabal of shysters who claim to work for the public trust.

If White People give up their special claim to America, then it should belong to the world. I'd pity such an America of endless immigration and deracination all around, of whites and non-whites alike, a nation that has no majority but is made up of minorities of backgrounds from all over the world. But such an eventuality is still preferable to an America claimed especially by a particular group that has no historical rights to it. While Jews have made great contributions to America, they were not the founders, settlers, or builders who made it possible. They were mostly late-comers who benefited greatly by taking advantages of the system already in place.
Furthermore, it is especially wrong for Jews to lay special claim to America because the very essence of their argument against America-as-White-Nation hinged on the New America being a Global Nation equally open to and representative of All Mankind. If such was the 'moral' and 'intellectual' argument that finally convinced White America to give way to New Global America, then Jews have no grounds to demand special privileges. They should be like everyone else in the New America that no longer plays favors to any single group. But if Jews insist that New America must especially be sensitive and obedient to Jewish and Zionist agendas, then the Jewish argument against White America would have been just an elaborate hustle. Jews persuaded whites to give up special claim to America to hand it on a silver platter to the whole world, BUT, when the moment finally arrived, Jews snatched the platter mainly for themselves. It's so much like what Facebook and Google did to become monopolies. They gained the trust and participation of EVERYONE, 'left' and 'right', on the promise that they would not be biased toward any particular group. After all, if Google and Facebook had revealed their ideological agendas and/or tribal biases from the very beginning, many people would have refused their services and sought out alternatives. But because they promised impartiality and fairness, EVERYONE regardless of race, creed, or color signed up to use their search engines and platforms. But once the Jews at Google and Facebook gained monopoly positions, they rigged results and gamed algorithms to favor the views and agendas of their Tribe and ideology. It was all just a hustle. Terms of Service mean nothing to Google and Facebook Jews. They know that with monopoly power, they can change the Terms as they wish, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, especially as they've bought up so many whore politicians. Furthermore, the Jew-dominated media have their back, and most top judges and lawyers are either Jewish or controlled by Jewish money and power. It's so dirty.

Because the US is the lone superpower, it can do great harm as well as great good around the world. While Anglo-American history is checkered with the bad as well with the good, the so-called Wasps have not been without some sense of honor, decency, nobility, and rectitude. Also, as white elites of an overwhelmingly white-majority and white-dominant nation, there was a clear sense of American history, American reality, and American destiny. There was good deal of correlation between the American People and the American Way, its diplomacy around the world.
Today, things are so confused. While there are plenty of Anglo-Germanic Americans in upper echelons of business and government still, they are no longer the ruling elites. Even the richest and most powerful of them must look over their shoulders at Jewish Power that really rules America. But Jews won't step up to the plate as the New Elites of America. They still hide Jewish Power behind the drapery of 'white privilege'. Even as the owners and managers of America, they still insist on using mostly white goy politicians as their players and buffers. Thus, even though New America is obviously all about "Is it good for Jews?", we are not supposed to notice that Jews are pulling the strings. We are supposed to believe that so many cuck goy politicians chant "We Stand with Israel" spontaneously out of their own volition as American as Apple Pie. We have a situation where so many white/goy politicians still hold positions of power but actually have little power as they do little but the bidding of Jews. They are out front but have no will or agenda of their own. They are puppets. As for Jews, they remain behind the scenes or pretend too even though some of them are so prominent in American Power and Global Affairs. We are not supposed to notice that the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Hollywood Jews, Las Vegas Jews(like Sheldon Adelson), Google Jews, and the like are the real movers and shakers of America that, in turn, shakes the whole world. Just ask the Palestinians.

As the US is the lone superpower with the means to destroy entire nations, why should Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, wield the hammer and have the ultimate say on how American Power is to be used around the world? The only people with a rightful historical claim to America are white Christian Americans. As they gave up their title in the name of America as Proposition Nation for all the world, Jews have no right to claim special ownership of and privileges in America. Indeed, recent events especially following the end of the Cold War has demonstrated the dangers of America-as-lone-superpower being controlled and manipulated for the narrow, supremacist, and hegemonic interests of a tiny minority. Just consider the Wars for Israel that have devastated and/or displaced millions of people. Look what Jewish-Americans, in cahoots with Russian Jews, did to the Russian economy in the 1990s; Jews could pull such a massive scam because they took the Big Stick from the Wasps. Look how Jews made the plight of Palestinians even worse while Israel has been indulged without limit despite its increasingly arrogant and aggressive policies. Consider how Israel is rewarded for having 300 illegal nukes while Iran is economically strangled despite having no nukes and complying with international inspections. And if the New America is all about equality for all, why have so many Jewish crooks, thieves, and gangsters been able to get away with so many crimes and abuses? Where is equal justice in all this?

Consider America as a gun. There was a time when it was a gun held by whites. But Jews told whites that it's unfair and dangerous for whites to own the gun, thereby having unjust power and advantage over other groups. So, whites put the gun on the table so that it could be owned by all, and the only way such would be possible is if the gun is disassembled into pieces whereby every group would get a piece of it. That way, no single group could hold the gun to his advantage over others. It would have just a piece, like all other groups. But that didn't happen. Jews grabbed the gun for themselves while handing a toy gun to whites to give the impression that whites still have the gun that has yet to be dismantled and shared equally among all groups. But in fact, the real gun, the real power, is with the Jews who press it on the back of cuck-whites who now have no choice but to do the bidding of Jews. If America were a poor and weak country, it wouldn't matter who owned or ran it. After all, who cares about who owns or runs Burma or Botswana. But the US is the lone superpower and has the power to destroy entire worlds. Thus, American power must be in held by a good people. A decent, sane, and responsible people.
Even though White America was far from saintly or even all that good, it was still better than most nations around the world, many of which were downright tyrannical, crazy, or evil. Also, with Anglo-Americans at the helms of power, the world got to more-or-less understand, anticipate, predict, and even appreciate what Americanism was all about. There emerged a certain pattern of Wasp attitudes and behavior.

But with the demise of Wasp rule and rise of Jewish Power that remains behind the curtain, it's been very confusing to the world as to what America is really about. Sure, plenty of people around the world know that the US is Jew-ruled, but because Jews go out of their way to punish anyone or any nation deemed 'antisemitic'(that now means any honest assessment or noticing of Jewish power), even powerful nations like China, Russia, Indian, and Iran dare not say the JEWS are behind American Power. As for America's obnoxious expressions of obeisance to Israel, Zionism, and Jews? Isn't that evidence enough that Jews control America? But you better not say that. We are to believe that all the politicians, celebrities, and cucks who sing hosannas to Jews and Israel do so purely out of the goodness of their noble hearts because, after all, there is nothing more inspiring in life than to love the Jew, revere the Jew, worship the Jew. Oh no, Jewish Power didn't make me play fetch and roll over before Jews. I did it out of my own free will because Jews, oh the Jews, are the Chosen, the Holy, the Awesome. This game is very dangerous.

If Whites won't retake America as their special creation and nation, then the only two honest options are (1) We all demand that Jews admit that they are the new elites and take full responsibility on those grounds, i.e. Jews must be fully accountable as the New Rulers of America, taking credit when things go well but taking blame when things fail. (2) Jews give up their dominant position in the US just like Wasps have done and then sincerely work to ensure that America will really belong to All peoples and will not favor any particular group. In other words, the US will not favor Israel over Palestinians and Iran. It will not favor Jewish globalists against Russia. It will not consider Jewish interests as of paramount importance in decision-making. While Jewish interests will be heard and considered, NO MORE SO than the interests of other groups. It's like the US plays it fair between Greeks and Turks on the issue of Cyprus. If US were truly a World Nation, then it must handle the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the same manner. It must stop insisting that "Israel is America's greatest ally", a supremacist sentiment if there ever was one. And if white goyim are to be hounded for their over-representation in many fields, the same criticisms must be leveled at preponderance of Jewish wealth and power in so many upper areas.

Since the end of the Cold War, Arabs and Muslims especially know about the dangers of the Lone Superpower being controlled by one single group. Jews are only 2% of the US population, but they took the steering wheel of the Battleship and have been using their position to make American superpower might to favor Zionists over Arabs and Muslims EVEN WHEN Israel is clearly in the wrong. When we look at the devastation of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen due to Jewish control of America(and when we consider the economic tragedy visited on Iran due to Jewish-controlled US foreign policy), we can understand why Arabs and Muslims would like to see the US belonging to all the world. They probably wouldn't mind who owned or controlled America IF American Might wasn't used to bring about so much agony and suffering to the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East. And Arabs and Muslims know it's been the way it is because the US, despite its growing diversity, is firmly controlled by Jews. Indeed, the burgeoning Diversity has, in some ways, emboldened Jewish Power even more because Jews have been able to use Diversity to undermine white power(as rival to Jewish Power). As most of Diversity doesn't have the brains, will, and/or guts to rise to the top, Jews hold most of the power. and Jews play Diversity against whites and whites against Diversity while they themselves are served by both whites and Diversity as Jews, as high priests and high financiers, control both the Money and the 'Morality'.

America used to be a White Nation. And then, we were told it is to be a World Nation. And in the current year, we are supposed to believe that America belongs equally to all the world and rejects any kind of 'racism' or 'bigotry'. And yet, this is all just a ruse because the US went from a white-owned nation to a Jewish-controlled nation. Even though its increasing Diversity lends the outward appearance of a World Nation, its inner-workings of power leave no doubt that it is a Jewish supremacist colony, the jewel in the crown(or yarmulke) of the Empire of Judea. And that must end for there to be balance and lasting peace around the world. America should belong to whites, but if whites gave up the title, then it must belong to the world. It must not belong to Jewish hustlers who yammer about the America as the World but only really care about World Hegemony by the Tribe.