Friday, March 29, 2019
A Response to "Must the West Beg the World for Forgiveness?" by PAT BUCHANAN — The Special Tragedy of Indigenous Folks of Mexico & South America — Why Latin Whites are utterly Useless as allies of White American National Liberationists
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador(El Presidente de Mexico) has written Pope Francis I and King Felipe VI to demand their apologies for the Spanish conquest of Mexico that began 500 years ago with the “invasion” of Hernando Cortez... “One culture, one civilization was imposed upon another... There were massacres and oppression... They built their churches on top of the temples.”
...Now no one denies that great sins and crimes were committed in that conquest. But are not the Mexican people, 130 million of them, far better off because the Spanish came and overthrew the Aztec Empire? Did not 300 years of Spanish rule... lead to enormous advances for its civilization and human rights? Or is there never a justification for one nation to invade another, conquer its people, impose its rule, and uproot and replace its culture and civilization? ...Did the Aztecs have a right to be left alone by the European world? If so, whence came that right?
All throughout history and all around the world, people have been conquering each other. Demanding apology for past imperialism is stupid. The entire world was about small imperialism and big imperialism. Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia before the French arrived. Zulus conquered other tribes in southern Africa. Even before the Europeans arrived in the New World or some non-white part of the world, the native peoples had been bashing and invading one another. Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans(though gone before the Europeans arrived) were imperialists in their own right. American Indians of the Great Plains were no strangers to ceaseless warfare. Mongols were among the greatest conquerors. Ottoman Turks controlled much of Southern Europe for centuries.
Now, not all peoples at all times were into imperialist mode, and there were long stretches of history in certain areas of the world when certain peoples mainly kept to themselves. Japanese were perhaps the most famous example of this. After Hideyoshi's failed attempt to conquer China by the way of Korea, Japan mostly looked inward and shut itself from the bigger world. Finally, it was pried open by the West. And even though China was more of an imperial power, it had no interest in expanding across the seas. (Even Chinese territorial expansions were oftentimes less the work of Chinese themselves than of peoples who'd conquered the Chinese and then pushed beyond existing borders. In time, as the conquerors themselves were absorbed into China, their conquests ended up in Chinese hands.) Still, the concept of respecting borders and sovereignty of nation-states is a relatively recent idea, at least as a 'right' as an ethical principle. Therefore, it should be morally applied only to the world after World War II when most peoples came to an agreement of national independence and sovereignty. It's like condemnation of past slavery makes little sense because most of the world not only practiced it but didn't find it particularly evil.
For most of history, borders always shifted like the scrimmage line in a football game. Polish-Lithuanian Empire was once huge and, if sustained, might have rivaled the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the petty Poles were too divided among themselves and failed to generate sufficient central authority to make it work... unlike Moscow or Vienna. And so, the once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Empire grew ever smaller until it was all gone, followed by Poland and Lithuania being swallowed by bigger empires.
That said, even in the Ages of Empires, there was a crude sense of blood-and-soil national consciousness even among conquered peoples. This was evident in Judea vs Rome. Romans conquered and ruled, but Jews still regarded themselves as the true owners of the land. Roman blood-and-spoil vs Jewish blood-and-soil. While empires constantly fluctuated in reach and size, there was nevertheless a sense among the conquered/occupied that a foreign people were ruling over them. Even when Poland was wiped off the map(like Palestine much later) by Russian and Prussian empires, many Poles in their ancestral territory dreamed of restoration of Polish nationhood on the soil that the Poles stood. Poles aspired to end to foreign rule, just like Cossacks in Ukraine had once risen up against Polish imperial domination. Jews wiped Palestine off the map, and it is now Israel. And Zionist imperialists are looking to annex West Bank, but Palestinians still dream of their own nationhood. Jews are the New Romans, Palestinians are the New Judaeans.... though one difference is Jews have a somewhat legitimate claim of blood-and-soil connection to Judea, something Romans lacked when they scattered Jews to the winds. And of course, Greeks lived under Ottoman rule for centuries but clung to Greek-Christian identity and hoped for liberation one day. It finally came though at bloody cost to both sides.
Given the history of mankind, it makes no sense for people to apologize for past 'wrongs'. Should Mongols apologize to Persians and Romans? Jews sure ain't apologizing to Palestinians. And when will Turks apologize to Greeks and Balkan folks? Chinese aren't apologizing to Tibetans and Uighurs, nor for its cynical role in propping up the insane Khmer Rouge... though Chinese do make a big stink about how Japan needs to grovel more for what it did to China. Due to the complexities of history, it's difficult to ascertain collective guilt, especially for descendants who weren't even around when the tragedies happened. Furthermore, apologies are rarely taken in good faith. Instead, it is abused as a political weapon to squeeze out more apologies, more groveling, and more concessions from the 'apologizer'. Look how Jews milk the Holocaust to no end. Norman Finkelstein wrote about Shoah Industry as a never-ending cash cow, a kind of Holocasino. It doesn't matter how much Germans prostrate themselves and hand over more cash, build more monuments, imprison more 90 yr old camp guards, and censor more speech. Jews just see cucky weakness and demand GIMME MORE, GIMME MORE. And not just to 'holocaust survivors'(a very loose term as just about ANY Jew who lived in areas of German Occupation is designated as a Holocaust Survivor EVEN IF he or she was never sent to a concentration camp) but to their children and grandchildren and so on. Also, Jews have used Holocaust Guilt as moral shield for their Nazi-like behavior in crushing Palestinians, spreading Wars for Israel, and economically raping entire nations.
So, how should nations deal with dark chapters of their histories(and all nations have dark chapters aplenty). They should honestly and truthfully acknowledge what happened and draw useful lessons and make comparisons with other civilizations. Comparative Tragedies. It should be like Alcoholics Anonymous where everyone takes HIS turn to confess problems with addiction. The fact is ALL OF HUMANITY has been drenched in blood, and if some spilled more than others, it generally had less to do with more evil but with more power. Now, one can argue that some peoples at certain times were especially cruel, even by the standards of the times. It seems fair to say that Assyrians, Mongols, Vikings, Aztecs, Nazis(at least in imperialist mode), Khmer Rouge, Japanese in Nanking, and Idi Amin were especially ruthless and bloody. But then, just about all civilizations had their extreme periods and extreme figures... like Ivan the Terrible of Russia and the utterly ruthless first emperor Chin of China. The best way to understand history is through Comparative Studies. Just like there is comparative literature, we need more sensible use of comparative history. But too much of 'comparative' discourse in history is to make white civilizations seem especially evil while whitewashing non-white ones.
Now, there is ONE reason why there is more pressure on white civilizations to apologize, and it owes to something inherent to white civilization itself. It has to do with Christianity, the faith of Pat Buchanan. What's the difference between Christianity and Islam? Jesus told His flock to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor and forgive enemies. In contrast, Muhammad, like Moses, was a warrior-prophet who commanded his followers to wage Jihad to spread the faith. Now, both Christians and Muslims expanded their powers thee same way: War, violence, and terror.
However, Muslims need not feel sorry for what they did according to their sacred text of the Koran. Muhammad was a fighter and urged the faithful to use the sword as well as the word to spread the message of Allah. In contrast, Christian civilization was vulnerable to pangs of doubt, hypocrisy, and guilt because Christian expansion(fueled by greed, violence, and ambition) went so much against what Jesus had preached. Christians often found themselves apologizing to God in prayer for having gone against Jesus' teachings in their victories in His name. Muslims saw their violence as an act of virtue. Christians saw their violence as, at best, a 'necessary evil' to defeat the greater evil of heathen darkness. Muslims did 'good', whereas Christians did 'lesser bad' to defeat the 'bigger bad'. This is why it's much more difficult for Jews to toy with Muslim psychology than with Christian psychology. Try to guilt-bait a Muslim, and he will laugh in your face. Try to guilt-bait a Christian, and it's so easy. For most of Western history, white Christians controlled the narrative and dogma; therefore, they could suppress matters exposing their hypocrisy and guilt. But once Jews took over the media and academia, they've been having a field day in guilt-baiting white Christians for their betrayal of their own ethos. Jews left whites feeling like hypocristians.
If Muslims had conquered South America and Mexico, there wouldn't be this issue of 'apology' or 'guilt'. Islam would be the dominant culture, and that'd be that. Muhammad told his flock to kick butt if they must. Enslave infidels if they must. Whatever it takes to spread Islam. Now, Islam did have a theory of justice and called for just treatment of fellow Muslims(and to some extent the fellow peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians), but violence was okay if a bunch of infidels could be crushed and converted.
But, even after 2000 yrs of Catholic theological discourse, the fact remains that it isn't very persuasive to argue that Jesus(and the Christian God) would ever have blessed the use of violence to spread the faith. In a way, Christianity was morally compromised in the moment it forged a pact with the Roman Empire. It began as a faith among Jews resisting the Roman Empire but then re-branded itself as the faith of a militarist behemoth maintained by endless blood-letting. (Perhaps, another reason why Islam has been more resilient is it spread Arabic far and wide as the sacred language of the Koran. As a result, many peoples in the Near East and North Africa abandoned their own languages and adopted Arabic. In contrast, Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, remained only among the elites, and furthermore, various European folks kept their own languages.)
On the matter of South America and Mexico, we need to deviate from the general standards of history. It is because what happened there is especially tragic, indeed far beyond anything that happened to other peoples. While it's true that all peoples were caught up in one form of imperialism or another -- indeed, all organisms, everything from bacteria to weeds to ants to fish to wolves and etc. vie for domination and expansion -- , the scale of devastation in South America and Mexico was unprecedented. Now, this is morally complicated because most of the natives died from diseases for which they had no immunity. In other words, EVEN IF the Spanish and Portuguese had come with the best of intentions and meant NO harm, it's likely that tens of millions(the great majority) of the natives would have died just the same. If the natives had had immunity to Old World diseases, it's likely that their fate would have been more like that of Asian Indians, Russians, and black Africans. Asian Indians were under British rule for a few centuries, but Anglos simply couldn't rule forever. There were too many native browns. And even though Mongols conquered Russia, the far greater number of Russians eventually reclaimed independence and pushed out or absorbed the Mongols. And Blacks still own and control black Africa.
In contrast, Old World diseases were so devastating and debilitating to the native population in South America and Mexico that the Spanish and Portuguese effectively gained permanent dominance. The natives had little chance of retaking their territories like most other peoples were able to eventually. Perhaps, if British diseases had wiped out 95% of Asian Indians or Chinese, it's possible that India or China today would still be an Anglo-dominated civilization. All peoples came under imperialist rule at one time or another, but most of them eventually reclaimed their land and gained autonomy. Romans eventually left Britain. Mongols eventually left Russia. Turks eventually left Greece. Imperialism is violent and destructive but also liberates and opens up new channels by loosening or destroying the native-conservative power structure. While the Chinese in Hong Kong did collaborate with British Imperialists, they gained lots of first-rate knowledge and wealth. However, the thing is the British eventually left, and Hong Kong is now part of China again.
So, when Buchanan argues that the Spanish and Portuguese imperialism in South America and Mexico did a lot of good as well as bad, that's all very true. Indeed, many native folks sided with the Europeans because they loathed the monstrous Aztecs. It's like if space aliens had come to Earth during World War II and declared war on Germany, Poles and Czechs would have allied with space aliens against the German foe. Poles and Czechs would have been grateful to the space aliens for coming to their rescue. But then, what if the aliens refuse to leave? What if they decide to stay and, in doing so, spread diseases that wipe out 90% of Poles and Czechs. And suppose they demographically take over Poland & Czech-land and rule as the New Boss. And just like Simon Mol the African Negro nearly turned Poland into Moland by humping tons of Polish girls, what if space aliens enslave the Polish and Czech men while having sex with Polish and Czech women to create mestizos who look like creatures in STAR TREK?
While it's true that Aztecs were demented and their defeat was a good thing, it wasn't as if EVERYTHING about their civilization was evil. While it's true that the native civilizations of South America and Mexico practiced horrid rituals like human sacrifice, they also built cities and had their own impressive bodies of knowledge and arts. But nearly all of that were wiped out by the Europeans. They threw out the baby along with the bathwater. We know Nazi Germany was evil, and it deserved to be defeated(even though Nazism was less defeated by communism and liberal democracy than by its own over-weaning ambition; any power, regardless of ideology, will destroy itself with excessive hubris or preserve itself with caution and moderation). But, the thing is Germany was allowed to survive as a civilization. Germans still had Germany(even if reduced in territory). Even the Soviets who occupied East Germany didn't deny Germans the right of people-hood and culture. But suppose the victors of World War II decided to destroy ALL of German identity and culture by conflating everything German with Nazism. Would that have been justified?
While imperialism has its pros and cons and even though subject peoples can gain something from imperialism -- Roman imperialism certainly spread civilization to the Germanic Barbarians -- , its positives can be justified ONLY WHEN the empire finally recedes and the native folks regain their lands. India and China are two cases of civilizations that were both victims and beneficiaries of European Imperialism. They did undergo stages of defeat, humiliation, and exploitation, but they also learned a great deal from the West and made remarkable advances because of revolutions in values and organization unleashed by Western influence. (Unless pried open by an outside force, their internal conservatism wasn't going to budge for new possibilities.) But the thing is neither Chinese nor Indians lost their land or culture in the long run. The imperialists eventually went home, and the natives reclaimed their land. Sadly, this cannot be said of the natives of Mexico and South America. Even though India was ruled by the Brits for couple of centuries, we don't call it Anglo-India. And Brits ruled parts of China, but we don't call it Anglo-China. But both 'Latin' and 'America' are permanent fixtures in a world that had once belonged to non-European civilizations.
Now, imagine Europe in barbarian times. Suppose Vikings are going around pillaging and raping and committing human sacrifice. Suppose the more civilized Arabs or Chinese arrive with deadly diseases and superior technology. Suppose they defeat the cruel Vikings and create a superior moral order premised on Islam or Confucianism. And since most whites died by diseases introduced by Arabs and Chinese, the newcomers get to stay and rule. And suppose they promote massive race-mixing, whereby most white women have children of Arab or Chinese men. And suppose to this very day, Europe is called Arabo-Europe or Sino-Europe.
Would Buchanan say it was worth it because, after all, the cruel pagan Vikings were defeated and a new order was founded on the estimable wisdom of Islam or Confucianism? I think not. Pat Buchanan has been a race-ist(a term of praise in my book), and I would think he'd prefer even a barbarian Europe that is white than a civilized Europe that is overrun and ruled by non-whites. Indeed, if Buchanan had to choose between an all-white Germany that is ruled by Germanic barbarian ax-lords who act like Big-Boss-Man AND a race-mixed Germany that is ruled by Chinese Christians who impose Christo-Confucian theocracy and encourage race-mixing on a massive scale, which one would he choose? The latter might be more orderly and civilized, but the core of any people and culture is blood-and-soil and must be above all. Surely, even an all-white Communist Germany is preferable to race-mixed multi-culti capitalist Germany that will end up looking like Morocco.
South America and Mexico are especially tragic because they had impressive civilizations, all the more remarkable for having been created in utter isolation from the Old World. Also, there were huge population centers. In contrast, as tragic as the fate of North American Indians was, they simply had no chance against the white invasion, no more than primitive Aborigines of Australia or the Eskimo-like tribes of Siberia. Once Anglos and French set foot on North America, they were going to take it, just like Russians were bound to grab all of Siberia(as long as Chinese failed to do so). Primitive folks sparsely spread out over vast territories will have to yield to the force of Macro-History.
In contrast, according to general historical patterns, what happened to the peoples of Mexico and South America is almost unprecedented, of course mainly because of the lack of immunity to Old World diseases. Had the natives had been disease-resistance, their fate would likely have been more like that of the peoples of India or Indonesia. They would have been under white rule for a time but would have eventually gained independence and autonomy. And if they adopted Christianity, it would have been on their own terms. It's like the spread of Christianity to Europe didn't necessitate Near Eastern demographic takeover. Even though Christianity originated among tribes in the Middle East, it spread far and wide as an idea and creed. Europeans remained European and kept their own lands even as they adopted the new faith(though one could argue that the 'cultural genocide' by Christianity did grave harm to pagan cultures of Europe; also, it could be argued Byzantine Orthodoxy destroyed or buried much of pagan science and math, leading to kind of Christo-Platonic hibernation of the mind).
In contrast, it wasn't only Christianity that spread to peoples of South America and Mexico. It was Christian Europeans who took over demographically as well and sexually colonized the native folks. (Now, some people might say that race-mixing was good for the natives because it made them taller and better-looking because Europeans are considered to be more desirable and robust. But then, one could use the same logic to argue for massive African invasion of Europe and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. After all, mixed-raced kids will be tougher and more macho than pure-white males.)
It's one thing for a people to gain something by coming in contact with another people. Whether it happens peacefully or violently, there is bound to be some kind of gain. This was certainly true with the Moorish conquest of Spain. Moorish Arabs at the time were more sophisticated and advanced in learning and the arts, and their contributions altered the fate of Spain. That said, Spanish Europeans finally did defeat and expel the Moors and regained control of their territory. This dream has been permanently quashed for the native brown folks of South America and Mexico. Their anger, if such exists, is understandable.
Indeed, why are white nationalist so angry about mass-immigration. It's one thing for white folks to try other foods, watch films from around the world, listen to all sorts of music, pop and folk, from all parts of the world, and learn from the ideas of other cultures. But, it's an entirely different matter for white lands to be demographically and genetically transformed by massive third world invasions and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Adopting foreign ideas and cultures can do much good. Japan certainly gained much by Westernization beginning in the 19th century. But Japanese were still in command of their own nation.
Buchanan says Christianity and Western Civilization did much good for the natives of South America and Mexico, and that is true. But is moral and spiritual progress worth the loss of one's homeland? Was Christianity a fair exchange for permanent subjugation to a foreign people from another continent? Indians and Chinese gained a lot from Western ideas and sciences that came with Western Imperialism, BUT they kept their own lands. Black Africans gained a lot from Western Imperialism, but Sub-Saharan Africa is still theirs. Middle Eastern folks also gained a lot from Western Imperialism. Think of the oil fields and all that wealth gushing from the ground. Arabs and Persians still own and control the Middle East.
In contrast, the peoples of South America and Mexico not only fell like flies in the tens of millions to European diseases but were mass-'raped' into 'mestizos' and came under what looks to be like permanent rule by imperialists(who never went home) who labeled the land of Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs as 'Latin American', with both 'Latin' and 'American' being of European origin.
Furthermore, the native folks weren't a bunch of crude savages like Aborigines in Australia or Eskimos in Alaska but a people who'd created remarkable civilizations all on their own. On that note, what befell the native peoples of South America and Mexico was the greatest tragedy in human history. But, such view isn't part of a dominant narrative because browns tend to be rather inarticulate and inexpressive, unlike Jews who are verbally gifted and blacks who are vocally rambunctious. Being of a servile and slavish mentality, most native brown folks just go along with the Narrative formed by Others. (Just look at the sight of idiot brown radicals demanding that 'Latino' be changed to 'Latinx'. First, do these browns not know that 'Latin' is an imposed European identity on the Americas? Second, don't they know that this globo-homo gender-bending crap is Western cultural-imperialist degeneracy at its worst?) One dominant Narrative of Diversity-Worship gushes that a wonderfully unique civilization was created by the fusion of Latin and Native traditions. This narrative is presented as a kind of love story of various colors, flavors, and spices, a global Romeo-and-Juliet Story. It utterly overlooks the fact that Diversity is a product of imperialism and was forcibly imposed on the native folks through wars, 'rape', 'genocide', and slavery. It's like Che Guevara's laughable bullshit that 'Latino' is a wonder to behold as a happy blend of all of humanity. Or Orson Welles waxing romantic about Brazil as a joyous cocktail of so many races, colors, and cultures. Now, while it's true that such blend of many peoples and cultures did lead to something new(and even wonderful & inspired) in Latin America, it was also a bloody process of endless violence and mayhem(that goes on to this very day).
If we deconstruct the celebration of Diversity, and it is really an apologia of imperialism. After all, why did South America and Mexico become racially diverse? Because whites conquered and took over. And why did it become even more diverse? Because of the slave trade that brought over millions of black Africans to the New World. So, the brown natives didn't just lose out to whites but to ghastly Negroes who were even worse. It was bad enough that whites took the land and the women, but then the stupid jerks had to import tons of black savages for short-term profit. (And Jews played a considerable role in Latin American slave trade.) Natives didn't just lose out to whites but to blacks brought over by whites. Imagine a barbarian Germany that is conquered by the Confucian Chinese who choose to stay, race-mix, and rule forever. That'd be bad enough, but suppose those a**holes decide to bring over millions of black Africans as slaves to Germany as well. Then, whites would not only have to deal with yellow peril but with black lunacy.
This is why anyone who claims to be for both 'indigeneity' and Diversity is full of crap. DIVERSITY is what destroys 'indigeneity'. 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' imply that the native folks who have blood-and-soil claim to their own land MUST be 'inclusive' of invasions by foreign peoples in order to increase DIVERSITY to the point where the native folks end up strangers in their own homeland. Look what 'inclusion' and 'diversity' did to Palestine. Palestinians were forced to 'include' all those Jews, and guess what happened?. And West Bank is currently forced to 'include' more Jews as well. The result has been Diversity alright, that of Palestinians having to live with more and more Jews who demand endless 'inclusion' of Jewish immigrants.
Any people who adopt Diversity and Inclusion will end up like Palestinians or Native Hawaiians who are outnumbered in their ancestral homeland by whites and Asians. Now, it would take a special kind of lowlife to tell native Hawaiians to celebrate Diversity, which is akin to celebrating their own loss of land and demographic demise. But then, as most native Hawaiians are rather stupid like the brown masses of 'Latin America', I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been hoodwinked with the idea that Diversity is good for 'indigeneity'. Why? Because Diversity is often invoked as an anti-white agenda, native browns of Latin America and native folks of Hawaii may well think it empowers them against White Privilege. They overlook the fact that Diversity means white globalism has opened up immigration floodgates to the point where EVEN MORE foreigners keep streaming into Latin America and Hawaii. People who don't control their terminology and narrative are mental putty in the hands of others.
Smart people invoke Diversity and Inclusion to conquer and take from others, BUT THEN invoke Nation and Culture to keep what they have for themselves. Jews are smart, which is why they push Diversity and Inclusion on goyim(whom they see as More Palestinians) while they themselves emphasize Nation and Culture to defend and preserve Israel as a Jewish State, one that allows only Jewish Immigration.
Now, there is an aspect of this recent controversy that Buchanan is overlooking. The demand by the Mexican president is totally disingenuous. Unlike Anglo, Germanic, and Scandinavian progs who really cuck hard -- look at that worthless Joe Biden denouncing English Law -- , Hispanic 'leftists' bitch about whiteness to actually keep their white power. Look at the Mexican president. He is white or mostly white, as are most leaders of Latin American nations. Then, why is he denouncing the Catholic Church and Spain? Because he wants to fool the native browns that he is with them, that people like himself are really part of 'people of color' than European. It's a dirty trick. After all, if the Mex Prez is really sincere, how about calling for whites in Latin America to GO BACK HOME or handing all political power to the browns?
While native folks have a historical reason to blame Spain and the Church as the source of their problems, white and mostly white peoples in Latin America have no such right. They've been the main beneficiaries of imperialism. They've been ruling over the natives, and nothing much changed with Latin America's independence from Spain. If anything, independence led to continued white rule and even more importation of black slaves. White Latinos blaming Spain and the Catholic Church for Latin American problems is like Anglo-Americans blaming Great Britain and the Anglican Church for all the problems in North America. (Maybe there is something more to Biden blaming 'English' law, a way of blaming the Old World for New World problems.)
Latin whites are among the scummiest people on Earth. Now, if Latin whites honestly acknowledged the tragic aspects of history and sought an understanding whereby all sides could bury the hatchet and move forward, that'd be ideal and good for everyone. But these lowlife scum don't play fair. Though white and privileged themselves, they pretend to be 'people of color' and, just like Jews, try to blame Anglo-Germanic whites for ALL THE PROBLEMS. Latin Whites are like Greeks in having no sense of honor or principles. It's all talk, no walk. Take the loathsome Guillermo Del Toro who looks about as white as a white person can be. He's the kind of Latin turd-person who've been hogging all the wealth, privilege, and opportunities in Latin America. Latin whites have been far more corrupt, violent, and oppressive than gringos in the North. But these lowlife scum are always pretending to be People of Color and always hectoring gringos for stuff like Selma and 'racism'. These Latin White scum(who spread diseases and killed tens of millions, committed massive 'rapes', and enslaved many more blacks than North America ever did) are always pontificating about how they are full of tolerance and love. They sermonize about how Trump's proposed WALL is so evil while conveniently overlooking the fact that their intrusion into the New World led to untold misery for the native folks, for whom things got even worse when Latin whites decided to bring over hordes of crazy black Africans to carry bananas.
This is why people like Buchanan have failed in the Culture War. Buchanan is sticking up for Latin whites even though Latin whites, being the weasels that they are, go out of their way to form alliances with Jews, blacks, and any POC(even Muslims) to bash gringo and yanqui. Why defend Latin whites from POC when Latin whites use POC against northern whites? It's as stupid as whites siding with Jews against Palestinians when Jews are using POC and Muslims against whites. (And if Jews are capable of doing what they did to Palestinians, why would they not do it to your people as well? If Bob steals from Bill, what makes you think he won't steal from you? Oh, because you helped Bob steal from Bill? Well, if Bob has a sense of gratitude, maybe he will go easy on you. But is Bob capable of gratitude? If not, you will be the next victim for sure. People like Max Boot and William Kristol do not inspire trust. When have they ever said Thank You to America?) Furthermore, Latin whites side with POC against northern whites mainly to keep their own white privilege. It's a game of misdirection. Just like Jews want people to focus on 'white privilege' as distraction from Jewish Power(an 'antisemitic trope'), Latin whites manipulate the brown masses in Latin America into hating and blaming 'gringos' or 'yanquis'(or European Spain or Catholic Church) than take notice of the all-too-obvious fact that Latin America is mostly ruled by white Latin elites(often allied with globo-homo Jewry).
White Americans should return the favor. Two can play that game. If Latin whites want to rouse up POC against whites in the US, whites should rouse up POC in Latin America against Latin whites. Latin whites are too sleazy and slimy to come to a mutual understanding with Northern whites. They are like Greeks, a people that simply cannot be trusted with honor and principles. White Americans should go tit-for-tat and denounce Diversity in Latin America as the product of imperialism. White Americans should call for restoration of Aztec Rule and reopening of the temple for massive human sacrifices(of Latin whites). All Latin whites like Guillermo Del Toro should be led up the steps for crude heart-transplant operations. And the brown Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show) should be renamed Moctezuma II and made ruler-for-life of Mexico(as he looks more native than European). Mexican white elites are the scum of the Earth who champion POC for the most cynical and self-serving reasons. It isn't really to favor browns over whites but to ensure that Latin whites will keep the power by directing brown rage against the OTHER whites(Anglos, Germanic, and Europeans).
These Latin whites are dirtbags, and white Americans must give up any hope of alliance on good faith. Just look at scumbags like Jorge Ramos, Ana Navarro, Jim Acosta, and etc. What total filth. Though their ancestors messed up South America and Mexico, they never accept any blame. If anything, they take pride that Hispanic imperialism, slave trade, and mass 'rape' of natives led to so much vibrant Diversity in Latin America. That one magic word 'Diversity' redeems all the horrors. And of course, Jews indulge Latin whites and let them carry on as honorary POC because Jews figure Latinos are currently useful in the POC coalition against white goyim. These Latin whites messed up their own nations and ran from their own problems, but they are always accusing gringo and yanqui of being 'racist' and 'not caring'. Instead of going back home and fixing the problems, they come to the US to leech off gringo, and they expect gringos to let in endless waves of 'Latinos'(many of whom are not Latin at all) and bear all the responsibilities of solving the problems of humanity. Latin white's idea of panacea is "Let us go to gringoland, let's take stuff, and let's blame gringo for everything" and "Gringo, if you don't let us in, you are racismo." Adios Rule of Law.
There is no honest discussion as to why Latin America is messed up so bad. No mention of Latin white culture of corruption, vanity, and superficiality. No mention of the problems of Diversity that seriously undermines social trust. No mention of black problems due to Hispanic and Jewish slave trade. No mention of problems of somewhat lower IQ of browns and their lackluster personality. Instead, all the burden is on gringos to keep taking in more and more peoples from Latin America. Now, won't too many 'Latinos' lead to degradation of America into something more like Latin America? Won't they be killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg? But Latin whites don't care because they've long eyed the Anglo-Germanic success in the US with burning envy and resentment. They want to leech off it, and if it is finally destroyed with excessive diversity, what do they care? Just like barbarians pillaged civilizations out of envy and resentment(as well as greed), Latin whites hate the very existence of the US because it stands as stark reminder of the failure of Latin whites in the South.
Justin Trudeau has apologized for Canada’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples. France’s Emmanuel Macron has apologized for the torture of rebels in Algeria’s war for independence.
This is all BS. If Trudeau really cares about Canada's indigenous peoples, why is he allowing mass immigration? If white people are guilt-ridden for having stolen Indian lands, shouldn't they try to revive the indigenous communities and return some of the land? Instead, Trudeau lets in tons of Chinese, Hindus, Muslims, and Africans who have ZERO ancestral or historical claim to the land. With globo-homo scum like Trudeau, it's all horseplay. He's a Muslim, Hindu, Indian, Homo, Chinese, African, and etc, etc. The man for all costumes, all hipster-dipter larping. Besides, how can anyone who truly respects indigenous culture go about spreading Homomania all around, the product of Western decadence, Jewish subversion, 'gay' vanity, and capitalism-gone-cancerous? So much for defending native cultures.
As for Macron, he's just another BS artist and globo-homo shill. If indeed Macron truly feels guilty for what the French did in Algeria, why is he supportive of all these Wars for Israel that have decimated entire parts of the Middle East? Why is he blind to the plight of Palestinians who are far worse off than Algerians under the French? Syria has some of the greatest ancient treasures and artifacts, but so many have been blown up sky-high by US-Israel-Saudi backed terrorist Jihadis labeled as 'moderate rebels'. Do people like Macron even care or voice criticism? And France worked closely with US in the utter destruction of Libya. It's all talk. Macron talks of 'human rights' and uses it as moral cover for his collaboration with Jewish supremacist imperialism. It's like scummy Hillary and Madeline Albright spout sentiments about 'saving Muslim refugees' while overlooking the fact that those refugees are the result of Wars for Israel in which they had a hand.
Also, it's about time Algeria and rest of them apologized to the French for colonizing France. And it is about time the French patriots got resistance mode as depicted in the film BATTLE OF ALGIERS. At this point, unless there is a BATTLE OF FRANCE, it is game over for a nation that is being colonized demographically and sexually by Muslims and Africans. In the coming decades, France will be even darker than Algeria and Morocco. North Africans generally disdain black sub-Saharan Africans and use harsh means to keep them under control. This is why black Africans don't stick around in North Africa and make it to Europe, esp France-UK-Germany-Sweden where they treated as Magic Negroes. In 'liberal' Europe, blacks are celebrated and allowed to run jungle wild.
Anyway, Pat Buchanan is stuck in Old Think. The paradigms he refers to are gone. We need new paradigms in dealing with stuff like Diversity. We must spell out that Diversity is the product of imperialism, genocide, slavery, and replacement immigration-invasion. And it's about time to give up on the alliance of North American whites and South American whites. It might have worked if South American whites had a sense of honor and if North American whites fended off Jewish takeover of elite power and stuck to their noble race-ist principles. But Latin whites are a bunch of weasels who try to keep their white privilege by directing brown rage at Europe and 'gringo', and most Northern white elites are a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks who bend over to homomania and roll over before their Jewish supremacist masters and wet their pants in joy over their daughter marrying a Negro. Utterly worthless.