Tuesday, October 29, 2019

A Quiz for All People to Identify the Evil Supremacism that Rules the West and is Ruining the World

We've all heard of how globalism is about the spread of 'liberal democracy' and 'universal values' of freedom and 'human rights' around the world. But given the character of Western Policy(dominated by the US as the lone superpower), especially since the end of the Cold War, it should be obvious to all honest, observant, and principled individuals that a kind of SUPREMACISM governs the world. There's a saying, "Fish rots from the head", and given that the US is the lone super power governed by a satanic supremacist power, it is essential for us, indeed all of mankind, to identify and expose this supremacist power. To aid in this inquiry, we at the center of Andrean Studies have devised a useful quiz to aid participants in the understanding of this most demonic power. All are welcome to take the quiz and encourage friends and family members to do likewise.
1. Which group constitutes only 2% of the US population but hogs 45% of all wealth?

A. West Virginian Hillbillies
B. Vietnamese-Americans
C. Mormons
D. Jews
E. Mexicans

2. Which group is most hypocritical in pushing deracinated multi-culti globalism on the host nation while urging all its citizens to support the ultra-nationalism of ANOTHER nation, namely one that belongs to members of that group?

A. Russian-Americans
B. Iranian-Americans
C. Jewish-Americans
D. Italian-Americans
C. Syrian-Americans

3. Which group demands that we support IDF death squads of Zionism that mow down unarmed and innocent Palestinian men, women, and children whose dream is to return to their homeland, from which they were expelled in the great tragedy of Nakba?

A. David Duke and his followers
B. Pat Buchanan and his readers
C. Neo-Nazis
D. Amish
E. Jewish Zionists and Yinon-ists

4. Which group believes that it’s okay to ruthlessly sacrifice countless Arab lives for the sake of expanding and prolonging Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East? Consider the total lack of sympathy for the 100,000s of Arabs who were killed directly or indirectly in Wars for Israel.

A. Mexicans
B. Chinese
D. Star Wars fans
E. Jewish Globalists

5. Which group carried out Nakba against the Palestinians, thereby uprooting and displacing 600,000 to 700,000 people from what was then Palestine but now is Imperialist Israel? Hint: This group is now pushing for White Nakba by using non-white immigrant-invader hordes as proxies to reduce and replace white populations fated to become fading minorities in their own homelands of deep ancestry or discovery-and-founding, that is if the likes of George Soros can help it.

A. Texan Cowboys
B. Sioux Nation
C. Eskimos
D. Jewish bastards and bitches
E. Andrew Anglin and Co.

6. Which group worked with co-ethnics in Russia to rape, plunder, loot, and fleece the entire economy in the 90s, thus relegating countless Russians to overnight destitution and even death? In an instant, this group took control of over 50% of the Russian economy, grabbed virtually all media, and interfered in Russian politics with shameless abandon. (During the early years of the Cold War, this group was MOST RESPONSIBLE for spying on the US at the behest of Stalin, the killer of millions. Members of this group sent atomic secrets to the USSR, but this group now promulgates fake news hysteria about Trump-Putin Collusion.)

A. Lithuanians
B. Kenyans
C. Japanese
D. Gamers
E. Jewish globalist a**holes

7. Which group dominated organized crime in Russia & Ukraine and practiced white slavery on a massive scale by luring thousands of Slavic women to Israel to serve as sex slaves for Jewish and non-white men?

A. Iranians
B. Jewish punks
C. Bolivians
D. Hindus
E. Richard Spencer and his fanboys

8. Which group stole nuclear material from the US and sent it to Israel that developed nuclear weapons illegally? Which group is perfectly fine with Israel having nuclear weapons but uses American power to strangle Iran’s economy despite Iran having ZERO nukes?

A. Jewish scumbags
B. Elvis Impersonators
C. Proud Boys
D. Polish Catholics
E. Iowan Farmers

9. Which group effectively undermines free speech and free assembly in the US by funding Antifa goons who are unleashed on patriots & conservatives and then given ‘legal’ protection by law firms and courts?

A. Italian Catholics
B. Southern Baptists
C. Illegal Aliens
D. Jewish lowlifes
E. Hippies

10. Which group controls 95% of the media directly or indirectly and uses their monopoly to spread Fake News and Yinon-ist Propaganda that calls on the US to wage endless Wars for Israel?

A. The Right Stuff
B. Nick Fuentes and fans
C. Jewish Weasels
D. Quakers
E. Baltimore Negroes

11. Which group owns and controls most of Porn Industry and spreads anti-white misogyny by encouraging white girls to act like sluts and skanks whose purpose in life is to be cumbuckets and sex meat for black men?

A. Muslim-Americans
B. Chinese-Americans
C. Turkish-Americans
D. Fans of Michelle Malkin
E. Jewish Pigs

12. Which groups controls most of the Vice Industry of Gambling and builds Casinos all over the nation to dupe and fleece countless goyim into handing all their money to filthy moguls like Shelson Adelson?

A. Fans of Red Elephants
B. Jewish Snakes
C. Puerto Ricans
D. Dwarfs who watch Game of Thrones
E. Buddhist-Americans

13. Which group dominates Wall Street and used nefarious means, especially since the 1980s, to manipulate markets and exploit insider trading to rake in trillions for their own kind while impoverishing much of Middle America?

A. Armenian-Americans
B. Kevin MacDonald and writers for Occidental Observer
C. Oil Workers in Alaska
D. Jewish Vermin
E. The Homeless

14. To save big cities from crime, which group did most to expand prisons and lock up record number of blacks while accusing Southern Whites of bias against Negroes?

A. Cuban-Americans
B. Japanese-Americans
C. Greek-Americans
D. Deplorables
E. Jewish Crooks

15. Which group is most responsible for Hate Propaganda against Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, Palestinians, White Americans, Christians, and Conservatives, all of whom are routinely mocked by Hollywood and Mass Media as subhuman whose only purpose is to be defeated and subjugated to serve Globo-Homo supremacy? This group also spread opioid dependency that destroyed countless white working class lives. This group also dominated opium trade in China that wrecked millions of Chinese lives.

A. Palestinian-Americans
B. Jewish Motherf***ers
C. Hungarian-Americans
D. Czech-Americans
E. Beatlemaniacs

16. Which group promoted and profited from Gangsta Rap Music that spread Thug Supremacist Hatred all over the black community and encouraged black punks to blow each other away over turf, drugs, and bitchass ho’s?

A. Jewish C***suckers
B. The French
C. Serbians
D. Tibetan Buddhists
E. Burmese-Americans

17. Which group has done most to consecrate homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting as the noblest and holiest life-choices in the history of the world? Which group has done most to spread Globo-Homo supremacy and encourage hysteria & hatred against those who stand by morality, normality, and decency?

A. The Irish
B. Nicaraguans
C. Jewish Satanists
D. Indonesians
E. Somalians

18. Which group is doing its utmost to take guns away from white American patriots because it wants all firepower to be monopolized by the State that they control through obedient bureaucracy and bought-off politicians? Name the group that seeks firepower supremacy and monopoly by taking guns away from regular decent Americans.

A. Small-town folks of Oklahoma
B. South Dakota Republicans
C. Vile and Venal Jews
D. Andrew Torba and his crew at GAB
E. Anime fans

19. Which group can be characterized as the New Nazis for its promotion of wars in the Middle East that destroyed millions of lives and for its rabid & virulent hatred against Russia that risks tensions for another global war? This group also calls for Mass-Migration-Invasion into all nations EXCEPT Israel. This groups says all nations must open up to endless immigration-invasion while, at the same time, doing their utmost to support and defend the demographic integrity of Israel. Which group could be so shamelessly hypocritical?

A. Romanians
B. Finns
C. Hungarians
D. Insufferable Jews
E. Fatsos

20. Which people are the masters of Projection, blaming all their own wickedness and evilness on OTHER groups? Which group spews hatred at others while accusing others of ‘hate speech’? Which group uses women of other groups as sex meat while accusing others of misogyny? Which group hogs most power and privilege while bitching about ‘white privilege’? Which group says ‘nationalism for me but not for thee’? Which group acts like the New Nazis but then calls other peoples ‘nazis’ or ‘new hitlers’? Which people wiped off a whole nation off the map(Palestine) but bitch and whine(and lie) about how others are on the verge of wiping their ill-gotten nation off the map?

A. Chechens
B. Kurds
C. American Indians
D. Slovaks
E. It’s the Jews, stupid

So, having finished the quiz, which group do YOU think is infected with the most diabolical and dangerous kind of supremacism in the world?

Monday, October 28, 2019

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

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

But what is particularly bemusing is how the proggy-wogs gripe about how America was violently stolen from the native Indians(who were really Pre-Americans) by 'racist' whites but then whine about how these whites were reluctant to share the land with non-whites all around the world. But if it was wrong for whites to take the land from Indians, how would it have served the Indians any better if whites decided flood America with peoples from ALL OVER THE WORLD? Wouldn't Indians then lose their ancestral land not only to whites but to all peoples of the world? But then, proggy-wogs aren't known for logic or consistency. They are kind of duped morons or clever con-men(especially if they happen to be Jews) who say with a straight face, "I believe in free speech but not in 'hate speech'." (Of course, the Jews get to decide what 'hate speech' is. Apparently, Jews in Hollywood making all those anti-Russian and anti-Muslim movies is not 'hate'. But white people and Palestinians seeking liberation from Jewish supremacism is 'hate'.)
What we need is moral logic and consistency. Those who insist that Columbus Day should be renamed 'Indigenous Peoples Day' should acknowledge that mass-immigration has been synonymous with imperialism, conquest, ethnic cleansing, mass replacement, and 'genocide'. Also, Diversity has been the product of Imperialism. After all, as more immigrants and peoples from the Old World arrived in America, the more the Pre-American Indians lost their land and way of life. Arrival of people from the Old World led to spread of diseases to which millions of native Indians had no immunity, resulting in mass deaths. And mass-immigration meant westward movement of newly minted Americans whose proclaimed destiny was to replace the native Indians on their lands. In that context, the great tragedy of America has been immigration. Contrary to the official narrative, the 'original sin' of America was not slavery but eradication of the American Indians by conquest and mass-immigration-invasion. Some call this 'genocide', a problematic term given the different norms that motivated peoples back then. Still, what is true enough is that Indian Tribes who'd been on the land for tens of thousand of years were effectively wiped off most of the land in a century. Also, whereas blacks gained a tremendous amount as the result of the slavery experience, the American Indians lost just about everything. Consider that 300,000 to 400,000 blacks were brought to America, but their numbers exploded to over 40 million. And, having developed in proximity with whites, blacks had access to the most advanced people on Earth. Furthermore, when we consider where blacks had been and where they ended up, they are the people who gained THE MOST from coming in contact with whites. Most other groups already had advanced cultures or complex civilization prior to their contact with the West. Arabs, Persians, Hindus, Chinese, and etc. were all peoples of High Civilization. Even had they never come in contact with the Modern West, they would have inhabited impressive civilizations with complex arts, culture, religions, and philosophy. In contrast, black Africans were, by and large, the most backward peoples on Earth. They were primitive savages chucking spears at hippos and running like mothaf*****s when the mad hippo came running to stomp their jigger-jiving ass. Had black Africans not come in contact with the Modern West, most of them would still have no wheel, no written language, and no technology beyond bongo drums, spears, and primitive arrows.
Also, blacks not only gained materially but morally in more ways than one. Through the white man, Negroes got to know Christianity and Western Philosophy. Negroes learned of the principle of liberty and of the evil of slavery only under the tutelage of the White Man. And it was precisely because Anglo-Christian folks had betrayed their own moral principle by having enslaved another race that they went about elevating blacks to holy-victim status. So, not only did blacks learn higher morality and deep spirituality from whites but got to use the values inherent in them to judge whites, especially as so many whites got into the habit of showing off their superior 'virtue' by collecting 'white guilt' points. Furthermore, because the modern West was so thrilled with sports and sexualized pop culture, especially with the rise of electronica, the people who excelled most in sports prowess and sexual displays were bound to receive the most adulation. It was the blacks. So, no people gained as much from their contact with whites. Blacks went from zero to hero only on the backs of white achievements, management, and imagination.

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

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

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

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

America was not created by taking land and resources from all the world. It was created by white folks who arrived upon vast territories that were still overwhelmingly wild and natural(at least by Old World and Meso-American standards). And if the land was taken from anyone, it was from Red Savages. If any people were historically wronged, it was the Indians. Not because Indians were angelic saints — just like Europeans, pagan and Christians alike, fought each other countless times over 1,000s of years, so did the American Indians who also belonged to various warring tribes — but because they had a deep connection to the land. Suppose a people more powerful and numerous than the Europeans arrived in Europe 3,000 yrs ago. Suppose they found various pagan European tribes warring against each other over land, women, & stuff, and suppose they overwhelmed the relatively primitive and backward Europeans and took the land. (Btw, keep in mind that Europeans were warring against each other well into the 20th century, with World War I and World War II killing up to 65 to 70 million people.) Their conquest of Europe would have been by the general rule of history where might-is-right. Still, if the hypothetical conquerors had some moral sense and conscience, they would have, at the very least, acknowledged that the vanquished Europeans do have special connection to the land on which they'd lived and died for many eons. Likewise, even if we acknowledge that White Europeans won out over the American Indians by the general rule of history, one would have to be churlish to deny that the American Indians have the most meaningful and deepest connection and attachment to the land. And to the extent that they lost their ancestral homeland forever — something that cannot be said for Asians, Arabs, Hindus, Africans, and weaker Europeans(such as Greeks under Ottomans or Lithuanians under Russians) who eventually reclaimed their homelands from imperialist domination — , it is by no means far-fetched to argue that the American Indians are the most tragic people in the world. (Of course, given the advantages they gained by living under whites, it was far from a total loss. Surely, American Indians would be worse off if America had been conquered by another race of people.)
With that in mind, one must ask, "What is the MOST IMPORTANT Moral Question of America given the history of its founding and development?" At whose expense was the great nation of America created? The answer is beyond obvious. It was at the expense of the American Indians. And that means, if the US has any moral obligation, it is to the American Indians and their communities. Meanwhile, the US has NO moral obligation to anyone else. Was the American land taken from Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Senegalese, Hindus, Kazakhs, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Jews, etc.? Emphatically NO. Also, did all peoples play an equal role in the founding and development of America? Do a mental experiment. While there are Burmese-Americans who are probably good decent people, would America not exist if not a single Burmese set foot on the New Land? Of course not. Even if not a single Burmese(or, for that matter, a single Kurd, Hindu, Korean, Assyrian, Moroccan, Filipino, or etc) ever set foot on this land, America would still be America. But if the Europeans, especially Anglos-Germanics-Celts, had never arrived on the land, there would be NO America. Then, those who bitch about the 'racism' of American History in having excluded non-white immigrants are full of baloney. As the rightful discovers, founders, and developers of the great new nation, the founding & leading stock had EVERY RIGHT to decide immigration policy to create the kind of the nation that they favored. If the Chinese had discovered North America first, would they not have favored immigration of their own kind?

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

Given the facts of history, any fair-minded person would agree with the sentiment that the greatest tragedy of America has been the destruction and demise of the American Indian culture and communities. Indeed, it would be most obnoxious for a people other than the American Indians to hog the stage & microphone and act as if the primary obligation, duty, and responsibility is to serve them. After all, Jews get very antsy if people other than themselves claim the mantle of 'victims of the Holocaust'. Even though Jews acknowledge that Nazi Germans killed millions of non-Jews(and even as part of the campaign that came to be known as 'Shoah' or 'Holocaust'), they insist(and rightfully so) that the Shoah was mainly about the targeting of Jews for mass destruction. So, even though many Poles and other Slavs were killed in World War II(and even under similar conditions as faced by Jews), Jews do have a special claim to Shoah. Every people have their own tragic narrative associated with certain lands. Then, the 'genocide' of the American Indians is a tragedy unique to American History. Because they were the native folks of North America and were vanquished(and even vanished from most of the lands) in what became the United States, the main moral narrative of American History should be about, "What was done to the Indians in the past and what must be done for them in the future?" Even blacks, with their slave narrative, cannot compete with the American Indians whose very homeland was taken from under their feet. Also, while blacks were allowed to live and thrive next to whites — even with Segregation — , American Indians were relocated en masse and settled in reservations that were usually the least productive lands.
Given the fact of American History, only the most obnoxious, arrogant, megalomaniacal, putrid, lowdown, disgusting, filthy, shameless, and scummy people would occupy the throne of Ultimate Victim-hood, Ultimate Claim-hood, and Reparation-hood within the American Context. Can anyone imagine Chinese saying that the main duty of America is to remember all the Chinese victims of Japanese & European imperialism and Maoist communism? Therefore, the D.C. Mall must have a Chinese-Tragedy Museum, all the students must be taught about the Nanking Massacre & other horrors of modern Chinese History, all politicians must say China is the closest and greatest ally of the US, and we must allow endless Chinese immigration to redress historical wrongs? While we can acknowledge the tragedy of modern Chinese History, why should the US go out of its way to 'do right' by the Chinese? Was the US taken from the Chinese? Whatever bad shit happened to the Chinese, it happened OVER THERE, and the US was no more responsible for the mess than other nations like European powers, Japan, Russia, and etc. And yet, we have Jews acting as if they have a special claim on American History, American Morality, and American Responsibility. But why? Did white Christians take America from the Jews(like the Romans took Jerusalem from the Chosen?) Did Jews suffer a great tragedy in America? If anything, Jewish merchants sold guns, ammos, and supplies to white expansionists who took land from the Indians. Also, Jews in the South handled much of the finances of the slave economy. The truth is Jews collaborated with whites in the destruction of the Indians and enslavement of the blacks in America. (Jews were also the main sellers of opium to the Chinese, which is why Jewish historians and their shills are now trying to minimize the assessment of harm done to the Chinese by narcotics. Jews were also leading communists in the Bolshevik Revolution that led to the deaths of millions of Slavs.) As for the Holocaust, it happened in Europe, and it was carried out by Germans who went mad largely because Jews drove them crazy with support for radical communism in the East and Weimar degeneracy in the West. Thus, what is known as Shoah or the Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust, or holocaust carried out by goyim driven to madness by Jewish Bolshevik holocaust of countless Christians in the East. Just like every action leads to a reaction, a holocaust can lead to a counter-holocaust. Even though Jews were on the side of Allies in WWII whereas Japanese were with the Axis, both groups ended up facing counter-holocausts. Jewish radical madness led to so much hatred against the Tribe that it led to the triumph of an ideology as nutty as Nazism. Similarly, so much craziness by the Japanese led to crazy-mad violence against them, the massive destruction of cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If we call Shoah the 'Counter-Holocaust', we will understand history much better. While Shoah was evil and crazy, it didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. It was a deranged reaction to much deranged actions by Jews. If we call it 'Counter-Holocaust', people will begin to ask 'In counter to what?' and then we can explain how much bad Jewish behavior led to rise of 'antisemitism' that finally took the insane form of Nazism. When people are driven to anger and desperation, they become blinded by and consumed with hatred. Why are so many Palestinians angry as hell about the Jews? Some of their hatred may be deranged and even genocidal toward Jews, but why do they feel that way? It's because Jews wiped Palestine off the map and have been treating Palestinians as subhuman trash. If Americans were riled up by Pearl Harbor to attack Japan and kill millions, imagine how the Palestinians feel who were robbed of their homeland? Of course, what was done to Palestinians was far worse. While the US, along with Japan and other powers, had done much to create much of the tensions in the Pacific that led to outbreak of war, the Palestinians had done NOTHING to no one, but the great powers, US-UK-USSR, all conspired to support the Jews in their 'genocide' of the native Arab population.
How dare Jews make themselves the Central People of America? The land was not taken from Jews. And the people who were most responsible for the creation of America were the Anglos and Germanics, not Jews. When it comes to the politics of victim-hood, Jews worked with the cowboys to wipe out the Indians. Jews worked with white slavers to import Africans, and Jews in the South owned slaves and opposed Emancipation. If there was a genocide or 'holocaust' in North America, it was to the American Indians by whites(with support of Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and even yellows who built railroads). By all rights, the Holocaust Museum in the Mall should really be about the American Indians, and Jews should fess up about their own role in the demise of the Indians. But Jews act like they morally and spiritually own America. At least the nutty Mormons cooked up some bogus history about how their ilk have some special connection to the New Land. Jews readily admit they have no deep ancestral roots in America but still claim that America really belongs to them most. Sure, Jews say America is for everyone but then insist that EVERYONE all get behind Jews, support Israel, and worship the Holocaust(as if the Jewish Tragedy should take precedence in the hearts of all races and groups). Since Jews can't claim America by deep ancestry(which belongs to American Indians), tragic experience(that belongs to blacks who toiled as slaves), or vision-founding-creation(that belongs to Anglos and Germanics), they've cooked up the notion of the 'proposition nation' where America is to be defined mainly by 'what it could be' that what it has been or what it is. Since Jews control the media and have spun an Emma-Lazarusean yarn about America as a nation-of-tomorrow(to be defined by endless immigration-invasion by New Peoples) and present themselves as the most iconic and eternal immigrant-group, especially in mythic association with Ellis Island that replaced Plymouth Rock, a mentality took root in the American Mind that the main obligation of all Americans is to honor, worship, & serve Jews and do as they command. Also, as Jews have quasi-spiritualized the Shoah or the Counter-Holocaust, it is no longer limited to the history of WWII and the bloodlands of Central and Eastern Europe. It is regarded as a cosmic thing, like the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ is supposed to be to all peoples in all the world. At least Jesus cared for all of humanity. In contrast, even as Jews have universalized Shoah-Worship for goyim, all they feel for goyim is contempt, often murderous in kind, as when all these Yinonist-Zionists cackle with hideous glee about all the Arabs and Muslims who've been massacred in these Wars for Israel, which might as well be called Mass-Murders for Israel.

Why are Jews so obnoxious? Part of it could be their haggly-waggly and verbally-excessive character. After all, is it just a coincidence that another group that is as often as obnoxious as the Jews are Hindus who are also verbally excessive? As if to follow in the footsteps of Jews and even go one step further, a most foul Dotkin Suketu Mehta(or Suckasstoo Meathead) has written a book called "An Immigrant's Manifesto". Even though America was taken from American Indians and not from Asian Indians, this worthless Asian-Indian Hindu says America has a moral obligation to open its gates to hundreds of millions of his Dotkin kind or Dotkind. It's like Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA. He has this crazy notion that all of America should somehow put out to him and offer him flowers wherever he goes. (Latin American whites are another scummy group when it comes to making Moral Demands on America. They posture as 'people of color' when, in fact, they were the First White Europeans to conquer the New World, spread disease, wipe out tens of millions, 'rape' countless native women, and lord over the brown Meso-Americans as virtual slaves and peons. Now, if Latin American whites acknowledged their part in the tragic dimensions of New World history while also claiming considerable achievements & improvements, it would be understandable. After all, Hispanic whites were not the only great conquering peoples in history[and they did bring an end to human sacrifice and other barbarisms of the natives], and we can't judge the past with today's values, even though, what with all the pro-migration-invasion rhetoric of globalism, one wonders if today's values are any different. What is unforgivable about Latin American whites is they conveniently overlook their essential role in the conquest of the New World and furthermore pretend that the mixing of white and brown was some kind of happy union, a love-fest among the races. Furthermore, their cretinous selves claim to be 'people of color' and dump all blame for New World tragedies on 'gringo' or 'yanqui'. As such, they are as dirty and lowlife as the Jewsters and Dotkins.) 'Verbality' is necessary for power, but with some peoples, it's gotten out of hand. Jews and Hindus are so busy yapping and listening to themselves go on and on and on that they've come believe in their own baloney or curry.
In contrast, the American Indians, who have most to complain about, go unheard because they are deficient in 'verbality'. It's like the 'big dumb Indian', aka Chief Broom, in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. He isn't really deaf & dumb but acts it out of a sense of defeatism and resignation. It's interesting that just about the only word Indians are known for is 'How'. Indians need to start talking. They need to drop Broom-ism and learn a thing or two from Jewsters and Dotkins(and of course, the ghastly 'groids', another people who 'talk too much' as Run-DMC noted). If Jewsters, Dotkins, and 'groids' need to shut up a bit, the Indians need to speak up more and loudly. They need to put forth a great chief who will assemble all the Indian Nations in the Washington Mall and give a speech called "I have a vision", one that demands no more immigration-invasion as mass-immigration led to the 'genocide' of the Red Savages hunting gophers for stew.

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

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

American Indians need to drop the Broom-ism and learn to talk. For too long, Indians had others do the talking for them, like when Neil Young sang songs like 'Pocohontas' or when Jim Jarmusch made DEAD MAN. In FARGO, the Indian doesn't talk much, but he gets awful angry. Indians must work on that anger and learn to talk. Indians have the war dance and rain dance. They need to perfect the Talk Dance, and learn to speak loud and clear about how America is spiritually their land. Therefore, the biggest moral imperative of the US must be an end to all immigration-invasion and a sincere effort to revive Indian communities. Indeed, how disgusting that Jews and their cuck-libertarians decided to redress the tragedy of Indian communities by offering casinos, most of which are run by Jews who take much of the profit. Imagine Europeans telling Jews, "Ah, forget about the Shoah. Let's just put some casinos where Nazi concentration camps were, and let's have a good time." That would be pretty repulsive, but that was the deal that the Indians got, like in CASINO JACK about the foul Jew Jack Abramoff.
Finally, American Indians need to understand that white race-ism was a double-edged sword. In their drive to turn the New World into an extension of European Civilization, white race-ist expansionism led to the demise of American Indian communities. And yet, white race-ism also protected the New World from the Non-White world that was even more numerous in people. Thus, even as white race-ism took the land from the Indians, it also protected that land from further invasion by all the world. Given the tragic history between whites and Indians, a non-white people, it's understandable why some Indians decided to form alliances with other non-whites against whites, but what do these non-whites want? They want endless immigration-invasion from all the world, and that means American Indians will have lost their land not only to whites(who felt some conscience and respect for the Indians) but to all the peoples from all the world, many of whom are utterly without conscience, honor, decency, and shame. Take Suketu Mehta, or Suckasstoo Meathead. I mean, how demented must one be to be a Hindu making a moral claim on America, a land that was not taken from his people and wasn't founded and built by his kind.
Furthermore, can anyone with integrity say with utmost sincerity that America has improved with Jews as the ruling elites? For Anglos, morality meant 'improving ourselves', 'facing up to our wrongs', and reforming society for the good of all. It was about judging not only others but themselves. With Jews, morality is simply acting as if they're pure as snow, the fount of all truth & wisdom, always blaming OTHERS for all problems, and refusing to admit Jews also have a dark side to their history. Also, even as Jews seek to protect their own kind from deracination and total degeneracy, they push such on their enemies. Some may argue that Jewish embrace of globo-homo-mania is a form of degeneracy, but the fact is most Jews don't really get high on their own supply. Globo-homo is to Jews what cocaine is for the pusher. Jews wield it as a weapon to undermine goy communities than to really indulge in 'gay' worship.
Anyway, American Indians need to realize that white race-ism was the last best defense of America from further invasion. As long as whites remained in race-ist mode, American Indians could rest assured that their ancestral-spiritual land would, at the very least, not be invaded by ALL THE WORLD. It was the fading of white race-ism that flung American gates to all the peoples of world, to tens of millions of Hindus, Africans, Asians, Latin American whites(aka Conquis), and Meso-Americans who have no claim on the Americas north of the Mexican border. Without race-ism, a people and land are doomed. Just ask the Jews who guard Israel with race-ism. As bad as Jewish race-ism may be in the eyes of Palestinians, it would be worse if Jews lost their race-ism and opened up Israel to ALL THE WORLD. Then, Palestinians will have lost their land not only to Jews but to Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Turks, and etc, etc.
**If America is all about an 'idea' & 'proposition' and not about soil, roots, and history, then how come there are special reservations set aside for American Indians? Isn't it because they have roots in the soil and deep memory of existence on the land? If America is purely about proposition, Americanism should not tolerate special recognition for American Indians' ties to the soil and the particularity of their history. If such is recognized for Indians, why is it not recognized for whites who were most crucial in American nation's founding and most instrumental in its development? If the Indians' deep historical connection to the land overrides mere considerations of 'universal values' and 'propositions', then the white man's founding and creative relation to the American soil also merits special recognition.**

Friday, October 25, 2019

'White Privilege' has become a Dark Legacy or Inheritance than a Socio-Economic Condition

Some Jews are pondering if Jews should count as 'white'. After all, the notion of 'whiteness' has been much pilloried in the academia, media, and the state, not least by JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. Therefore, Jews find it problematic to count as white because white goyim are routinely scapegoated for just about everything... unless the white goyim happen to be 'gay' or 'gayim'. But then, there could be another problem arising from Jews rejecting whiteness. After all, if Jews don’t count as white and are gauged as a stand-alone group, it means they can easily be identified as the Most Powerful Group because Jewish privilege, the biggest privilege in the world, could no longer hide behind the veil of ‘whiteness’. If Jewish Privilege no longer counts as 'white', people might begin to awaken to the fact that Jews control the US, thereby the world.
The result is the paradox of Jews both vilifying and identifying with whiteness. Why would they identify with a group that they vilify the most? It's because the biggest Jewish fear is being exposed as a people of immense power, wealth, and influence, all of which suggest supremacist tendencies among Jews. Thus, Jews are Zelig-ish by nature, indeed even within the community. Barbra Streisand made YENTL, a story about a Jewish woman who pretends to be a man to gain access to education and, in the same year(1983), Woody Allen came out with ZELIG where a Jew morphs into other identities while, deep inside, remaining the Eternal Jew. The paradox of Jewish character is that Jews mastered the art of adapting into non-Jewish modes not for genuine assimilation but to protect the core 'nest egg' of Jewishness deep within. It's no wonder Albert Brooks in LOST IN AMERICA, as the wandering Jewish yuppie, is so obsessed with the notion of the Nest Egg. Jews know that they amassed a lot of power, wealth, and privilege by means foul as well as fair. Therefore, the last thing Jews want is to be blamed for all the dirty tricks they pulled. Consider Jews and blacks. Jewish agents and managers ripped off a lot of blacks, and a lot of blacks know this. And Jews know it too. But in their effort to maintain the political alliance between Jews and blacks, Jews get awful upset if blacks mention past Jewish behavior in bad light. But if blacks blame 'whites' instead for all the bad things Jews did to them, that is acceptable to Jews. #HollywoodSoJewish is not okay, but #HollywoodSoWhite is okay. So, if a black person was conned by a Jew, and if he says, "A Jew ripped me off", Jews hiss with anger. But if the Negro says, "A WHITEY ripped me off", Jews breathe a sigh of relief and show their approval. Therefore, it's very convenient for Jews to identify as 'white' for the time being.
Of course, by invoking the Shoah endlessly, Jews also make themselves out to be the biggest victims of whites or 'white supremacists'. Disingenuously, Jews pretend the Shoah happened out of the blue for no reason when, if anything, it was an extreme and radical reaction to much horrible behavior on the part of Jews. In many respects, the Shoah was a Counter-Holocaust in response to the holocausts committed by Jewish communists and World Jewry on goyim. Before there was the Jewish Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germans, there was the Slavo-Holocaust carried out in large part by Jewish radicals. In that sense, The Holocaust should really be called the Counter-Holocaust. Horrible Jewish behavior inspired horrible German behavior. Tragically, JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power is at it again in the 21st century as the Jews have become the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis.
In the Current Year, the Cult of Privilege is less about having privilege than being branded with its label. It is rather like an inversion of the concept of the titled aristocracy. After all, the privilege of nobility was not so much about wealth & means as about blood & lineage secured through titles passed down through generations. So, one could be broke and out of luck but still be regarded as a 'duke', ‘count’ or ‘baron’.

Likewise, the cult of ‘white privilege’ isn’t about all white people really having or enjoying privilege. It means being labeled with this historical stain of ‘privilege’. It is something ALL whites inherit, like the Mark of Cain. No matter how poor or downtrodden(or tyrannized by black thugs) a white person may be, he is forced to own the negative-title of ‘white privilege’. John the Oppressor. Bob the Tyrant. Jerry the Bigot. Ron the Hater. Whitey = Evil.

Given how this works, if Jews un-whiten themselves, they could earn the Special Privilege of being forgiven their own privilege of immense power and wealth. Even if Jews remain rich or get richer, their un-white-ness provides them with the special dispensation of not being tainted with moral wickedness that is thought to be uniquely white. (But then, as noted above, Jews-as-Jews than Jews-as-whites will open up a whole new can of worms when it comes to the issue of uber-privilege as Jews have more money and privilege than any other group. Jews-as-Jews may no longer be stained with whiteness, but then, they will no longer be able to launder bad Jewish behavior as 'bad WHITE behavior.')

If you’re black, brown, or homo, you can be as rich, famous, well-connected, and/or privileged as possible without any blame or accusation. Not being white gives you the privilege of denying your privilege even if you, as an individual, has lots of it. That group advantage, in and of itself, is an immense kind of privilege. And some Jews may be hoping for the same thing as they explore the possibilities to detaching Jewishness from whiteness.

After all, white Hispanics enjoy such PC privilege. Being ‘Hispanic’ makes them non-white, and that means they can be as rich as Carlos Slim the Lebanese. They don't count as one of the ‘privileged’ since privilege is only attached to non-Hispanic whiteness. Incredibly enough, white Latinos, the descendants of the first European Conquistadors of the Americas who did so much plundering and pillaging, hide behind the veil of 'people of color'. Meanwhile, to confuse matters even further, even brown natives of 'Latin America' without a drop of white blood are referred to as 'Hispanic' or 'Latino'(or now 'Latinx').
The concept of Privilege according to PC isn’t a condition based on actual wealth or power. It is an inheritance. So, no matter how rich a Negro, Dotkin(Hindu), or Conqui(or Conkey, or White Hispanic) becomes, he is not associated with the Problem of Privilege. In contrast, no matter how poor a white person may be, he or she is forced to inherit the negative title/curse of ‘white privilege’. It really stinks how the shame-game is rigged.
Maybe, whites should twist this around and come up with the concept of White Prestige. Invoking Charles Murray’s HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT, they should say 97% of all contributions to mankind came from whites, therefore, ALL whites are worthy of inheriting White Prestige and White Pride FOR ALL TIME. This way, even the dumbest white dolt will have more prestige than the smartest non-white individual who contributes something of great value. Yes, all whites inherit White Prestige and demand respect from all the world that owes everything to white achievement.

According to PC, this stain or inheritance of ‘white privilege’ is something whites can never be rid of. It's like a scar that marks one for life. The stamp of 'white privilege' is meant to be more resilient that the seal of nobility. It's meant to stick to whites like skunk spray.

If a nobleman was really down on his luck, he could at least sell his title and be rid of it… and end up like the descendants like TESS OF THE D'URBERVILLES. In contrast, ‘white privilege’ is like the blood on the hands of Lady Macbeth. It won’t fade no matter how much it's washed AS LONG AS white folks remain psycolonized by PC. It's like a chronic infestation by parasites that are nearly impossible to eradicate... unless one takes a drastic measure. At this point, only total White Liberation from JSP will bring an end to the cult of White Guilt.
Paradoxically, the current PC is devised to reward whites with real privilege while punishing whites without privilege. The Globo-Homo-Shlomo Order allows privileged whites to keep their privilege AS LONG AS they denounce 'white privilege' and shower contempt on the white hoi polloi. Why would this be? It's the Jewish Way of using carrots to ensure that privileged whites will obey and serve them. As comprador-collaborators of the Empire of Judea, privileged whites get to enjoy status and wealth. If Jews allow such whites to enjoy so much privilege, why do Jews insist that they condemn 'white privilege'? Why are Jews allowing certain whites to have so much white privilege while, at the same time, making them denounce 'white privilege' among whites who have NO privilege? It's really because what Jews fear most is not 'white privilege' — after all, Jews got more White Privilege than other white groups — but white unity, and by making privileged white dump on unprivileged whites, Jews are making sure there is no unity of white elites and white masses. Jewish message to white elites is "You can keep your privilege AS LONG AS you shit on the white masses. You, as white elites, must serve us Jews as your masters than lead white folks as your people." Then, it's hardly surprising that privileged whites can afford to attend the right kind of schools, make the right kind of donations, and make the right kind of gestures so as to present themselves as ‘good whites’. They can afford Magic Soap to wash away some of the stain of 'white privilege'. In contrast, less fortunate whites can’t afford to do so, and they become ‘deplorables’, so grimy and soiled with ‘white privilege’.

Because rich whites can afford to be ‘good whites’ and buy special dispensations — like the Clintons, Bidens, Pelosis, and the rest of them — , we have a surreal situation in this country where rich ‘liberal’ whites and rich cuck-whites can pose as less ‘privileged’ than deplorable poorer whites who can’t afford magic soap to wash away the dirt of ‘white privilege’. It is another kind of Dirt Gap... or the Dirty Gap.
Of course, even for PC-approved privileged whites, the stain of ‘white privilege’ never goes away. Unlike Jews, blacks, and homos who are idolized as naturally and unconditionally clean(no matter what they do), even the 'goodest of the good' whites are stained with the 'original sin' and the Mark of Cain of 'white privilege' and 'white guilt', and therefore, they must always make an effort to show that they wash day in and day out to remain clean. It's as if whites are like Pig-Pen of Peanuts comics. Still, rich and well-connected whites can still afford the Magic Soap that makes them seem 'cleaner' than the deplorables.
We now live in a crazy nation where the general impression is that lower class whites got more ‘white privilege’ than upper-class whites do. It’s not about who has more actual wealth and privilege but who can better afford to wash away some of that stain with Woke Soap. Magic Soap sure is expensive. Hope Soap makes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet seem cleaner of 'white privilege' than white deplorables who, down on their luck, are realizing that they're all on their own and without white leadership. Their only hope is White Liberation from JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

When Will JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power Come Out of the Closet like Homos/Trannies have done? It's about Time so that All the People may know and discuss what is REALLY going on around the World.

The Jewish-Gay or J-Gay Agenda
'Closeted' is a term most often used to characterize the situation of homosexuals in the past or in present traditional(or normo-centric) societies where homos have felt the need to keep their sexual (dis)orientation to themselves out of fear of legal sanction, social rejection, or personal shame. Even after homosexuality was decriminalized in the West, some homos chose to remain 'in the closet' because they didn't want to be pigeonholed as 'gay' or didn't want the trouble of being regarded as 'perverted' or 'deviant'. After all, even if incest were made totally legal, most people would continue to look upon the behavior as gross and even vile. There was a time when most people, liberals and conservatives, thought of homosexuality to be some kind of mental illness or dark sin. And even when homosexuality was finally decriminalized in UK and US, most people(including many Liberals) regarded homosexuals as weird and even disgusting. And then, even after the psychological association stopped labeling homosexuality as a mental illness, 'gayness' was still the object of mockery, not least by popular entertainment dominated by Liberals. In some cases, Liberals played around with 'gay' themes to make the public more comfortable with the subject, but the level of camp and lampoon made homos out to be figures worthy of ridicule than respect.
That was then, this is now. At some point, especially beginning in the Clinton-Nineties, Jews in the media, academia, and entertainment decided to go all out to elevate homos into secular angels as replacement of angels in the Christian Imagination. The lowbrow form of this was TV-sitcoms, the middlebrow form garbage like PHILADELPHIA(movie by Jonathan Demme, as penance for SILENCE OF THE LAMBS that upset a lot of tootkins) & BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN(by the mercurial Ang Lee), and the highbrow form was ANGELS IN AMERICA by Tony Kushner. Apparently, Roy Cohn was a bad-bad man because he, as a Jewish Homo, worked for the American Right to get a couple of Jews killed: The Rosenbergs. To many Jews, Rosenbergs are more sacred than Otto Frank and Jonathan Pollard. Jews look out for their own, and never mind what the Rosenbergs did. The fact is the GOYIM killed them, and Roy Cohn helped.
Anyway, one thing we can all agree on is that homos have totally come out of the closet. Indeed, they went further and decided to come out of the bedroom as well. So, they now march and parade around to celebrate their deviance and perversion as a matter of 'pride'. Indeed, these vain lunatics decided 'gay pride' should just be called 'pride'. As with the term 'gay', homos(backed up by powerful Jews) decided to lay claim to an entire word for themselves. Thus, 'pride' alone now means homo-greatness. While all other groups must attach their own identity in conjunction with 'pride', homos(and trannies) merely need to mutter 'pride' to mean it's all about them. It goes to show homo vanity(and shamelessness) knows no bounds. Give these neo-aristos an inch, and they take a mile and then demand the whole world as their oyster.
Now, if homos are so brazen in their coming-out-of-the-closet celebration, why are Jews or Jewish Power so reluctant to come out of the closet? Some may argue that Jewish Power is also out of the closet in that there are so much talk of "Israel is America's Closest Ally", endless brouhaha at AIPAC rallies, and so many glowing mentions of Jewish This & Jewish That in so many media narratives and publications. And yet, in many respects, Jewish Power or Jewish Supremacist Power(or JSP) has refused to come out of the closet. Indeed, most mentions and invocations of Jewishness are meant to remind us of how vulnerable and victim-prone the Jews are, and therefore, we must do out utmost to protect the poor poor Jews from the bad bad peoples around the world(who could be just about anyone as Jews have been experts at making enemies of those who resist their filth).
In some ways, one might argue Jews revel in globo-homo celebration as a kind of proxy Jewish-Power-out-of-the-closet. Jews fear that overt exclamation and expressions of Jewish Power may lead to resentment, fear, and anxiety among the goyim as to Jewish privilege and supremacy. Therefore, Jews feel they must portray themselves more as victims than as victors. And yet, there is surely a side of Jewishness that wants to take the stage, flaunt its powers, and rub it in to the untermensch goy masses that the Jews, as the true master race, have the Power. But such would give the game away. People will feel less sympathy toward Jews and become more critical as it's only natural for a people to direct most of their criticism toward those with the most power. That means celebrations of Jewish Supremacist Victory must remain stymied. This is smart move on the part of Jews, but it must also be frustrating for Jews not to be able to stomp the foot on the face of the goyim and holler, "We got the power and get to rule over you, filthy goy scum!"
But then, given the fact that Globo-Homo agenda has essentially been a Jewish Supremacist project, celebration of its victory is a veiled glorification of Jewish Supremacist domination over the West, not least because Homomania or Queertianity has been conceived as a substitute for fading and falling Christianity, a religion that Jews have secretly(and not-so-secretly) loathed for 2,000 yrs. From the way Jews promote and celebrate Globo-Homomania as their proxy vehicle, their ethnic character comes into focus. It is evidently vile, obnoxious, sadistic, bullying, hysterical, and demented. What IDF bullets are for Palestinian children, Globo-Homo poison is for the goyim of the West. Just like IDF death squads sadistically shoot Arab children to maim or kill them in the worst way, Jews nastily and viciously rub the noses of the goyim in the globo-homo filth. In Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEANORS, the woman who plays his sister recounts how her hookup partner tied her to a bed and then took a dump on her. What Jews are doing to the West is the equivalent of what happened to that poor woman. Jews are not only sore losers — consider their behavior in the wake of Donald Trump's election victory — but sour winners who love to gloat, rub it in, and take a dump on the losing side. They have no sense of honor, respect, or limits. Indeed, consider the difference between Anglo-Americans and Jews. While Anglos wiped out the Indians, they also paid tribute to the first inhabitants of the New World. In contrast, have Jews shown any recognition for the plight of Palestinians or all the Arabs/Muslims who've been victimized by Wars for Israel? No. If anything, Jews love to rub it in on the Palestinians and dehumanize them without end. It's like Jews have no sense of shame in robbing other people. In their looting of Russia, they didn't just take a big piece but tried to take EVERYTHING, indeed the entire nation. When their super cuck-monkey Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, Jews at Newsweek gloated with a big middle finger to white America.

May there be another reason why Jews are pushing Globo-Homo so hard? Could it be a kind of socio-political experiment to see how the goyim and the world will react to the agenda of minority-elite-supremacism? After all, homos in so many nations are members of the elite. Even in overtly anti-homo nations, many closeted homos work tirelessly to gain footholds in many elite institutions and industries. Indeed, homo power didn't come by overnight. Even when the West was anti-homo with laws against it(and with the psychological community deeming it as a mental disease), homos had been working surreptitiously to form networks and connections. So, when their moment came to emerge from the closet, they had considerable assets and advantages in terms of know-how and know-who. Thus, homos have long been powerful elements in elite circles, and as such, one could say homos in many parts of the world represent elite-minority power. Jews and homos formed a symbiotic relationship because both (1) are minority elites (2) overlap in many key industries and institutions (3) have long felt alienated from majority-conservative(and Christian) social order (4) overflow with vanity, supremacism, neo-aristo tendencies, and/or egomania(or ethnomania in the case of Jews).
Now, given that Judaism has historically been anti-homo — indeed, it has been the source of the most stringently anti-homo value system in the world, shaping the resolutely anti-homo laws of Christianity and Islam — , there is no guarantee that Jews and homos would be natural allies. Also, given that the Nazi SA had lots of homos(whose predilections favored fascist nihilism & narcissism over communist severity & plainness), history may have been different if Ernst Rohm's faction had either outmaneuvered or forced concessions(of tolerance for homos) from Adolf Hitler & Heinrich Himmler. Being naturally aristo in taste and aspirations, homos don't make good leftists, and that is precisely why the globalist oligarchs appreciate how Jews and Homos have rewritten leftism to be all about Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and multi-billion dollar Harvard funding the fancy-pants mugging of homos whose main obsessions are fashion, hedonism, and expensive lifestyles.
In a way, Jews couldn't be good leftists forever as well. Though there were many Jews who were genuinely committed to creating an equal and classless society out of idealism or dogma, they were too smart and talented to remain true to egalitarianism for long. In the end, they felt restless like the Albert Brooks character in LOST IN AMERICA who, upon seeing the Middle America of small towns and little people, grows bored & tired and runs off to New York to earn his millions. But, because many Jews and homos had been on the Left, if only due to a sense of alienation from majority Christian-goy or straight-moral society, their socio-economic and cultural transformations came to fallaciously reshape the meaning of leftism itself. Indeed, nothing is more idiotic than referring to current globo-progressivism as the 'left'. The argument goes as follows: Because Jews and Homos had once been on the Egalitarian Left(even if in a state of growing unease and anxiety), their metamorphosis into globalist-capitalist-imperialist-hedonist-narcissist-degenerate elitists must also be leftist. But this is like arguing, "Since China is ruled by the CCP that had once practiced communism, the capitalism that now defines that nation must also be communist." No, if a leftist stops acting like a leftist, he is no longer a leftist. It doesn't follow that, because he was once on the left, even the later non-leftist things he does are also leftist. What is often called the 'left' today is not truly leftist, no more than the current crop of globo-homo churches(that are sprouting all over like mushrooms) is truly Christian. If you drain a bottle of grape juice and fill it with orange juice, it is not grape juice. It would be a fallacy to assume it must be because it's in the grape juice bottle.

Anyway, could it be that Jews are pushing the 'Gay Agenda' as a kind of test-case of how the majority folks(of goyim and straights) would react to aggressive flaunting of minority-elite power, privilege, and supremacism? If true, it means Jews are manipulating and using the homos: Make the homos step out into the limelight first and show off their power & privilege as if the world is their oyster. And if Jews notice that the brainwashed, castrated, and cucked majority of straight folks are willing to bend over backwards(and forwards) to homo minority-elite supremacism, then maybe Jews will feel safer, securer, and more confident to also fully emerge from the closet as the true masters of the world. Jews could be acting like the Latin American guide who trails behind Indiana Jones who takes the lead and faces the initial dangers in the search for the treasure in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Let Indy take the first step and get bitten by a snake or fall into a trap. Let the homo jump in the lake(that could be filled with piranhas or alligators or worse) before the Jew wades in. In many ways, Jews are obnoxious, over-zealous, and driven, but there is also a side to them that is patient, calculating, and ruthless, as with Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2 who waited all those years to get even with the Corleones.

Anyway, the Way of the World would be much clarified if the Jews, like the homos, fully came out of the closet and shamelessly displayed their arrogance, pride, and megalomania. Sure, many goyim, especially white cucks, will only love Jews even more(like slaves who revere their proud master) because they've been so indoctrinated and conditioned to go apeshit and bananas over anything Jewish. Take that worthless cuck Charlie Kirk who can't get enough of Jewish awesomeness. If JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power) came out of the closet tomorrow and declared to the world, "We Jews are the superior masters of the world, and your duty as lowly goyim is to kiss our ass and suck our toes", it's safe to say Kirk and many others like him will be more than glad to get on their knees and kowtow before the Uber-Jewber. There are plenty of people like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Hagee in the world, especially in the West, and especially in America. For them, Jews are the Chosen, the special people, and they can't think of anything more honorable and glorious than worshiping at the feet of the Tribe.
However, many other people, of both genuine right and genuine left, will rethink the Way of the World once they realize that Jews are the 'Barzini' behind the globo-homo 'Tataglia'. Also, realizing that Jews are the true supremacist-imperialists with hegemonic control over the world, people will wise up to the Jewish swindle of invoking 'white supremacy' and 'white privilege' as tricks of misdirection so as to fool the masses of goyim that the real threat to the world comes from the KKK or Neo-Nazis. ROTFL. Now, was it the KKK and Neo-Nazis who brought about all those Wars for Israel that killed so many countless Arabs/Muslims? Are the Deep State and Media Propaganda organs crawling all over with KKK members... or with murderous Zionist-imperialists and their toady cucks? Anyway, homos and even trannies are now out of the closet. It is about time that JSP, or Jewish Supremacist Power, finally and fully came out of the closet and flaunted what it's really about. Then, so many people in the West will realize why their fate are now much like that of the Palestinians.

Monday, October 21, 2019

An Open Letter to a Globo-Homo Freak who Badmouths Ethan in John Ford's THE SEARCHERS


Are you so-called 'lefties' capable of saying anything other than 'racism, racism, racism' about THE SEARCHERS? 

And I find this passage hilarious. Andrew Stewart: 

"He wishes to kill his own family for inter-ethnic coupling. When Ethan speaks the wretched words he does, it is vital to remember that Wayne was saying on screen what a whole generation of fathers were saying in private about the idea of their precious white daughters going to school and perhaps one day dating African teens. The film’s literal Indian War is a deep analogue for the culture war that was going on at the time.... y understanding that Wayne’s Ethan is as psychotic and sexually-confused as De Niro’s Travis Bickle, it is possible to see the earlier film on a psycho-analytic level that otherwise escapes today’s viewers."  

You describe yourself as 'queer'. Ain't it funny that a guy whose idea of 'sex' is fecal penetration with other men would make a fuss about OTHER people's psycho-sexual hang-ups. 

Maybe you haven't heard but sexuality is DARK. It is animal. It is about territory, pride, possession. It isn't something so genteel and refined like a tea party. It isn't lovey dovey in its essence despite the romantic trimmings(but then, is the art of courtship even alive anymore in the West?)

The reason you don't get THE SEARCHERS is because you 'lefty' types see everything through the simplistic prism of 'racism'. Also race-ism is Truth insofar as different races and racial differences exist. Race-ism, properly defined, should mean belief in the reality of race and racial diversity/differences. After all, '-ism' means belief, and there is no reason why race + ism should automatically mean racial hatred or supremacism or prejudice. 

But first, to get a better grasp of THE SEARCHERS, suppose we remove the racial element. The emotional dynamics would be more or less the same though, of course, the factor of race amplifies the tension. It's like this: If a black guy kills a black woman, the family members of the slain victim will feel vengeful toward black killer. But the rage will be greater IF the killer is white. Then, it will be seen as a white-on-black-murder. Indeed, the whole BLM outrage is predicated on the race-rage that young black men are being killed by WHITE cops. Why were Americans so angry when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Because the 'Japs' done it. Jewish media and FDR(that wanted US entry into WWII) were ecstatic because the anger toward the yellow 'Japs' would rile up Americans, even isolationists, into entering the war. 

So, race makes it more intense, but sexual dynamics are pretty dark and brooding on its own. Take THE ODYSSEY. The hero comes back and kills all the suitors. He also kills the female servants of the house who sexually serviced the suitors. Odysseus is about manly pride. He ruthlessly reinstates his authority as man of the house. He kills other Greeks, but the rage isn't different in kind from that of Ethan Edwards. Though the element of race raises the rage level in THE SEARCHERS, Ethan's blood thirst is driven at least in part by healthy manly pride. Maybe you, being a queer, lack an understanding of real manhood. Maybe you are used to other men sticking their dongs into your bung. Maybe you like to play bitch to the stronger Negro. Maybe, maybe not. But real men are like Ethan, a true hero on the Greek scale. And it's not just about race, race, race. Suppose his brother's family had been killed by Liberty Valance and his gang than by Indians. Ethan would be just as furious and vengeful. He would hunt them down and kill them.

As for his willingness to kill Debbie, it's dark but understandable. Ethan wanted to save her but also feared that she'd grow up to become a breeder for the Indians. Imagine that. A tribe of 'savages' murdered his brother and his brother's children. The woman Ethan dearly loved was raped and butchered. Same was done to the older daughter soon after. OF COURSE, Ethan is angry as hell. 
Suppose I'm a leader of a gang, and my gang did such to YOUR family. Wouldn't you be enraged? Wouldn't your bloodlust be PERSONAL? It's like in THE GODFATHER. After the attempt on his father's life, Michael felt compelled, indeed obligated, to kill the Turk and the police captain. And the young Vito Corleone(DeNiro) eventually returns to Sicily to take revenge on the man who'd killed his family long ago. Vito had a calm exterior but always longed for vendetta. And Hyman Roth is committed to taking out Michael because of the death of Moe Green, who was like a little brother or even son to him. Jews may act 'liberal', but they are intensely clannish deep inside and never forget. They still want to destroy Germany for revenge sake. Maybe you don't understand such sense of revenge, pride, honor, and family/clan loyalty as you're a deracinated white queer 'lefty' who prefers abstract and bogus ideas of 'social justice' divorced from reality. 

If Ethan's brother's family had been spared and if Jorgensen's place had been raided instead by the Comanches, Ethan wouldn't have been so obsessed. The issue here is PERSONAL. Ethan really loved Martha. It was bad enough that he'd lost her to his brother(just like Marty nearly lost Laurie to the guitar strummer). But to find her body raped and killed by Indians? That was some bad shit. Ethan loves Debbie and wants to save her. But he knows that as the years pass, she will become part of the very tribe that raped and butchered her family — Ethan's brother and Martha. She will be serving the very people who committed horrors against her own kind. Of course, we and even Ethan know that it's not Debbie's fault. She was taken as a child and the Indians came to accept her as their own. But it means she will make red babies who will grow up to kill white people. THIS is what Ethan cannot tolerate. But your queero PC mentality can only see 'racism, racism, racism'. You don't understand true manly pride cuz you're globo-homo. 

But surely, even a homo can have feelings like that of Ethan. Suppose my gang wiped out your family. Suppose my gang is ultra-right-wing and hate 'progressives' such as yourself. Suppose my gang took your young sister(whom you dearly love) and plan to use her womb to create ultra-right warriors who will attack and kill more 'progressives'.  Wouldn't you be livid with rage? Wouldn't a part of you wish your sister was dead than join the enemy(like Patty Hearst, topic of the Paul Schrader movie) and attack you and your kind? 

Indeed, suppose we flip the SEARCHERS. Suppose it is about a bunch of white cowboys that attack an Indian village. Suppose these imperialist & 'genocidal' white men rape red women and kill almost everyone. But they take one Indian boy and raise him as 'honorary white' and teach him to hate and kill Indians. Suppose the Indian father or uncle of that boy wants to rescue him. But suppose the years pass and the abducted boy has joined the ranks of white invaders-settlers to fight Indians. Wouldn't it at least be understandable why the Indian father and uncle would want to see him dead? 

Do you know about the Ottoman Turks? They ruled over Greece for 300 yrs. They took many Greek Christian boys, brainwashed them, and turned them into Janissary trained to fight and destroy Christendom. Many Greek fathers and mothers would have preferred that their sons die than be taken and turned that way. Does your queer mind at least understand such mindset? Or would you accuse those Greek mothers of 'racism'? 

Indeed, Greek mythology and folklore are filled with such stories. What is the main musical form in US today?  Rap music which is about tribal blacks yapping about how their life be all about fighting and fuc*ing and how they finna blow away anyone who done dis they's pride. You 'progressives' are okay with the violent sexuality of Rap Culture, yet you bitch about how Ethan is enraged over his brother and family having been mutilated and rubbed out in the most gruesome manner. You're too much of a pansy PC ideologue to understand human psychology and instinct. Sure, Ethan is angry, even unhinged at times, but his feelings are understandable and all-too-human. And on some level, it is virile and healthy. Man is, at the root, an animal driven by survival, sex, territory, and pride. It is YOU who are sick because you lack such healthy instincts. Instead, you have the anti-instinct of decadence and racial suicide. 

Now, I'm not saying men should always act out their rage. The World would blow up like in DR. STRANGELOVE. But those instincts are natural and of the essence. There is a powerful bond within the race and between parents and children. 
Why does the black woman in BELOVED(by Toni Morrison) kill her own baby? She would rather have the baby be 'murdered' than grow up a slave.  To Ethan, Debbie has become a sex slave of the very people who raped and murdered her family. And from her womb will come more warriors to kill whites. To him, that isn't 'being alive'. 
Of course, you know and I know that the history of the West was tragic for the Indians. From their point of view, they were defending their own land from white invaders. Indians had their own reasons and pride. The Walter Hill movie GERONIMO is a magnificent tale of a man who fights for his race, land, and pride. Sure, he does horrible things and kills 'innocent' white folks, but it is war, and war brings out the 'worst' in people. After all, it was the democratic powers that economically blockaded Germany in WWI, thereby driving many German children to starvation. It's like Ethan shooting bison to starve the Indians. And the Jews who control the US forced sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, killing by some estimates 500,000 women and children. Ethan has nothing on the Jews when it comes to mass killing. And it was democratic Harry Truman who nuked Japan and killed all those babies. And Jews used Barack Obama to aid terrorists in Syria to bring down Assad. It's amusing how so many progs bitch about how 'racist-wacist' the fictional Ethan is but are totally okay with Jewish-Zionist mass murder around the world. 

Anyway, we need a better understanding of the dynamics of male pride, its dark side but also as a source of courage and inspiration. After all, what is the catalyst of events in SEVEN SAMURAI. One of the farmers had his wife taken by the bandits. He was helpless to do anything and feels shame as a man. His wife is being raped by scum, but he's impotent to do anything about it. He feels the kind of rage that Ethan feels. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy who'd accuse the farmer of 'psycho-sexual hang-ups'.  Or consider Angel in THE WILD BUNCH. He returns to his village and finds out his father was murdered by General Mapache. And his woman was taken... or worse... she freely went off with the very man who killed Angel's father and pillaged the village. So, when Angel encounters Teresa and she mocks him and laughs, of course he's angry as hell and shoots the 'puta'. It is a barbaric act in a barbaric world but understandable. A man's pride can take only so much humiliation. Akira Kurosawa understood this. Sam Peckinpah understood. So did John Ford. But all you can do is bitch about 'racism, racism'. 

Also, you say Ethan's fear of miscegenation is some kind of sickness. Why? If a white man has a white daughter, he naturally wants the girl to look up to her father and marry someone like him. It's part of human nature. If she goes with a man of another race, it means she finds Other Men to be racially-sexually superior. She would be sexually betraying her own kind. 
During Southern slavery, black men sometimes felt this way. Some black women happily gave themselves to white massuh. White master had the whip hand, and the black ho wanted the white man's seed than of the Negro slave. Imagine how humiliated the Negro male must have felt. 

In today's world, white women are finding out that black men are more muscular and bigger-donged. They look down on white males as 'slow white boys'. So, it is only natural that many white men would feel hurt and offended by this. Why wouldn't white men feel like Japanese men after WWII? Bigger and beefier white and black GI's were turning Japanese women into whores, and Japanese women flaunted their relations with American occupiers in front of defeated yellow men. Of course, Japanese men were wounded in pride.  Races are different. Black men are more muscular and tougher than white men. So, it is NATURAL for white men to feel threatened in racial/sexual/masculine in relation to blacks, just like Japanese men felt belittled and humiliated by American men sexually conquering Japanese women. And there is a whore element in womenfolk. Women are naturally into hierarchy. They are not egalitarian in their sexual preferences. They want winners with more money, more muscle, and/or bigger dongs.  So, Japanese men were bound to lose out to American men, and white men are bound to lose out to black men.  It's like French women threw themselves at Nazi German victors upon French surrender. Given that France was defeated, you'd think French women would have stuck with their own men out of national loyalty. But many French women didn't give a damn about that. They saw German men as winners and French men as losers.  French women acted like Teresa in THE WILD BUNCH. Like Arletty said, "My heart belongs to France but my ass belongs to the world."  Women are natural whores who will always go with Power.  Women like power and look down on 'losers'. Women may be politically on the 'left', but their sexual preferences are hierarchical. They want to put out to the Best and reject all the Rest. 

Historically and socially, white men had the advantage over blacks, who'd been historically oppressed. But white men were right to fear that, once social discrimination were removed, black men would gain over white men. Tougher black guys would beat up white guys, and white girls would look upon black men as racially-sexually superior. You see, race-ism is TRUE. Races are not the same. Get rid of social 'racism' and you end up NOT with equality but natural 'racism' that picks new winners and losers. Look at sports. Social race-ism of Yesterday favored whites as blacks were kept out of sports. But natural race-ism of Today favors blacks and discriminate against whites, browns, and yellows. We say US is so diverse, but NFL and NBA are almost all black. 

So, white fathers were understandably worried about their daughters going with Negro men. It meant racial-sexual defeat of white males, not colorblind racial equality. 

Such white girls(as 'mudsharks') were not opting for racial equality but rejecting white men as less manly than mandingo-like Negroes. We hear of the cuckold fetish among white liberals. Why is it racially so unequal? We don't hear of white couples inviting Mexican, Hindu, or Asian men to their bedrooms. It is usually the Negro. And we don't hear of black guys inviting white guys to do their women. Tyrone don't say, "Hey, white Wilbur, hump my Yolanda and humiliate by black ass."

And what does Rap music tell us about black sexuality? Negro rappers say, "da only thing on my mind is fuc*ing and fighting and whupping faggoty ass white boys and banging white girls." 

I find it amusing that white Libs condemn D. W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION for saying that black men are a bunch of sexual beasts, but when one looks at rap culture, sex/porn industry, sports franchises, and much else(all controlled by Jews and Liberals), the message is black men are wild studs, white girls should put out to them, and white boys should accept their wimpy secondary status and be cucky pussyboys.  White Libs SAY one thing but they CELEBRATE another. They say all races are the same and race is just a myth, but they really celebrate black superiority as athletes, singers, sex beasts, mandingos, and studs. And the music industry is run by Lib Jews and 'progressives'. Not by KKK or by D.W. Griffith. But their favored depiction of Negroes is as badass thugs and sex lunatics. And blacks themselves lead all the other races in promoting thug behavior, skank culture, and whore attitude. So, it seems THE BIRTH OF A NATION wasn't entirely wrong about blacks. Its fears about blacks were dismissed by Progs as 'irrational', but the favored Prog image of the Negro is as the thuggish sex stud or gangsta mandingo. Lib Jews control sex industry and own music industry, and the prevailing image of Negroes is a wild studs who have nothing on their mind fuc*ing white women. The ONLY difference between Griffith and Lib Jews is Griffith saw this as a bad thing, a threat to the white race, whereas Lib Jews welcome it because they want to castrate white males so that the white race will never regain the pride and unity necessary to challenge Jewish power. Indeed, consider the Old Spice advertising: It says Negro is the sex stud who is racially-sexually superior to the cuckish white boy. It's the same logic as in THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Difference is Griffith called on white race to resist the looming black sexual imperialism. But cucks like you and Ken Burns celebrate your own racial-sexual demise as beta-male wussies before the macho black man. You guys are like the pansy-ass male Eternals in ZARDOZ. You have lost your male instinct to fight and survive. You guys really hate Ethan because he, like Geronimo, is a warrior for his race. You are collaborator cuck dork wimp. You can hide behind all this talk of 'social justice', but you have surrendered to Jews and blacks. 

Anyway, sexuality is dark and brooding. It's like what Camille Paglia said. We have to start from nature. Nature is at the root of everything, and nature is 'unfair' and 'unequal'. It made men stronger than women. Nature is sex-ist because it created stronger men who can beat up women. Nature is also race-ist because evolution made Jews smarter to rule over us all and made blacks stronger to beat up other races. 

Indeed, if US had imported small Vietnamese as slaves, would we have the same problems? No. White males wouldn't be afraid of shorter and scrawnier yellow males. But whites bought powerful muscular blacks from Africa, and once the blacks were freed, they began to whup white guys who became wussified and afraid. White women lost respect for white guys and more of them go with Negroes. You see, this is not equality. It is the new inequality. More social freedom means nature will play a bigger role in sex and crime. Since blacks are stronger and more aggressive, social equality between the races means blacks will beat up other races. This is why white folks want guns. Man to man, a white man is likely to get whupped by a black guy who will then rape the white guy's wife.  In fact, white guys are so demoralized that they now invite black guys to fuc* their wives. White guys are into cuckold fetish. Do you see black guys invite white guys to fuc* black women? 

Take STRAW DOGS? Sexuality sure can be disturbing. Dustin Hoffman's character got the girl because he's smart and successful. Girls like winners with careers who can provide, like Hoffman's David. But girls also like studs, and studs resent and look down on successful geeks or nerds who lack 'genuine manhood'. So, the sexual dynamics in STRAW DOGS get all confused. That's how nature works. But you are too PC priggish and neo-puritanical to have the requisite empathy to understand. Instead, you hysterically shriek, "Oh, that is so racist, that is so sexist, that is so... blah blah blah." You will never fully appreciate art and reality if you are such a neo-victorian PC pussy boy. 

Yes, all the characters in STRAW DOGS are sexually anxious and/or 'hung-up',  but that is natural. You see, all guys are anxious on sexual matters in one way or another.  A big strong ugly guy can attract a girl with his toughness, but he is jealous of the handsome guy and smart guy. It's like Jake LaMotta in RAGING BULL. He got the girl cuz he's a tough boxer. But he is outwitted by old gangsters, and he is intensely jealous when his wife says Tony Janiro is good looking, something LaMotta is not. Or a guy may be handsome and attract girls. But he may be anxious cuz he can be whupped by strong ugly guys. And a smart guy can get a girl with his money, but he may be anxious cuz she might be attracted to strong guys and handsome guys. It's like that Eagles Song 'LYING EYES'. 

Surely, you know about The Iliad. That was about a woman.  A war for Helen. But then, what do men live and fight for? Land and pussy. That's what matters most. Before there are ideas, there has to be life. And life is created through man and woman. So, if man loses the woman, he is lost. No children, no lineage. And if he has no land, he is vulnerable. This is why Jews obsessed about race for 3,500 yrs. Unless Jewish women had children for Jewish men, the Jewish race would face extinction. Today, there's lots of intermarriage among Jews, BUT most Jews insist that mixed-children be raised as JEWISH and goy partners usually go along because Jewishness has prestige as identity(whereas whiteness is vilified as 'racist' and yellowness is derided as weak). And even after 2,000 yrs of exile, Jews found a way to take back the land with the creation of Israel. Even the most Liberal Jews supported this massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.  Also, blood matters a lot to Jews. Take the Moses story.  Like Debbie was raised by Indians, Moses was raised by Egyptians as one of their own. But he rediscovered his roots. He sided with Jews, and to defend the Tribe, he worked with God to kill all the first born of Egypt. Jews still celebrate that murderous event as Passover. That is how Jews survived for 3,500 yrs. There was a bit of Ethan Edwards in all of them. 

Such is the way of life. Ethan is like a little Moses. He fights for his people. And it's understandable why John Wayne stuck up for Ethan. Wayne's remark about the Indians in your article is valid and invalid. Wayne said the Indians were greedy for having all that land for themselves. He was right in the sense that the US as a nation couldn't have become a reality if a few million Indians had all of it. There would have been no roads, factories, schools, hospitals, universities(favorite bastions of progs), and etc. UNLESS white man took over and settled the land. Besides, the moral logic of Wayne's pro-white-settlement account is now used by Progs. They say US is so big and bountiful that Americans must share the land and wealth with people all around the world. They say whites mustn't hog it for themselves, just like Wayne once said it was wrong for Indians to have sole claim to the land. These progs who feign outrage over Wayne's remark don't seem terribly interested in reviving Indian communities or returning much of the land to them. Instead, they call for even more mass invasion-immigration so that the remaining Indians will lose their ancestral hunting grounds to ALL THE WORLD.

For those who believe in the American enterprise, Wayne's sentiment has much validity because the Indian Way had to go to make way for civilization modeled on European achievements. After all, what has America been but a vast social experiment where white peoples, under leadership of Anglo-Americans, were given a virtual blank slate of land and freedom to show the world what they are capable of? At the time, no other people, provided with the same resources and opportunities, could have done as much. Not even close. 
But Wayne's argument is also invalid because, for the Indians, it wasn't just a matter of economics or politics or 'social progress'. The land under their feet was sacred and mythic, spiritually alive to them. Their folklore and identity were wedded to this land. And even though red 'savages' couldn't build a great modern nation like the Anglos did, they lived in brutal and rough balance with nature, and there is something to be said for nature and wildlife.  America built by whites is a tremendous achievement, but so much nature had to be destroyed to make way for farms and factories. We modern folks don't wanna live like savages, but Indians had a deeply meaningful relation to the land, and it was tragic that it was lost in the progress of industry and science and etc. Progress is good but came at a price. 

So, you see, there are always two ways to look at things. Even what you say of MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE misses the point.  On one level, it is true that the man's career was built on a lie. But it was also built on a truth. While it's true that Wayne's character of Doniphon was the man who really shot Valance, it is no less true that the James Stewart character showed remarkable courage when he picked up a gun to take on Valance. So, his career was built on a half-lie, not a total lie. He mustered the will to stand up to Valance and prove his manhood, all the more admirable because he's no gunman. If Stewart's character had ran from Valance but taken credit for having killed him, that would really have been a lie. But he did show incredible courage in challenging Valance. 

One thing for sure, Ethan is very different from Travis Bickle of TAXI DRIVER(written by Paul Schrader, directed by Martin Scorsese). Ethan is one tough hombre, a leader of men. He is man among men. An alpha. He becomes enraged because of what happened. He can be sociable and in sync with the world around him. He is a good reader of people's character and motives; he's a good leader of men. In contrast, Bickle is really messed up in the head. You can tell he is sort of like Norman Bates crossed with one of Robert Bresson's characters.  
Also, we are talking of two entirely different worlds. In THE SEARCHERS there is civilization vs savagery. Though Ford is somewhat sympathetic to the Indians, the coming of progress means savagery must make way for churches and rule of law. In contrast, TAXI DRIVER is more disturbing because it is set in the heart of civilization, New York, the greatest city on earth. Yet, the decadence and degeneracy are worse than savagery. It is savagery at the core of civilization. 

Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he fears black thugs. But this is so dumb. I mean how could any honest person NOT have noticed black thuggery and crime in NY, especially in the 70s? Things got so bad that even 'liberal' NYers finally got Republican Rudy Giuliani to clean things up. NYers also elected centrist Jewish-Supremacist Michael Bloomberg three times to get tough on blacks through stop-and-frisk(the 'nigger'). So, in a way, Bickle's fears were shared by Libs themselves. You surely have it too. If not, go live in Detroit or the black parts of Baltimore. It's easy for you to talk the Lib talk while refusing to walk the Lib walk.  Indeed, look at all the biggest Liberal cities.  They've been gentrifying to drive out dangerous blacks. San Francisco is only 6% black.  Housing projects have been torn down in Chicago to make way for posh condos for white and Jewish 'progressive' yuppies. And for all those 'nice libs' voted for Clinton who locked up tons of Negroes. So, while all you Libs put down Bickle, your ACTIONS confirm his fears. 

In the original screenplay of TAXI DRIVER, the pimps were black. Some say Bickle is 'racist' cuz he tries to save  a white girl from black thugs. What in the hell is wrong with that?  Suppose a black taxi driver saw a bunch of white pimps exploiting black girls. Would it be wrong for him to feel racial rage? 
Weren't Vietnamese men angry that whites and blacks were turning their women into a bunch of whores? Viet Cong men were a bunch of Travis Bickles who were trying to end sexual imperialism by the US. Bickle wants to save a white girl from black sexual exploitation. 

If a bunch of Arab men sexually exploited Jewish women, Jewish men would be angry as hell. And good thing too. Suppose Arab men exploit Jewish women in the way that Jewish men exploit Slavic women as sex slaves in Israel and Ukraine. Suppose Arab men control pornography and get mostly Jewish women to have sex with Negroes for money. Jewish men would growl with rage. Any man who is okay with men of another race exploiting the women of his race is a pussy-bitch(like what the Japanese have become since the end of WWII).  

Anyway, sexuality is dark matter. It brings out the murderer in us. Consider what OJ did to Nicole Simpson. Or consider what happens in Othello. In Romeo and Juliet, the two young ones commit suicide or murder themselves for love.  
Sex also creates family and new dynamics of bonds and hatreds. When Agamemnon had Iphigenia sacrificed to the gods, his wife got so angry that she waited for him to return and then had him killed. And then her kids killed her. All very dark and crazy stuff but also very understandable since humans are driven by dark passions. But I'll bet you're the sort of PC pansy freak who can only think in terms of 'that's racist', 'that's sexist', or 'that's homophobic' when it comes to the arts. 

This is why humanities have come to suck so bad. Too many ideological freaks like you reduced art to a set of buzz words. You don't know the true nature of passion. Consider Marty in THE SEARCHERS. He comes across the voice of reason through much of the movie, but when he finds out Laurie his love is about to marry the guitar-strummer, he turns all 'savage', and the 'Indian' side of him emerge. For a moment, he seems even more unhinged than Ethan as he even bites the groom in the ear. You as a homo should know this since the homo community is filled with all sorts of obsessive freako people who are so vain, narcissistic, possessive, and even socio-pathic. But so lacking in self-awareness.