Oddly Enough, The New Waves Of Immigrant-Invaders Are Like Whites Of Old America: White Americans Are Doped On The Peyote And Firewater Of The Constitution – Jung Freud

Posted on : 04/08/2023 By
Oddly Enough, The New Waves Of Immigrant-Invaders Are Like Whites Of Old America: White Americans Are Doped On The Peyote And Firewater Of The Constitution – Jung Freud
Global Economy Geopolitics Sovereign Info Network 

It’s become something of a politi-cultural pastime among White American Conservatives to gripe about the Constitutional Rights being buried underneath an avalanche of Diversity via Mass-Immigration-Invasion. The logic goes, “Because most immigrants are non-white and because most nonwhites vote Democratic and align with PC, most future elections will be won by the ‘Left’ that will clamp down on Constitutional Rights and Traditional American Liberties.” Even if immigrants themselves may not be anti-white or anti-American(or anti-Constitutional, especially as one reason for coming to America is for greater freedom), they come under the influence of US media. Furthermore, their children are indoctrinated by PC-laden schools and turn into mental robots spouting the usual nonsense about ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’; and they’ll say Diversity is among the highest values(even though many immigrant-invaders moved to white-majority nations in the hope of getting away from too much diversity in their mother countries).

Furthermore, EVEN IF most immigrant-invaders were totally supportive of the Constitution, they will still vote for the Democratic Party for the simple reason that it’s more for Broken Borders(aka Open Borders). It seems India wants to export at least 400 million Hindus to the US, Canada, and Australia.

Many are also motivated by envy and resentment. This is especially true of people from Latin America, whites and browns alike. White Latinos have long been resentful of the far more successful Anglos and Anglo-Americans, and browns see ‘gringos’ as the people with the history of domination. So, their anti-white spite overrides their hypothetical support for free speech and property rights. Emotions often precede principles(and even material concerns).

But there is another reason for immigrant-invaders supporting the Democrats and so-called ‘progressivism’. While it’s true that they come to the US, Canada, and Australia for More Freedom and More Liberty, they want more of such for THEMSELVES(as opposed to for everyone). While Freedom need not be a zero-sum game, it’s usually the case that freedom/opportunity for one people leads to diminished freedom/opportunity for another people. Letting blacks freely compete in sports led to fewer opportunities for whites to make a mark in athletics because blacks are naturally better at it. Letting blacks wander around freely diminished the freedom of white movement due to fear of black thuggery and crime.

In order for there to be America, the freedom of the American Indians — to continue their culture and traditional ways — had to be vanquished. In order for the US to take over the Southwest Territories, Mexican freedoms had to be trampled and curtailed. In order for Jews to freely push for Zionist-Centrism, it certainly helped to limit the freedom of the BDS movement to push for Justice and Liberation for Palestinians.

There is a kind of a Freedom Paradox in the American Dream. It is true that all these Immigrant-invaders come to the West for MORE FREEDOM(as their home nations are often less free), but in order for them to maximize their own freedoms, it certainly helps if the dominant policies limit the freedom of White Natives or Nationals who might say “Enough Already, No More Mass-Immigration and Great Replacement” and “Look at all the problems these Newcomers bring with them from so many backward or barbaric parts of the world.”
If you want to have the last word, it helps to mute the other person. If he is just as free to speak his mind, then freedom will clash with freedom. If you want to prioritize your freedom, it’s tempting to limit the freedom of the other, especially if he or she holds an opposing view. No wonder then that Jewish Power has spread the Jew Taboo that smears any view that is critical of Jews as ‘antisemitism’. Thus, Jews feel free to say whatever they want, whereas non-Jews must carefully tiptoe around certain topics and ideas lest they be defamed as ‘Anti-Semitic’! Jews often say stuff like, “We need to have a conversation” when it’s really just a monologue on their part or “We believe in free speech but not hate speech” but where they define what ‘hate’ is. Non-white immigrants feel as the Jews do. They also want to maximize their own freedoms by suppressing the ‘excess’ freedoms of whites who might push back against mass-immigration-invasion and condemn the cultures/values brought over by the newcomers.

But then, were whites any different throughout most of American History?

In a way, white Americans who invoke the Constitution(its protection of rights and liberties) and how it’s threatened by all these newcomers(who as new citizens vote ‘left’ and for ‘socialism’) are not thinking clearly nor honestly. Something like a true and neutral adherence to the US Constitution was never a part of US history. One may argue that the US was closest to its Constitutional Ideals from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s with the end of racial discrimination against blacks and with the explosion of personal rights and liberties throughout the nation.

Of course, new problems arose from Sixties legislation and court decisions. Did the Constitution allow for ‘Affirmative Action’? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman’s right to abortion? And, the problem of federalism and states rights have never been satisfactorily resolved.
Still, for about two decades from the mid-60s to mid-80s, the old restraints faded while Political Correctness(the product of the radical boomers) had yet to take hold of many institutions, though trends were moving in that direction, mainly due to the agenda of boomer Jews.

In those two decades, America seemed freer than ever in terms of Free Speech and Personal Liberty, and this applied to people on the ‘right’ and the ‘left’, religious folks and non-religious(or anti-religious) folks, whites and blacks, men and women, and so on. This was a time when the Jewish-heavy ACLU even felt compelled to defend Neo-Nazis and the KKK on occasion to demonstrate that the US Constitution must protect the rights of all.
Free Speech Absolutism was still useful to Jews then as many were into radicalism and hadn’t yet taken total power over the main institutions of America. But anyone who believes that most of US history was like the two decades between the 60s to 80s would be gravely mistaken.

The bulk of US history was not about equal freedom for all under the Constitution but White Freedom and White Rights Uber Alles. The US was founded as the Land of the Free(and was freer than most parts of the world, including most of Europe), but it wasn’t meant to be the land of equal freedom. Indeed, the US would never have come into being on the basis of equal freedom, whether between elites and the masses, between whites and nonwhites, between Anglo-American Whites and Non-Anglo-Whites, between Christians and Non-Christians, and among the various states.

For starters, suppose America, from its very inception, had respected the rights of American Indians to be equally free. Then, American Indians would have stayed put and kept playing Indian, thereby standing in the way of the white man’s movement westward and technological progress. Much of America would have remained savage.
If Early America said Indian culture & values are just as essential and worthy as Anglo-American culture and values, then civilization and savagery would have had to coexist side by side. With both having equal protection under the law, the forces of civilization couldn’t have swept aside the forces of savagery freely romping around with bows & arrows and tomahawks.

America was created by white people hogging the freedom to do as they deemed necessary by crushing the freedoms of American Indians who wished to maintain their way of life on their sacred hunting, mating, and burial grounds. Also, as American Indians practiced slavery and saw no evil in it, equal freedom for the Indians would have meant their ‘right’ to practice slavery without the intervention of Western Culture and Values then moving away from the institution of bondage as a grave moral injustice, even an evil. Slavery wasn’t introduced to the Americas by whites. It had been practiced by the Indians for ten thousand years.

The formation and development of America also depended on the suppression of blacks, a people even more savage in origin than the American Indians. While many whites, in the South as in the North, weren’t proud of slavery and eventually hoped for its eradication(as a moral stain and ideological betrayal of Enlightenment principles), they also instinctively understood that blacks posed a serious threat to the white race.
For starters, blacks were more muscular and naturally more aggressive. They had to be trained hard, even severely, to behave because they had a natural propensity to act ugabuga and apelike(like how today’s rappers make motions akin to chimp-gorilla antics). Whites sensed that black women, left to their own devices, had a tendency to shake their butts to attract the men.

It’s hardly surprising that with absolute freedom and the fading of inhibitions in America, black women have reverted to ass-pumping that is called ‘twerking’. Black women have bouncier butts for reasons of evolution. To attract men in Africa, black ‘biatches’ had to jiggle their buttocks before the men. Whereas women were mainly chosen for their faces in Europe, they were chosen for their buns in Africa. When black women shook their buns at black men, the latter pulled out their dongs to show who got the bigger ones. So, over time, black men favored bouncy buns while black women favored bigger dongs. The essence of black African culture was in the buns and dongs. Of course, the Africanization of the West is turning white women into a bunch of whiggirls prepping for ACOWW, or the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

White people, especially with their Christian probity, instinctively sensed this threat posed by blacks. As blacks were naturally more rambunctious and oogity-boogity, their use of freedom was bound to be different from that of whites. While all races have their share of good ole boys who like to act rowdy, blacks had a larger share of them.
And, whereas non-blacks regard having-fun as a form of recreation and blowing off steam, blacks regard fun as the very core of existence. This is why blacks commit crime not just for gain but as a kind of sport. Non-whites think, “Work, earn, buy stuff, and have fun.” Blacks feel, “Grab it and shit, and it be fun.” It’s the difference between agricultural mentality and hunting mentality. Farming isn’t fun, but you will be rewarded with harvests to sell for profits that can pay for some fun. In contrast, hunting itself is fun whether you catch the prey or not.

Long ago, whites understood this side of blackness, and this is why they couldn’t allow equal freedom to blacks. Having a different nature, blacks were bound to use freedom differently. Just like men and women with equal freedom spend their money and expend their energies in divergent ways, whites and blacks are genetically programmed to use freedom differently. Whites are more likely to use freedom constructively and rationally, blacks are more likely to use freedom destructively and crazily. In order for America to grow and develop by means of White Freedom Tendency, Black Freedom Tendency had to be suppressed. If blacks had been granted equal freedom as whites from the beginning, black misuse of freedom would have stood in the way of white use of freedom to build a modern nation of Rules, Regulations, and Sound Management.

Of course, there was nothing in the US Constitution that spelled out issues pertaining to Racial Tendencies, but it didn’t matter as White Americans favored White Freedom over Black Freedom. In order for white Americans to have their way and do their thing, it was necessary to clamp down on equality of black freedom.
It’s like parents must limit the freedom of children to keep the family together and maintain semblance of order. If parents allow equal freedom for their kids(who are easily manipulated by junky pop culture and pied-piper charlatans), the family will fall apart and things will spiral out of control.

So, even though the suppression of black freedom was a violation of the US Constitution, most whites felt it was worth the price in order to develop and maintain a sound, stable, and sane nation(that could easily be corrupted by unfettered black savagery and brutalized by unleashed black thuggery).

It goes to show that most of US history was not about ‘Muh Constitution’ or Equality of Rights for everyone and all groups. While the Constitution was certainly important and shaped much of American values and norms, most whites who dominated America believed that White Survival, White Expansion, White Well-Being, White Prosperity, White Progress, and White Stability took precedence. When whites had to choose between the Constitution/Principles and Continuation/Power, they invariably opted for the latter. Whites believed the Law existed to guide and serve whites than the other way around.
Of course, whites knew that their kind wasn’t always right or that the law must favor whites in each and every case but understood that the Law mustn’t undermine overall white well-being.

For most of American History, whites knew the choice wasn’t between absolute tribalism and purism of principles. If white were purely tribal, they would have been hardly distinguishable from the American Indian Tribes or would have devolved into clans like the Hatfields and McCoys.
Therefore, whites valued the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Higher Principles, such as those that led to the eradication of slavery and many other social reforms. Yet, whites also understood that Man Doesn’t Live on Ideals Alone(or survive with a bleeding heart).

After all, even though the West became a Christian Civilization, it wouldn’t have survived, let alone grown in power, had it adhered to a purist form of Christianity. If the Christian West practiced ‘turn the other cheek’ and believed in poverty-as-virtue as Jesus had preached, it would have been conquered and dominated by other peoples and races.
The West gained much wisdom and morality from Christianity, but such principles had to be balanced with the Way of Power. When necessary, whites had to be warriors and fight. And they had to make peace with human nature and allow people to pursue wealth and privilege in order to have economic development and science/technology.

Life has its own organic laws. Human life gained much by creating certain values & rules than going purely by life’s instincts. Everyone has something to gain by stealing, but good people choose not to steal(even when they can) because it’s good for the whole community if people respect each other’s property. If people act like animals(or Negroes) and just take stuff because they want it, the thieving individuals might gain short-term benefit, but social order would crumble, and then, things would be harder for EVERYONE.

It’s because animals act like animals — chimps steal from chimps, wolves from wolves, lions from lions, and etc. — that they are mired in a world of brutality. And so, rules and principles are important as regulators of life.
Ultimately however, rules and principles have value ONLY IF they enhance the survival and well-being of a community. If adhering to rules and principles to the letter leads to the demise of one’s community, then it doesn’t matter how fancy and precious those ideas may be. The fact is they led to the destruction of life.

The lesson to be learned is that there is a useful limit to every rule and principle. So, while Christianity has been useful as a moral and spiritual guide for the West(and non-West), it would be foolish to follow its tenets to the letter as doing so will definitely lead to the demise of your people. There has to be a kind of compromise between power and principles. Power must agree to adhere to principles, but principles must concede its limits. Principles have value only as a guide.

After all, if people must adhere to the principle of ‘thou shalt not steal’ at all times, then America would have been impossible as it was created through the white man’s stealing of lands from the Indians. In some ways, it was a violation of moral principles but made sense from the power perspective because so much of the best land in the world was occupied by a relatively small number of primitive folks.

Same goes for war. Yes, the notion of War Crimes is a useful idea, and all sides should respect International Laws, but the fact remains that so much of world affairs is realpolitik and gangsterism, i.e. people who only act good will be devoured by those capable of anything.

So, through most of US history, white people favored Continuation over the Constitution. They never rejected the Constitution outright and, if anything, revered it as a legal and political guide, but their priority was racial survival, victory, and power. They were not willing to give up those things in the name of absolute adherence to the Constitution.
Free Speech as an absolute right came closest to being practiced in the US from the late 60s to the mid-80s, but prior to the 60s, many forms of speech and expression had been suppressed or downright censored by the state, the community, and/or the private sector for their obscenity, seditious nature, subversive content, blasphemy, disturbance to the peace, controversy, and the like. So, the notion that the US will respect Free Speech Absolutism ONLY IF it remains white is to ignore most of US history.

It is also false to believe that the US will turn ‘socialist’ because of the rise of color. Europe was more white than the US, but even Western Europe went far more ‘socialist’ — with social democratic programs and labor protection laws galore — than the US. Also, it was an overwhelmingly white America that elected ‘socialist’ FDR four times, indeed so much so that the GOP made peace with New Deal policies. And Lyndon B. Johnson who promised Bigger Government was elected by a nation that was solidly white. This was prior to the 1965 Immigration Bill. Why did so many white people vote for the ‘socialism’ of the Democratic Party? Because the white hoi polloi thought the Democratic Party would take MORE from the Fat Cats(who mainly supported the GOP) and spread the wealth around to the white masses. (White Americans began to turn against ‘socialism’ and Big Government ONLY WHEN government policies began to favor blacks and other nonwhites over whites.)

When we consider all these examples, it is rather disingenuous for white Americans(especially of a ‘conservative’ bent) to argue that the Constitution and Inalienable Rights will go out the window if the US ceases to be a white majority nation. The fact is that the US almost never had Free Speech Absolutism, even though the period from the late 60s to late 80s came closest.
Also, it was White America that elected the ‘socialist’ New Dealer Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times. And it was white Germanic Wisconsin and white Scandinavian Minnesota that had some of the most socialist-like programs in the US.
In contrast, socialist policies were generally shunned in the American South because of the fear of blacks(also true of Central and South America). But even that isn’t the full picture. Huey Long of Louisiana gained support as a populist who railed against Big Money and spoke on the behalf of ‘hicks’ who had less. And many white agricultural folks in the South voted Democratic because they regarded it as the party of the working class and the ‘honest farmer’ against Big Money dominated by the North. White Southerners began to turn against ‘socialism’ only when blacks got full franchise and began to dominate the politics of feeding from the trough.

A kind of Socialist Paradox operates among whites. A community that is virtually all-white or minority-white is more likely to turn ‘socialist’, whereas a community that is majority white but with a large non-white population of dependents is likely to be ‘anti-socialist’. If a society is all white, most people regard ‘socialism’ as a kind of all-in-the-family. It’s white money going to white folks. Besides, there is a sense of shared values among whites, especially those of Northern European heritage. The understanding is that the rich pay more, but even poor whites share in the work ethic and aspire to do better. They use socialist services out of need than laziness or chronic parasitism. Thus, ‘socialism’ is attractive to communities that are overwhelmingly white.

In contrast, in a society that is majority white but with a sizable non-white population(especially such as blacks or browns), whites can’t help feeling that much of their tax dollars will go to supporting leeches and deadbeats. Whites of such a community tend to reject ‘socialism’ out of lack of identification with and trust of nonwhites.
However, if the non-white population keeps growing and eclipses the white population — as happened in California and is fated to happen to Texas as well — , their votes tend to favor ‘socialist’ policies, whereby whites will have to pay more to fund non-white leeches. California can afford to do so because of its giant businesses in agriculture, entertainment, and high-tech, but this is a recipe for disaster for most white-minority societies.
‘Socialism’ in an all-white setting is one of common trust and compromise, whereas ‘socialism’ in a white-minority setting is one of parasitism and resentment. Of course, eventually, ‘socialist’ policies can no longer be sustained, whereby the three likelihoods are (1) radical tyranny, as happened in Cuba (2) oligarchic tyranny, as happened in most Latin American nations ruled by military juntas backed by big money or (3) stalemate & stagnation, as is the case in current Venezuela that is, at once, democratic, radical, and oligarchic, with no single side gaining the requisite power to establish real stability.

The fact is white Americans for most of US history put their race, survival, well-being, and power before the Constitution. Just ask the American Indians, blacks, Mexicans, and Asians(especially those in ‘internment camps’ during World War II). And this was also true between Anglo-Americans and non-Anglo-whites. Just ask the German-Americans during World War I who came under suspicion and were pressured to fully assimilate(and turn against their Fatherland).

It’s no wonder that Jews go out of their way to make Israel the closest ally of the US. Anglo-America coerced German-Americans side with the US/UK against Germany. It made Italian-Americans side with the US against Italy. It made Arab-Americans side with the US against Arab nations. So, there was always the possibility of the US making Jewish Americans side with American Interests against Zion and/or World Jewry. To prevent such, Jews have used the full might of media and their whore-politicians to repeat the mantra, “Israel is our closest ally and greatest friend, and bagel is the finest food” in the hope it will be inconceivable for any American to even entertain the notion of the US acting against Jewish or Israeli interests.
The US is a nation built on betrayal as betrayal can be liberating and spark new possibilities. The colonials betrayed their British King. The French King betrayed a fellow monarch across the Channel and aided the revolutionaries against the Crown. Though the French King did so much for American Independence, Americans had no problem betraying him and working with the French Revolutionaries who killed him and his family. Whites betrayed all the treaties made with the Indians. America betrayed the principles of its anti-imperialist foundations with its own brand of imperialism.
And all the new immigrants were made to swear oaths to America, thereby turning their backs on their ancestral nations. In time, German-Americans were willing to kill fellow Germans abroad to serve the US empire. Just about the ONLY people who refused to betray their own kind have been the Jews, and they must be admired for that. Jews were not willing to kill fellow Jews abroad for the US empire. If anything, they were going to take power and make the US fight for interests that served World Jewry, and it is on the basis of such strategy that Jews must be condemned. Jews not stabbing Jews is good, but Jews making goyim stab goyim for Jews is not good.

In order to forge a new order, Anglo-Americans used many extra-legal and what might now be called unconstitutional means to shove Anglo-Americanism down the throats of non-Anglo white immigrants. Even as such groups found much freedom in America and kept certain elements of their culture(mainly in food and wine), they and their children came under pressure in schools, businesses, and other areas to conform to Anglo-American standards… or else.
Only the Jews, with a deep & profound sense of identity and powerful personality, managed to resist this pressure, though at times they did a pretty good job of pretending to be Good Americans. If Constitutional purism had been enforced in the late 19th century and early 20th century when huge waves of newcomers washed ashore, it’s difficult to believe the US could have come together as a solid mass of national unity and patriotism.

As valuable as the Constitution is, it is about ‘negative rights’, i.e. it is defensive. It’s not about a certain vision, nor about right or wrong. All it says is that people should be free to say, do, and own certain things, and those should be secured as ‘rights’. It isn’t particularly American as most of those ideas had been imported from Europe. Besides, western-style constitutionalism has spread worldwide, even in non-white nations. Everyone around the world spouts off about ‘rights’.

To speak of ‘rights’ is not to say that “I am right.” It means, right or wrong, I have a ‘right’ to say, do, or own certain things. As such, it is morally neutral and defensive. But Power cannot win by defense alone. White people didn’t gain power in the US by protecting all rights, all ideas, all property of all peoples and groups. Rather, it had a certain vision about race, culture, values, civilization, and progress. And this vision was going to be realized with or without the Constitution.

The Founders were determined white men. With all the land and resources westward, they had a preconception that the US could be a great country of immense potential. And they were racial loyalists and envisioned the development of America as an extension of European Civilization, albeit with a new fighting and liberating spirit. The stuff about rights, freedom, and property was useful as incentives for Americans to move westward to create a new nation. It also drew in immigrants from Europe of the same or similar stock who were looking for opportunities. It was all about white power.

Some may call it ‘white supremacism’, but, however designated, it was the main reason why the US became a rich and powerful nation. Without ‘white supremacism’, whites would not have ‘stolen’ land from the American Indians. And for those who believe blacks are so integral to America, it was ‘white supremacism’ that efficiently exploited black labor to expand the economy. Besides, the only reason why blacks are in the Americas is due to ‘white supremacism’ that imported black labor. If there had been no ‘white supremacism’, black slaves would not have been brought over to the Americas, Latin or Anglo.

Blacks or no blacks, the main makers of America were whites, and the fact then(as is still now, more or less) was that whites were the most advanced, productive, innovative, progressive, and creative people in the world. Then, limiting mass-immigration mostly to whites did wonders for America.

Seriously, if America soon after its founding had practiced open borders in the name of ‘anti-racism’ and welcomed all the world, would things have panned out so well? Give the Devil his due. What is called ‘white supremacism’ in American History had a dark side but also was the basis of much that was great and awesome about it.
Indeed, prior to the rise of idiotic multiculturalism, even the main aspiration of nonwhites was to be like whites and emulate them. And the most developed parts of the non-West are those that sooner than later realized that the White/Western Way is the best model for development. Of course, under the influence of globo-shlomo-afro-homo, the White Way is now almost entirely useless as it’s all about Negro-worship, Jew-worship, Homo-worship, and Diversity-worship, but when whites were riding high, they arrived at a formula for power, prosperity, and progress such as the world had never seen before.

White-Christian Power is also to be credited for incentivizing the most productive, creative, and ingenious aspects of Jews, blacks, and homos while suppressing their excessively radical, degenerate, or savage tendencies. White Power had a filtering effect that led to Jewish, black, and homo contributions to civilization. As Jews, blacks, and homos are naturally excessive, a force had to tend and restrain their energies.
Thus, under white restraint, Jews contributed to the rise of Western economies without totally plundering it. Or Jews, under restraint, contributed to social reforms in the West, whereas Jews with unfettered radicalism brought about chaos and destruction in Russia. And blacks, as the result of the white leash and restraints, contributed to US agriculture and musical forms such as Jazz. And homos contributed much to European Christian art and culture when their creativity was channeled to serving something other than their fruity vanity. It’s like a horse can be a great asset if trained and controlled by man. Let it run wild, however, and it can destroy everything in its path.
Since the Sixties, the white hand lost control of the leash, and the excesses of the Jews, blacks, and homos have been running wild. Jews plunder everything and act like tribal gangsters, blacks loot cities and run wild like apes, and homos(and trannies) spread decadence and degeneracy all over. Jews, blacks, and homos have a certain kind of fire that, when tended and controlled, can do wonders for a civilization. But lose control of that fire and things burn to the ground. White Power had a stabilizing influence on Jewish, black, and homo natures, but no more, and so, the West is going over the cliff.

Anyway, what do current Immigrant-Invaders and Whites of Old America have in common? Both groups put Power before Principle. They put their own racial interests before a set of ‘universal’ ideas. Whites of Old America favored the concentration and continuation of their power over the Constitution. Only when their power was secure and assured did whites adhere to the Constitution with anything resembling a commitment.

In dealing with nonwhites, here or abroad, white folks of America instinctively understood that their power mustn’t be forfeited over a highfalutin set of tenets. The finer and nobler the idea, the more stable and secure the order must be to put it into practice. It’s like porcelain dinnerware should only be used for dinner guests with table manners, not for the mob. White America was pretty much in this mode until the 1960s.

Many have lauded White Americans(who have lauded themselves) for having ‘come a long way’ in ultimately favoring universal principles over racial/tribal politics, and this was at a time when white Americans had it so good that they could rest on their laurels, take their power for granted, and indulge in magnanimity & generosity toward other groups in the US and the world, if only for Cold War propaganda against the Soviets that preached World Revolution and Liberation of the Third World from Western Capitalist-Imperialism.

Also, the Civil Rights Euphoria(sometimes excessive to repress the obvious anxiety) made many whites believe that the fulfillment of the Constitution was finally at hand. Finally, free at last free at last, the Negroes be free at last, and America could put behind its legacy of racial discrimination.

But such highfalutin thinking overlooked the fact that racialism had been integral and essential to the making of America. Long before whites could rest on their laurels and put on do-goody airs as ‘progressive’ folks with social conscience, the only way America could have come into existence was through White Power. American Indians had to be pushed aside. Black savages had to be tamed and kept tame because of their natural apelike tendencies. (Just look at the state of Detroit or Baltimore, the product of blacks left to indulge in their freedoms.)

Also, immigration had to be limited mostly to whites because (1) Europeans were more talented and had higher IQ than most other folks and (2) it was easier to create unity among peoples of the same race than of different races.
Therefore, while it’s fair game to point to the dark sides and horrors of American History(and there are plenty), it’s undeniable that what made America great was its conscientious, intelligent, pragmatic, and sensible race-ism. (Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean the reality of race, possibility of racial differences, and need for racial consciousness.)
In this, D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION should be regarded as nearly as important as the Constitution. In some ways, it is more important because while the Constitution deals with ‘negative rights’, Griffith’s great and awesome film offers a positive, powerful, and sober vision of what white folks must constantly be reminded of lest they turn into a bunch of worthless cucky-wucks and/or damned naive fools.
A prophetic work, its warnings a hundred years ago have come to be realized in a country where whites came to lose their identity and reject their own racial pride and heritage. Griffith warned of BAMMAMA(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), jungle fever, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), and cucky-wuckery among whites.
Well, look all around. Who was more right about blacks? Sappy do-goody race-denying ‘wiberals’ who said blacks are merely whites with dark skin OR sober race-ists like Griffith who warned that blacks, with their higher aggression, natural savagery, tougher muscles, and bigger dongs, might well terrorize and intimidate the white race into jungle fever and cucky-wuckery?

What do New Immigrants have in common with Whites of Old America? While they come to the US(or Canada or Australia or New Zealand) for more freedom and opportunity, they place their racial, tribal, and/or familial interests at the center. Even when non-white immigrants are hardcore individualist-libertarians, they still put one’s individual interests before American Interest or the Constitution. If ‘my interest’ means to be in America and enjoy its fruits, then nothing is more important to non-white libertarians than being allowed INTO the US. Therefore, if Political Party A is pro-individualist and anti-immigration while Political Party B is anti-individualist but pro-immigration, the non-white individualist is likely to go with Party B because his main priority is to be INSIDE the US. After all, even limited individualist freedom in the US is preferable to living in his mother country.

It’s not that all these new immigrant-invaders are anti-free speech or anti-Constitution. They are for it TO THE EXTENT that such doesn’t undermine their MAIN interests of wanting to gain access to America(and Western nations) for material improvement, better livelihood, and more opportunities.
Sure, they come for freedom and ‘rights’ too, but such are secondary to gaining access to the metropole of the World Empire, living in the richest and most powerful country on Earth, and/or bringing over more of their own clan/tribal kind so that they can enjoy the fruits too.
In this, they are like the white pioneers and settlers who built this nation, albeit without the audacity and adventurous spirit(as they are followers than leaders). When early White Americans were fighting Indians, working the farms, and taking land from Mexico, they were not thinking about ‘muh constitution’ or some set of highfalutin principles. They had something closer to primal interests and elemental emotions in their minds, hearts, and guts. Americans understood that the only way they could wrest the SW territories from Mexico was by sheer force. It wasn’t anything in the Constitution that convinced Mexico to surrender those parts to the US. Gringos were more united and had more guns.

Now, one can argue that the Constitution made for a better-functioning society in the US that expanded faster in wealth and power. But keep in mind that Imperial Germany made tremendous gains in the late 19th century and early 20th century WITHOUT anything like the US Constitution. (Also, the rule of law is possible without something like the Constitution, as Britain never had one.) In contrast, even with democracy and a constitution nearly identical to that of the US, Mexico has always been a basket-case due to its national and racial character. Mexicans lacked the will to put theory into practice even halfway, and the excessively Gomezer genes rendered them passive.

Long ago, white Americans understood that what mattered most was identity, power, solidarity, and a sense of heritage/continuity. They were proud to have a Constitution to guide them as a framework and compass, but when push came to shove, they understood that Constitutional Principles had to step aside to White Power and White Continuation. “Our People, Our Power, Our Survival, and Our Well-Being come first.”
Indeed, what would be the point of following the Constitution to the letter if it resulted in the demise and eventual collapse of a people? Is it worth it to lose a civilization in the name of ‘muh democracy’? Surely, even tyranny-and-survival is preferable to democracy-and-death. It’s like it’s better to lose one’s freedom and live than gain freedom to use it for self-destruction.

What the American Experiment demonstrated is that one can have both freedom and life, but this is true ONLY IF freedom serves life than the other way around. By life, we don’t just mean individual lives but the Life of a People, Culture, Civilization, Memory, Heritage, the things that outlast the life spans of individuals. If current ‘Western Values’ are leading to the demise of the White Race that is to be replaced by nonwhites, then they are useless no matter how fancy, precious, and highfalutin they may sound to educated(or indoctrinated) ears.
Of course, one mustn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater. While the current globo-shlomo-afro-homo bathwater that masquerades as ‘Western Values’ must go, there is a great Western Tradition that can maintain a great civilization for many centuries, indeed millennia, to come.

The fatal flaw of the West was in trusting Jews. More than any people, it was the Jews who bitched, whined, and seethed that White Americans had betrayed their Constitutional or Propositional principles. Jewish elites in media, academia, and government urged whites to favor Principles at all cost, even at considerable loss of white power, pride, and prestige. Thus began the white trajectory of being ‘beautiful losers’.
The sheer stupidity of this is demonstrated by the fact that Jews themselves don’t practice what they preach to whites. If anything, Jews urged whites to favor principles over power mainly so that they themselves could gain more power by manipulating those principles(and Hindus have learned this game and are now cooperating and competing with Jews at it). Notice how Jews, even as they admonish whites to let go of white identity, are always telling whites to be mindful of supporting Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish power.

If principles must win over power, then Jews should do exactly as the whites have been cajoled into doing(by Jews no less), but the fact is that Jews do the opposite of what they demand of goyim. How do Jews play the game? Jews accuse Palestinians of trying to wipe Israel off the map while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel was created by wiping Palestine off the map.

Seriously, if Jews treat Palestinians this way, why would they treat whites any better or with any more honesty? Whites may wonder, “Gee… out of gratitude to whites for having aided them in the taking of Palestine?” Any white who thinks this way is a willfully naive dupe who knows nothing about Jewish personality and culture. Gratitude-toward-Goyim simply doesn’t exist in the Jewish Vocabulary.

More importantly, whites need to realize that what Jews crave most is what whites have. While Israel has great symbolic, cultural, and spiritual meaning for Jews, the main source of Jewish supremacist power is in their control of the West, mainly the US, the metropole of the world. And in order to make whites serve Jewish interests, Jews naturally defame & suppress white identity while using the gauntlet of ‘white guilt’ to make whites channel their repressed tribalism toward another people who would be the Jews. If Jews are really into colorblind universalism(which is supposedly what the Constitution is about), why do they insist that the US support Zionism over Palestinian nationhood? Why do they use their muscles to have US businesses and governments shut down BDS? Why did Jews pull their strings to shut down the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly at Charlottesville?

Jews value freedom, but they are for Power before Principles. They will tolerate freedom only to the extent that it doesn’t jeopardize their supremacist control of the US. This is why Jews say, “We defend Free Speech but not ‘hate speech’”, with ‘hate speech’ to be defined by the likes of AIPAC, ADL, and SPLC. Likewise, Hindus flood into the US for more freedom and wealth for their kind, and it is precisely for that reason that Hindus will support the US Constitution ONLY TO THE EXTENT it serves their interests.
Vivek Ramaswamy may be something of an outlier, but then there’s almost no one like him among any race, not even whites. What accounts for his boldness and outspokenness? Does it derive from having a spiritual system(or ‘gods’) independent of the Western Imagination that has been utterly captured by the Jews? To be a Christian today in the West means you must atone at the feet of Jews, blacks, and even homos. Vivek’s sense of holiness may be wholly independent of such baggage. Whereas the Constitution is the highest authority for someone like Rand Paul, it could be Vivek, for all his legal commitment to the Constitution, draws his exuberance from a spiritual source.

Anyway, Jews do Houdini-tricks with the Constitution to serve their own interests, but this shouldn’t surprise white Americans who’d practiced the Constitution in a similar way for most of American History. They always found exceptions and clauses to ensure that principles didn’t undermine the core power and survival of White America. Whites need to either break out of this amnesia or stop atoning for the cursed memory. Whites need to remember what they did and justify it on grounds of Continuation, of higher importance than any constitution.

It is time for whites to return to how it used to be. It’s the ONLY way to survive and win. It’s like what Arthur who, having regained the wisdom of ‘you and the land are one’, says before the battle: “We’ll use the old ways” in John Boorman’s EXCALIBUR. And Lancelot, who’d lost himself to religious fanaticism, a kind of SJW nuttery of the day, returns to fight for Arthur once more.
Don’t damn the principles. Damn the fool who mistakes or favors principles over power. Both are important, but without securing the power, the advantage will be with the other side, very likely your enemy, to manipulate principles to suit his priority of power. Whites need to say “We believe in free speech but not ‘hate speech’”, and they must define ‘hate’ as insulting whiteness, Jewish defamation of white identity, black thug-talk, calls for Great Replacement or White Nakba. Once whites think this way, they will once again be on the path of victory.

By Jung Freud

Read More

Leave a Reply

05:05