How Negrolatry or Afromania among Silly Whites parallels the Transformation of Worship from Pagan Cults to Judaism to Christianity — The Problems of White Psychristianity — Nature vs Nurture in the God-Myth

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

The history of the transition from paganism to Old Testament to New Testament is instructive in an understanding of how whites came to bow down to Negrolatry.

Though there were many kinds of paganism, the pagan gods weren't generally high on the moral scale. Some were downright cruel and murderous, like the gods of the Aztecs. Human sacrifice was also practiced by certain paganists of Ancient Near East. Pagans feared and worshiped power for power's sake. Their spiritual vision was far from moral. It was all about might. The gods were like the forces of nature. Floods, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, pestilence, and etc. Good or bad, it didn't matter. It was fearsome and frightening. Nature could be on your side or against your side. All you could hope for was good fortune. Hopefully, nature will favor you, and you had to do whatever necessary to earn those favors. As gods controlled nature(or nature = gods), you had to pay them tribute. It could even be in the form of ritual human sacrifice if indeed it was deemed the only way to placate and appease the gods. Gods were powerful. They were the forces behind or within nature. It was presumptuous of man to expect, let alone demand, that gods be moral and caring about feeble and flawed mankind. Gods were gods, super-beings of great power. And they did as they pleased, and the most mankind could hope for was easing their wrath(or direct it at enemy tribes). Maybe then, the gods won't kick your butt too badly. Maybe the gods will spare your kind and take out their fury on some other hapless tribe. Paganism was spiritual nihilism. Might was right.

Then arose the Jewish religion(as well as other religions that sought to morally justify, as well as bind, the spiritual forces). It winnowed the spiritual realm into the universe of one God. Judaism went even beyond 'holocausting' all the other gods. Instead of Yahweh prevailing over all other gods, vanquishing them into extinction, it argued there was never any other god than the one and only God. So, all other gods never existed. They were false, figment of the imagination, whereas Yahweh was the one true God from(or before the) beginning. Jewish Spirituality was a revolution in thought. At once, it elevated the conception of God to levels unknown to mankind. The Jewish God wasn't just the one and only God but the all-powerful and all-knowing God. Among pagan gods, some were more powerful than others but no god was all-powerful and all-knowing. But the Jewish God was the one supreme being. Jews made their God into a singularity, more powerful than all the other conceptions of gods combined. And yet, Jews also hamstrung their God more than any other people did. By moralizing their God as not only all-powerful and all-knowing but good and wise, the end-result was God that was allergic to the nihilistic temptation of might-is-right.

So, even though the Jewish God was more powerful than any god imagined before, He couldn't even demand that Abraham kill the kid. Sure, as the one and only God, it was His right to demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. But, if He'd really made Abraham carry out the blood ritual, He would have revealed Himself as no different from the pagan gods. So, the Jewish God was at once the lone superpower of the spiritual realm and morally owned by the Jews. (In a way, Jews played a similiar mind trick on the Anglos. Jews flattered the Anglos as not only the mightiest people in the world but also the noblest. Thus, Anglos were goaded into believing their great power must be morally justified, especially in Jewish eyes. Their might had to be right. Of course, what constituted 'good' in Jewish eyes was on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?" As Anglos became ever so mindful of Jewish sensitivities, their godlike power came to cuck to Jewish agendas, whereupon Jews eventually took over as the new gods.")

Even though Jews moralized spirituality and conceived of the one and only God(who is not only all-powerful and all-knowing but all-wise and all-just), God of the Old Testament retained some of the darker characteristics of the cruel pagan gods. The ever-fluctuating Jewish concept of God ranged from wise, caring, and compassionate TO cruel, ruthless, and murderous. Jewish God seemed to be kind of schizoid. Too often, His wrath seemed unbalanced and disproportionate to the crime of the wrongdoers. Or, his violence seemed arbitrary as far as the human mind could fathom.

Also, there was a seemingly insurmountable contradiction within the Jewish moral conception of God. On the one hand, Jews praised Him as the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and entirely just Deity. On the other hand, they wanted Him to favor the Jews uber alles. One interpretation of the Covenant was that Jews would be favored by God if and only if they sincerely aspired to be BETTER than other peoples. In other words, Jews would strive to be wiser, fairer, and more moral than other peoples, thereby deserving the special blessing of God. This was the kindlier take on the Covenant. But, there was another interpretation that implied God would/should favor the Jews uber alles simply because Jews got Jewish blood. At best, this was rank tribalism, and at worst a kind of supremacist nihilism.

At any rate, it was frustrating for Jews that despite the manner of their deeds, good or bad, they remained weak relative to other tribes. Was God holding back his full blessing because Jews weren't good enough? Or did God intend Jews to remain politically and militarily weak because their true destiny was to formulate a new kind of power that conquers souls with words than lands with swords? By developing their spirituality, Jews would master the art of survival despite their military setbacks. Thus, while other peoples that concentrated on physical conquest would rise to greatness with victory but fade into oblivion with defeat, Jewishness would outlast all of them because its essence was soul-bound to God regardless of victory or defeat in battle. It helped that the Jewish God couldn't be represented in idol form, which would have led to at least the symbolic desecration of His Being by the enemy's sword and hammer. It's harder to destroy a mystery than a representation. (On the other hand, mystery remains dark and anxiety-inducing.) Still, it was tough-going for Jews to be surrounded by empires far more powerful than their tribe. Even if Jews licked their wounded pride with self-assurance that they alone possessed the formula for survival and longevity, even a mere century seemed like forever to the people living in anxiety and turmoil.

When Jews prayed for the Messiah under Roman Occupation, they envisioned him to be a super-warrior-prophet who would vanquish the Romans(and all other enemies of Jews, as well as collaborator-Jews) and restore Jewish independence(and maybe even bring about Jewish hegemony). But, other Jews conceived of different possibilities, and one of these led to the birth of Christianity. In a way, the Warrior-Messiah template was fulfilled by Muhammad some 600 yrs later, but he was an Arab who, in his own way, universalized Hebraism(and its link with Hellenism via Christianity).

There has long been the Utopian dream of starting anew. A new beginning without the stain and imperfections. A kind of New Eden. Even God is tempted in this direction, as when He sent the flood to drown out the wicked so that humanity could begin again with the virtuous Noah and his family... but things went badly once again.
Some of the most radical firebrands in the modern era wanted a new beginning, a kind of Year Zero experiment. Reform and even moderate revolution weren't good enough because they tolerated too many of the Old Imperfections. Instead of eradicating all old evils and starting anew, reform took a gradualist approach upon a corrupted order and succumbed to reactionary pressures and opportunistic tendencies. Instead of cutting off the hand of the Devil, reformists shook it and contracted the disease of accommodation in the name of craven pragmatism.

Communism swore to stamp out the old and oppressive in one clean sweep and replace it with the new and just. It led to Stalinist collectivization, Maoist Cultural Revolution, and most frighteningly the Year Zero experiment in Cambodia. At the root of communist theory was the idea that one could not compromise with the Old Way. Social-Democrats were denounced for having succumbed to 'moderate' bourgeois temptations. Leninism and Maoism waged war not only on the evils of the Old but on the Old itself as an evil that must be eradicated in its entirety to make way for the New. (Granted, Classic Marxism wasn't so much an attack on the Old as on the New. It believed capitalism was doing an awesome job of eradicating the old way and making way for the new, except that its contradictions and imbalances couldn't possibly be the basis for a stable social order as too few would end up with too much at the expense of everyone else.)
The shining New Order needed not be grasped for in the dark. It was not something that would gradually come into view through trial and error, steps forwards and backwards. No, this New had already been envisioned in the mind of Karl Marx. Like Zeus's head birthed the full-grown Athena in her full glory, Marx had seen the Future, how it would happen and what it would be about. For this prophecy to be fulfilled, the Old(or the Bad New)simply had to make way for the New or the Good New(that would be premised on justice prophecy than on just profits). It wouldn't be yet another chapter in the customary historical process of the old constantly ceding to the new(which becomes the new old ceding to the new new and so on) but the end of the Old for good and beginning of the New forever. It would be the End of History and the Beginning of the Future.

But seeds of such thought were there in Christianity itself(though its Utopian vision was directed toward Heaven). It imagined God born anew. For Christians, the birth of Jesus was like spiritual Year Zero. Anno Domini. In a way, it was the human equivalent of what God had attempted with the Flood but in spiritual reverse. Mankind had proved to be a disappointment, and the Flood was meant to wipe out everyone but the good man Noah and his family so that humanity would have a new flowering without the weeds.
Likewise, God turned out to be a big disappointment for many Jews though, whereas it seemed only right for almighty God to air His grievances about man, it was unthinkable for man to do likewise about God. Why were the Jews so weak? Did God fail to live up to His end of the bargain? Or was the fault with the Jews? Besides, if Jews worship an all-wise and all-knowing God, why was the Torah so full of contradictions? Why are there so many suggestions of God's imperfections even though He is supposed to be perfect? Why does God have so many contrasting 'personalities'? How come the various great prophets disagree with one another as to the nature of God and His design for the Jews and mankind?

Of course, Jews couldn't admit that the fault was with God. They couldn't say it but they nevertheless felt it. There was something wrong with God, and there was too much contradictory and bewildering baggage in the Torah. If God failed to fix the world with the Flood and the new beginning with the good man(Noah), perhaps the answer was a new beginning with the good God. A Year Zero for spirituality. But how could Jews reject the Old God when He was the one and only God, the all-perfect and all-wise Being? That would have been blasphemous. The renegade Jews who comprised the Early Christians had an idea. How about the Son of God? Even though the Narrative is that He suffers and dies for the sins of man, the crypto-narrative could be He does penance for the sins of His Father. Such can't be said because God is supposed to be perfect. But if indeed the Old God is perfect, why a need for the Son of God as the equal of God and the founder of a new religion? Why a need for the face of God(in human form) who heretofore didn't have a face to show to mankind? Ultimately, Abram was spared from having to sacrifice his son, but according to Christianity, God had to sacrifice His Son to bring about the New Faith, the ultimate one, and the Redemption. But only of man or of God Himself as well? Upon closer examination, the Jesus Narrative is about penance of both man and God.

Via creation of the Jesus Myth, spiritual Year Zero could conceive of God without the old baggage. Unlike the Old Prophets who consulted the Jewish Tradition and History to grasp God's meanings & intentions and build upon earlier wisdom(or delusions), the new prophecy of early Christians would be written on a blank slate. The newly birthed (Son of)God could be all about love, peace, and forgiveness, conceived of only the highest virtues and in a manner far more consistent than the Old Testament narrative. He would signify the end of the Old Covenant that bound volatile God to the troublesome history of the Jews. The New Covenant wouldn't be bound to any history or custom. It would be based on Faith and purity of heart and open to all mankind. Jews were so fearful of their God. God was good and just but also ruthless and terrifying. God was a helping hand but also a clenched fist. The Messiah of Christianity had bleeding hands. Christ, having felt the fleshly pain and suffering of mankind, would understand. He would be of a bleeding heart(though not the sappy kind of the 'liberals'). Furthermore, there would be not one but two Year Zero narratives around Jesus. His birth in Bethlehem heralding a new promise and the Resurrection where He would defeat death and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This way, mankind could hope for a more humane and loving God. Jews believed God existed before the world, long before the First Man, who only came into existence through the will of God. God created the world and always exerted a patriarchal and masterful authority over humanity. So, it wasn't the role of mankind or the Jews to mold God's nature. God molded them, and mankind could only hope to understand God a little better.
But with Christianity, mankind could nurse Christ-as-baby in their arms. Mankind could have a parental role over Christ as starchild. Mankind could mold Jesus in His formative years. Jesus, though God by nature, was Man by nurture. (Moses spent his formative years as an Egyptian but as a man turned full-Jew and destroyed many an Egyptian. In contrast, though Jesus would come to realize He is God than mere man, He would forever feel indebted to the good people who loved, nurtured, and taught Him.) Mankind, in imagining its role in the maturation and education of Jesus, could assure themselves that the Son of God as the new face of God would be fundamentally different from the Old God of the Torah who was unpredictable like the weather. Jesus would be more like the weatherman looking out for mankind.

Now, what can this teach us about the development of Negrolatry in the West? First, we must acknowledge that even modern secular white folks still think and feel in terms of Idolatry and 'psychristianity'. Even if no longer religious, a part of them is into idol-worship of all things thrilling & titillating(especially as modern culture is mostly about sports and youthful enthusiasm, with most people growing older not with pride of wisdom but resignation to irrelevance), while another part cannot shake off the guilt-complexes and redemption narratives inherited from Christianity that governed Europe for over a millennium. Also, Northern European Protestant types have long been craving for Idolatry or at least iconography that had been purged from their culture in rejection of semi-pagan Catholicism. At least German Protestants compensated for their lack of spiritual color with the power of music. Anglo-Protestants were especially vulnerable to the temptations of Negrolatry because of the dryly literary insistence of their culture.

From the white perspective, there are parallels between the developmental stages of Negrolatry AND the evolution of paganism into Jewish Religion and then the transformation of Judaism into Christianity, the universal faith, one that especially came to conquer/convert the white heathens of Europe. (From the black perspective, it could be they are aiming at something resembling Islam, a secular faith for whites where blacks-as-gods thrive less on kindly virtue than on fearsome power. If Black Muslims of the Nation of Islam seek racial separation[at least in theory], much of so-called Critical Race Theory or CRT is about whites worshiping and obeying blacks because blacks are good simply for being black.)

Like Ancient Religions and Cults, the crudest and most elemental forms of Negrolatry have to do with paganist fear-and-trembling before raw power, the might-is-right thing. This is Negrolatry #1. Before the emergence of higher moral/spiritual concepts and codes, mankind worshiped gods simply for their awesome power. Never mind right or wrong. Just bow down before the terrifying might that can smite your butt. No wonder so many tribes, in both Old World and New World, made human sacrifices to the gods. (Today, so many whites are willing to sacrifice so many whites and other non-blacks to appease the black gods. White victims are presented as sacrificial offerings to black thugs, criminals, leeches, and crooks via reduced sentencing or 'affirmative action'. Of course, stuff like BLM ends up killing more blacks due to reduced police presence, but the holy god of black egotism matters more than the mere flesh of black bodies riddled with bullets. This has to be seen as a kind of neo-human-sacrifice - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/exclusive-lawsuit-filed-wake-forest-university-coach-killed-man-one-punch/ )

In a similar vein, Negrolatry in its most primitive form is about white awe of the bigass megaton Negro. Even in the old days when blacks were slaves in the South, whites noticed that 'dem ni**ers' could carry heavy loads and holler up a storm while picking cotton. It's like Ancient Folks held powerful animals in awe and even worshiped them: Hippos among Egyptians, bulls among Persians, and etc. Negro was beastly, and even though high spirituality is at the opposite spectrum of beastliness, spirituality initially grew out of worship of beastly power. Even as gods and God evolved into higher spiritual/moral conceptions, they could never lose the element of great power if they were to hold sway over mankind; indeed, the Jesus Narrative couldn't have become a religion without the Resurrection Myth as His Death would have signified ineffectiveness than the triumph of goodness. History of both man and god(s) is about power turning good than good gaining power. Power is always the first consideration. Most people admire bad power over good weakness, though they wish for the good-and-powerful. Admiration is reserved first for power, and then comes the wish for power to be just.

It's like the crude gods preceded the more complex gods in Greek mythology. It's like refined fuel originates from crude oil. And so much of pop music, despite their complexity and sophistication, draw their core energy from wailing/hollering blues and the like.
So, even though civilized white man considered black slaves to be of a beastly lesser race, that very beastliness also impressed the white man for its raw prowess. So, on some subconscious level, white man felt about the Negro like a primitive tribe about a volcano. It's like modern man, for all his collective power and dominion over nature, still feels a certain awe when pondering a bear, lion, rhino, elephant, or killer whale. Or a hurricane or earthquake. And kids feel awe about dinosaurs, especially the T-Rex.

But just like Jews moralized spirituality from a might-is-right cult to a right-is-might faith, there was another side to white man's formulation of Negrolatry. This was the foundation of Negrolatry #2. White do-gooders wanted to regard black soulfulness as akin to spiritual grace. Blacks in the South were like Jews in bondage in Egypt. They needed a Moses to lead them to the Promised Land. This Moses figure could be black(like Frederick Douglas and later MLK) or white(John Brown or Abraham Lincoln). The beastly was idealized as priestly. According to Negrolatry #2, blacks loved to sing-and-dance not because they are a bunch of savage jive-ass bunners but because their hearts are bursting with passion for freedom, equality, and dignity.
White folks, especially of Abolitionist bent, projected their own dreams and hopes onto the Negro. These Northern folks had little first hand knowledge of the jivers and their ghastly racial nature. But they knew a lot about the Bible and projected Biblical narratives upon the Negro. Of course, the South also consulted the Bible to justify slavery. They said Ham saw his father Noah naked, and God punished him by turning him into a Negro condemned to slavery under other races.
Jews, yet to develop a universalist mentality that came with 'emancipation' of their own(in Europe), were okay with the Southern explanation as to why blacks should pick cotton for whites(and Jews). It was because Ham saw Noah naked. But the fanatical Christian Abolitionists in the North weren't satisfied with Old Testament explanations alone. They were into sanctimony and holier-than-thou-ness. And what better way to feel piety and self-righteousness than by denouncing slavery, especially of the Noble Negro? UNCLE TOM'S CABIN even has a Noble Negro as christ-like figure dying for the sins of white folks. Of course, sympathy for the Negro had an element of condescension as well. Many Northern whites thought it was bad enough to be Negro with dark skin, nappy hair, and fat lips. Why make it worse for such an unfortunate people by using them as slaves as well? Also, many whites in the North thought blacks would always remain childlike dependents and sidekicks of the white race. They had no idea they were lighting a powder keg full of gunpowder.

But UNCLE TOM'S CABIN notwithstanding, whites weren't ready to confer unto the Negro the role of Christ in the American Narrative between the Civil War Period to the Civil Rights Era. Rather, the road from slavery to freedom was deemed akin to the Exodus story, albeit one led by white saviors or White Moses, especially in the figure of Abe Lincoln. Whites, especially the do-goody types in the North, wanted to believe that Negroes had noble souls and would be grateful and use their freedom wisely. Many whites in the South thought otherwise for reasons of firsthand knowledge and/or prejudice. While many were bigoted against blacks for racial reasons, they also instinctively sensed that Negroes could abuse their newfound freedom by terrorizing white folks in a reversion to oogity jungle nature.

This phase of Negrolatry lasted roughly from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement. The latter made a difference in that MLK took on the mantle of Black Moses who would fulfill the unfinished project of the White Moses Abraham Lincoln. But, his death turned him from a dead moses to resurrected christ. Negro Narrative went from a struggle for freedom to stairway to heaven.

But then, there is a reason why whites so desperately cling to the Cult of the Black Christ or Blackrist. It somewhat akin to why some Jews deviated from the Old Religion to formulate a new one that became Christianity. God of the Jews seemed at once unstable and tempestuous AND indifferent and uncaring. He could suddenly send floods, pestilence, and disasters out of the blue. Or He could be silent and distant just when the Jews need Him most. The Jews who would become the Early Christians wanted a more consistent and principled God. Also, they wanted to feel His nearness and what better way than by imagining Him as the Son of God who lived among mankind, died, and was resurrected to be one with the Father, God Himself. It was more soothing to believe in the Christian God. While the God of Judaism was a high concept God, the Torah's spiritual vision spanned the development of gods from might-is-right to right-is-might, which is why God in the early part of the Old Testament resembles the deities of the frightful pagans. He even makes a pagan-like demand on Abraham to make a blood-sacrifice of his son, only to 'change' His mind at the last minute. Thus, God presented Himself to Abraham as a moral God. Even so, God in later parts of the Old Testament never quite shed the vestiges of terrifying pagan gods. One can never be certain with the Jewish God, as Job found out the hard way. Then, it's no wonder that certain Jews dreamed of the Year Zero God, the one who could be conceived almost from scratch with only the good qualities minus the torrid and terrifying aspects in the Torah.

There is a parallel between the renegade alt-Jews(who became the early Christians) and today's whites who dream of a Better-Blackness. They've been enthralled with black prowess and associated it with the Noble Negro Narrative... but blacks by and large haven't conformed to the Narrative, remaining ignoble or 'nignoble'. While black problems have been a tenaciously cursed element of American History, blacks were more or less kept in 'their place' until the 1960s. The South had Jim Crow laws. And the North had its own subtler means of keeping whites over here and blacks over there. There were all sorts of discrimination against blacks in the North and the West. Jews in Hollywood had their own ways of keeping the lid on blacks.
Because of white social pressures and political muscle, blacks had no choice but to at least pretend to be a 'credit to their race'. Of course, plenty of blacks were louts and thugs. Norman Podhoretz's essay on the Negro Problem shows that, even before the Civil Rights Movement and the riotous 60s, black thugs had been harassing, beating, and robbing non-blacks, Jews included. Still, white society, both liberal and conservative, had been overwhelmingly on the side of preserving white spaces denied to blacks and dealing with blacks as second-class citizens or a can-of-worms to be kicked into the future. With such odds stacked against them, blacks couldn't go totally crazy, and whites in their safe white spaces could cling to the dream of the Noble Negro doing his best and in need of white sympathy and support. The Civil War Narrative held that blacks were freed and were on the gradual path to equality and justice. It would take time but blacks would eventually reach the Promised Land. But the Civil Rights Narrative spun a counter-argument. The Emancipation had been betrayed and the Negro had yet to break free. White Moses Abe Lincoln failed, and black Moses MLK would finally finish the job and make it to the mountaintop and lead his people to milk-and-honey.

Given the actual nature of the Negro, race-ist white skeptics had reasons not to fall for the Dream. But America is nothing if not naive and idealistic in some stupid(and inspired) way. Also, most skeptics were too genteel and inhibited to spell out in graphic and grisly details as to why the Negro Experiment wouldn't work. For some reason, White America chose to forget all about Jack Johnson and propped up the cult of Joe Louis, the nice BROWN(than black) Bomber. Apparently, Louis was such a nice guy, and it was only by accident that he knocked out all those white guys who just bumped into him. It was like the 'bum of the month' was really a 'bump of the month'. He didn't want to do it, but those clumsy uncoordinated white guys were haplessly walking into his fists and falling down.
As the raw truth remained unsaid even by the race-ists, white dreamers got the upper hand with the Narrative. The Dream would be MLK would finish the job and at last America would fulfill its mission. Of course, many chose to believe the mission was derailed by the assassination of MLK, but in fact, race problems got out of control while he was alive. Massive riots broke out in 1965, three years before MLK's death and by 1968, many blacks weren't even heeding King's advice and getting more rowdy-radical.

Because of the moral-spiritual investment of so many white folks(especially the wiberals) in the Noble Negro Narrative, they were willing to make excuses for mounting black rage and violence. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And hadn't whites also rioted in the past? So, maybe it was black people's turn to rebel and turn over the apple cart. But the difference was that, while white folks made even more progress upon gaining freedom(via means violent or peaceful), black folks got even worse with more freedom. It was as if blacks-and-freedom was like drinking-and-driving. Freedom inspired white people to shoot for the stars. Freedom drove black people to dive for the mud.

In time, even do-good wiberals joined the White Flight. Jews joined the Jew Flew. (And Asians joined Chu-Too, and Mexicans did Brown-Not-Stick-Around.) It was getting ever harder to maintain the Noble Negro Narrative. White Flight was the result of Black Blight. Too much crime, too much craziness, too much ghastliness. And for those in the know, Abraham Lincoln actually had little sentimentality about blacks. His idea of playing White Moses was to lead blacks OUT of America. And MLK, for his all hammy but inspiring oratory, was a lout, punk, thug, and beast. Had he lived, he would have become just another Jesse Jackson... or worse a kind of Al Sharpton. Indeed, most Civil Rights Era blacks became crooks, thieves, and/or charlatans. It was his death that led to the myth of the Blackrist.

Now, if whites had sense and shook off the Noble Negro Narrative for good and saw the Real Negro at last, there would have been no more of this nonsense. But mental habits die hard, especially when the Jewish-controlled Media and Academia have been doing everything to elevate MLK into god-status and instill whites from cradle with Negrolatry. For most white young ones, the four most sacred people are MLK, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, and Obama. White parents have been made anxious about their kids becoming 'racist' at the age of three. According to Jewish Media, white kids have a natural inclination to turn 'racist'. It's almost as if the 'original sin' of 'racism' is hard-wired into the white DNA. Therefore, white parents must train their kids to be 'anti-racist' from the earliest age possible, and that means feeding them Negrolatry from the cradle.
So, most white kids come to awareness believing that any pro-white consciousness is evil while any pro-black consciousness is sacred. Stuff like Diversity-Inclusion-Equity training is not about instilling and/or reinforcing the same virtues of diligence, honesty, integrity, courage, and responsibility on ALL people regardless of race but about conflating goodness with certain identities. Being black, Jewish, or homo/tranny makes one automatically good, and the less fortunate groups without magic identities can only attain a measure of goodness by being especially partial to Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies. In other words, it's a total perversion of morality. Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies are good even if they act bad because their identities are 'good'. In contrast, even whites who are most diligent, honest, conscientious, and courageous are morally suspect because their identity is associated with all sorts of evils and failings throughout (selective)history. Instead of promoting 'diversity, inclusion, and equity'(or DIE) among whites(but then notice how this never calls for Jewish Guilt and Atonement for the mistreatment of Palestinians who are certainly NOT INCLUDED in the American Debate), society would do much better to promote accountability, appreciation, honesty, and humility among blacks. What US needs is not DIE but AAHH.

So, despite all the troublesome facts about blacks, whites cannot shake their 'psychristian' complexes about them. And yet, it's hard going to keep up with the pretense of the Noble Negro in a world where blacks act so ignoble. White people want to believe that black fevers of the soul, passion, and even rage are essentially driven by righteous hunger(or lust) for justice and goodness. It's like the Jews in the Old Testament are far from perfect but more blessed than other races because they got God on their side. Also, even though the Old Testament God is sometimes terrifying and unpredictable, He is the source of all that is good, as well as ultimately the great redeemer. And yet, the rise of Christianity suggest that enough Jews could no longer accept the anxiety-inducing uncertainties of the Old Narrative. Given the dire events of history, certain Jews agonized and strove for a new explanation, the Year Zero option where they could conceive of God from near-scratch.

We see something similar in the Third Phase of Negrolatry, that of the Blackrist. This is Negrolatry #3. Is it any wonder that so many whites have adopted black babies? Just like God was conceived anew through the narrative of Jesus as Baby God, molded and nurtured in part by man(and woman), white folks dream of the black starchild by way of white nurture. Negroes may be noble and all, but they are too fearsome and unstable, often scaring white folks half-to-death. So, how about if they adopt a black child and mold him to be the Noble Negro more in harmony with white fantasies? Just like the rise of Christianity tamed God into a more loving figure with a closer ear to man's problems, the cult of Blackrist seeks to 'fix' the problem of the broken Noble Negro Narrative. If blacks left to their own devices cannot live up to the Dream, whites must somehow intervene and replace the Old Negro with the New Negro.
Some do it by adoption, but it's also done by ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Thus, the white woman carries the Noble Negro seed, much like Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Unlike a Negress who, though 'naturally noble', is too wild and funky for motherhood, the white woman would birth and nurture the mulatto kid to conform to the White Dream of the Noble Negro. No wonder so many whites greeted Obama as akin to black jesus. He was birthed by a white mother and raised by whites.
Another way is by Mass Immigration of Africans. Europeans have Noble Negro cult of their own. They believe America failed the blacks who turned out criminal and violent ONLY because of white tyranny and oppression traumatized the Negro soul. In contrast, Europe would welcome black Africans and treat them nice and show the world how naturally noble the blacks are. It's a variation on the Year-Zero-Negro, or Year Zegro. Europeans feel that American blacks became problematic solely due to mistreatment. It's like believing a tiger in captivity is dangerous because of abuses suffered at the hands of its owner and convincing oneself that a tiger would make the most wonderful pet if treated nice from infanthood. While it's true that a well-trained tiger raised from cub-hood can be friendly with humans, it can never be a proper pet because its very nature is wild & predatory and, furthermore, it is many times stronger than man.

Of course, there is one big difference between the transformation of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the transformation of Noble Negro Narrative from Troublesome Black Moses to Transcendent Black Christ. Whereas God isn't real whether one believes the Jewish version or the Christian version, blacks are all-too-real. There are tens of millions of them in the US, millions of them now in Europe, a billion of them in Africa, and there will be billions more in decades to come. Even though idea of God is a powerful concept, maybe the most powerful ever, it is still a matter to be pondered and debated. God doesn't exist in the real world. So, whether one is 'right' or 'wrong' about God, it is really a matter of theory.

In contrast, being wrong about Negroes is dangerous(and maybe fatal for Western Civilization) because countless blacks exist in reality and in ever increasing numbers, and they are by far the most aggressive, destructive, and dangerous race. Turning Negrolatry #1 into Negrolatry #2 was a big mistake. Whites noticed the raw power of blacks in muscle & music and conflated them with morality. Jack Johnson was about might-is-right, or 'we blacks be badass cuz we whup you white boys'. Upon noticing this fact, whites should have done everything to bring about permanent racial separation. But whites went with the cult of Joe Louis: the Nice Negro who uses his power as a credit to his race; he beats whites but is almost apologetic about it and, above all, wants to be liked by whites and be an American Hero in service of patriotism. But that Narrative fell apart in the 60s when blacks gained full confidence to riot and loot and scare whitey half-to-death.
But instead of waking up from the nightmare-mistaken-as-dream, whites ended up reaching for Negrolatry #3, whereby they came to fantasize about reinventing the Negro in their mind's eye. So, how did the Obama thing turn out? How are all these black kids created either by ACOWW and/or adoption turning out? Colin Kaepernick anyone? Is he the blackrist?

Can whites ever wake up? Perhaps not because of the 'viscerality' of black advantages. Jared Taylor detailed how blacks are better at certain things(like basketball) while Asians have their own niche advantages(like math and science). So, why can't people accept that blacks are better with balls and worse with ballpens? After all, most white people don't expect Asians to be good at basketball because they are better in math. White people aren't upset with Asian underperformance in America's most popular sports, and that's okay. So, why are whites upset with blacks not exceling in everything? Why not just say Asians are better at math and blacks are better at running/jumping? if whites can accept Asian inferiority in basketball, why not accept black inferiority in calculus or physics?

It is because math/science isn't visceral or exciting. In school, all the attention is on athletes, not on mathletes(even though the latter generally do better in life). So, the fact that Asians are good in math doesn't generate much excitement or convulsion about them. They are just seen as nerds.
In contrast, sports is visceral, and black dominance leads to white hero-worship of blacks as demigods or titans. Thus overwhelmed by excitement, whites have come to wish the best of their hero-race of blacks. (Likewise, white obsession with Jews has less to do with Jewish wizardry in math and science than their humor, forceful personalities, and prophetic reach that seem 'sexy'. Ayn Rand was no looker but her powerful big-think won over lots of acolytes.) This goes to show that Rationalism was bound to fail.

The perverse thing about the Cult of George Floyd is it managed to fuse Negrolatry 1, 2, 3 into a single package. He was beastly, a career thug, criminal, and druggy. He even had a stint in pornography. His fearsome beastly prowess made him like one of the crude pagan gods of dark nature. Negrolatry #1. But the Noble Negro Narrative spun his biography into something like a one-man exodus story. You see, he wasn't simply a lifetime criminal wandering across America to rob and cause more havoc. No, he was on a spiritual journey of self-discovery, in search of his milk-and-honey in a land mired in 'systemic racism'. A lone black moses in the tradition of the fugitive slaves on the run for freedom and dignity. Negrolatry #2. (Never mind Floyd was a free man and used his freedom badly. On the one hand, the Negrolators say it was a great evil to deny blacks equal rights and freedom in the past. On the other hand, Negrolators seem to imply that blacks + freedom is a bad mix because historical traumatization culturally or epigenetically drove blacks to be angrier and more dangerous; therefore, we can't expect blacks to use their freedom as sensibly as whites and non-blacks.) But then, Floyd died one day. How and why? He imbibed too much fentanyl, but the Jewish-controlled media and their minion-disciples, in a perverse variation of the feat pulled off by renegade Jews(who turned Jesus' tragedy into triumph), created the magic-myth of how Saint George Floyd was murdered by a 'white supremacist' centurion but overcame defeat and death by rising to heaven and gaining his place in the firmament. Thus, Floyd became blackrist. Negrolatry #3. We sure do live in crazy times.

COMING UP | THE GREAT DEBATE: E. MICHAEL JONES VS. JARED TAYLOR - Guide to Kulchur

Why is American Slavery deemed a Greater Evil than all other forms of slavery throughout History? — Jared Taylor fails to mention the Jewish Factor, the American Credo Factor, and the Negrolatry Factor — How the Guillermo Hypothesis illuminates 'white guilt' about Blacks

SLAVERY IS OUR ‘ORIGINAL SIN'?! - Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance - https://www.bitchute.com/video/JMsPfuD2T3Zs/

There is much to recommend in the video above by Jared Taylor on the topic of White America's unique guilt regarding the enslavement of blacks. Taylor has been in the fight for white(or hu-white)peoples all over the world for much of his adult life, and he has brought intelligence, erudition, and dignity(especially relative to Neo-Nazi morons and Alt Right bad boys). But, everyone has a blind-spot, willful or otherwise, that misses out on the whole picture. Taylor is no different. There is so much that is good about the video, but it fails to answer its own question because it ignores the the founding creed of America, the notable advantages/talents of blacks(especially in the age of hedonistic pop culture), and the dominant power of Jews in current America. Once those matters are addressed, the truth is plainly visible. It should indeed be obvious WHY American Slavery has come to be regarded as a special evil unlike all others.

Though Jared Taylor is far more honest and courageous than most commentators on controversial topics, he tends to shy away from open discussion of Jewish power/influence, the black athletic/sexual threat, and the contradictions of the American Creed(and history). It is then hardly surprising that for much of the video, he goes into Pat Condell mode and dumps on Muslims and their brutal histories regarding conquests, slavery, and atrocities. Not being an expert on Muslim history, I defer to Taylor's knowledge on the subject. But why doesn't Taylor mention the Jewish role in slavery as well? Surely, Jews practiced slavery as much as any other people. According to Thomas Sowell, Jews played a prominent role in European slave trade in the Middle Ages. Jews sold plenty of white Europeans to Arabs and the like. (Jews also collaborated with Muslim conquerors of Southern Europe.)
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR RAPISTS - Pat Condell
New World Slavery also had considerable input from Jews, especially in Brazil that brought over the most number of slaves. (Taylor says 12 million black slaves were brought to the New World. In college, I was taught that Brazil brought over 3 million slaves, and that was more than in all the rest of the New World colonies combined. So, I'm thinking the number had to have been less than 6 million.) Why does Taylor spare the Jews? He's been attacked, ostracized, and slandered by Jews and also removed from social media platforms and banking services. What does he have to lose at this point? Is he afraid that Jews will hurt him even more? Or, is he a starry-eyed seeker of the Great White Jew, the hope that Jews, being white(enough) and possessed of high IQ, will finally come over to the White Side as the intellectual engine of White Power? Well, he can keep dreaming, but reality seems otherwise.

Whatever Muslims may have done in the past(as slave-masters of captured blacks and whites), they are hardly the authors of the current Western demise. While Muslim immigrants may cause problems in Europe, Muslims themselves haven't controlled the powerful institutions that persuaded and browbeat Europeans into welcoming endless tides of non-white immigrants. White Politicians in Europe aren't generally beholden to Muslims. Rather, they take their cues from Jews who have near-monopolistic sway over media, academia, legal institutions, finance, and other centers of power. Jews also control the gods that make whites fear and tremble at the altars of Anne Frank and Nelson Mandela. And even though Muslims practiced White Slavery and exploited white women as sex slaves, so have the Jews.

Furthermore, Jews are the biggest White Slavers in the world today, even though they now do it legally. Jews control pop culture & pornography and use them to promote Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). Jews encourage cucky-wuckery among white men who are now reduced to cheering every instance of white woman ditching white man and going with blacks. Somehow, whites remaining faithful to their own race and having white children for white posterity is 'racist' even for mainstream 'conservatives'. Hardly surprising as both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are utterly taken with the dogmas, idols, and narratives pushed by Jews who control academia and media. While this isn't slavery in the technical sense, it is in a deeper sense: Biological Slavery. After all, white women are going with black men and having black children not for color-blind reasons but interracist ones that say black men are the Real Men(with more muscle, bigger penises, and thicker voices) whereas white men are a bunch of slow flabby pansies whose role is to turn 'gay' and cuck to blacks. Jews don't so much push colorblind 'anti-racism' as interracism as a form of 'neo-racism', a proggy kind that says whites should mix with blacks not because race is just a social construct but because blacks are the superior race that deserves to lord over whites. And of course, in the relation between Jews and White Goyim is the unspoken faith that whites should serve Jews precisely because Jews are superior in intelligence(IQ), spirituality(the Chosen), and/or morality(eternally noble and saintly victims of 'antisemitism').

But Jared Taylor will not touch on these issues. It's likely he avoids matters related to Jungle Fever and the like because his formative years were more uptight about sexual matters, especially when pertaining to race. Still, Taylor has held nothing back in detailing black criminality and thuggery, their psychopathy and lower intelligence. On the matter of Jews, perhaps there is a kind of proto-boomerish sentimentality, as whites in the past grew up at a time when Jews hadn't yet consolidated their control of America and shown their true face. And it could be Taylor has had lifelong Jewish friends in the HBD community whom he's afraid to offend. It could be the hope for the Great White Jew. Or, despite having lost so much as the result of Jewish Power, perhaps he could lose even more, not even being able to hold his beloved American Renaissance conferences. At any rate, his reluctance to fully address the Jewish Question or JQ hinders him from a complete evaluation of what is really going on in the world, e.g. why has American Slavery come to be seen as a unique evil?

There are three key factors to be considered as to why the AMERICAN Slavery has become the focus of intense moral condemnation.

1. Jewish Factor. True, there were strong pro-black sympathies throughout US history, even before Jews arrived in large waves as immigrants. Before the Civil War, a Jew in America was more likely to be pro-Confederate and even own slaves. Abolition Movement had many fiery radicals fueled mostly by Christian moral outrage(that later became one of the pillars of the Prohibition Movement). Even many non-extremists thought slavery was a stain on America as a political and social project. And many whites in the North supported the war against the South to preserve the Union. The mindset was both nationalist and imperialist, as US was a nationalist outgrowth of British imperialism and spawned an imperialism of its own that spanned ever westward. A project committed to gaining more territory wasn't about to lose huge areas of the South, no more than the French were willing to let go Indochina and Algeria in the post-WWII period.
At any rate, prior to Jewish takeover of the US, there was a more balanced understanding of the struggle, war, and tensions between North and South. Being Anti-Slavery wasn't the same as being Anti-White, an unimaginable concept at the time. Most Northerners didn't want Southern whites to be terrorized by feral blacks. And even most anti-slavery whites in the North didn't believe in absolute racial equality between whites and blacks. If anything, the Republican Party soon became the conservative party of Anglo-American elites, big business, and the ever-expanding state.
Also, Northerners gave Southerners their due. Even if the South fought for a lost cause(that deserved to lose), they fought with courage and honor. Consider the sympathetic treatment of the South in John Ford's HORSE SOLDIERS. Dwight Eisenhower wrote glowingly of General Robert E. Lee. Before Jews took power in the academia and media to tip the scale, White America was, more or less, evenly balanced between conservative and liberal voices, with a modicum of mutual respect between the two.

But Jews did gain elite power in the US, with profound implications. Now, it's likely that many idealistic leftist Jews(when they were sincerely ideological) believed in the Boasian notion that Race is a social construct. Given their own struggles against goy prejudice(and explosions of violence), they felt special sympathies for non-whites and convinced themselves that the real dividing line between whites and blacks was mostly skin color, which could be overcome with social conditioning. (As things worked out, it didn't work because, while whites increasingly kept their side of the bargain, blacks failed ever more with theirs. Whites made an effort to become ever less 'racist', but this made blacks even more stereotypically uninhibited in aggression, violence, obnoxiousness, and ludicrousness, even to the point of a rapper calling himself Ludicris. But because whites traditionally held power over blacks, the assumption is the racial solution is entirely contingent on white improvement because whites control everything, whereas blacks are mere hapless victims with no sway over anything. Perhaps, this made sense at one time, but it no longer does, as blacks have plenty of power over many communities, even huge areas of big cities and key states. While one can blame the abusive parent for the problems of a young child, such lopsided moral aspersion is untenable when the child is a big teenager with considerable leeway in behavior and prone to delinquency. We are now at the stage where the black 'teen' is beating up the white 'parent', but we are still supposed to blame only whitey while pretending blacky is an innocent skittles-munching child.)

At any rate, Jews rule America, and Jews have thought long and hard about the essential pillars of their power. Jews know they got the talent but not the numbers to maintain the empire. They need white support. THIS is the main reason why Jews use blackness as the bullwhip against white identity, interests, pride, and freedom. Jews fear White Liberation more than anything, just like the British who regarded India as their 'jewel in the crown' feared the stirrings of Indian nationalism and resistance movement for independence. Of course, one could say Jews are being paranoid. Most whites are okay with Jews, and a whole lot of them are totally crazy about them. Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel. Whites love Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, and Jerry Seinfeld. But, Jews figure things can suddenly go south. Jews feel that much of white sympathy for Jews hinges on the Shoah, and perhaps its effect will fade over the years. Furthermore, Jews know themselves all too well. They know there are many wicked/crooked ones among them. Now, if good Jews were to flush out the bad ones, something like 'antisemitism' might not flare up. But Jews know they tend to circle the wagons. Good Jews(or better Jews) give cover to Bad Jews. Also, even Good Jews aren't good all the time and need bad Jews to do the dirty work, like with the respectable eye doctor in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS who calls on his gangster brother to deal with the woman problem. This means that Jewish Power will grow more corrupt and gangsterish. It means that even whites who'd been partial to Jews may grow increasingly suspicious of them. They might become 'red-pilled'. The fact is, when push comes to shove, even Good Jews have chosen to side with Bad Jews than side with Good Goyim. Ideally, good whites and good Jews should be united against bad whites and bad Jews. Jews have, over the years, goaded good whites to denounce bad whites and make common cause with good Jews and good non-whites. And many good whites have done just that. But have good Jews reciprocated by denouncing bad Jews? No.
Now, if good Jews don't denounce the bad Jews, aren't good Jews also bad Jews? When the good aids and abets the bad, what's the difference? Where is the Jewish outrage over Jonathan Pollard's release? Where is the Liberal Jewish outrage over what's been done to Palestinians? To morally cover for this contradiction, Jews have increasingly fused morality with identity politics. Goodness is less a matter of what you do than what you are. So, the mere fact of BEING Jewish is good. Never mind what Zionists have DONE to Palestinians or millions of Arabs. Jews are good because they are Jews, who are forever to be associated with the Holy Holocaust, timeless wisdom, genius(that is such a benefit to mankind, like the latest Covid 'vaccines'), and crowd-pleasing humor. So, never mind what Jews do. Just dwell on what they are. They are Jews, and that means they are good. And if you praise and bless Jews, you too must be good or better than those who don't. Result is moral rot.
It means good Jews should embrace bad Jews because the mere fact of Jewishness is good. So, even bad Jews are good simply for being Jewish. But in having embraced and protected bad Jews, even good Jews have made themselves bad. And the Jewish community, in insisting that goyim embrace and praise Jewishness on the basis of identity alone, have spread the moral rot to goyim as well. Most goyim never pay attention to Jewish behavior, actions, or impact on the world. The mere fact of Jewishness alone is synonymous with morality. "I have Jewish friends" makes you automatically better than those without Jewish friends, just like being Jewish makes you automatically better than being a mere goy. When morality turns into idolatry, morality turns into ethno-nihilism. Take the latest GOP yapping about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and West Bank. The ice cream company made its decision on the basis of Jewish behavior. Jews are occupying West Bank and tyrannizing the people there, who continue to lose land to Jewish 'settlers'. It isn't 'antisemitic' in the sense of targeting Jews simply because they are Jewish. The company policy is based on Jewish behavior. But, GOP-tards are howling like it's the biggest moral outrage simply because it was done against Jews. According to GOP-tards, being Jewish alone is enough to end the debate. Jews are right because they are Jews, just like God is always right because He is God. So, even though Jews are stealing Palestinian land, Jews are morally correct simply because they're Jewish whereas Palestinians are evil scum who dare to resist Jewish expropriation of their lands and property.

Now, a kind of 'morality' that is skewed toward favoring one group over another based solely on identity sounds like the classic definition of 'racism'. After all, if 'anti-racism' is the law of the land, all groups should be judged by the same set of rules. Then, why aren't Jews condemned for their actions against Palestinians? Why do Jews, who howl most about 'racism, racism, racism', of whites of course, demand that white goyim support what Jews do to the Palestinians simply because being Jewish makes Jews right? And why do Jews get away with this, as both most Republican and Democratic voters hardly raise a fuss about their political representatives shamelessly whoring themselves out to Zion? Fish rots from the head, and Jewish elite power has corrupted the moral health of America. Jews have done a bait-and-switch on whites. Jews pressured whites to abandon any vestige of white identity/interests and go for colorblind ethics for all, regardless of creed or color. But these very same Jews will shriek and howl if any white(or goy) says America should treat Jews and Palestinians equally with the same set of rules. Given the sheer hypocrisy of this, one would think whites would have caught on, but no. Why not? Because most whites rely on their leaders, elites, and representatives to tell them what is what, and most whites-at-the-top are bought-off and/or blackmailed whores of Zion. The other is the power of myth. As most whites grew up with Holocaust Mythology, Anne Frank Cult, and so many movies & TV shows were Arabs/Muslims are little more than swarthy terrorists or white-slavers, their emotionality favors Jews and Zionists over Arabs and Muslims. And as Jews control the news media, most Americans get a very warped view of Middle East affairs.

'Idolatrism' is the new 'racism'. This is why even Jewish Liberals are really Triberals, i.e. it's about the use of Liberalism to ultimately serve Jewish Tribalism. If white 'racism' was about favoring whites over non-whites on the basis of whiteness alone, 'idolatrism' is about favoring Jews, blacks, and homos over all other groups regardless of their deeds, action, or behavior. This is obvious with blacks. They burn, loot, and create havoc, but they are always moral saints. The notion that some creep like George Floyd would be considered a saint or angel would have been laughable in an earlier time, but it is reality today.
Now, it's true that certain groups underwent special tragedies in the modern era. So, one could sympathize with the victims of those tragedies. But to permanently affix tragic dimensions onto a group can only lead to moral nihilism. We can sympathize with Chinese of the Nanking Massacre period and with millions of Russians who died in World War II. But does the fact that many millions of innocent Chinese and Russians died mean that today's Chinese and Russians are automatically noble and saintly on the basis of identity and above moral opprobrium when they do bad? Sounds absurd, but such are the rules in the West in regards to Jews, blacks, and homos.
A major fallacy is to confuse victimhood with virtue. Most human tragedies weren't the result of saintliness, nobility, or martyrdom but of pure-and-simple defeat to the bigger power. American Indians didn't lose because they were noble pacifists who turned the other cheek. They lost because whites had the numbers and more guns. Blacks became slaves not because they were meek and humble but because they got captured by bigger African tribes who sold them for gold to white slave ships. While tragedies suffered by Christian saints resulted from pious acts of self-sacrifice, most human tragedies were really the result of one set of bullies losing to a stronger set of bullies. Japanese and Germans faced great tragedies in WWII, but they were in the fight, often as initiators. Also, while the Shoah was horrific, it was an extreme and fanatical reaction to lots of bad Jewish behavior. Jews weren't saintly victims but often a**hole victims. This doesn't excuse Hiroshima or the Holocaust, but it was not a case of wholly innocent and saintly people being killed for the hell of it.
Not only are we supposed to believe that Jews bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for the Shoah, but we are supposed to believe that all Jews everywhere forever and ever are akin to Anne Frank regardless of what they do. Saying that Jews deserve partial blame for the Shoah isn't the same as blaming-the-victim. If a woman minding her own business is attacked and raped in a park, she is blameless. Blaming her would be blaming the victim. But if someone in the park taunts and provokes others to the point where someone finally has had enough and beats him to a pulp, he is partly to blame. Given Jewish role in communism, financial capitalism, and cultural degradation leading up to WWII, yes, Jews do deserve some blame for what happened to them, just like Germans and Japanese must take some blame for the destruction of their nations in WWII. Sadly, Jews, in their Holocaust-moral-megaloamania, have learned nothing and are once again spreading filth and craziness all around the world with zero self-awareness that they themselves may be at the epicenter of world troubles. And the cucks play along and pretend all the problem stems from China or Iran(if the cuck is 'conservative') OR from Russia or 'white supremacists'(if the cuck is 'liberal'). And of course, blacks deserve some blame for the rot in their communities, but the current 'idolatrism' says that they are totally and eternally blameless(just like Jews and homos), and all the blame must go to whitey.

Unless Jews are judged for what they do than for what they are, 'idolatrism' is the order of the day in the US, and it is virtually identical with what is called 'racist'. The only difference is Jews have associated their identity with historical tragedy. Thus, one could say they are not favored for their 'skin color'. Rather, they are favored for their Memory. But morally pasting the past to the present to excuse bad behavior is just another kind of prejudice. In some ways, it is worse because Jews are invoking morality to act immoral. "Because Nazis treated us badly, we can act like Nazis and treat others the same way." Jews denounce 'white supremacism' not to attack supremacism as a general principle but to buttress Jewish supremacism.
Likewise, blacks complain about how white 'racists' in the past done stereotyped them as savage apelike thugs as a moral excuse to act like, well, savage apelike thugs prone to looting, robbing, beating, hollering, raping, murdering, shooting, and acting demented. But because we are supposed to judge blacks on the basis of Memory, they are forever the saintly slave-victim even when they use their advantage in muscle and natural aggression to terrorize entire communities. Blackkks are the main thugs and lynch mobs in America.
And of course, even though homos spread HIV and died from too many wild orgies of homo-fecal-penetration in bath-houses, parks, and wherever, they are not to be judged, lest one be denounced as 'homophobic'. More 'idolatrism'.

To better understand Jews and whites, suppose you're a rancher and have a variety of animals. You have a horse, a dog, a hedgehog, a frog, a monkey, a turtle, a cow, a goose, a chicken, a goat, a sheep, a hawk, a gopher, a deer, and etc. Which animal would you value most? Which animal would you be most mindful about having control over? It's most probably the horse. It's the most powerful and the most useful animal. Dog would be second, but you can't ride a dog or use it for plowing. Not only is the horse most powerful but it's also naturally fierce and independent(and least fearful of small man). A horse naturally wants to run free. And it surely doesn't want to carry a man on its back. Also, if it goes out of control, it can do most harm. One kick from a horse can turn a man's brains to mush.
In contrast, take a hedgehog. It is hardly of any use to man. It might be fun to have around as a pet. Also, even if a hedgehog acts out of order, what could it do? It can't harm, let alone kill, a man. Turtle might be put in a pond. Maybe it can be made into turtle soup. Again, it's hardly of any use to man, and there's no concern about its behavior. A goat-gone-bad might be troublesome, but even a bad goat isn't much of a threat to man. Also, goats aren't very useful for anything but producing goat milk. But the horse is very useful, and it must be made to obey and follow instructions. The well-being of the rancher counts so much on his control of the horse.

Jews see whites as the White Horse or the War Horse of Jewish Power. Without whites in the military, state, industries, and institutions to run things, Jews could only do so much. And among whites, Northern European whites are most prized. Indeed, would Jews have taken over the world without saddling on top of the Northern European horse? Anglo/Germanics are the prize stallion of Jewish Power. That is why Jews do everything to make sure that white people(especially Anglo-Germanics) obey and follow Jews. But carrots aren't enough. Jews have a lot of money, but money only goes so far. Japan spread a lot of money around in the 80s, and China does the same today, but they can only buy favors, not loyalty. And the stick isn't enough either, especially as Jews themselves don't have the military and/or police muscle to beat all whites into compliance. If they did, like with the Palestinians, Jews would probably rely less on 'white guilt'. After all, Jews know they got the stick of military power to crush Palestinians and don't bother to instill Pallies with 'Arab Guilt'. But Jews can't do to whites what they do handily with Palestinian men, women, and children. And that is why Jews use power of media and academia to instill white souls with 'white guilt'. THAT is why the subject of American Slavery has come to loom so large. Historically, Latin America enslaved many more blacks, but for the time being, Jews need Latinos as allies against the gringos and yanquis, and so the Narrative on Latin America is, "all the races are so wonderfully mixed, and there is hardly any racism down there, and all is forgiven and forgotten." History is often a game of selectivity. It's not about all that happened but about picking and choosing and shaping narratives to serve the power and agenda of the group that gets to select them.

2. American Credo factor.

Jared Taylor has often said that the Founders envisioned America as an outgrowth of Europe, especially the Anglospheric World and parts of Germania. The Founders also believed it would be a Christian nation despite the absence of an official religion or state church.
But the American Credo was chockful of contradictions from day one. Despite the social realities and personal preferences of the Founders(and the peoples back then), there were powerful tendencies in the American Vision that directed the national future toward universalism and globalism. There wasn't a single credo but competing credos. Some were merely sensed or taken for granted, whereas others were written down as laws and principles. And when one looks at the Constitution, pro-whiteness isn't spelled out. Perhaps, the Founders didn't need to write it down because it was taken for granted. But on the other hand, perhaps the Christian impulse and Enlightenment Values of the time gravitated toward a larger definition of Americanism. So, while the details of Americanism at the founding(and for a century and half) was Anglo-American, Eurocentric, and pro-white, the overarching goal aimed at something bigger. Also, universalism has a loftier perch than particularism. Enlightenment was credo-imperialist in wanting to unite the world with the power of reason and science. Christianity had the missionary zeal of converting the world and saving souls of all peoples. So, despite the many particularist realities of the American founding and history, there was a semi-utopianism that was either idealist or invoked idealism to justify the ambition for more conquest and power. Why did Christianity and Islam win out over more particularist cults and religions?

Consider the Old Testament, full of competing narratives and credos. At times, God is peace-loving and understanding. Other times, He is angry and violent, willing to smite entire peoples. Parts of the Old Testament suggest at the need for peace and understanding between Jews and goyim. Other parts suggest Jews should crush and destroy the goyim. God has many faces in the Old Testament, and one could use it to condemn or justify slavery. After all, Jews fled from bondage from tyrannical Egypt. But Jews also owned slaves, and Jews had no laws against slavery. There are times when God is about justice. Other times, His power seems arbitrary, a matter of whim. Old Testament says God is the only God, the sole Deity for all the world and all mankind. But it also says God has a special relation with Jews. Some Jews interpreted this as God commanding Jews to be light unto all mankind. Other Jews interpreted this to mean Jews alone have souls whereas goyim are like beasts who should be treated like cattle. So, there is no single interpretation of the Old Testament. However, the fact that the Old Testament led to the New Testament and the Koran that came to profoundly impact history suggests that its universalist urge was too powerful to overcome. Of course, Jews rejected it and kept with the Covenant. But some Jews forged a new religion that argued that God is truly for all mankind and not only for Jews. After all, if there is only one God and if He is about love and justice, why shouldn't He bestow His blessing equally unto all the peoples? And Christianity later inspired Islam, another universal faith.

Likewise, despite the contradictions within Americanism from its founding, certain ideas were bound to gain an upper-hand over others. The Founders spoke of liberty, freedom, dignity, and equal justice of mankind in general. They were Enlightenment idealists, and most Americans had a powerful Christian impulse to save the world, extending all the way to the time when Jared Taylor was a child in Japan of Missionary Parents.
History often depends on which elements have more charge, as in electrical charge. Suppose there are 50 of elements A and 50 of elements B. They are even-steven at the start, but suppose elements of A have more charge in them. Thus, they are more active and pull together and cause more commotion. Suppose, in coming together, they create sparks and create even more elements of A. So, A elements go from 50 to 100. In contrast, the elements of B have less charge. They are less active and manage to produce only 10 more of its kind. Over time, it's 100 A vs 60 B. Why did America achieve so much more than Russia since1800? Anglo-American Protestant spirit was far more charged than the Russian soul mired in Orthodox Byzantinism.
Some ideas are dry, some are wet. Some are cold, some are hot. The combination of Enlightenment Principles and Christianity(unmoored from statist controls in Old Europe) added more charge to the universalist impulses in American History. Universalists were often more aggressive and dreamy than the particularists.
Also, universalism was a way to deal with the moral contradiction inherent in the American Enterprise. America expanded by taking lands from the Indian savages who, in some cases, were wiped out. Also, America relied on black slave labor in the South. America could have created a Constitution that specifically said Whites have the right to rule over darkies and the red man, but then, the American Project would have sounded grimly Spartan. Sparta had the brooding Spartans lording over the cowering Helots. It was a dark order. Americans wanted to feel good about themselves. After all, Jefferson spoke of the Pursuit of Happiness. They were moralists and didn't want to feel mean and cruel. So, even though they did cruel things, they wanted to convince themselves that the American Experiment would eventually morally redeem all that had been done. If America had been founded on an island with no natives and without slave labor of another race, perhaps things would have been different. But to insist on a wholly white country in a land taken from the Red Man and labored by the Black Man and furthermore committed to the principles of freedom and fairness was something of a stretch. The very fact that blacks were allowed to become American citizens under the law meant that one didn't need to be white to be American. If blacks could be American like the whites, who was to say peoples from other parts of the world couldn't be Americans one day as well? Surely, whites in the 1860s had no inkling of the mass non-white immigration that would engulf the country a hundred years later, but in making blacks the equal of whites as American citizens(at least in theory), they effectively did away with the idea that only white people could be Americans.

Another factor was that white births simply couldn't keep up with the demands of American development. There was too much land to settle. Too many factories to fill. When Anglo and German immigrants weren't enough, the US looked to Eastern and Southern Europe. A lot of this had to do with white Americans favoring fellow white workers than blacks, but the need to assimilate these Other Europeans further weakened the particularist elements of Americanism. With the Other Europeans also came the radicals, especially among the Jews, many of whom were anarchist or socialist. But Jews were also the most talented capitalists and gave the Anglos a run for the money. Jews wanted more immigration to bring over more of their own kind to the New Land, a more hospitable and tolerant place than the Old World. Also, the greater meritocracy in the US meant that Jews could rise faster and higher, even challenging Wasps for mastery over the nation. Then, it was in the interests of Jews to play up the universalist aspects of Americanism. And yet, the great irony is that Jews were also the most particularist people to have set foot on America. Indeed, Jews weren't aiming to join in the melting pot but to melt the goyim into a hodge-podge so that they would be too mixed and confused to take on rising Jewish Power. The Melting Pot as Jew Stew had the Jews as the chef and the goyim as the ingredients.

In a way, American Guiltism is the flipside of American Narcissism. It's the one who highly regards her own beauty who sees every little blemish as an intolerable ugliness that must be expunged. The myth of American Founding had brave freedom fighters resisting and defeating the British. Americans defined themselves as free people in a republic or democracy, as opposed to Europe that was mostly dominated by kings and aristocrats(until World War I brought an end to monarchical rule). The 'genocide' of the Indians was spun as the great Manifest Destiny, white settlers and freedom-and-opportunity-seeking immigrant folks expanding westward to tame the wilderness and build communities fit for womenfolk and children, with schools and churches, like in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Western genre mythologized this in Hollywood. (Jewish moguls sure funded a lot of 'genocidal' propaganda.) Americans flattered themselves as protectors of the New World(including Central and South America) from the clutches of the Old World. (Of course, Latin America saw North America as its tormentor, but that's another story.) And even though US had slavery, the Civil War Narrative redeemed America. Supposedly, no civilization had ever fought a war to end slavery. The US did because, when push came to shove, Americans are for freedom over bondage. Americans regarded themselves as saviors of Europe in World War I and II. And Americans were also full of themselves as the saviors of the world from communism. So, one of the running themes of Americanism was that United States wasn't content to be just one nation among many. No, it was different. Its destiny was grander than any other nation. America was blessed with great land and resources. It was founded on freedom. It cleansed itself of the sin of slavery with the Civil War that cost so many white lives. Not only did America break free from Old tyrannical Europe but in the 20th century stretched out to defend Europe from German Imperialism, Nazism, and Soviet totalitarianism. So, in retrospect, it seemed like America was bound to be a Nation of Destiny, a superhero nation. And of course, Jews fed on this vanity. Theodore Roosevelt ate it up when Jews flattered America as a special nation. Roosevelt was among the most racially chauvinistic presidents ever. He was a kind of 'white supremacist' even beyond the norms of the day. But even he couldn't resist the portrayal of America as the land of the free, a beacon of light unto the world, and all that.

But when a people have such high regard for themselves, they're bound to be traumatized by proof to the otherwise. It's like the Don Henley song, "End of the Innocence". Now, there was always plenty that was dark, violent, cruel, and crazy about America, but compared to the rest of the world, it wasn't a bad place to be in the 19th and 20th century. In the 19th century, it was far freer than Europe that came under aristocratic rule after Napoleon's failures. And Asia in the 19th century was the beginning of its humiliation(along with renewal). Latin America got mired in stasis and backwardness. Africa was still totally savage. And in the 20th century, even being a Negro living under Jim Crow in the US was a hell of lot better compared to what would befall the fates of those living in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Poland, China, Turkey, and etc. So, relative to the rest of the world, America went from success to success, victory to victory. American Triumphalism became mainstay of the Narrative, and this made a lot of Americans rather naive and 'innocent'. They got to seeing America as the land of baseball, apple pie, five-and-dime stores, and milk shakes at the local drug store. Even Jews couldn't resist this. In Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, Jews across the ocean are facing hell, but the lead character is mainly obsessed with baseball cards and nudie photos of women. The worst thing he can imagine is eating liver and onions for dinner.

And American Amnesia has gotten worse since the boomer 60s. At the very least, white folks prior to the boomers had it pretty tough themselves. Few grew up with privilege. Many worked on farms or factories. Or coal mines. And they had tough parents who whupped them. It's like Pat Buchanan wrote a autobio about his father using the belt on him and his brothers like they was Negroes who ain't picked cotton all day. So, even though many white folks could sympathize with Negroes on some level, they didn't go overboard with 'white guilt' crap because their parents and they themselves had to struggle to make ends meet. They figured life was often hard for them but harder for Negroes. But since the 1960s, the boomers grew up and became huggy-wuggy parents who raised their kids in a world of plenty, leisure, narcissism, and convenience. So, unlike white folks in the past whose sympathy for Negroes was tempered by their own hard knocks in life, the Millennials are 'triggered' by the fact that blacks had it tough. For past whites who had it tough, blacks merely had it tougher. But for Millennials who had it so nice, it was unimaginable that anyone could have it tough. Now, if they had real knowledge of American History, they'd know that most whites didn't have it so good. But as the academia and media are controlled by Jews, the emphasis is almost solely on black hardship(and Jews facing 'antisemitism' and homos persecuted by 'homophobia'). So, Millennials don't compare black hardship of the past with white hardship. If they did, they'd realize blacks had it worse but whites didn't have it so good either. But because they're only told of black hardship, they compare past black experience with their current good times. Instead of comparing black sharecroppers with whites toiling in coal mines, factories, or railroads, they compare blacks with their spoiled white selves immersed in the leisure of watching Netflix and playing video games.
In the past, white journalists came from the school of hard knocks. They had it tough themselves. Many didn't go to fancy schools. So, even though a good number of them were liberal-leaning and could see the fundamental unfairness faced by blacks, they didn't feel like princes with undeserved privileges over blacks. But look at today's Millennial journalists. They grew up in total affluence with huggy-wuggy parents who provided them with everything. They really don't know any hardship. Many went to tony schools and rubbed shoulders with other privileged kids. So, when they read about black reality of past or present(as blacks continue to wallow in violence and misery), they just can't believe it and go all weepy-'woke'.

At any rate, one of the main reasons why American Guilt came to matter more is Americanism has been founded on More Pride. Bigger they are, harder they fall. Bigger one's pride, bigger one's shame when the pride is pricked with evidence to the contrary. A humble man isn't much bothered by the exposure of his failings. He will readily admit, "Nobody's perfect." But a man who is so full of himself as Mr. Wonderful is due for a great fall when it's shown he's not so wonderful.
America calls itself EXCEPTIONAL. Well, exceptional guilt is the flipside of exceptional pride. Hubris is met with Nemesis, and the lesson is America was stupid to be so full of itself. But then, a less ambitious America wouldn't have been America.

3. The third reason as to why American Slavery came to be regarded as especially evil can be illustrated by way of the Guillermo Hypothesis. The problem isn't slavery per se but the enslavement of blacks. Had the US enslaved another people, the guilt complex would be far less. Suppose Americans had decided to use brown natives of South America as slaves. Southern Plantations would have been packed with people who look like Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show). The slaves would have been more docile. There would have been less fear of slave rebellions. Being more docile, the Guillermo-like Gomezers would have made less trouble, and there would have been less reason to whip them. The slavery enterprise would have been less cruel.
Furthermore, slavery might have ended sooner with Southern initiative because the Guillermos would have been less threatening than muscled Negroes with big dongs who be yapping and hollering all the time. A civil war might have been avoided. And after Emancipation, the Guillermos would have been mostly a silent minority. White Men need not have feared Maize Fever. And whites would have continued to dominate sports. Over time, whites would look back and feel sorry about brown slavery, and there would be stuff about how America owes something to the Guillermos who picked cotton and helped build the American Economy. But whites wouldn't feel much guilt because Guillermos are, well, just a bunch of Guillermos, a mediocre bunch. So, whether Guillermos be slaves or free men, they could only amount to serving as the sidekicks of the white race.

But it's different with blacks because, after slavery, blacks became so prominent in sports and pop music. Also, blacks got them boombox voices that secularized white folks hear as the voice of god hisself. Even though US is vilified for its 'racism', the special American Guilt regarding blacks is predicated on a kind of 'neo-racism', the proggy kind. Subconsciously, whites feel they enslaved the superior race. They really feel this way because they hold blacks in awe in athletics, rapping, hollering, and humping. It's the song-dong-strong-wrong dynamics. Whites are obsessed with black musicality. White youths love rap, and European elites are most into reggae. They got jungle fever for black dongs(and twerking black buns). They worship black athleticism and believe in black girl/boy magic. And that's why what they did to blacks seem especially wrong. It's one thing to have enslaved the Guillermos of the world, but it's another thing to have enslaved the Muhammad Ali's, MLK's, Otis Redding, and Long Dong Silvers of the world. Of course, this is 'racist', or 'neo-racist'. 'Anti-racism' would demand that guilt be equal in regard to all peoples as a matter of principle: All Men are Created Equal. While whites ideologically subscribe to such notion, their visceral sense of awe regarding blacks overwhelms any consistency in logic. But then, it's the same in regard to Jews and Palestinians. Whites are so philosemitically smitten with Jews as geniuses and gurus that they are overly sensitive to any tragedy involving Jews but almost totally insensitive to the tribulations of Arabs/Muslims, even if they were mainly caused by Jews and their Western enablers.

Notice whites feel almost nothing for American Indians today even though the latter are, by far, the most tragic people of the Americas and even of the entire world. (Whereas blacks still got Africa and Asians still got Asia in the aftermath of Western Imperialism, American Indians lost their homeland forever.) But it wasn't always so. In the past, American Indians were respected as fierce warriors. Once the dust settled after the bloody and cruel Indian Wars, whites could romanticize Indians as brave warriors, fearsome and worthy foes. And so, for a time, Indians had a certain prestige in the annals of American Tragic Narrative. But with the passing of years, Indians became less visible and significant because they fail to cut it in the fields whites are most obsessed about, sports and pop culture.

Anyway, if we combine factors of 1, 2, and 3, we can understand why America has a special guilt-fixation about black slavery. Muslim World didn't let Jews take over elite institutions and industries. Had Jews gained such power, maybe they would have pushed 'Muslim Guilt' onto the young ones. Whites let Jews take over at the top. Furthermore, unlike Latin American countries that also imported black slaves(even far more than the US), the US was full of itself as the Nation of Destiny. Latin America countries were rather humdrum about their place in the world, their destinies. Americanism was predicated on becoming a world power, a nation like no other, a beacon of freedom, the one that would bring about the End of History. It was born of the contradictions inherent in British Imperialism and formulated as Enlightenment-Imperialism. America was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism, what the Roman Empire was to Greek Civilization.

Though the Founders were mainly focused on securing the fragile republic, the seeds were there at the beginning, and the radiant(and unrealistic) idealism outshone the racial particularism of America as a white nation, much like the sun drowns out the stars. It's like Christianity could emerge only by going beyond Jewishness. Alexander the Great could forge his empire only by going beyond Greek power and prestige. In outlook, the Founders were in many regards temperate and modest men, but the creation mythos of America as a kind of New Eden freed from Old World tyranny was bound to have huge implications. America developed as a kind of experiment where European Civilization would start anew by planting its best ideas about freedom and dignity of man MINUS all the baggage of tradition and prejudice. Also, unlike cramped Western Europe, America seemed boundless in land and resources.
Of late, Europeans reversed this dynamics in the post-WWII era. Increasingly, Europeans came to see America as the land of 'racism' with its black problem. So, by importing tons of blacks and treating them right, Europeans would start Americanism Anew in the EU but without the element of 'racism' and slavery. Blacks would be welcomed as free men, and they would prosper alongside white Europeans as equals. That would show the Americans what Americanism really could have been if white Americans hadn't been so greedy and hypocritical, so 'racist' against blacks. But of course, whites in both US and EU are dummies because blacks are the destructive race, and it has nothing to do with laws coded in books. It's in the coding of DNA that drives blacks to destroy whatever whites build, regardless of whether whites are kindly or meanly disposed toward blacks. But whites are doomed to fall because they are so in awe of blackness. In 2020, blacks laid waste to so many communities. They exhibited new levels of savagery and wantonness. But after all that, whites in Milwaukee are besides themselves with Negro-worship and Negro-lust because black 'heroes' won the basketball championship for the city. Whites are dummies, or whummies.

SOME CRAZY THINGS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE ABOUT BLACKS

Notes on Review of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI(directed by David Lean) by Trevor Lynch

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.

In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.

Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.

Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."

At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.

Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.

Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.

At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.

The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.

Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.

This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.

This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.

the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.

More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.

William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like American soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.

I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.

Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.

One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in Sergio Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.

Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.

To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.

As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?

White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.

Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.

But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.

The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should you be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.

And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man mattered in World War I. This new Modern War wasn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes fighting for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier was worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.

Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.

Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.

Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.

It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTER having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTER. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.