What is meant by ‘story’ and ‘state’ in the context of what follows? ‘Story’ means the history of a nation or people, both actual(often inconvenient) and official(aka the dominant narrative). ‘State’ here means the natural state of things regardless of the story of events. Suppose a skyscraper was built. The ‘story’ would be the telling of who and what were involved in the construction project. The ‘state’ would refer to the natural state or quality of the building materials and/or the natural state or ability of the architects, engineers, and/or the construction crew. No matter how riveting the ‘story’, the building is bound to suffer from an inferior ‘state’ of things. Or consider two athletes. One is mediocre in his natural assets(or the ‘state’) but heroic and inspirational in his training regimen, i.e. his is quite a ‘story’. In contrast, the other athlete is superior as a matter of ‘state’ but hardly has a ‘story’ in terms of drama and inspiration. One thing for sure, no matter how inspired the story of the inferior athlete, his natural ‘state’ will never be on par with the naturally superior athlete. True, a well-trained inferior athlete could beat an ill-trained superior athlete, or an athlete with a worthy ‘story’ can best an athlete with the advantageous ‘state’, as happened when Buster Douglas achieved the seemingly impossible feat of knocking out Mike Tyson.

The main problem of race relations(which in the US boils down to dealing with blacks, as most non-black groups get along, more or less) derives from the confusion of the Story and the State, often leading to the conflation of the Story with the State. The artificial STORY of blacks in the US shouldn’t be confused with the natural STATE of blacks as the product of evolution. The black story in the US is artificial because the white race(especially the Anglos), more than any other, rose above natural limitations through the power of science, technology, and industry. Thus, a relatively small island nation, Great Britain, was able to conquer much of the world and subjugate many peoples on all continents. This power, a historical advantage over others(even over most Europeans, not least the Irish), was artificially produced, and it gave the Anglos(and their peer competitors) great leverage around the world in terms of conquest, exploitation, and expansion. But, it didn’t mean that the natural state of an average Anglo was innately or permanently superior to those of non-Anglos, be they European or non-European. Anglos could keep their collective superiority as long as they remained ahead of the rest or if the rest failed to wake up and change their ways. Anglos embarked on a great story, one of advancement in myriad fields and a national ethos that balanced hierarchy with individuality, stability with dynamism, and this story would find new pastures in North America.

But as with all great stories, there was a dark side. British Imperialism, like all before it, racked up quite a body count, including that of the British themselves. In search for profit, the British engaged in plunder, drug trade, slave trade, and the grimmest of all, the eradication of whole populations in North America and Australia.
Jews and Anti-Whites latched onto this dark side of the story to gain an advantage over white folks. For Jews, the reasons are both vengeful and supremacist. For all their gains in the West, Jews have also been regarded as the odd-looking Other, even as the Christ-Killer tribe. For Jews, this ‘antisemitism’ culminated in the Holocaust. In other words, Jews not only gained the most but lost the most in the Western experience. And for all the post-WWII rhetoric about democratic forces defeating Evil Fascism, Jews know that anti-Jewish feelings of all kinds were rife across the West; and besides the Americans finally came around to entering World War II as a Race War against the ‘Japs’, i.e. as Charles Lindbergh argued, the Nazi Germany’s war on the Jews and the US war against the Japanese had something in common though, ironically for both sides, Germany and Japan were allies(but then the capitalist democratic US had its main ally in the Soviet Union, a totalitarian communist state).

But there is also a supremacist side to the Jewish anti-white agenda. Jews alone have gained power over the whites in the West, and they plan on keeping it, which is best guaranteed by burdening whites with ‘forever guilt’ that robs them of pride and agency, forcing them to always defer to Jews(and their proxies) for approval and forgiveness. Jewish Power wormed into the heart of Psychristianity and re-coded the biggest sins to be ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. And so, we have the ADL as the arm of Jewish Supremacist Power, always reminding white people that (1) they suck and (2) they should serve Jews, who are awesome. And these constant reminders are maintained by the Jewish control of the Narrative, or the Big Story. As the selective Jewish-narrated Story goes, white people of the West, Christian or secular, amassed immense power and used it to kick Jews around(on account of them being Christ-Killers or greedy merchants) and used black Africans as slaves. And, European-Imperialists conquered non-white lands and imposed their ‘racist’ will on the natives and colonized entire swaths of land.

Granted, given that Jews are now the ruling overlords of the West, they are less keen on bashing imperialism per se as they’re committed to using the US(as the Jewel in the Crown of the Empire of Judea) to impose their will on all the world, engaging in threats and wars, military or financial, against non-compliant countries. Especially the Neocon and Neolib Jews have even argued that the US has the right and responsibility to be the world hegemon, the Good Empire, presumably because Jews get to define the terms of aggression.
Besides, colonization, once a reviled term in the age of anti-imperialism following the end of World War II, is part and parcel of what globalism is all about, though less about whites colonizing non-white lands than about nonwhites colonizing white lands and each other’s lands(as Mexico has been flooded by non-Mexicans not only from the rest of Latin America but from Asia and Africa as well).

Hell in Lampedusa, a situation completely out of control, a real unprecedented apocalypse https://t.co/drJGG33zBu pic.twitter.com/QcjQCs4OqY

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) September 14, 2023

So, the Jewish-favored Story now fixates mostly on the evils of ‘antisemitism’(negativity toward Jews), ‘racism’(mainly negativity toward blacks), and ‘homophobia’(distaste or disgust about homosexual behavior and related deviances). Associating those groups with certain selective STORIES is advantageous to Jews in browbeating and berating whites with reminders of ‘white guilt’ and the eternal need for ‘white redemption’.

Such Story-centrism is useful to Jews because it’s true enough that Western History and the White Experience were mostly about keeping a watchful eye on Jews as anti-Christians, scheming Semites, or problematic radicals. And blacks arrived in the New World mostly as slaves, and even following Emancipation, there were many laws and practices that treated them as second-class citizens. And until relatively recently, even the secular scientific community regarded homosexuals as deviants, perverts, and/or sickos. And the religious community regarded homos as soul-sick, and many ordinary people associated homosexuals with criminals who corrupt and even molest children.

Based on such histories, it wasn’t difficult to construct stories as victim narratives, even saintly narratives. And given that Jews gained control of the academia & media and given their tribal-radical will to force whites into submissive roles, these Stories had less to do with what really happened than how they serve Jewish Power. So, the Emmett Till story has been made into a b/w morality tale when the kid, though certainly not deserving to be murdered, was a lowlife punk and lout who understandably drove those white men into a state of rage. (If a white teenager acted like Till to a black woman, black men would have kicked his ass and killed him in no time, and most ‘woke’ types would support the black violence as righteous retribution for that nasty white boy who disrespected a proud black woman.) So, the Matthew Shepard Story was pretty much cut from a whole cloth. All evidence suggests he got killed over a drug-deal gone wrong, but the Jewish-run media ran with hysterical accounts of how some saintly homokin lad was set upon by a bunch of anti-’gay’ bigots who decided to terrorize and murder him just because he was into fecal-penetration. And in the Leo Frank story, the entire country has been led to believe that some stalwart Jewish citizen of a Southern Community was falsely accused of raping and murdering a white girl and then was lynched for his Jewishness by a hateful mob. Like all stories, these narratives have more to do with who told them and why than with what really happened.

The problem is these Stories are confused with the States(or the natural state) of these groups. To illustrate this point, consider a man and a big beast, be it a tiger, bear, or a gorilla. Suppose the story is as follows: The man gained artificial dominance over the beast by teamwork with other men, the use of the whip & electric prod, chains & ropes, and all manners of psychological manipulation, whereby the beast was made to overestimate and fear the man’s power and furthermore to revere and obey him as the rightful master(despite his vileness).
Obviously, the Story is of the man dominating, by hook and by crook, the beast and exploiting it for his own interests. The Story would seem to be about the cunning man and the poor beast. With an upper hand over the beast, the man had ample opportunity to abuse and mistreat it. But, would it be sensible to conflate this Story with the natural States of the man and the beast?

pic.twitter.com/5e9NDBLGxQ

— 1000 WAYS TO DIE (@1000waystod1e) September 8, 2023

In terms of their natural states, the man is a helpless, even pathetic, figure compared to the powerful beast. Robbed of his artificial instruments of control and manipulation, the man would find himself at the mercy of the powerful beast, much like a hiker in the woods that stumbles upon a Grizzly, a cougar, or an irate moose.
Therefore, even though the particular Story of the man and the beast would lead us to sympathize with the poor beast that was mistreated and exploited by the greedy and/or sadistic man, one would have to be a fool to characterize the natural dynamics between a man and a beast on the basis of that story. One would still have to recognize the fact that the natural state of the beast is many times more powerful than that of the man. Stripped of his artificial advantages, the man finds himself virtually helpless in the presence of the beast. In other words, never confuse the story for the state.

Or consider a story between a man and a woman. There was a movie called MISERY based on a Stephen King novel directed by Rob Reiner, that wretched fat-bald Zionist. As the story goes, the man, an author, is injured in an accident and the woman takes him into her home. It turns out she’s a fan of the author and comes upon a manuscript where her favorite character is fated to die. It fills her with rage, and she exploits his incapacitated state to torment him in all manner of ways, even going so far as to smash his ankles.
On the basis of the story, the woman clearly had power over the man and abused it in vile and wicked ways. So, the story goes. But should such a story serve to illustrate the natural states of men and women? In their natural states, men are notably bigger and stronger than women. Devoid of artificial factors favoring the women — like the female being a princess in ordering around men as serfs and servants — , the natural state of man favors the man over the woman.

In a deserted island scenario, the man will have mastery over the woman… like in Lina Wertmuller’s SWEPT AWAY where a role reversal of master-and-servant(or slave) takes place when a rich woman finds herself on an island with a lower-class male hired as servant on a yacht. Prior to the misfortune, the woman had it all and bossed around the humiliated servant who held back his anger as part of the job. But as time passes on the island, the man gradually exerts his power over the woman. The natural state of man-and-woman is revealed. Man is bigger and stronger than the woman, and in the natural state, the woman submits to the man.

Likewise, imagine what would happen between a man and a bull if they faced off one-on-one in the arena. The reason why the bullfighter usually wins is because he has a whole array of artificial advantages to back him up against the bull. The deserted-island-challenge would bare so much that is butt-nakedly true. The bull would gore and stomp the bared-fisted man.

Or, imagine a Jewish sports mogul and a black athlete. The former obviously wields far more power, and the Negro athlete has to defer to the Jewish boss man, like when Terry Crews couldn’t do anything about a Jewish executive grabbing his nuts in Hollywood. If he acted uppity, especially about them ‘Jewish mothafuc*az’, he’d be in hot water in no time and would likely lose his gig in sports, as not only would he be fired but rejected by all other teams that play by the Jewish rule-book on the play-or-nay.
But suppose the Jewish mogul and the black athlete end up stranded on some deserted island. The black man being bigger, stronger, and tougher, the Jew would be totally at the mercy of the ghastly Negro, whose physical strength would far outweigh that of the relatively pee-wee Jew.

Granted, intelligence is a natural trait/advantage, much like physical traits. However, intelligent might, unlike physical strength, is materialized and maximized only through artificial means. Even someone as dumb as Mike Tyson can throw a punch and knock someone out right there and then, but intelligence requires some time and effort to be manifested as a force. One-on-one, primitive man was no match for a big beast, but he could use his smarts to make weapons like spears and bow-and-arrows and coordinate with others to kill much bigger and powerful beasts and turn them into ‘game’. Jews played a significant role in the invention of the atomic bomb, but that project required complex organization and massive funding. Besides, it’s not as if anyone can use the Bomb akin to throwing a punch. Thus, despite the crucial factor of intelligence in man’s mastery over nature and in the West’s domination over the Rest, its overall effect is collective and diffuse than individual and concentrated. So many talents went into the creation and construction of fighter jets, but the fighter pilot needs permission to take off and do combat.

To be sure, intelligence in the form of wit can be used instantaneously as a verbal weapon to gain mastery over others, but this is true only in a social order where wit is favored over brute violence(like the kind that reduces the character of BARRY LYNDON into a social outcast). Thus, in a rule-governed society of gentlemen, one could demonstrate one’s superiority with wit and demolish dimmer opponents. But try that in a world of witless thugs, and you end up toothless.
In a world where eruptions of violence are frowned upon, the superior wit could out-duel and subjugate the rivals, which is one reason why Jews gained much in the Anglo world of manners and wits. Though wit is a natural asset, it gains advantage only in an artificially enforced social order that suppresses certain other natural attributes, especially those associated with savages, barbarians, ruffians, and louts.

The Story of the past several centuries has greatly distorted our understanding of the State, or the natural state of things. Such distortions have been a common feature of history. The Chinese, for example, so confident and arrogant in their gloriously storied civilization, miscalculated their position in the world in which other civilizations had passed them by in key areas, not just science and technology.
Mistaking the Story for the State was also a feature of the late Roman Empire as it collapsed and faded into oblivion. Once the Roman edge was gone, the long triumphant story of the empire meant nothing as the Romans in disarray were on their own to deal with the chaos all around them from collapsed borders and marauding barbarians. One-on-one against the non-Romans, the Romans had no natural advantage and, against certain Germanic tribes, found themselves at a disadvantage as the average Germanic warrior was bigger and brawnier than an average Roman.

Perhaps, with the coming fall of Western Civilization, the story-distorted(or ‘distoried’) view of Europeans and whites will finally fade from history. This ‘distory’ has negatively influenced both the pro-whites and the anti-whites. The pro-whites in the Age of Empire, so sure of their might and so proud of their achievements, overestimated the racial edge of the Europeans over the rest of the world. It may well have been that certain groups of Europeans came to possess certain traits that made for higher intelligence, more individuality, and greater creativity, but exceptional talents were rare among whites, most of whom were merely ordinary. The overvaluation of white qualities even led to the rise of white supremacist tendencies, with the dire consequence of either excessive aggression against the Other or excessive complacency in the conviction that the non-white world could never catch up to the innately superior white world.

But this ‘distory’ also impacted the anti-whites, among whom conscientious and/or self-loathing whites have been prominent. The anti-white cult of ‘white guilt’ could only be the product of prolonged white predominance around the world, indeed to the point where so many white people came to take their power and privilege for granted, without which they would have been less likely to indulge in self-flagellation and virtue-signaling. It’s like people who tend to have a rosy view of animals and a damning view of humans tend to live safely apart from nature. They can wax romantic about lions as noble beasts because they face zero chance of being devoured by lions(or any dangerous animal). They are so sure of their privileged position as humans on the planet that they take for granted their mastery over nature; thus, their emotions can afford to be generous to the seemingly beleaguered creatures of the wild. But even today, black Africans who face the very real prospect of being hunted by lions or other dangerous beasts entertain no such notions.

The reason why so many anti-white whites feel as they do is because history, as far as they can remember, was always dominated by the West. Even as they reject the notions of white supremacy, white power, and/or white privilege, their attitudes are very much the self-indulgent product of the West’s longevity in dominating and leading the world.
Indeed, the fact that these anti-white whites expect all the world to conform to neo-Western standards of ‘diversity, inclusivity, equity’, globo-homo, and Negrolatry is an unwitting indication that their old habits of domination have merely taken on a new color. Their conviction that they are ‘more evolved’ because they subscribe to Globo-Homo is a sure sign that they know best. For them, ‘diversity’ doesn’t really mean respecting the true diversity of races, cultures, narratives, and values around the world but that all the diverse peoples must be brought under the same umbrella of agendas, narratives, and values as concocted by Western Institutions. Even as Western institutions increasingly fill up with nonwhite players, they are less in service to the interests and needs of nonwhites around the world than to the globalist agenda favored by the Western Elites who take their marching orders from Jewish Supremacists as the new master race.

Even though, historically speaking, the Western Empire was limited in power and scope prior to the rise of France & England and even though the rise of Northern Europe was a rather sudden and shocking development in the past several centuries, the domination and the transformation of the entire world under the West was so vast and profound that it feels as if Real History happened only in the last few centuries.
This development was unlike the empires of old. Even the great empires throughout history had peer rivals and peer contenders to the throne of the greatest civilization. The Romans at their height failed to conquer Persia and knew of a great Chinese civilization far away.
Furthermore, even the most advanced civilization wasn’t decisively advantaged over their enemies. Romans mostly fought with swords, spears, shields, and crossbows, as did their enemies, civilized or barbarian. The great Chinese civilization could be overrun by Mongol hordes on horseback, and when the Europeans arrived in the 19th Century, China had for nearly three centuries been ruled by the Manchu dynasty that came to power by conquest with the aid of Mongol archers. So, no civilization, however vast and mighty, felt invulnerable. Roman legions vigilantly guarded the borders and were always on the lookout for danger. China built vast networks of walls to keep out the barbarians from the north. When push came to shove, it all came down to which side had more men, horses, swords, spears, bows & arrows, and the organization. If civilizations slipped in their preparedness for war, they could be defeated even by barbarian armies.

But the rise of the West changed all the rules. The West, which had once been vulnerable to attacks from Huns, Mongols, Moors, Turks, and Arabs, grew so powerful in technology and industry that the idea of the non-West conquering the West became a distant memory, even a joke. The West grew so powerful that the main question became how many wars could it win overseas than how many wars would it have to fight to defend the homeland from foreigners. Indeed, the main wars in Europe in the modern era became European vs European as no non-European power could even dream to challenge or threaten the West.
In contrast, the West could venture to any part of the world, wage war, easily defeat the natives, and impose its will. To the Chinese, the Great Wall made historical sense as barbarians could easily storm across on horseback. But the idea that distant nations could send ships halfway or more around the globe to enforce their will on China and win was unimaginable, even laughable. Even if the West happened upon superior technology, how could its military travel so far and bend the will of a civilization as deep and rich as China? Well, it did.

And if the West could do that to distant China with a huge population and civilizational depth, what could it do to the rest of the world with far fewer people, some still stuck in barbarism or savagery? Even in faraway places, the main conflict wasn’t between the West and the non-West but between the various empires of the West: The Spanish, the British, the French, the Dutch, the German, with even tiny Belgium getting in on the act.
And when a small island nation like Britain could build a navy that could move across the world and easily vanquish big China, what might the vast U.S. do upon mustering its full potential? Europeans were formidable all on their own but with their descendants on North American soil with its as yet untapped and seemingly inexhaustible riches, what could possibly stand in the way of the West.

Then, it’s hardly surprising that, pro-white or anti-white, the Western view(and that of the entire world) was premised on the certainty and persistence of Western Power and White Privilege. For the pro-whites, it was reason enough to glorify the West and justify white pride. For the anti-whites, it was reason enough to argue against excessive white power and Western dominance. Whatever the case, the anti-whites could play at ‘conscience’ and ‘fairness’ precisely because they took for granted the continuance of Western domination and triumphalism, though there are hardcore anti-whites who hope for a total collapse of the West as the apotheosis of all evil.

Given the West’s overwhelming domination over the Rest, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries when no native stone was left unturned in any part of the world, and given that Western technology, already far advanced over other civilizations by the 18th century, accelerated exponentially at even a more maddening pace, modernity has been almost entirely a Western creation. And because of the importance of the West in the modern era, world historians naturally emphasized European history above all others, if only to understand the origins and the threads that led from the humble(actually not so humble considering the seminal achievements of the ancient Greeks) beginnings to the world-shaking civilizations of the modern period.

Even recent efforts to ‘remedy’ the Western-dominant historiography have simply been variations of Eurocentrism. For instance, much of the non-white narratives revolve around the resistance to Western power and influence. Much of what’s known as black history is centered on how black Africa was impacted by the white world. China’s ‘century of humiliation’ narrative is an unwitting admittance that the Chinese were left in the dust by Western progress in so many fields and that China’s rebirth came by the way of emulating the West in science, technology, organization, and values. Also, so much of what the non-West knows about its past owes to Western archaeology and modern historiography that led to a kind of worldwide Renaissance, or rebirth of the past, e.g. the Cambodians and Angkor Wat.
Even when the West is harshly rebuked, the moral arguments are usually drawn from Western political philosophy, i.e. the ‘evils of slavery’, a practice or institution that had hardly perturbed the non-Western World. And even the non-West’s points of pride and/or exaggerated claims are premised on Western ways and norms, e.g. American Indians claiming that the Founding Fathers learned of democracy from the indigenous tribal folks of the New World or the notion that the non-West was teeming with great mathematicians, scientists, and entrepreneurs, e.g. Hindus figured out relativity long before Albert Einstein did.

Anyway, for as far as anyone could remember, the Story has been about Western domination, which served as the basis for ‘white supremacist’ pride in the innate superiority of the white race, as well as for ‘white guilt’ atonement calling for redemptive white compassion as the only proper attitude for a people both blessed and cursed with so much systemic wealth, power, privilege, and what-have-you.

This Story, so entrenched in World Historiography via the academia and the media, took on a ‘permanentizing’ quality in the way that peoples and cultures were perceived.
Within this Story were two main schools: The race-realist and race-construct-ist. The race-realists argued that it was only natural and right that the West came to rule the world because the white race had the right combination of intelligence, creativity, individuality, and inquisitiveness that led it to global prominence. Such race-realism wasn’t necessarily ‘white supremacist’ as plenty of its adherents opposed overweening imperialism and preferred the national model, i.e. whether whites have superior qualities or not, they should leave the rest of the world alone for the most part and mind their own business and borders.
The opposing school, especially influenced by disingenuous Jews who privately knew otherwise, argued that race is just a social construct and that differences among human groups are negligible or trivial — yes, you’re just as likely to find Mike Tysons among the Vietnamese and Albert Einsteins among the Zimbabweans, LOL — and, furthermore, the reasons for the triumph of the West were purely the accidents of history, the product of geography, geology, climate, cultural crossbreeding, and the like.

So, even though there’s no denying the unique place of the West in world history, it had nothing to do with racial differences or something unique among the white race. The ‘accidental’ theory is a more generous explanation from the race-construct-ist school, and it can be found in Jared Diamond’s GUNS, STEEL, AND GERMS. It says whites gained more in power, wealth, and influence not because of their evil and greed but because of the fortunes of history and geography. The implication is that what happened in the West could have happened anywhere with the right ‘accidents’, e.g. if black Africans had access to horses, for example. Oddly though according to Diamond, the environment affects animal genes but not human genes. For instance, he argues that the African elephant and the zebra couldn’t be tamed because they’re overly aggressive, unlike the Asian elephant and horses outside Africa. Now, if the African environment made the African elephant more aggressive and volatile than the Asian elephant(and made the Zebra far more fidgety than the horse), why couldn’t it have made blacks more aggressive and impulsive than the other races? Still, despite Diamond’s willful blind-spots, his explanations don’t necessarily vilify the West and its achievements.

In contrast, there’s been a whole school of thought that finally culminated in ‘wokeness’ that argues that Western domination has essentially been the product of unprecedented greed, sadism, and virulence that have been unique to the white race. Some see it as a collective character flaw but some go even further, implying that there’s something in the white gene that makes white people colder and more heartless, more reptilianly ‘rational’, a kind of ‘hole in the soul’.
Some trace the wickedness not to white genetics but to the false consciousness of ‘whiteness’, i.e. white people could have been decent and normal like the rest of the human race, BUT they woke up on the wrong side of the bed and began to think ‘racially’ and became ‘racists’ in dividing the world between the ‘whites’ and everyone else. Thus, it’s this notion of ‘whiteness’ that made whites soul-sick.

It’s almost as if ‘whiteness’ and racial ideas in general are like the fall of Babel that led to the division of humanity into various acrimonious groups. Indeed, some argue that most of the tensions among nonwhites are the product of whites setting various groups against one another. Now, it’s true that white imperialists did play the game of divide-and-rule, but it’s long been a universal game practiced by all peoples. Besides, it’s the West that brought all the world together, for better or for worse. If not for the West, would the Chinese and Hindus even be in Africa and would blacks even be in Japan and Venezuela? Also, the main divide-and-rule game in the modern world is controlled by Jews who foment wars all over the Middle East and Ukraine and who sic nonwhites on whites, as well as siccing blacks on nonblacks(whites and nonwhites) to remind people of the pecking order of which groups matter MORE than others.

At the wonkiest end of the anti-white spectrum is the fantasy that many parts of the non-West were on the cusp of some great renaissance or breakthrough all on their own, but this great dawn was prevented by the arrival of whites who snuffed out the native fire. In popular culture, it led to the Wakanda myth that implied all of black Africa would be one super-rich mecca but for the coming of European imperialism, ROTFL. And I suppose the American Indians were about to turn their tipis into rockets to the stars, but the Anglos arrived and put an end to that indigenous NASA-like enterprise.

The prevailing Western Story or the official narrative favors the race-construct-ist view in both the ‘accidental’ and ‘malicious’ versions: (1) Whites just got lucky due to certain factors and advanced ahead of the rest and (2) Whites were especially greedy and domineering because of a genetic/spiritual disease or because they bought into the ‘racist’ notion of ‘whiteness’ that instilled their minds with arrogant, supremacist, and contemptuous view of the other races. Such a view also implies that when nonwhites act badly, they are acting ‘white’. For example, if a black kill other blacks, gee, maybe he’s acting like a ‘white supremacist’.

Of course, there are endless ways in which any history can be spun. Heroes can be made into villains and vice versa; one people’s liberation is another people’s oppression. Heaven knows there have been countless takes on the French Revolution ranging from awesomely magnificent to wholly calamitous. And for about a hundred years following the Civil War, the US narrative on the South was more-or-less sympathetic as plenty of whites in the North identified more with whites in the South than with blacks in the north or south.

But what matters most is the Story in the Now as most people are amnesiac and incurious beyond what is taught to them in schools and reiterated in the media. The Now is a deeply troubling time for two factors: The rise of emotional infantilism and Jewish Supremacism. A phenomenon like ‘wokeness’ wouldn’t be possible without the infantilism that is a sucker for every fad and fashion. We live in the era when nurses do Tiktok dance videos during a ‘pandemic’. It’s the age of tattoos, piercings, and stupid colored hair, even among the members of the elites whose idea of the highest good is Globo-Homo, Tranny-Tyranny, and the cult of George Floyd.
Even more troubling is the total lock on all the institutions and industries by Jewish Power. For all the talk of diversity, counter-arguments aren’t tolerated by the powers-that-be that insist upon all the diverse groups in the West bowing down to the three gods: Jewsteronomy, Negrolatry, and Globo-Homo.

Indeed, even the gains in free speech and free expression since the Sixties, ironically spearheaded by Jewish groups, have been eroded under the Jewish lock on all the power centers. If, in the past, Jews were most supportive of free speech, they are now the biggest proponents of censorship, or more accurately Censchwarzship as THEY get to decide what is ‘free speech’ or ‘hate speech’.
If you want to know how this works, just ask the Palestinians and the supporters of BDS. If, in the past, the Jewish Perspective was merely one influential voice among others — who remembers a time when the ‘Arabists’ contended for influence with the Zionist Neocons? — , it is now just about the ONLY VOICE that matters.
When finally the internet seemed to change the rules of the game by giving everyone equal access to the marketplace of ideas, the Jewish Mafia in the Big Tech, Big Finance, Law Firms, Academia, Media, and the Deep State made sure that certain voices would be banned or at least shadowbanned. When even the president of the US could be deleted by Twitter on account of Jewish pressure, we know the US is little more than a Jewish Gangster Paradise. And the Covid hysteria and the woefully disparate justice by the courts in sentencing MAGA types and BLM-Antifa types, not to mention all the ritual pardoning of Jewish crooks, make it even more plain-as-day.

One thing for sure, principles such as integrity and honor are utterly absent among the Jewish elites whose obsession with power and wealth knows no bounds. The very people who kvetch endlessly about ‘holocaust deniers’ haven’t to this day admitted that Leo Frank raped and murdered Mary Phagan or that Israel was created through Nakba pogroms against Palestinians. Utterly shameless, they work with ISIS in Syria and ‘Neo-Nazi’ elements in Ukraine, all the while bellowing endlessly about the threat of Muslim terrorism and the dangers of resurgent Nazism. But then, these are the same people who howl about Iran-getting-nukes while ignoring the fact that Israel has 200 nukes aimed right at Iran. Why white people ever thought they could come to any terms with such a pathological obsessive group is indeed a mystery, but then maybe not. When push comes to shove, most whites are wheaks or whummies, and Jews had the chutzpah to keep pushing until the whites finally relented instead of pushing back.

The Official Story is, of course, as follows: History-that-matters is about whites conquering, dominating, enslaving, exploiting, genociding, abusing, humiliating, and etc. the other peoples of the world. But most tragic of all was what befell the Jews, blacks, and homos because they’re special. Whites did bad things to other peoples as well, but that is less important unless there’s an angle that Jews can exploit. For example, it’s hardly problematic that the West has been bombing and invading the Middle East and North Africa since the end of the Cold War because those wars benefitted Zion. Indeed, Jews and their shabbos goy cuck minions insist that the US military remain in Syria(and threw a fit when Donald Trump tried to pull it out), and in the Obama years, the very ‘liberals’ who’d condemned the Iraq War were cheering for the bombing of Tripoli.
However, when these Arabs or Muslims come to the West and join with the grievance industry against ‘white supremacism’, they are more than welcome, especially if they flash BLM signs and wave globo-homo flags. Notice that even when they’re welcome, they are compelled to prioritize the holier groups above themselves, i.e. they must justify Arab-ness and Muslim-ness by submissively associating it with homos and blacks. Now, naturally the Arabs and Muslims don’t want to suck up to Jews and Zionists, and that is precisely why Jews use proxy groups to gain influence by indirect means. If Arabs and Muslims won’t bow down to Jews, their sucking up to BLM and Globo-Homo nevertheless makes them subservient to Jewish-controlled agendas and causes that pushes other concerns to the backburner. Besides, the black elites and homos in the deep state are totally owned by Jews who’ve favored them for positions and prizes. For all his Muslim-sounding name, Barack Hussein Obama was a total shill of the Jews.

It poses a challenge to the anti-white narrative when so much of the globalist agenda is the product of and inseparable from the White Story. Diversity on the global scale, for instance, wouldn’t exist but for the forcible fusion of the whole world under Western hegemony. Certainly, South America wouldn’t be so diverse without the Portuguese and Spanish empire-building that not only forced the white settlers on native lands but brought over millions of blacks and then imported many more Europeans and even Asians as immigrants. And in emigrating to white lands, be they Europe or North America(or Australia), nonwhites are participating in a globalist world order formulated by whites, even if under the fatal influence of Jews who seek to use Diversity against whites in a divide-and-rule game among the goyim.

It’s a schizo state of affairs when whites and nonwhites alike in the West are instructed by the Jewish-run academia, media, and the state to blame and revile Historic Whiteness for all the evils and wrongs while, at the same time, being welcomed to participate in the white-created and still white-run systems to impose Western power and influence on the whole world. The Big Idea is to blame whites for their historic oppression of nonwhites but then to have nonwhites in the West join forces with whites under the helm of Jews to wage war on much of the non-Western World, e.g. Arab-Americans should serve the US in threatening and bombing the Middle East, Chinese-Americans should work for the US against China, Hindu-Americans should do the bidding of the lone superpower against India whose role is to play second fiddle to contain China. And even though globo-homo is wholly a degenerate creation of Western Civilization gone fruity-rotten, the nonwhites in the West are required to spread the madness to their countries of origin.

Logically, if whiteness is problematic, then stuff that white people like must also be problematic. Take Zionism and Jews. White people are the biggest brown-nosing cuck-maggots when it comes to Zionism and its imperialist agenda. Yet, this aspect of whiteness in support of Jewish supremacism isn’t excoriated but presented as an exemplar for all other races to follow. It seems whites who value whiteness are evil whereas whites who vilify whiteness are okay as, in their rejection of their own identity, they are prone to serve another identity, which usually happens to be Jewish(or Negro and Homo as proxies of Jewish Power) as Jews control the academia and the media.

Given the endless Stories about white power, domination, and villainy, it’s become something of a staple, even a permanent fixture, in the minds of many people, whites and nonwhites alike, that whiteness = privilege, wealth, advantage, domination, supremacism, and the like. In other words, the Story has become the State. As such, it applies not only to rich and privileged whites(as they do exist all over the world) but to all whites, even the down-and-out ones who face drug addiction & death in the US or the endangered Boer farmers in South Africa who face the daily threat of being mauled to death by unhinged Negro savages. (If anything, the rich and privileged whites, by way of virtue-signaling and donations to the ‘correct’ causes, are generally less vilified than the less fortunate whites who must struggle to make ends meet and often clash with nonwhites over limited resources. Rich and privileged whites, to keep their goodies, will make symbolic gestures and financial contributions in favor of blacks, homos, and Jews in order to gain ‘woke’ credits while throwing the lesser whites to the wolves. A white truck driver is more likely to be accused of ‘white supremacism’ than some rich white a-hole living in Martha’s Vineyard.)

In all its absurdity, even whites of Eastern European background are tagged with ‘white privilege’ and the ‘history of racism’ even though they had nothing to do with Western imperialist expansion around the world. More absurd yet, even yellows are sometimes lumped together with whites, as if they too are responsible for the white man’s mistreatment of blacks. If reparations become a thing in California, yellows and browns will have to foot much of the bill. Never mind California was taken from Mexico. And never mind all the black soldiers who served in Asian wars and did their part in mass-murdering people by the bushel over there. But then, browns and yellows share a common genetic ancestry and tend to be passive and weak-willed, hardly capable of forming their own identities, interests, and narratives and instead look to the dominant power to provide them instead.

The Story affects not only our perception of the presumably natural state of whites but of the natural states of the groups whose Stories became intertwined with Western History. China and India have their own grievance schools in regards to the West that tend to narrowly emphasize the negative aspects of European and/or American domination in the last few centuries. Most striking is how these narratives aren’t merely meant to be reminders of certain historical periods but quasi-permanent fixtures or the eternal state of things between the West and the non-West. For China, the Century-of-Humiliation Narrative still informs the true state of relations between China and the West(whose power is now embodied in the US) even though the Chinese surely know that Jews now rule over the Anglos who’d once been at the forefront of Western world hegemony.
Apparently in the minds of the Chinese, the US is like the magic ring in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. For all the admirable qualities of America, becoming American brings out the overweening, insatiable, and the domineering spirit of whomever settles there; and even if not all groups in the US become Ugly Americans(now best embodied by the Jews), they invariably end up serving the dominant group(s) with the mad will to take over America and then the world because a messianic-imperial gene is very much part of the American Ideological DNA, essentially evolved from the highly competitive spirit of the Anglos, Afros(in sports and music), and Jews(in their portable tribal centrism, i.e. if the Chinese feel as part of the Middle Kingdom in China, Jews feel they are the center of the universe wherever they are). Now, with the vain homos thrown into the mix, the US looks upon the entire world as a fashion-show walkway on which to strut its stuff as the coolest and baddest shit in the world.

India too has a grievance industry in regards to the West, in some ways more resentful than that of the Chinese as India has been under British rule for two centuries. Even some of the things that the Indians value most about their own country owes a good deal to the British. “World’s biggest democracy” got its political system from the Brits. The very villains in their Narrative, the British, are also the source of so much that is now essentially Indian, including the country itself that took shape as a geo-political construct of the British, much like Malaysia and Indonesia are largely artificial ‘national’ constructs resulting not so much from indigenous identity but the legacy of which European power ruled over what: British over what became Malaysia and the Dutch over what became Indonesia. More than the Chinese, except for maybe the people in Hong Kong, the Indians have an intense love/hate thing going with the British. They have a long list of gripes, some of them substantial, but they also know it was under the Anglo umbrella that a Hindu revival happened(not least due to the defeat of the Muslim Mughals at the hands of the British) and that the Indian diaspora gained considerable wealth and influence all around the world, from Africa to Britain itself(where South-Asians are the biggest property holders in London) to North America where they’re among the most successful ethnic groups.

Given the great changes in world politics and the balance of powers, one would expect the Chinese and the Indians to recalibrate the STATE of affairs between themselves and the West but it remains locked in the STORY of past imperialism and the ‘humiliation’. It’s true enough that the US, as the lone superpower, is hellbent on doing everything to prevent the further rise of China, but this strain of Americanism has more to do with Jewish pathological power-lust than any legacy of European imperialism. Just think: If indeed whites remain in ‘supremacist’ mode, why did they so easily surrender their authority, prestige, and power to the Jews and blacks, even to homos? And why have the British(and the Irish included) been so willing to hand over their country to foreigners, both those with money and those without?

But however significant these narratives may be to the natives over there, they may have no traction in the nations of the West that pick and choose their own narratives on the basis of which group happens to rule(the Jews of course).
So, it doesn’t matter what the white race may have done to the Chinese or Indians if the current-powers-that-be in the West decide the Story isn’t to their own benefit. Palestinians surely know how the game is played. They are a nonwhite people who’ve been terribly wronged by European white Jews with the backing of the US back in the days when it still had racial segregation. As Jews and their shabbos goy minions govern the US, the Palestinian story hardly appears on the map of White Guilt. Indeed, it’s even true of the indigenous peoples of North America whose ‘genocide’(surely a greater tragedy than slavery) is deemphasized in favor of the Black Narrative.
Given that the American Indian Tragic Narrative is a reminder of what mass immigration could do to a people, it’s understandably inconvenient to Jewish globalist-supremacists who are pushing White Nakba on the West. It goes to show that any Story depends on the Storyteller as no story tells itself. So, we must always be cognizant of the fact that all the storytelling, grand narratives, and morality tales are now the instruments of Jews who control just about all the levers of power and all the megaphones.

In the West, according to the Stories emphasized by the Jews, there are only five categories that really matter: Whites, Blacks, Jews, Homos, and Diversity(a glob-o-blob of everyone else). In this Story or Narrative, the world was ruled under White Supremacy for as long as anyone can remember, and the two main victims of white people are Jews and blacks. Jews suffered Christian bigotry or religious ‘antisemitism’ and later the modern bigotry of racial ‘antisemitism’ and in between everything from pogroms to various forms of violence resulting from irrational goy envy, resentment, paranoia, hysteria, rabid-and-virulent something-or-the-other, and/or etc. The white evil against Jews is usually traced back to Roman times, and it went through pagan, Christian, secular, and (pseudo)scientific phases.

Print