Desecration of White Heritage is essentially due to Jewish-Tribal factors than Demographic Changes or Ideological Fervor

Some say Confederate and other White Monuments are being removed or desecrated across America because of demographic changes: As the US becomes less white, white monuments are targeted by non-whites. To an extent, maybe.

But consider the following examples that call into question the correlation between demographic change and iconoclasm.

Mao’s revolutionary army united China and kicked out all foreigners in the name of regaining national autonomy. So, under Mao, China was once again China for Chinese. And yet, these very Chinese went about destroying so much of their own national art, texts, architecture, monuments, and treasures. The Cultural Revolution was maybe the biggest orgy of cultural destruction in the 20th century. It was about Chinese culture destroyed by the Chinese.

Also, consider the Anglo-American remembrance of Indian Cultures. American Indians were killed off by disease or guns and pushed westward, finally into dreary Reservations. And yet, Anglo-Americans went about building monuments to these vanquished peoples when the dust settled. These were memorials to Indians erected by white folks who replaced them. So, even as demography favored white settlers over Indian savages, white folks honored the memory of Indians by erecting monuments, naming towns after Indians, and etc.

So, it’s not just about demographics but a state of mind that determines whether cultural markers are erected, preserved, or desecrated.

Anglo-Americans could be ruthless warriors, but they also had a culture of magnanimity, recognition and respect for worthy foes. David Yeagley expounded on this aspect of the White Man. It is possibly rooted in the honor code of the warrior and the Christian virtues of grace and forgiveness(or repentance).

But such mindset seems to be missing among most non-white groups. Too many Jews feel contempt for gentile cultures and want them utterly defiled and desecrated. Blacks only respect ugabuga gangsta thuggery of ‘muh power’ and have no regard for values and culture beyond ‘muh dic*’, ‘muh booty’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh badassness’. Muslims can be simple-minded iconoclasts(even though, to their credit, they didn’t destroy all the pagan and infidel heritage in arts and achievements… that is, until the US let loose the hounds of ISIS on secular Arab regimes). And Asians are yellow dog teachers pets who can easily be led into Red Guard mode.

As for whites... they are now deracinated cucks. The lack of fiery resistance on the part of whites(even in the Deep South) to the toppling of Southern Monuments is downright shocking. Such craven cowardice or, worse, total apathy and indifference to the eradication of their own heritage and remembrance of past heroism and tragedy is pathetic indeed.
But then, the globalized ‘muh burger and fries’ culture of the new US has severed the historical and ancestral roots of most Americans. Non-white mass invaders attack whiteness, but they too are severed from their own identities, roots, and heritages. Both whites and non-whites are merging into vapid deracination where most people mainly identify with pop culture. Their only culture is videogames and Negro-dominated sports and rap music.
Granted, most non-whites don't come to America with hatred for whites. That hatred is implanted by Jewish media and academia that saturate entertainment and education with images of Evil Whitey as scapegoat for all problems though, to be sure, non-whites can be villains too as long as they are not Jews, blacks, or homos.

The main anti-white animus is the product of Jewish control of media. In that sense, the main reason for the recent spate of anti-white desecrations are neither primarily demographic or ideological. After all, most blacks in the South didn’t much care about Confederate flags or monuments until recently. The symbols and monuments became an issue with increasing Jewish and ‘neo-carpet-beggar’ takeover of the South. It has accompanied the rise of ‘new conservatives’ such as Nikki Haley who take their cues from Jews. Also, the new Southern White elites are either financial stooges of Jews or were educated in Jewish-dominated elite schools. As such, they lack the soul and spine to call out on the Culture War against the South that is being Afro-ized and ‘Immigrantized’.

A place can change demographically but still let the monuments be. Or if a radical ideology takes hold, it seeks to wipe out everything that is deemed falsely idolatrous. The current Culture War we are seeing in the US isn’t primarily due to demographic or ideological factors. Most Mass Invaders(aka non-white immigrants) who come to the US don’t come with anti-white hatred, nor do they have any wish to knock down statues. Rather, their kids are taught to hate whites and white symbols in schools. They are taught by teachers whose worldview has been shaped by trickle-down anti-white hatred of Jewish elites.

Also, we know the core animating factor isn’t ideological because the targets are usually limited to whatever Jews don’t like. After all, if the New Values are about ‘anti-racism’, why are Emma Lazarus and Immigration celebrated when More Immigration meant more 'racist' ‘genocide’ against American Indians? Also, why don’t Jews fess up to the fact that their immigration patterns have always been White Preferist or White Favorist? In other words, even as Jews bitch about ‘genocide’ and ‘slavery’, they always trailed and followed whites who led the way in creating new civilizations and opportunities, at times even through genocide and slavery. But notice that Jews get ‘passover’ treatment from the ideological fervor despite the fact that Jews played a prominent role in financing Western expansion, slave trade, and imperialism.
True ideology doesn’t work that way as it calls for consistency. Under Bolshevik communism, both Christianity and Judaism were suppressed. And in ideological Red China, even Chinese ‘reactionaries’ came under attack. No one was spared because he was a fellow Chinese.

In contrast, the Culture War in the US always exempts Jews-as-targets. So, even though 'racist' Apartheid South Africa was targeted for sanctions, Israel was allowed to do as it pleases despite its greater violence against Arabs and development of nuclear weapons(which it even shared with Apartheid South Africa). Even though Joe McCarthy was reviled by Jews for violation of Constitutional Rights, Jews play loose with the law to shut down and effectively censor anyone they don’t like, e.g. Alt Right at Charlottesville and on the internet.
And even as so many Confederate monuments have been removed or destroyed, the ones of Benjamin Judah remain untouched because they are of a Jewish man. So, even though demographic changes and ideological fervor play a part in the desecration of white history, they are not the main impetus behind the violence.
It is Jewish tribal manipulation of hatred in order to administer lashings on white identity and consciousness so that white pride and prestige will be broken to the point where whites feel they have choice but to just surrender to the supremacist will of Jews. To be sure, the most effective way of breaking white will and unity(most crucially of white men and white women) is Jungle Fever and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), but it also helps to smash Southern symbols of White Resistance against the Biological Slavery under Blacks. After all, even though whites did force blacks into social slavery and used racial discrimination, the Confederacy and Jim Crow were also acts of white resistance against the Thug-Advantage of stronger, tougher, and more aggressive blacks. In other words, black-and-white relations were never simply black-and-white but held many grey areas.

What is the American ideal?

What is the American Ideal?

It was radically altered since America became a Jewish-centric “Nation of Immigrants”.

Remaking the US into a ‘nation of immigrants’ sent American Indians and Blacks to the back of the bus, especially as Homomania is the new globo-religion of America.

Before the US was a ‘nation of immigrants’, it was a nation of native red savages, white conquerors and settlers, and black slaves. Though whites ruled, white narrative was inseparable from the Native American or Indian narrative and the black narrative.

After all, whites conquered Indian lands, and whites brought over black slaves.

So, the conqueror-settler narrative was closely linked with the Indian and Black narratives.

But as America went into ‘nation of immigrant’ narrative — especially involving immigrants who arrived after America was conquered and Civil War was distant memory — , the American Narrative became less and less linked with the Indians and even blacks.

Black Narrative is still strong but has been twisted to favor Diversity than Black Interest. MLK is elevated increasingly as champion of diversity and ‘inclusion’ than of justice for Negroes. When MLK was marching around in 60s, he was all about justice for Negroes who’d been denied full rights.

But MLK is now supposed to be the champion of ALL minorities, and that means tons of immigrants, even millions of illegals. MLK and Emma Lazarus might as well be the same people.

MLK-ism and American Indian narrative are morally compelling because whites did take the land from Indians and because whites did bring over black slaves and exploited them.

In contrast, as nice as Emma Lazarus poem may read, it has no moral justification whatsoever. If white Americans did wrong to Indians and blacks, what do they owe to the rest of the world? If there is huddled wretchedness around the world, it’s not America’s fault or the white man's burden. White Americans owe something only to those whom they wronged. White Americans didn’t create the conditions in Russian Jewish ghettos or poor villages in China and India. America never owed anything to Jewish Europeans or Chinese or Indians or Arabs or Africans(who were not brought over as slaves).

MLK-ism used to mean ‘something for blacks’. Now, with MLK as a hero to ALL minorities, he stands as a brotha to Emma Lazarus.

What blacks fail to understand is that the demise of the white conqueror/settler narrative also means the demise of the black narrative. The Immigrant Narrative isn’t linked with the Black Narrative. Late-coming Immigrants didn’t enslave blacks and owe nothing to them. So, as America becomes more Diverse, blacks matter less.

Also, the Nation of Immigrants concept totally trashed the American Indian Narrative.

The Conqueror/Settler Narrative puts Indians at the moral center. It says, “yes, white man did great things in America, but it came at tragic expense of Indians who lost their ancestral lands.” The Conqueror narratives means America was conquered and taken from a certain people. Who were they? Indians.

But since Immigrants came after America was already settled, they feel no special historical bond to the Indians.

The Nation of Immigrants Narrative pisses on nativism. It says all nations(except Israel for some reason) should be open to massive immigration, and any nativist who opposes this is evil.

But that also implies that American Indians were wrong to resist the White Conquest of America. After all, the Red Man was a nativist who fought to keep the land of his forefathers. He wasn't being 'inclusive' of white settlers.

The globalist concept of ‘nation of immigrants’ pisses on nativism all over the world, and this is the new imperialism. After all, the great anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century were all nativist. Native indigenous peoples were telling white European colonizers to go back home. The Vietnam War was also nativist as it was against the US occupation of South Vietnam and the resulting diversity of US soldiers using women as whores.

The Nation of Immigrants Narrative not only does violence to White Americans but to American Indians and Negroes. Whereas the white conqueror/settler narrative does pay special tribute to Indians and Negroes, the Nation of Immigrants Narrative does not.

“America is a nation of conquerors/settlers” narrative is linked with “America is a nation of the conquered Indian tribes” narrative and “America is a nation of enslaved blacks” narrative. This narrative says Americans owe something to Indians and blacks.

But "America as Nation of Immigrants" morally prioritizes foreigners(as potential immigrants) whom Americans never did any wrong. Also, if indeed America is a Nation of Immigrants, it must keep taking in more and more immigrants in order to be ‘American’. Using that logic, America is no longer American if it stops taking in immigrants.
It's as if America’s main moral obligation is to the world than its history.

65 killed 64. The 1965 Immigration Act undid the promises of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It turned White America away from the needs of Indians and blacks(whom white Americans had done wrong to) to the needs of a world of foreigners(whom white Americans hadn’t done wrong to). But since Jews gained power as relative late-immigrant arrivals, it was in their interest to put Immigrants above Indian natives, white settlers, and black slaves.
Indeed, now MLK has been transformed from a black leader to leader of Diversity is amusing indeed. But King’s message was not, “white folks should favor the interests of masses of foreign immigrants pouring into America over that of Negroes.” People like MLK who supported the Immigration Act probably thought non-whites would side with blacks against whites. But as it turned out, non-stop immigration turned blacks from the biggest minority(by far) to the second minority behind Hispanics. And if we take Hispanics, Asians, and Muslims together, blacks are becoming less and less significant. But then, white/Jewish/homo Liberals really love this since there is nothing they fear more than strong, aggressive, and hostile black thugs who nearly destroyed cities like NY and Chicago in the 70s.

But if Liberal elites honestly admitted why they love immigration(as buffer between themselves and blacks), there will be much anger. So, even as they push for more immigration, they say all the nice palliative things that keep Negroes believing that they is #1 in the hearts of Liberal America. So, even as NY increases Diversity to drown out blacks, the pages of NYT pay special tribute to a moron like Tahenisi Coates the ‘genius’.

History and What It Means to be 'American'.

Progs will say that everyone is equal in America. No American is 'More American' than any other American. American-ness is all about citizenship according to the law, not about identity-history-heritage.

But then, how can the ethnic privilege of Indian Reservations be justified? Such special right is accorded to no other group in America. It illustrates how history does matter? It is history that informs us that American Indians were here first and that they tragically lost their homeland to white conquerors and settlers. So, on those grounds, they have given special rights to have their own reservations or 'nations' within the larger nation.

And, could Affirmative Action for blacks be justified without history and identity? Isn't it because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination that blacks were rewarded with special rights in college admissions and hiring? Without that history, there would be no moral justification for Affirmative Action.

So, not all Americans are equal, indeed not even under the law. Given American history, some groups are accorded certain privileges, special rights and recognitions.

Well, if American Indians and American blacks are to be specially recognized for historical tragedy, then one can argue that European-Americans should also be specially recognized for their essential and profound contribution to the creation of America.
Just about every idea and value that were instrumental to the development of America came from Europe. And no people did more to settle, build, and expand America than white people.

So, history matters. It is history that gives Indians and blacks special recognition over other American citizens. And it is history that should give whites or European-American special credit and recognition as the people that contributed most to the creation and construction of America.

Not all American citizens are equally American. If history doesn't matter, a new arrival from Nepal should have same rights as Indians to have a 'reservation' and same rights of blacks to benefit from Affirmative Action. And he should have the same right as whites to make the claim that his forefathers founded and built America.