Mutualism is a Germanic philosophy coming from out of Western Europe and America that seeks a world in which each exists at their own expense, that is, by their own costs, where none externalizes the cost or expense of their being onto others. This worldview champions the issues of the working class in resolving the Labor Question, but this comes directly up against the Jewish Question and the Negro Question, or what is to be done about the influences Jews and blacks have on society. Mutualism is of obvious benefit to its creators, but it poses disadvantages to Jews and requires dedication to long-term goal-setting that may be difficult for blacks, who did not face the evolutionary pressures temperate and subarctic peoples, such as those in the cold of Germany, did to plan for the long-term.
It is important to understand that my theory of evolution is not based on divergent neo-Darwinian models or the Out-of-Africa Theory. Instead, I support a model of convergent and hybdridizing, polygenic evolution with miscegenation and reticulate multiregionalism. I will not be detailing these views as they are found elsewhere. But I am going to go off of two assumptions from physical anthropology. The first is that Jews come from very ancient stock, perhaps including that as far back as Neanderthals if not further. The second is that the majority of sub-Saharan Africans, known in the United States-- where Australoids are not as common-- as blacks, are a relatively recently-evolved people. The word Jew is related to the word yew, referring to a specific kind of wood that was favorable to Neanderthals. If ethnonyms often reflect foods, crafts, and other characteristics of people, it is not impossible that Neanderthals might have a name related to their yew-craft. Yew wood is, by the way, very dangerous, and is capable of inducing heart attacks, so proficiency in its craftmanship may have been rare among non-specialists. The prolific, Bantoid black appeared first as African pygmies before reticulating into the common Bantu. In this grouping I am not necessarily including more ancient groups, especially those in the Khoisan grouping and perhaps also people such as the Hadza, certain East Africans, and other non-Bantoid peoples. This seems to have occurred sometime during the Bronze or Iron Age in the Niger-Congo areas along the jungle edges, where the Bantu quickly took to horticulture after evolving past the hunter-gatherer stage of pygmies.
Generally-speaking, Jews are a demographic that is commonly found to be quite wealthy and that partially-composes and has a great influence upon the ruling class and its elite. Blacks, however, have been characterized by poverty and a lack of political influence. As such, we may loosely, and while being cautious, suggest that Jews loosely have upper class and blacks lower class interests. The middle class is represented by other groups, especially non-Jewish white people, but also increasingly Hispanics and other ethnic groups that sometimes join the Jewish influence in the ruling class, such as East and South Asians, and some West Asians. Of course, the class dynamic has switched, because it used to be that whites, especially the WASP demographic, was most considered to be upper class, but this has changed some with Jewish influence, which appears to have overshadowed this majority demographic. While the majority of the upper class is white, the majority of whites are middle class. If a minority of the upper class is Jews, it does not follow that the majority of Jews saturate the middle class to the same extent, owing to the numbers they have available to fill those positions.
I believe the dynamic works something like this: Jews represent an earlier-evolved people-group, perhaps Neanderthals (perhaps especially culturally) and those who mixed with them early-on. As such, they kind of ran the planet while everyone else was still in the stage of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, and etc. White people, and perhaps much of what became Asians, likely evolved natively in Europe or Eurasia, perhaps from a Heidelbergensid, but more likely from another brachycephalic specimen, as Cro-Magnon and its relatives, and as admixed with others, also including Neanderthal. Another group, natively or indigenously evolved in the Americas, and represented by the ancient Otamid phenotype, if not more, perhaps a rival to Neanderthal, likely intermixed with both of these groups, coming by way of the Berring Strait and perhaps the British Isles (such as with “Finnmen”), and contributed to gracility and facial flatness (especially to Neanderthals). But that is another, much more esoteric topic that goes beyond the scope of this paper. Over time, so much admixture happened that it is impossible to racially separate Jews from non-Jewish whites, culture being the major difference, both spanning the spectrum from Mediterranoid to Alpinoid to Nordid (and Jews even beyond this). However, differences in culture remained.
Over time, what would later became known as Jews, and which had evolved from the intermixture of Neanderthal with Cro-Magnon and perhaps Otamid and albinizing Australoid, would come to be known variously across Eurasia as Gutians, Gutes, Geats, Goths, Yuts, Yuzhi, Jats, Juts, Jutes, Jats, Zutts, Tats, and etc. Their presence spanned the older Neanderthal strongholds from Germany through the Middle East and into India, but also included areas freed from the ice such as Scandinavia. As Gutians, they conquered the Akkadians, as the Jews and Goths they toppled Rome, and they may have been related the Dorians who had conquered into Greece and who have a name coinciding with a West Germanic Scottish dialect, Doric, and spoke their own regional variant of Doric in Greece (a koine and so living language capable of major shifts and adaptations, perhaps itself evolved from earlier stages as creole or pidgin languages), becoming people such as the Spartans (often compared to Germanics for their hypermasculine culture, Ashkenazi Jews also being Germanic). As Jutes, they led the Angles, Saxons and others (Frisians, Scots) into what would become England, only to follow them later as partially-Romanized Normans and to place them under the Norman Yoke.
Today, Jews have gained considerable influence in the governments of the West, including the United States, becoming what I believe to be the dominant locus of influence enabled by organized and dedicated ethnocentrism. Much of Jewish power rests in this organized and dedicated ethnocentrism and its corrolating Semitism, but especially as expressed in the project of poly-identarianism or intersectionality, which attempts to unite the interests of Jews with all non-white peoples (preventing it from becoming pan-identarian) and provide their voices as absolutes. For the topic at-hand, we will focus on the relationship between Jews and blacks, as well as with other whites.
It's important to understand the role played by Jews in Europe and Africa. In Europe, Jews would become known as people engaged in piracy, usury, tax-collection, execution, and other lucrative but unconscientious callings, for which they were often granted much privilege by the royals and nobility. This caused such resentment that the earliest of Crusades included the Rhineland Massacres, wherein Jews were slaughtered by white peasants, artisans, and laborers of the lower classes. As pirates and merchants, Jews played middle-men in efforts of slavery, especially along the Barbary Coast, where they would sell Christians to Muslims (the word slave comes from such events, and refers to Slavic white people, who were often in high-demand alongside Georgians), blacks to whites, and vice versa. Indeed, the white slave trade of the Barbary Coast was very rampant.
Later on, when the slavery market was greatly revived with the triangular trade of slaves, Jews were also a prominent presence in that. Through their myriad activities, Jews such as Haym Salomon financied new nations, such as the United States, and Jews like the Rothschilds took control of their central banks, such as the Bank of England. Black slaves were essentially bought from their fellow Africans with rum, which was the major import into Africa in the triangle of trade. Most of the slaves were first enslaved by their fellow Africans, sometimes due to having engaged in war or for having committed crimes against the seller or the seller's people, but also because of debts owed to lenders. The trade also involved shipping sugar to New England and, with it, tobacco to Europe. While there were also more wholesome items such as cotton traded, much of the trade triangle was a red or orange market for crime and sins.
Once in America, if they survived the horrible attrocity of being shipped like cargo, the slaves were sold to the highest bidder, who typically put them to hard labor in work such as picking cotton, though for any reason the slave-holder decided. This was clear domination and exploitation, and it conflicted greatly with the ever-increasing universal values of Western society, which has for millenia grown stronger in its embrace of natural laws and natural rights, the foundation of which being “Harm None,” and directly resting upon that being the individualist conclusion of the inalienability of the impulses to freedom. Blacks were clearly harmed in much of this, and cannot be considered to have been free.
Poor whites, especially the Poor Whites of the South and Northern textile mill workers, and fueled by the passions of the Great Awakening which included several prominent black orators, pressed for the abolition of slavery. Slavery, after all, besides being ethically wrong, was also immoral to accept on the grounds that it was harmful to whites themselves, because bringing down the price for honest labor and ruining white families. While Poor Whites and blacks typically engaged sympatrically, they would also intermingle at times, the most amicable relationships-- not owed to such things as Stockholm Syndrome-- between whites and blacks tending to be between blacks and Poor Whites. Especially in Louisiana and in areas of South America, mulatto populations would begin to grow from out of miscegenation, establishing demographics such as the Free People of Color and speakers of creole languages. Free People of Color, like mestizos in Latin America, would tend to join the middle class. All-in-all, the white sins of the WASP then-ruling and upper class, preyed upon by pirate merchants, did not serve the interests of the white abiding, lower class. These interests greatly diverged, such that white people started to become class conscious. In the United States, as mentioned, this class consiousness was directly related to the existence of black slavery.
The slave trade had a number of impacts. It fueled the decadence of the emerging ruling class of the United States, which had come from a prior middle class aligned with the interests of the pirate merchants. This itself resulted in a general moral decline and a tendency toward particularism, privilege, and exceptionalism. At the same time, it was ruining the white lower class, not just culturally, but economically. Still more, the cultural impact would be long-lasting. Today, American culture has been largely dumbed-down by the popular acceptance of unconscientious but fashionable trends coming from out of the creative minds of African Americans who have been enabled by Jewish sponsorships, financing, record deals, etc., largely for the purpose of encouraging more cultural decadence. This showcasing of the worst of black America has resulted in negative stereotypes that affect even otherwise upstanding and well-intentioned black Americans, who already struggle with real factors owing to their recent evolution (but who are very quickly catching up, at a pace that could excel whites, perhaps even in coming centuries). This compounds the anthrological difficulties that blacks face and unfairly pressures them to continue to inhabit the lower class.
At the end of the Civil War, the slaves had been freed and Reconstruction began. The black slaves had previously been treated as property. This came with many abuses, but it also meant being cared for at least in the way equipment might be, and so entailed some responsibility on the part of the slave-holder to tend to the basic wellbeing of their slaves. Abolition entailed that this aspect of slavery also stopped, and slaves who were once cared-for as property became their own possessions, possessions of owners without means. While blacks had been granted “40 acres and a mule,” they did not have the equipment to serously become farmers, and most of them ended up selling their new property in order to make ends meet for the short-term. Instead of becoming husbandmen, then, they joined the growing industrial workforce as employees or sharecroppers. This came with degrees of greater freedom, but this was largely negated by economic realities, and by the lack of care from longer-term-thinking whites.
Whites, especially Poor Whites but also planters, also had their lives changed. Planters had to shift focus, and some of them became declasse members of the middle class as a result, though they largely remained in power as private landlords and financiers. But most of the Poor Whites, who were nonetheless middle class smallholding and farmsteading husbandmen, started to lose their homes due to foreclosures resulting from economic hardships. They typically became sharecroppers, often farming land that was once their own but which now belonged to a (Anglo or Jewish) landlord, though many of them joined the growing industrial workforce in the power-mills and early factories, sometimes alongside freed blacks, as employees. Others would meet the growing demand to fill jail cells once used to hold runaway slaves and to pick cotton in the fields like the slaves used to do, becoming criminalized to fulfill this demand. So, while the slaves had some marginal gains with some relative losses, joining the working class (as opposed to the slave caste), Poor Whites of the working class became dominantly declasse and went from working lower middle class to working lower class.
Tensions started to arise. Poor Whites, who had been most amicable to black slaves, and worked hardest for abolition, and while now stoked on by the ruling class, had begun to associate the losses their (now, non-WASP) rulers (as Abraham Lincoln was not an Anglo-Saxon) imposed with the gains of the freed blacks. While prejudice had always been an element in American culture, and indeed all cultures, it had begun to develop to increasing degrees. At the same time, elements of the de-statused, now-lower upper class, as well as the remaining middle class, had continued to be racially-aware, but now within a context that seemed to them as if an offense to their race, their ethnicity, and their culture had occurred. Already, fraternities were often limited to whites, physical anthropology had distinguished the races physically from one another, and evolutionary sociology described their tensions, but the Civil War had fueled a retributive social mood among race-conscious whites, leading to the development of organizations such as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in their Scythian garb.
Poor Whites, ever taking influence from their more prestigious counterparts of the upper class, but at their best being grounded by the middle class thinkers, would increasingly balance the interests of their race and of abolitionist conscientiousness within their class organizations. The Knights of Labor, for instance, maintained separatist unions, and disallowed Chinese workers. Also around this time, there had been an influx of poor, working class Jews from out of Europe and especially Russia. Unlike the Jews who had been well-established generationally as financiers, merchants, and landlords, and who were well-secured into the upper middle and upper class, these new Jewish imports were lower class workers. They were allowed into some of the working class organizations, including the Knights of Labor, though they would be excluded from many working class fraternities. Racially-aware whites often objected to association with Jews, blacks, and Chinese on cultural grounds, believing that their presence, which came with sentimental, particularistic demands and required special privileges, posed a challenge to the common sense, universalist values of WASP culture, which served as a foundation for freedom. This line of thinking would continue on even past Madison Grants lament in his The Passing of the Great Race, about the demographic displacement of Anglo-Saxons.
Poor Whites had often spoke with a Southern slur, and when pronouncing the word negro would slur it, such that is was pronounced negr' or nigr'. The Online Etymology Dictionary, in its entry for nigra, suggests that this version of the word can be accounted for by at least 1944, though it suggests a different origin, saying that it reflects “a white Southern U.S. pronunciation of Negro, but it was held to be a compromise made by those whites who had learned to not say nigger but could not bring themselves to say Negro, and it was thus deemed (in the words of a 1960 slang dictionary) 'even more derog[atory] than nigger.'” Of course, by 1944 Poor Whites had been saying Negro with a Southern slur for over 100 years, so the content of its source appears as ignorant of these roots or else to engage in a form of class-antagonistic revisionism. As the word villain, which comes from villein, a word for a serf, shows us, the working class is often villainized. At the end of the day, this word, which has so much politics around it, and around which much of black politics centers, ends up being a classist attack on Poor Whites, who have otherwise done by epithets such as rednecks, hillbillies, corn crackers, peckerwoods, and etc. This attack is useful for establishing a scapegoat for the ruling class and directing hatred toward Poor Whites, who never owned slaves and whose bigotries, where they exist, have no power of influence. Scapegoating the Poor White also serves as a conspicuous signal of virtue to onlookers, and is a form of noblesse oblige or “noble obligation,” ensuring that the escape artist is esteemed for their nobility, which serves as a justification for their privileges. In the Middle Ages, piety served this role, but today's neo-pietism comes in the form of “social justice warring,” “political correctness,” “woke,” and so on. Today, speaking the word nigger-- that is, to say the Romatic (Spanish/Italian) word for “black” with a Southern slur is considered a racial slur and, as such, an act of hatred. With similar absurdity, colored people is also considered derogatory, with the preferred lexicon being people of color. These sorts of changes are anchored in Reconstruction and in Reconstruction II, also known as the Civil Rights Era, which coincided with a change in Western cultural orientation from optimistic modernism to pessimistic postmodernism, a change that itself coincided greatly with the demographic changes that were happening during New Immigration, which had also enabled the Gilded Age.
Today, the focus has shifted away from explicit slavery and toward Civil Rights. America has been saturated not only with blacks, but with a large number of non-Anglo-Saxon (and even non-Celtic) demographics, such that Anglo-Saxons are no longer a sizable majority. Instead, and with consideration toward intersectionality, they have arguably become a minority-force. With it, the univeralist philosophical tendencies have ceased to be dominant. While all other races or ethnic groups are allowed to organize for their interests, whites alone are forbidden from doing so. The postmodern system has established a system of white slavery, whereby whites subsidize the existence of blacks through affirmative action and other benefits. Blacks, in turn, have been placed into largely-inescapable welfare traps, such that these privileges are not actually beneficial to them, but lead to dependency. What can be seen in this, is that the new ruling class, represented here by Jewish influence, is taking from the middle class (non-Jewish whites, mulattos, mestizos, and some immigrant demographics) to give to and establish dependencies in the lower class. This serves to keep the lower class dependent upon the goodwill of the upper class and to keep the middle class from developing to once again claim control.
Postmodernism can itself be traced back to the fin de siecle, which had been composed largely of declasse ex-aristocrats and their artistic and sexually degenerate supporters. Politically, this was connected to forces such as synarchism, and philosophically with Theosophy. Synarchism was basically the political project of theosophists, and postmodernism was their project of cultural warfare on the Enlightenment-enabled West as it had come to be established by the ex-middle, now upper class of America especially. Moreso than their concerns with what had already occurred with the Enlightenment, however, the synarchists and postmodernists were concerned with modernism, which had continued elements from out of the unrealized Radical Enlightenment, and which threatened to go further than capitalism and democracy in establishing mutualism and anarchy. Synarchism, a Counter-Enlightenment ideology, was a direct response to the efforts of the mutualist anarchists, who had started to organize internationally. It was the international organizational counter-effort of the ruling class which would later become known as globalism. While the Illuminati are a separate branch of Strict Observance or its offshoots, it appears that the synarchists have combined forces with or assimilated the Illuminati. The synarchists' league embraces idiosyncratic approaches, such that the Illuminati's communism (which was behind Marxism) can be found acceptable alongside capitalism and nationalism. The Rothschilds, of Frankfurt, who are popularly speculated to be Illuminati, are possible financiers of the Frankfurt School of Social Science, which served as a central locus for the dissemination of postmodernism. But synarchism is larger than the Illuminati, and includes not only Jewish Zionist banksters, but also WASP financiers, industrialists, merchants, landlords, and elites of various fields. Their uniting body appears to be the Great White Brotherhood.
It is postmodernism that fuels the cultural Marxist concept of intersectionality, as well as the reactionary white nationalist idea of white political supremacy. This postmodern intersectionality, the dominant side, fuels the Left, which has become the dominant wing, and affirms standpoint epistemology, which privileges voices which belong to those who are deemed to be officially oppressed. Jews are included in this category on the grounds that the Nazis had committed a genocide, but little is shared about how Jews had declared war on Germany, the coordination of this act between Nazis and Zionists, both of whom were nationalist fascists, and the Anglosphere, or how this led to the creation of the State of Israel. Further, it is taboo to ask why Jews have been convergently hated worldwide or to question whether the Holocaust-- which had apparently occurred during the Second Industrial Revolution, wherein radio, photography, and pulp printing became a standard means of diseminating information-- could possibly have been largely propagandistic or an outright lie, despite the fact that progresses in technology have undoubtedly and demonstrably led to increases in misinfortmation and false propaganda. Taboos such as these, and especially the taboo against being “anti-Semitic,” and the factitious gains that comes with it by Jews and the virtue-signaling of their supporters, by way of intersectionality and the standpoint epistemology that centers the truth on Jewish identarianism within a broader framework of poly-identarianism, have enabled Jews, as a minority-force, to gain a stranglehold over the West and in America.
If blacks and whites continue to have their spats, and to confuse their differences for degeneracy or malice, and are not able to unite beyond these differences, mutualism is unable to occur. This is to the benefit of Jews, perhaps, and to the short-term benefit of blacks and the noble white managerial class, but is to the long-term detriment to whites and blacks alike. Whites have long-promoted ideas such as democratic republicanism and liberalism, and began to evolve toward mutualism, these being their ideas that are disadvantageous to Jews and advantageous, in the long-term, to the evolutionary trajectory of blacks.
Natural competitive advantages experienced by whites have often been labeled in postmodern society as privileges, but this is not the case. Privilege refers to an artifical favor granted by an authority, and not to natural endowments. To have natural competitive advantages is not a privilege, but an endowment. By claiming white endowments are privileges, detriments can be imposed on whites with a conspicuously noble veneer. Detriments are the opposite of privileges. On the other hand, natural competitive disadvantages are similarly endowments and not detriments. Detriments refer to harms done. Blacks, who have appeared later in evolution and are evolving with impressive velocity, face some evolutionarily-momentary competitive disadvantages, not unlike the disadvantages a juvenile brother may have in comparison to their more mature brother while catching up. The disparity between natural endowments has been weaponized and confused for detriments and privileges by those who are actually imposing detriments and awarding privileges. The accepting of white detriment in order to level natural endowments is in fact a privilege to blacks. This is uncomforting, but it means that if things are going to change for the better, this notion of “white privilege” needs to be put to death, especially if it is going to serve as a cover for white detriment and black privilege, which merely serves to harm one and stunt the growth of the other. The only beneficiary of this is the ruling class, whose demography is largely Jewish, but the benefit need not be long-lasting.
I have long wondered why a philosophy such as mutualism, which is rational and fair, has not become more popular. I think the above information shines light on things. Mutualism has not become popular with blacks because blacks, still evolving long-term planning skills, have fell victim to short-term thinking, even to a greater extent than the WASP ex-ruling class did. As such, individual responsibility, as opposed to government handouts, has not became a staple of black culture to the point that it would embrace mutualism (there are exceptions, and have been strong historical ones, such as among black fraternities that focus on self-improvement). Jews have no interest in genuine mutualism because they are already on their way out, evolutionarily-speaking, and have relied upon usury, primarily, to maintain their fleeting influence. And whites, unfortunately, tend toward social hierarchies too much, which leads them to mimickry of the decadence of their rulers. They are, however, the principle demographic of mutualism, and have been attacked as such. This being so, I think it is fair analysis to suggest that Jews do not have a stake in mutualism, which will displace them from their ruling class influence and ethnic security, whereas whites and blacks do, even if largely-unwittingly. If blacks and white leaders continue to fall for Jewish, ruling class divide-and-conquer and compartmentalize-and-control tactics, both whites and blacks will have a ceiling placed on their success, whites by misappropriation of their earnings and blacks by the cap on their dole.