Hell with Veterans Day — Defund the Military than the Police — US troops are useless minions of Globalism who do NOTHING to defend the country while invading other countries — What about Black Guilt in US Neo-Imperialism?

With such crappy things happening with Covid Hysteria, you'd think the heroic US military would step in to protect Americans from the insane institutions. But nope, the cuck soldiers are overseas destroying other nations instead. Remember 2020 and 2021? While BLM and Antifa thugs were looting, rioting, and attacking innocent people(and burning down entire parts of cities), the US military did NOTHING to protect American lives and properties — and it took a young kid named Kyle Rittenhouse to attempt to protect his town from being set aflame by deranged lunatics, but HE has been railroaded by the system, the activist lawyers and the Jewish-run media. When some over-zealous patriots, goaded by FBI informants, breached security and entered the Capitol building for a couple of hours, tens of thousands of soldiers were soon stationed in D.C. to 'protect' the whore politicians who do the bidding of Jewish Supremacists. Whatever soldiers may think and feel as individuals, they are nothing but robots on the institutional level.

THE HELL WITH VETERANS DAY. Soldiers simply do as told. They are heroes ONLY in defense of country. Most US soldiers have been involved in invading or occupying other places around the world. They are in effect mercenaries abroad, not heroes of homeland. They are no better than the German Wehrmacht or Japanese Imperial Troops who did as told without asking questions. It's the exact same mentality.

If true patriotism is about freedom and speaking truth to power, patriots need to stop hero-worshiping military men and veterans as insta-heroes. While soldiers do put their lives on the line, it's noble only in defense of motherland, not in fantastical pursuit of 'monsters' to slay around the world; besides, for every dead American 'hero', there have been many more non-American victims, many of them women and children.
It's all the worse now because, at the very least, America once used to be a sane country with something to offer to the world(besides money and technology). But what do American soldiers unquestioningly serve and spread around the world today? The sicko zio-globo-homo-afro-maniacal anti-values of the globalist elites whose hearts-and-minds have been soul-corrupted by Jewish supremacism.

The IMAGE ABOVE(promoted by Jewish-run Google) is all you need to know what the American Empire is all about under Zionist Supremacism. It's about mindless idolization of blacks(as natural heroes and saints) and mockery of whites as whiteness has value ONLY in association with homosexuality and trans-nuttery.
Also, blacks need to shut up about BLM and 'racism'. If they are so sensitive on matters of injustice, what the hell are they doing serving in the US imperialist murder machine around the world? Where is Black Guilt on what the brothas did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and etc? And what about all the black rapes, murders, and other crimes in US military bases around the world? Heroes? Gimme a break.
Because of the victim-historiography of blacks in the US and the Holocaust-cult around Jews, these two groups can fully take part in US imperialism and hegemonism(and reap tons of racial-tribal benefits, like white Christians used to) but also avoid all blame and responsibility. It's like they have the best of both worlds: Practice Western Imperialism but also pose as its eternal holy victims. So, even if black soldiers take part in raping and murdering some part of the world, they are not seen as US imperialists but icons of how far black Americans have come from slave-ship to championship.

US is a Jewish-supremacist crazy state that sanctifies the worthless thug George Floyd and scapegoats the police while idolizing US soldiers who've slaughtered countless innocents around the world at the behest of Jewish Supremacists. In US wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, blacks did their share in the Mass Murder Inc. because all they really care about is their own position/privilege in the US empire than about what their participation does to the rest of the world. As long as they get theirs in the system, blacks don't care.
If American Values were about true morality, we wouldn't be defunding the police but the US military that has truly been a murderer and destroyer of innocents. And yet, the life of George Floyd(who actually died of Fentanyl abuse under police care) is dearer than those of millions of lives destroyed by the Pentagon Murder Machine. But as long as American Morality = Racial Idolatry, it doesn't matter WHAT happened; the only thing that matters is WHO are involved. So, even if Jews and blacks do much that is bad, it must be 'good' because Jews and blacks are automatically holy. But whatever whites do is suspect because it is tainted with 'whiteness'. And if Jews send white cuck-soldiers and black thug-soldiers to murder bushels of Arabs and Muslims, what does it matter when the victims rank low on the ethno-idolatry hierarchy?

So, if patriots want to do themselves a favor, they need to drop the sick habit of lionizing the military or pretending that US soldiers 'serve the country'. If US soldiers were true heroes, they would defy the US government and guard the southern borders that are being inundated with freeloader 'migrant' invaders. They would be freeing most of the 1/6 prisoners. They would run to the side of Kyle Rittenhouse while waging war on Antifa and BLM thugs who do the bidding of anti-white Jewish Supremacism. Indeed, Kyle Rittenhouse's great sin is he dared to do what the US military won't do... as US soldiers are mostly cowards whose main priority is gaining benefits and career opportunities for their blood-money service to the empire.

But in reality, military men(and women) do NOTHING that serves true patriotism and instead obey orders to be shipped overseas to wreak havoc on other peoples and lands who pose NO threat to America. DEFUND THE MILITARY, and every US city should build a monument to all those invaded, bombed, raped, and/or murdered by the US military that has been, more often than not, the henchmen of US neo-imperialism(which is now controlled by Jews and promotes globo-homo celebration and Negro-worship as the highest values).

American 'heroes' at work in Abu Grahib even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which was really orchestrated by Jewish Supremacist Cabal.

THE CAVE OF THE 'NEGROES': A BALLAD OF RAPE & REVENGE

Will the Historical Dialectics of the US Invasion/Occupation and Taliban Resistance lead to the Synthesis of Better Afghanistan? — The Inadvertent, even Absurd, Fortunes of Historical Tragedies

FALL OF AFGHANISTAN IS NOW | WHY AMERICA FAILED

https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/forever-war-benefiting-afghans-follow-the-money/

The Afghan War was tragic for Afghans in many ways. But less so than many wars. For one thing, there wasn't much to destroy in Afghanistan. It wasn't like Germany or Japan smashed in World War II. Also, whatever had been standing had already been reduced to rubble in the long wars in the 1980s(when Soviets were there) and in the ensuing 'civil wars' among the tribes and factions. Also, Taliban were hardly great builders. They kept the country at the medieval level. Taliban folks were content to be backward, which they conflated with faith and piety. Even though the US invasion was initially brutal with devastating air strikes, it wasn't long-lasting because there really wasn't much to bomb and the Taliban soon scattered to the four winds. With so many mountains and caves, most Taliban just fled and hid. Soon after the invasion, most of the war consisted of drone strikes and limited skirmishes. Though the drone attacks killed some innocents, the entire casualty was in the thousands. Many more Vietnamese died in a single US bombing strike under Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. So, this was hardly a genocidal kind of war, which could be said of certain chapters of the Vietnam War. Also, due to demographic dispersion and geographic barriers, the US occupation didn't unleash the bloodbath that the Iraq invasion did. In Iraq, US presence in the flat sand led to religious factions tearing each other part. There were no mountains to separate the Sunnis from the Shias. Also, whereas Afghanistan before and after US invasion had continuity in Pashtun representation, the Iraq invasion led to a sudden power shift from Sunni to Shia domination. This led to Sunni rebellion and Shia reprisals, a horrifying cycle of violence. Also, as certain Neo-Con or Zio-Con elements feared warm ties between Shia-ruled Iraq and Iran, they inflamed Sunni violence to make Arabs kill Arabs. Afghanistan, for the most part, avoided such internecine bloodbath under US occupation, at least on the scale of what took place in Iraq. If there had been no 9/11 and no US invasion, the Taliban might have remained as they were. Rigid, backward, insular, and isolated. There would have been hardly any opportunity for growth and development. This is where imperialism can do some good. Not because imperialists are good-hearted and well-meaning but because they shake things up. Would Japan or China have made progress into modernity if they weren't forced at gunpoint? Without Western Imperialist aggression, the ruling dynasties there would have suppressed any reform or change that could conceivably threaten their total grip on power. Indeed, they regarded stasis as synonymous with harmony with nature, history, spirituality, and the cosmic order of things. Only an outside force could act as catalyst for revolutionary and fundamental change, for good and ill. Though all societies evolve over time, the fact is East Asia didn't have sufficient internal spark/fuel to bring about fundamental change from within. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire that, upon falling behind the West in science and technology, simply couldn't muster sufficient energy for change. It took the traumatic defeat in World War I that forced a true transition to modernity.

Now, it'd be foolish to hope that the Taliban will ever be like the Kemalists of Turkey, or even like Gaddafi of Libya, Nasser of Egypt, or Hussein of Iraq, all of whom embarked on modern and mostly secular development, albeit in alignment with Muslim values. And we can't expect the new Taliban regime to resemble Islamic Iran that, for all its religiosity, fully adopted modern science and technology(and even most modern facets of living, minus the overt decadence). Though the worst case scenario is that the New Taliban, high on the hubristic fumes of 'victory' over the US, will revert to the old ways, it's more likely that it will be more pragmatic, worldly, shrewd, realistic, and a bit wiser. It is the dialectics of history. Old Taliban had the power but got nowhere. US invasion forced change and built much infrastructure but its influence, at once overbearing and underwhelming, didn't catch. But, some commentators are hoping that the dialectics of Taliban resistance and US reconstruction could lead to the synthesis of a New Taliban that is more savvy in politics and business. Of course, such changes are possible without foreign invasion. Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on profound changes in the Soviet Union. Maoist China made the transition to Deng-ist China, and communist Vietnam adopted market economics. But the Taliban were so anti-modern that it's unlikely they would have done much to develop the country on their own without foreign intervention on a massive scale. Though the US failed to turn Afghanistan into a compliant outpost, it did construct lots of roads, buildings, airports, and infrastructure. Yes, much of the money disappeared into the hands of corrupt politicians and 'contractors' whose only talent was for swindling Uncle Sam(and the US Military-Industrial-Complex itself is a massive racket defrauding the US tax payer). Still, in the ensuing twenty years, Afghanistan did end up with cities with many more buildings and amenities. And a new professional class did learn certain skills in governance and management(and these people are likely to keep at those jobs even under the Taliban — surely, the US can't bring all of them as refugees, and the New Taliban might actually value their skills). Prior to the US invasion, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was on friendly terms with only one major country: Pakistan. It had alienated Russia, China, Iran, and other surrounding -Stan nations. It was seen as a festering sore in the middle of Central Asia. Afghanistan didn't want anything to do with most other nations and vice versa; the feelings were mutual. And as long as it was ruled by the backward Taliban, it was hardly a threat to other countries that were far more developed and powerful. It could be ignored. Things changed with the US invasion. All of a sudden, it went from a backwoods(or back-mountain) country of ignorant nobodies to the base of US globo-imperial operations. Russia, China, and Iran feared that the US planned to use Afghanistan as part of an encircling campaign. Pakistan regarded US presence as Uncle Sam breathing down its neck. This made Afghanistan relevant and important to the neighboring countries, one deserving to be courted with special favors. BIDEN CLAIMS AFGHAN EVACUATION IS GOING SMOOTHLY, AS FOG OF WAR DESCENDS ON KABUL AIRPORT
They now had an interest in getting the US out and forging good relations with the New Taliban(if it were to come to power upon US departure). Also, the New Taliban was more likely to cut deals with Russia, China, Iran, and other nations precisely because it had gotten burned in the US invasion. Even though the New Taliban might feel a rush of hubris in the moment, the major lesson of the long occupation has been the value of humility. Though Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, the fact is empires survived their misguided Afghan ventures. Alexandrian Empire collapsed due to other reasons. British Empire had setbacks in Afghanistan, but it was really brought down by World War I and II. Soviet Empire's collapse had little to do with Afghanistan and more with long bread lines. US empire survived setbacks in Vietnam and Iraq. So, the notion of Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires is a myth. But the fact is the invasions have turned the country into the graveyard for many Afghans. Though Afghan human losses weren't devastating under US occupation, the Taliban was pushed into subsistence in the periphery, and surely their patience was running thin(judging by the eagerness with which they acted to take control of the country upon sensing US withdrawal).

Prior to the US invasion, many in the Taliban were foolish enough to think Allah would save them. Now, they know better. They don't want to do anything to justify another US invasion(or massive aerial attack). And this means isolation isn't an option. They need constructive and mutually beneficial relations with Russia, China, and Iran as insurance against return of US imperialism. It's like the Khmer Rouge wised upon ONLY AFTER the Vietnamese invasion that forced the ultra-xenophobic and ultra-radical group to eat humble pie and adopt the pragmatic path of working with other nations to oust the Vietnamese from Cambodia. In this sense, one could argue that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, though ill-advised and wasteful, may have inadvertently done much good for the country, that is IF the New Taliban learned the proper lessons from the dialectics of history and arrived at a more workable synthesis of diplomacy, commerce, and compromise. THE TALIBAN MEME WAR: TROLLING BIDEN & THE WEST

Element of Will and Fear-and-Respect in the Successes and Failures of Political Systems and Civilizations and What It says about the Afghan Situation — Lack of Will in South Vietnam — Imperialism's Suppression of Nationalism in Soviet and American Empires

The recent collapse of US-backed Afghan government hints at something about History. The Afghan military has lots of men and tons of the best equipment in the world supplied by the US. But after 20 yrs and 2 trillion dollars of so-called 'nation-building' by the US as the lone superpower, the Afghan Regime is crumbling like a house of cards, and there's hardly anyone around to support or defend them. US dominated with things, with material support, but not with themes, with spiritual meaning. There was talk of 'democracy', but if democracy is about majority rule, Afghan version wasn't going to be like the 'liberal West'.
Some compare the Afghan debacle with US retreat from Saigon, and indeed South Vietnam had more people and more material than North Vietnam. Even when US cut off aid to South Vietnam, it still had more than enough people and arms to fend off the North. They had lots of things but not a compelling enough theme to unite and inspire the people to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

Now, will, unity, discipline, and morale alone don't ensure victory. Germany and Japan in World War were united and hardy but still lost. In terms of iron will and determination, Germany met its match in the USSR. And Japan couldn't compete in things with the US that, furthermore, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, had all the determination, unity, and morale to destroy the 'Japs'.
Still, so much of history has been decided by the lack of will despite sufficient men and availability of resources. Somehow, the link between the elites and the masses was lost. Also, the masses no longer regarded themselves as one people united by common values and shared themes; they no longer worshiped the same gods and hated the same devils — consider there was a time when even most white Liberals worshiped God and looked upon homosexuality as a grave sin or clinical sickness.

Once a regime loses the respect for the people, the latter is less likely to follow orders from above. They are less likely to be good citizens and more likely to look out for their own interests without much sense of the public good. And once a people lose fear of the elites, they are less likely to comply with its dictates. The people of North Vietnam feared but also respected their government. It was this combination of fear and respect that made the NVA so formidable.
After all, respect alone doesn't cut it. Even if you respect a certain power, you may not choose to risk your life for the cause because it's natural for people to choose life/happiness over death/agony. Plenty of Russians saw the need to fight the Germans in the Great Patriotic War, but how many would have stuck out their necks if not for the fear of their own regime? It was patriotism against German invaders + fear of the Soviet regime that drove so many Russians to march into battle. So, respect alone isn't the magic formula. (Likewise, National Socialist Germany was so formidable because Germans both feared and respected the regime.) But then, fear alone isn't effective in the long run either. If you're operating only on fear, it's no different from bank tellers giving money to the bank robbers. It's purely motivated by fear, not loyalty or respect. Anyone can make anyone do something by holding a gun to his head. Real loyalty is when the person is willing to serve you even when you don't hold a gun to his head.
North Vietnamese feared their government but also respected its legitimacy earned from resistance against French Imperialism. This combination of fear and respect made for powerful loyalty. Also, communism, while stifling and stagnant in the long run, was a powerful tool of centralization, organization, and indoctrination in the short run. So, while the capitalist economy of South Vietnam would have far surpassed the communist economy of North Vietnam in the long run, the North had the 'spartan' advantage in the short term, the window of opportunity the North needed to prevail over the South.

The problem of the US in South Vietnam owed to its schizo nature. US did lots of terrifying things to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of bombings and terror campaigns. But the US also turned Saigon into Surf City and promoted laissez-faire-ism that made them more like tourists with guns than real soldiers. So, while the US military could be fearsome in combat, it seemed loose and lost in the urban setting. South Vietnamese soon came to navigate around Americans, who seemed to be all about dollars and cents, coca-cola and sex(and lots of drugs). Thus, the US struck fear only with bombs and bullets. They could be negotiated with. So, there was little need to fear the Americans unless one was suspected of being a Viet Cong in the rice paddies of Vietnam. As Americans came across as tourists with guns, they didn't get much respect either. Not much fear, not much respect. Hardly ingredients for loyalty.
As for the South Vietnamese regime, how could it win much respect when it relied on foreign occupation for defense of territory? ("We need to be occupied by foreigners to be protected from our own kind.") Also, American values had a destabilizing impact on South Vietnam. If American values are about freedom, then freedom in South Vietnam meant dissension and opposition to the US-backed regime. The opposition could come from not only communist elements but various other groups, idealists and opportunists alike. While a strong and stable regime could weather dissension, a weak regime could only be hobbled. Of course, US knew this and backed an authoritarian regime, but then, this seemed like a betrayal of American values. America preached freedom while propping up a 'dictatorial' system. (At the very least, the Romans who propped up Herod didn't pretend to be for freedom and liberty.) Because the system was authoritarian than totalitarian, there was just enough freedom for various groups to make trouble for the government while the government used just enough force to crack down and be labeled as tyrannical. Thus, it undermined both genuine popular participation and effective enforcement of authority.
Perhaps, in the long run, absent an existential threat(like communist-totalitarian North Vietnam), an authoritarian system of semi-freedom could work out, e.g. Taiwan evolved from authoritarianism to democracy(though it is still a political and ideological puppet of the US). But it was fatal for South Vietnam that was free enough for social chaos and repressive enough for condemnation by world opinion because of the threat of North Vietnam. This was also the problem in Latin America, though the US mostly succeeded in destroying Marxist-Leninist insurgencies there(except in Cuba and Nicaragua). US backed right-wing military regimes that allowed just enough freedom for insurgencies and used more than enough violence to alienate world opinion.

But then, the US couldn't support full totalitarianism because it would be too un-American. And US couldn't support nascent fascist regimes because they might be too independent-minded and insist upon national sovereignty, at odds with US hegemony. But then, US couldn't support a full democracy and civil society either as popular will may turn out to be Anti-American(and Anti-Jewish, not to mention Anti-Globo-Homo these days). Democracy in Chile led to the election of Salvador Allende. In Venezuela, it brought Hugo Chavez to power. So, the US usually struck deals with the kind of regime that rules Egypt today: A weak regime with just enough muscle(backed by US money and arms) to make the masses cower. Still, despite Egypt's dependence on US largesse, its government was domestically formed than installed by foreigners. The Afghan regime, in contrast, is totally the creation of the US that, by the way, didn't even bother to scour the country for the best people. Instead, they found the most pliable flunkies and third-raters willing to whore themselves out to foreigners for a price.

Nationalism is a problem for empires all over the world. Stalin was anxious about Mao's independent will. He fretted Chinese communism would ultimately challenge Soviet Communism(which did happen after Stalin's death). And Tito's independent streak led to bad blood between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Soviet Union wanted stable and forceful regimes in Warsaw Pact nations but not powerful ones(in the sense of national independence). A communist nation could abide another communist nation, but a communist empire had problems with the independent streak of other communist nations. Thus, despite their ideological affinities, there were cases of some communist regimes leaning closer to the Capitalist West as insurance against Soviet Power. Mao met with Nixon. Tito embarked on neutrality between East and West. And Ceausescu was courted by the West, especially as Romania didn't take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Ideal would be a powerful nation respecting the national sovereignty of weaker nations, and such examples are plentiful around the world. Not every powerful nation exerts muscle on weaker nations. But an empire is about a dominant power maintaining hegemony over weaker ones. Thus, the nationalism of weaker nations is seriously compromised, if tolerated at all. US spoke of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan, but it was really empire-building, a process of turning the country into a far-flung satrapy of the Zio-American Empire. It could work as long as the US empire was willing to exert its influence. But it could fail(and the Afghan regime is falling faster than we can write about it) once imperial authority is withdrawn. US didn't do any 'nation-building'. The Soviets did in the 1980s, which is why its clientele regime lasted three years even after the Soviet pullout(and may have lasted longer if not for Yeltsin's total cut off of aid, surely under US pressure).

Granted, Soviet nation-building didn't necessarily ensure survival. Even though Warsaw Pact nations were puppets of USSR, they were stable national entities with functional bureaucracies, disciplined militaries, and effective police force. But the regimes all crumbled the minute the Soviets decided to pull out. Oddly enough, the regime downfall was especially violent in Romania, relatively an independent communist nation, whereas the fall of regimes was mostly peaceful in those that had been occupied by Soviet troops. Yugoslavia, another relatively independent communist nation, also experienced extreme violence, one that actually lasted for some years. Perhaps communist nations under direct rule of the Soviet Union had zero legitimacy. The people overwhelmingly wanted something new and got it right away. In contrast, precisely because Yugoslavia and Romania had staked some claim of independence and national sovereignty from USSR, the powers-that-be were more self-assured of their survival.

Though Afghanistan is being compared with Vietnam and Soviet withdrawal, current events seem more evocative of the sudden downfall of communist regimes the minute Gorbachev declared withdrawal of Soviet Military. In a way, it was even more shocking and took the world by surprise. Whereas most predicted that the Taliban would soon regain power once the US left, most experts in the 80s thought communism would last several more decades, and many conservatives refused to believe that the Cold War was effectively over following Reagan and Gorbachev's summits.
Still, there is one key difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the Afghan regime. Even though communist as ideology was suddenly kaput, Eastern European nations continued to be ruled by many of the same people who'd been at the helm. Indeed, many former communists rebranded themselves as 'liberals', 'nationalists', or 'social democrats'. Many kept their bureaucratic posts. And some of the most powerful people of the new order were former apparatchiks. True of Russia as well. Putin was once KGB, and many people in his regime were once loyal members of the Soviet Union. In contrast, it seems everyone involved in the US-backed Afghan Regime are really out of power and scattered to the winds. Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe, but many communists rebranded themselves and held onto power and even amassed huge fortunes. No such luck for the Afghan cucks.

The problem for Eastern European nations turned out to be a case of 'out of the frying pain, into the fire'. They were relieved to be free of the Soviet Monster and expected to join the free democratic West. And who could blame them in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was decrepit economically and when communism was repressive and colorless? Also, even in the 1980s, Western Europe seemed free, reasonably patriotic, and mostly stable(especially with the tumultuous Sixties receding in the rear-view mirror). No one bleated about globo-homo. Even though the immigration problem began after WWII, Europe was still solidly European. No one back then would have thought London would turn into Londonistan or Londongo or that Germany would be ruled by someone like Angela Merkel who flung open the gates to refugee-migrant invaders. And the premier Western Power, the US, was still ruled by the 'greatest generation' types who were white and Christian. Back then, most US politicos and diplomats(other than vicious Jews) wouldn't have been appalled by someone like Viktor Orban or Polish Catholic nationalists. Though US empire had its own form of hegemony during the Cold War, the US was willing to acknowledge that different nations have different peoples, traditions, cultures, and values.
But things changed drastically when Jews took over as the new elites of the West. Also, the sacralization of the Shoah meant that Jews were to be regarded as wise men and gurus. They were the new holy men of the West, and white elites in both sides of the Atlantic listened with rapt attention at whatever the Holy Holocaust People had to say. Of course, Jewish Wisdom, for all their highfalutin talk, really amounted to, "Hmmmm, Is it good for the Jews?"

Today, the Jewish-controlled US empire cannot tolerate any powerful, independent, or genuinely patriotic leader in its satellite states. Someone like Charles DeGaulle would give the US deep state a heart attack. It has to be someone like Hollande or Macron. And look at the worthless leaders of UK, total cucks to Jews. Gone are the Christian-Democrats. All that is left are Globo-Homo-Cuckrats. If the US were still ruled by the kind of people dominant in government in the 70s and 80s, it's likely(though not for sure) that the US would have good relations with current Hungary and even Russia. But with Jews at the helm, it simply isn't possible. Jews are hostile to nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity in Russia, Poland, and Hungary for the same reason they are hostile to them in the US.

In the 80s, the newly liberated Eastern European nations were glad to be freed from the Soviet Empire and looked toward a future where they could have democracy and national sovereignty. But as Jews took over the US and gained control of Western elite minds, the whole situation turned into one big bait-and-switch. Globalism demands that Eastern European nations abandon their sovereignty, impugn their nationalism, welcome tons of Africans/Muslims, encourage sluttony among women, and plant the Jewish-Victory globo-homo flags all over, especially inside churches. We saw what Jews did to Russia by funding Pussy Riot to desecrate churches. If Taliban are purists who blow up Buddhist statues, Jews are puerilites who use anarcho-tyranny to desecrate icons and symbols sacred to white and Christian folks.

Anyway, back to the matter of will...

The Romans could still have prevented the downfall and the sack of Rome. They still had the men and the material. But they failed to. They lost the will. Russians in 1917 still could have prevented the Bolshevik takeover. Most Russians weren't that radical. But Romans had lost the heart to unite and fight.
Today, we see a similar lack of will among whites. It could be apathy, fear, confusion, disillusionment, hedonism, or whatever. But one thing for sure, so many whites are no longer willing to take action. Even white patriots in the South do NOTHING while their monuments are attacked and taken down. And white Europeans must know that endless immigration will lead to White Nakba and bring about the end of European civilization. But most of them have no will to fight for blood and land. Indeed, many welcome the destruction or replacement of their civilization as 'salvation'. And even though Jews are at the heart of the beast attacking the white race, few dare name the Jew.

Perhaps, one reason for the lack of will and general apathy/confusion is the veneer of political continuity. After all, most people in the US and Western Europe believe that they are living in the same democratic political system, the one they'd known for their entire lifetime. In the US, the democratic system is 250 yrs old. In Western Europe, it either goes back centuries or were established after WWII. And given how democracy served the US pretty well and also did wonders for post-war Europe, perhaps most whites in US and EU believe they must stick with the system.
But this is really an illusion. The Jewish takeover of the West profoundly altered the ideological and cultural landscape. The institutions may be the same, but the internals are fundamentally different. West has gone from liberal national democracy to mandatorian tribal supremacy. Western Europe and Canada can no longer be considered free or liberal. They are ruled by Jewish supremacist anarcho-tyranny. Free speech is dead in EU and Canada by Law, and it is effectively dead in the US because of deep state collusion between Jewish Big Tech, Jewish Media, Jewish Finance, Jewish control of courts & law firms, and Jewish State. And of course, Jews control academia and push stuff like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, and whatever other nonsense to neuter white identity and power.

Suppose the Catholic Church remained intact institutionally but the personnel changed from God-fearing Christians to Devil-worshiping Satanists who replaced holy icons with globo-homo symbols. From sacrament to excrement. Same church but entirely different doctrine and agenda. Of course, pope Francis is a servant of deviltry, a crypto-globo-homo psycho-freak who takes it up the arse from the Jews. Catholic Church is no longer what it is; it is now all about serving satanism.
Jewish Power maintained the shell of (liberal)democracy but altered the rules so profoundly that the West is no longer what it was. So, people need to wake up and stop believing they are living in the same democracy. It is really a 'demonocracy' controlled by Jewish supremacists. It's like Twitter isn't Twitter anymore. It appears to be the same social platform, but its Terms of Services changed so much that it can even ban the President of the US and shut down information because it doesn't comport with Jewish Supremacist 'schwience'.
It's like THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING. In both movies, the outer features of the victims remain the same but they've been fundamentally altered at the core, at the soul-level. When idiot whites ceded power to the Jews(as the Holy Holocaust People), Jews used their shylockery to tear out the heart of the West in a ritual far more consequential than any Aztec sacrifice. And the original heart was replaced with another one, the cuck-heart. It was a stealth revolution, and unless whites wake up to this fact and Name the Jewish Supremacism, there can only be slow death for them.

TALIBAN NEGOTIATE PEACEFUL SURRENDER OF KABUL COMPLYING W/UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO MOSCOW IN JULY - Alexander Mercouris

Commentary on "2020s: 'American Century' Finished, World Is Now Multipolar (With Prof. Anthony Hall)" by Kevin Barrett

https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/2019/12/2020s-hall/

Decline of the US empire? No, US is still the sole superpower. More importantly, the real power isn’t ‘American’ but Jewish Supremacist. US is the main aircraft carrier and money bag of the Empire of Judea(EOJ), and the tentacles of EOJ stretch across many nations in North America, Europe, South America, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, esp South Africa.

If anything, the ‘Americanization’ of the world — which means falling under control of Jewish influence — still gathers pace around the world.

Even when nations supposedly oppose globalism in the name of 'populist globalism', all they do is invite more Diversity and suck up to Jews. Look at Brexit. Leaving the EU has led the UK to take in more darkies and suck up to Jews even more under Boris the Spider Johnson. Clever Jews hedge their bets and have puppets on both sides. So, no matter which side wins, Jews get what they want. Even Donald Trump, though loathed by most Jews, does little but suck up to EOJ. He even works with his Jewish masters to shut down free speech critical of Israel and Jewish supremacism. It's 'muh holocaust' or 'muh gay' all the time. And given that Jews are pushing Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the US as sole superpower is turning into a Soul Superpower at least when it comes to its 'cultural capital' that is mostly about rap music and black-dominated sports.

Kevin Barrett's Reply:

The US can no longer get what it wants. It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it. It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest. It wanted Iran, the “7th country in 5 years” destroyed (or “regime changed”) by 2006. It wanted Assad out. It wanted North Korea to give up its nukes. It wanted Turkey to stop working with Russia and give up the S-400. It wanted Pakistan to stop tilting toward China. It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier. It wanted Chinese economic growth, and the technological and military power it buys, to flatline. And so on.

Meanwhile the other poles of the multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran have let the US spend itself into a corner. The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants. The US ability to dictate terms to the world is over.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available. America’s blood is almost gone. So they will diversify their bloodsucking, and are in fact already doing so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The US can no longer get what it wants.

But the US never got everything it wanted. During the Cold War, it lost Cuba. And even its successes in Latin America smeared US reputation as it had to support 'right-wing death squads'. US pulled out of Vietnam. US power was at its zenith with the fall of Soviet Empire, but by the end of the 20th century, Vladimir Putin and nationalists were regaining power in Russia. And the Middle East was mostly intact except for Iraq that had been crushed in the Gulf War. (Still, Hussein was in power until 2003.) So, it’s misleading to say the World Order went from US getting everything to US not getting everything. The US never got everything.

It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it

But Venezuela is on shaky legs and is far weaker than in the Bush II years when Hugo Chavez was snubbing his nose. Chavez deserves praise as a nationalist, but his version of socialism was deeply flawed as it relied on high oil prices and patronage machine politics. Once oil prices plummeted, so did the economy. The regime in power is weaker than ever and just holding on. Also, US empire pushed back against the Latin National Left with considerable success. Ecuador is now in hands of US stooges. Just ask Julian Assange. Brazil is ruled by pro-Zionist Bolsanaro. Bolivia is now ruled by pro-US junta-backed ‘democracy’. Cuba, though independent, signed onto globo-homo nonsense.

It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest.

Maybe, maybe not. In a way, the Taliban threat is a useful excuse to continue the US occupation. If the Taliban had really been eradicated, US would no longer have a valid reason to stay. US wants to occupy Afghanistan, not let it go. So, as long as the US has the Taliban Excuse, it stays and gets what it wants, thus encircling both Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, it was a disaster, but that was good for the Empire of Judea(that rules the US) in a way. After all, a stable democracy in Iraq might still have turned out to be nationalist and pro-Arabist. It’s possible that once the Jewish-run US realized that the Shia-led regime in Iraq would lean toward Iran, it secretly armed and aided Sunni insurgents to attack and subvert the government. Make Arabs fight Arabs. Play both sides. To the extent that new Iraq had been a never-ending story of Arabs killing Arabs, the Empire of Judea loves it. After all, it created the exact same conditions in Libya and Syria. So, in that sense, the ‘disaster’ of Iraq turned out to be a useful formula, a handy template, in dealing with other 'rogue' Arab nations. Don’t invade and turn them into democracies. Just arm and fund certain ‘moderate rebel’ factions and set them loose to turn the Middle East upside down. While Israel is peaceful and prosperous, look at the horrible conditions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Total hell on earth. It looks like ‘failure’ but is actually a success to the extent that mayhem among Arabs means more power for Zionists. And Jewish-run US pulled it off with help from treacherous Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

As for Iran, it is reeling more than ever from economic sanctions. Given that Iran is a huge nation, it’s unlikely that the US wants a full-blown war. Rather, it uses financial terrorism and other means to undermine Iran, and they've been very successful. US didn’t topple Assad but got the next best thing. An utterly ruined Syria where US continues to occupy and steal oil. As for Pakistan leaning closer to China, that is the consequence of US growing closer to India, the much bigger prize. Though India is too big for the US to push around, it’s been working with US as bulwark against China-Pakistan. To be sure, the Hindus are clever and play both sides.

It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier.

The Ukronazis did win. They are still in power in alliance with Judeo-Nazis. Also, the energy war is just beginning. With the shale revolution, the US aims to export tons of liquid gas to the EU. As for China, who knows what will happen. It’s debt is 3x its GDP. Very troubling.

The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.

But even now, nothing comes close to the power of the dollar. And Chinese economy depends so much on export to the US. In that sense, the US has China by the balls. China relies far more on the US market than the other way around. Also, US military didn’t engage in Yemen. In Afghanistan, it is there to occupy and continues to do so.

So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants.

But the US is still the #1 destination for smart people around the world. Concentration of brain power will determine much of the future. They are coming to NY, LA, and San Fran to serve the US in its high-tech domination. Immigration is mass treason(except for Jews who control what it means to be 'Pro-American', which today is invariably Pro-Jewish-Supremacist-and-Zionist). Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, and etc. come to the US to make money and to serve the Empire of Judea, often against their own kind. Palestinians in the US pay taxes that go to support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available.

The problem is Jews are para-hosts. Yes, Jewish power is parasitic and sucks blood, as in the 2008 bank bailouts. But Jewish Smarts do create lots of new enterprise and money, and goyim(esp politicians) suck on Jewish money as craven dependents. Jews are not like the Sicilian-Americans in GOODFELLAS who are purely parasitic or like Gypsies who only steal. Jews do a lot of bad shit but are also at the front-line of creating the new world of technology and markets. Thus, too many goyim have grown dependent on Jewish money-making. They suck the blood of Jews who suck on the blood of goyim. Jews suck but are also sucked upon. Thus, they are more than parasites. They also serve as hosts, or parahosts.

Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, Turning Victory Into Defeat"(by Tom Engelhardt) or the Myth of US Defeat

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176520/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_turning_victory_into_defeat/

How, then, was it possible, month after month, year after year, to turn the promise of eternal victory so repetitiously into the reality of defeat (and spreading terror movements)?

The notion of the US losing wars or being defeated must end. For example, it's oft-been said the US lost in Vietnam, but, in fact, the US was untouched by the war and lost only 58,000 men. In contrast, Vietnam was turned into a total clusterfuc* and possibly up to 2 million(soldiers and civilians) were killed in the war. The US abandoned the war in Vietnam, but most of the tragic losses was suffered by Vietnamese, not by Americans.

Same goes for the Middle East. Despite all this talk of 'defeat', the US has remained untouched by the war. In contrast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been turned into smoldering ruins by the intervention of the US and its puppet-allies, not least because Zionists control US foreign policy and shaped it to spread terror and mayhem across MENA(Middle East and North Africa) to derail the advancement of modern Arab nations and spread of Iranian influence.

When commentators(even as anti-war advocates) say that the US 'lost' or was 'defeated' in these recent wars, it's predicated on a rather perverse logic. After all, the US itself lost nothing(and its military-industrial complex has gained quite a lot). It can choose to keep its agents and troops in the Middle East or bring them home. Either way, the US remains untouched by war. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim world has been utterly wrecked and turned upside down. So, who suffered all these losses? Who suffered tragic defeats?

Now, some may argue that 'victory' and 'defeat' are relative to a nation's ambitions. One can argue that the US 'lost' the recent wars in the sense of having failed to achieve its objectives. But were its goals really about spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East? If indeed the US cares so much about human rights, why does it continue to support Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Why is it so chummy with Saudi Arabia, a nation hardly known for its adherence to what goes by 'human rights' these days? The real objective of US intervention was to wage Wars for Israel, and to the extent that much of the Middle East has been scorched to the ground, Zionist-controlled US succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

Consider. If a big strong guy beats up a small weak guy, breaks his bones, permanently damages his organs, bites off his ears, and knocks out all his teeth BUT fails to make the little guy call him 'uncle'(the stated goal of the big guy), who 'lost' and was 'defeated'? The big strong guy for having failed to make the little guy say 'uncle' or the little guy for having been utterly wrecked in body and health?

Let's stop speaking of US defeats. It's too perverse upon pondering the scale of destruction OVER THERE. Even though it's meant as criticism, even condemnation, of US foreign policy and warmongering, the effect is to turn the US into an object of pity and sympathy. Poor poor US, it suffered all these 'defeats'.
But, after 17 yrs of war, compare the US with the Middle East. Top US cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco are richer than ever, full of glitter and shine. Now, consider the cities in Syria, Libya, and other parts of MENA. Americans are fat and well-fed and living in peace and prosperity. In contrast, countless people are facing starvation and/or exposed to harsh elements in the Middle East. So, who really lost? Who suffered all these defeats? The fat happy peoples of the US(and Israel) or all the people driving to destitution and desperation in the Middle East and North Africa?