Muslim Demand for Respect is Valid in the Current Illiberal West that has No Use for Free Speech, Individual Conscience, and Rational Justice — Jihadi Phenomenon is Primarily the Product of Zionist and Western Intervention in the Middle East & North Africa

https://thesaker.is/cui-bono-from-the-situation-in-france/

While we should all condemn the grisly violence carried out by Muslim lunatics, is there anything worth saving in current France? It chose Globo-Homo-Mania over Catholicism. It has 'gay marriage' like the rest of EU that is under Jewish Supremacist control. Also, what is secular France? Is it about philosophy, science, arts & culture, and reason? No, it's all about pop culture, mostly of dumb Hollywood movies and savage black jungle jivery. Pornography is the ONLY domain left for 'free expression', and it's controlled by anti-white Jews. If the choice is between Jihad and the Jungle, the former is better as the Muslim World is at least civilized whereas blacks turn more places into New Detroits and New Haitis.

Steve Turley foolishly praises Emmanuel Macron for his sudden hard-line stance against Islam, but what is globo-boy or globoy defending? Is he being nationalist? No, he's the same globalist. He wants more immigrant-invaders to replace white Frenchmen. He is denouncing aspects of Islam because they give a bad name to Diversity. He seeks to suppress the most violent aspects of Islam but only to increase mass immigration-invasion and hasten the Great Replacement. "You see, apart from the few bad apples, most are good and more than welcome."

MACRON CRACKS DOWN ON ISLAM IN FRANCE IN A MASSIVE TURN TO THE NATIONALIST POPULIST RIGHT

And on occasions when the likes of Macron defend French or 'Western' values against 'Islamo-Fascism', they are not defending Europeans and their civilization. They denounce aspects of Islam as too conservative and antithetical to open sewage pornification of culture that they promote as 'empowering' and 'liberating'. It mainly means celebration of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs and BAMMAMA or blacks-are-more-muscular-and-more-aggressive, i.e. because blacks kick white butts in sports, whites should cuck and worship blacks as the superior race of heroes who deserve to take white women. When Macron and such ilk denounce Jihad, they are defending the Junglization of the white race. (Muslim acts of beheading, cruel and grisly as they are, affect only a tiny number of people. In contrast, black 'bewombing' is affecting millions of white women. White women who could be using their wombs to create more white babies are now creating more blacks, the natural enemy of the white race as black males have the power to emasculate white men into a bunch of fa**oty-ass wussy-boys. Every time a white woman is 'bewombed', a potential white child is being pre-murdered in favor of creating a black child. A Muslim sicko beheading a 70 yr old woman is less threatening to the West than a bunch of Simon Mols 'bewombing' millions of white women in the West.)

In a way, Jews love the presence of Muslims in the West. Sure, there are downsides. It means more attacks on Jews and their property. But this very fact makes whites side with Jews against Muslims. So, Jews get to kill two birds with one stone. By pushing for non-white mass immigration-invasion, Jews undermine white power and white majority. But because Muslims are seen as hostile to Jews, whites become ever more protective of Jews. Now, in a sane world, whites would hate Jews for pushing mass-immigration. Whites would connect the dots and say, "Jews are increasing diversity to play divide-and-rule among goyim." But whites cannot say or even think this because of the cult of the Holy Holocaust. Whites have been inculcated to feel that it's 'antisemitic' to be critical of Jews in any way. One mustn't believe Jews can be wicked or have hostile intentions. One must believe in JEWISH POWER KNOW BEST and LEAVE IT TO BEAVEROWICZ. Also, whites have been so brainwashed with the wonders of 'diversity' and 'inclusion' that they can't say NO to mass-immigration and the Great Replacement, supposedly a 'far right' conspiracy-notion.

Goy Dog John McCain and His Jewish Master Joe Lieberman

Then, the ONLY option left for whites is to find a way to oppose mass-immigration that might flatter and please Jews. And that, of course, is anti-Islamism on account that Muslims are 'antisemitic'. So, the likes of Tommy Robinson can't say NO to more black immigration-invasion even though blacks cause the most problems in the UK. He can only oppose too-many-Muslims because... uh... they hate Jews and, of course, homos. So, never mind white identity and white interests. (Using his logic, More Muslims would be welcome if they were pro-Jewish and pro-homo.) Robinson and his crew don't oppose mass-immigration to save historic Britain of white folks. No, they oppose certain features of mass-immigration, mostly of Muslims, because nasty 'Muzzies' hate the Jews(and homos and feminists too). This is why Jews actually value Muslim Immigration. More Muslims in the West means more whites cozying up to Jews and saying, "We want to protect you Holy Holocaust Jews from those nasty Islamo-Fascists." Of course, Jews feel contempt for such white toadies. Jews go on pushing for mass-immigration to reduce whites into minorities throughout the West. But they play both sides. So devious and cunning.
Jews feel as gods over whites. Whites must make offerings to Jews. Jews take the offerings, but there's no guarantee of appreciation. After all, gods feel entitled to be served by humans. A master doesn't feel much appreciation for what the slaves do for him. He feels entitled to be served whereas the slaves are obligated to serve. Jews and white 'conservatives' are like a glutton and the cook. The cook makes lots of dishes for the glutton who gobbles up everything but pays nothing and doesn't even leave a tip.
As far as Jews are concerned, white 'conservatives' who oppose mass-immigration and rag on Muslims are merely variations of the Old Anti-Semite, and Jews aren't entirely wrong about this. White 'conservatives' have merely transferred their ancient distrust of the Jew as the Other onto other groups, such as Muslims. And yet, Jews also encourage such hatreds as they foster white support for Wars for Israel. Jews loathe anti-Muslim whites as arche-Anti-Semites(archetypal anti-semites) but also value them as useful attack dogs for Zion against Muslims as the 'other Jews'.

As for Free Speech and Muslims, I side with the Muslims. They have every right to call for curtailment of denigration of Islam and Muslims. Now, I prefer a world of total and unfettered free speech. If the West were genuinely committed to free speech for all, I would side with free-speechers against the Muslim hotheads. Back when the West stood for the right of Salman Rushdie to write a controversial book, I was on the side of free-speechers against Iran and Muslim firebrands.
But the notion that the current West is a 'liberal democracy' committed to free speech is a joke. Europe and Canada trample on free speech all the time. And Jews, once the biggest defenders of free speech(to say their say and gain power), are now the biggest enforcers of censorship(to defend the immense power they've accumulated). Jews killed free speech along with white identity and Christianity. So, the real dichotomy is NOT liberal West that respects free speech VERSUS atavistic Muslim dogmatists. The real situation is Muslims calling for respect for Islam on par with enforced respect for Jewish Supremacist Power, globo-homo vanity, and the Jungle Cult of the Noble Negro(and maybe feminist bitchery). In current UK where people are fined and/or hauled off to prison for making a mocking tweet about Nelson Mandela, exposing the dirty machinations of Jewish Power, questioning aspects of the Shoah(as the iron-clad 6 million figure is more numerology than history), making fun of homos, and positing honest questions about racial/sexual differences, where is the commitment to Free Speech? France and Canada are notorious for fining and imprisoning people for offending Jews. It began with the criminalization of denying the Holocaust, but now one can end up in the can for offending Jews in any way. Macron even supported a measure that would criminalize condemnation of Israel for its near-genocidal policies against Palestinians.
Given this context, Muslims have just as much right as Jews, blacks, and homos(and other groups) to demand respect and call on the state to ENFORCE the respect. Muslims are not going against the prevailing wind of Western Values. As the current 'Western Values' are about PC, 'wokeness', and the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, blacks, & homos, the Muslim demands are very much in sync with existing currents of 'Western Thought'. Even in the US, the so-called 'liberals' are supportive of silencing voices, censoring alternative news, and denying basic services of finance to thought-criminals. They are not for more debate, more discussion, more controversy, and more contention of opposing views. They think along doctrinal lines and insist that their 'values' of the Current Year are canonical and cannot be questioned. So much for 'liberalism'. They are 'doctrinals', not liberals. Notice how these mobs are in the habit of chanting slogans together than thinking and speaking as individuals.

In such a climate, Muslims are only conforming to the current 'Western' trend of demanding respect for certain groups and damning all those who don't comply. How many people have been 'canceled' in the West, not least in the US, by institutions and industries for refusing to 'take the knee' before the Negroes? How many people have a chance in business or politics in the US or EU were they to stand up to the power of Zion and dare name the evil of Jewish Supremacism? The new church puts up 'gay' flags and signs that say "All Are Welcome", but of course, you are NOT welcome if you are a moral traditionalist and refuse to accept the 'sodomization' of Christianity. In an illiberal West that worships the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, homos, and Negroes as the new holy trinity, Muslims have every right to demand that they too be included in the canon. Besides, if black violence is always excused in the name of fighting 'systemic racism' and if Zionist violence is always rationalized as Israeli self-defense — you see, Israel must continue bombing Syria and giving aid to ISIS Jihadis to 'defend' itself, the only nation in the Middle East with nukes — , why shouldn't Muslims use violence to get what they want? Is black and Jewish violence okay but Muslim violence isn't?

Finally, all this Jihadi business is the product of Western support of the worsts elements in the Arab-Muslim world. Following World War II, the Arab World did try to modernize and even secularize. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and etc. all sought modernization and some degree of secularization. While some of the regimes were repressive and cruel at times, the last thing they wanted was Muslim rule. The main reason Iran went with the Islamic Revolution was not because most Iranians were opposed to secular power per se but because it became associated with the Shah puppetry to the Americans. Prior to CIA's installation of the Shah, Iran had a national secular government that could have developed into something decent. Gaddafi who came to power in Libya in 1969 was an unapologetic Muslim but not a hothead. If anything, he did everything to suppress Jihadi elements while modernizing much of the country; he also secured basic rights for womenfolk. Same was true of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The regimes there could be cruel, but they were NOT pro-Jihadi. Also, even when Iran became a Islamic republic, it didn't support Jihadi violence but usually fought against it. The main support for the Jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan came from US and Saudis.
Indeed, Saudi Arabia and other arch-conservative Muslim states in the Gulf were backed by the West. The so-called Liberal Democratic West had more cordial relations with theocratic and/or monarchic Saudi Arabia and Gulf States than with the modernizing and secularizing Arab/Muslim nations. Whereas most secular Arab nations were friendly if not allied with the USSR, the arch-conservative Muslim states remained close to the US. When Jews gained dominance in the West, the 'Arabists' were purged and US foreign policy became even more hostile to secular Arab nations and friendlier with arch-conservative Muslim nations that support Jihadi violence. Jews figured Jihadis are most useful in undermining stability in nations like Libya and Syria. When Syria was on fire, Western Europe did NOTHING to stem the flow of Jihadi types from Europe to the Middle East. European policy was "Let Muslims in Europe go to Syria to mess that place up and create a refugee crisis that will lead to more mass-migration to the West. It will please Jews, and we white cucks have no higher value that appeasing and pleasing the Holy Holocaust Jews who have so much money and carrots to dole out to the biggest cucks like us."
So, all this Muslim-bashing is disingenuous on so many levels. Truth is 'liberal democracy' is dead in the West, which is really under Jewria, Gayria, & Negria Law that are as stringent as Sharia Law. Also, Jihadis are to the Middle East what BLM and Antifa are to the West. They've been recruited, enabled, and funded by the proxies of the Jewish-controlled West. Saudis are happy to support Jihadis in Syria to appease Zionists and the West for favorable deals. And which power nudged the Muslim radicals to attack the US on 9/11? Look at the fingerprints. Zionists knew what was up and nudge-nudged the Jihadis to complete their mission. But all we get from the likes of Tommy Robinson and the Trumpkins is 'Muh Israel'.

PATRIOTIC ALTERNATIVE CONFERENCE MARCH 2020. MY SPEECH

How "What we ought to have said but haven't said" came to Determine so much of History. A History made more by What-couldn't-be-said than by What-should-have-been-said.

History is made by people with ideas, will, drive, and/or dreams. People use the power of words, images, and symbolism to put forth and push through their visions. History is obviously molded by what people say and do, but then, how much of history is shaped by what people don't say and don't do? Now, if people really didn't know of or failed to realize certain truths, it couldn't have been helped. But what about cases where enough people knew or should have known but didn't come forward with their knowledge or inhibited their intuitions of the Obvious? Much that seems so obvious later(or from another perspective) was muted or blind to all(those who mattered) In-the-Moment in a particular time and place in History.

For example, take France and North America. The French could have been the dominant force in the Americas, and then, maybe, 20th century would have been the Franco-American Century. What made the difference and prevented such outcome? The distinct settlement polices of Anglo-American colonies and Franco-American/Canadian colonies. There was more freedom, opportunities, and incentives for ordinary people of Britain to try their luck in the New Land. It was easier for men and women to make the journey together, to own land, and have property rights. The English Monarch had less control over what happened in the colonies. In contrast, the Absolute Monarch of France oversaw the New World policy. So, by the time of the French and Indian War, Anglo-Colonies had 18x the population as the French colonies. But imagine if the French had sent just as many people. The French and Indian War was mostly decided by French troops vs British troops, but the British had more support in man and material from the colonists. The French not so much, which is why they had to rely so much on unreliable Indians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by American Indian allies. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies.[4] The outnumbered French particularly depended on the Indians.

Just think. Despite being outnumbered by such a huge margin, the French almost won. The war dragged on for 9 yrs. It is a war the French could have won if they had more settlers. Also, consider that France didn't just claim Canada but the Louisiana Territory. America could have been mostly a French Colony, with Anglos limited to East Coast of America.
Now, I'm thinking that some French elites noticed the problem, i.e. that the Anglo colonies were filling up much faster than the French ones. I'm sure they foresaw doom unless the French could send more people to fill up Canada and the Louisiana Territory. Demography is Destiny. Yet, why did they fail to make the case? Why did most elites not raise the issue with the French Monarch? Because the socio-political implications of such shift in settlement policy were huge. It would have undermined Absolutism that came to define the French Monarchy(and which ironically passed onto even the Revolutionaries and Napoleon). Most people are so deathly afraid of 'triggering' the power. It's like everyone in Akira Kurosawa's RAN knows the lord made a rash decision in suddenly handing power to the not-too-bright first son, but most just bow their heads and obey. Only the youngest son and an adviser dissent, but they are soon banished for daring to speak the truth. EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES pretty much sums up the psychology of power. Of course, the Iron Consensus could involve the masses as well as most people are so easy to manipulate. Mark Anthony turns the masses from denouncing Caesar to avenging him with a single speech. Americans went from strongly anti-'gay marriage' to strongly pro-'gay marriage' in a generation due to Media Barrage. Toohey understood in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. While those on top concoct the 'truth', it becomes even 'truer' if the unthinking masses are made to feel passionate about it through emotional and moralistic manipulation.

But if the French had opted for a revised strategy, they could have taken most of North America. Its vast riches could have favored France over Britain. Also, the great prestige of having prevailed over the Brits in the New World would have been a great boost to the French Monarchy, and there may never have been a French Revolution.
Looking back, it was so obvious what prevented the French from dominating the New World. But, for the most part, the issue went unmentioned within the French Court because the Monarch was the sun and the French people were his subjects, not individuals with rights.
The power of consensus and fear of taboo determine so much of history. It is only much later, among people unhampered by the same consensus and taboos, that the truth becomes so obvious and can be discussed freely. Of course, people of the future will be hampered by their own forms of unanimity and heresy.

Now, consider the famous case of Japan in its buildup to the Pacific War. Looking back, it was so obvious what would happen if Japan provoked the US. In his book MODERN TIMES, Paul Johnson wrote of how so many Japanese KNEW but marched to sure doom due to the power of consensus, fear of taboo, and the cult of purity & honor. The militarist mindset carried over from samurai times disdained any show of weakness, which increasingly became a taboo. Japanese prefer unity over dissension. Also, there was the purity cult that held that it was more honorable to fight and die with pride than concede and lose face. If Germany's madness was driven by Hitler at the top, Japan's madness was driven, at least in part, by pressure from below. Unlike American, European, or Soviet officers whose duty was to obey orders from above, many junior officers in Japan felt they had a higher loyalty to the Emperor or what he 'really' stood for. So, unlike Western officers, these junior officers were willing to assassinate higher officers who seemed weak and face execution in the name of honor. Much like the 47 Ronin Legend. Noble self-sacrifice. Rebelling in the name of higher loyalty to Emperor and nation. This had a terrifying effect on the elites whose conception of Modern Japan rested so much on themes of pride and honor. In the West, junior officers could be controlled with threat of court martial or execution. Also, popular opinion would not have been on the side of rogue officers. But the fanatical junior officers of Japan were willing to commit acts of terror and face death in the name of honor. And there was something in Japanese popular sentiment that appreciated such acts based on purity of devotion. (Ian Buruma wrote of how even Leftist Japanese media were disappointed with students who pledged to give their lives for the cause but then surrendered to the police. They were lacking in pure spirit. Seijun Suzuki's FIGHTING ELEGY offered a glimpse into the mindset where even hooliganism can be redemptive if done with true spirit.)
Looking back, it seems so obvious what Japan should have done. It would have done better to take the US offer of keeping Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan in exchange for ending the embargo. But the psycho-political climate was such that few dared to even make such suggestion.

Another famous case is, of course, Soviet Union on the eve of German invasion. For so many in Soviet intelligence, it was becoming obvious that the Germans were planning something big. Some dissident historians argue that FDR knew Japan was going to attack and eagerly anticipated it. But Stalin certainly didn't want an attack and refused to believe it. But the evidence was mounting, and some in Soviet intelligence informed Stalin. But what happened to them? They got sent to the Gulag or executed as saboteurs or spies. But then, the Soviet system had already created a climate of fear where it was dangerous to tell Stalin anything he didn't want to hear. It was Purge Nation. Looking back, it's obvious what the Soviets should have done, but so much went undone simply because of power of consensus(emanating from Stalin) and fear of taboo.
And the horrors of the Great Leap Forward could have been lessened if Mao had been informed of its early setbacks. But he was only fed false news because of the climate of Mao adulation and fear of displeasing him. Things began to change only when conditions got so bad that real reports trickled into Mao's office. Then, he had to plead with his subordinates to tell him the truth because they were so fearful of 'triggering' him. But by then, millions upon millions had already died.

Or consider the American Civil War. It could have been avoided if the South had seen eye to eye with Abraham Lincoln who was so right about slavery and the black problem. Given America's founding principles of freedom and liberty, slavery could only be a stain on America. Also, due to racial differences, the future of whites could be deeply compromised if the races didn't separate. If the South had understood this and came to terms with Lincoln with some agreement to phase out slavery and work towards real racial separation, the horrible war and all its dark racial consequences could have been avoided. But the South seceded to maintain an immoral institution. It was also blinded by its neo-aristocratic romanticism of warrior spirit. Looking back, it seems so obvious what should have been said and done. But people back then were intoxicated with their own sense of honor, pride, and glory.
Whites had another chance in the Age of Jack Johnson. Here was a black guy whupping all the white guys in three continents -- US, Europe, Australia -- and sexually conquering white women. It was obvious that blacks posed an 'idolic' threat to white males, and its implications on everything from sports to sex to school thuggery to street violence were so obvious. Based on racial facts of the case, white males could have made a moral argument for separation, i.e. blacks pose a real threat to whites. But white males had too much pride and honor riding on the issue. They sought the Great White Hope and when Jess Willard finally defeated the washed-out Jack Johnson(in what was still a grueling fight), white guys just assured themselves that they are on top again. This fact of black-white racial differences should be obvious by now, but it STILL cannot be honestly discussed(due to new set of taboos centered around 'white guilt'). Because America wasn't PC in the period of Jack Johnson, a time when talk of race was fair game, an honest debate on the Black Threat could have made honestly, compellingly, and morally back then. Whites missed their chance. Now, what with the neo-spiritual power of PC and Negro-Worship, it is more difficult than ever. Currently, only one side of the Jack Johnson narrative is allowed: He triumphed over white bigotry and contempt. That's true enough as he had to prove his mettle in a culture that looked down on his kind. But there is another side to the story that has far greater repercussions for whites in both America and Europe, but no one dares mention it. Black manhood destroys and cucks white manhood, and no race can survive for long as a free people without pride of manhood. Look at browns in Latin America. Permanently conquered and denied pride of manhood, they are a defeated and browbeaten people.

And of course, so much of the madness since the End of the Cold War could have been avoided IF people admitted that Jews are the new ruling elites of America. Maybe they earned the right to rule with smarts and hard work. Still, power is easily corrupted and abused, and its true character must be called out. The fact is top power in the US is very Jewish and very much geared to Jewish and Zionist interest. Jews being for Jews or Israel is not a problem per se, but it is a problem when Jews use the manpower and resources of a nation that is 98% goyim to push forth policies that narrowly favor what amounts to Jewish supremacism: Russia in 90s, Middle East conflicts, Israel-Palestine policy, rules on free speech(such as anti-BDS laws), promotion of Homomania(which is really proxy of Jewish minority elite privilege), and Victim Supremacism(that becomes a new nihilism as Jews, as the People of Holocaust, the biggest victims of all history, justify everything they do in terms of destroying New Nazis who are apparently everywhere: Putin, Assad, Iranian rulers, Trump, MAGA hat kid, etc.)
Maybe one day, when the American system has collapsed, another civilization will study American History without its particular pressures of consensus & taboo and expound on the Obvious and what should have been done to prevent disaster upon disaster. But we are living In-the-Moment in American History when the power of consensus and fear of taboo make it nearly impossible to speak the obvious. It is a Moment when not only James D. Watson but even officially sanctioned figures like David Reich come under threat by either fanatics of PC(the teachers pets or the system's attack dogs) or cynics of supremacism(usually elites who know the truth among themselves but figure it's too 'dangerous' for the people and common discourse). Because most of the elites are players than leaders and because they were allowed into upper ranks for holding certain 'correct' views, they just parrot the party line to keep their prized position and privilege.

There's a scene in 13th WARRIOR where the guy quotes the Koran: "For all we ought to have thought but have not thought, for all we ought to have said but have not said, all we ought to have done but have not done..." That sums up so much about why history ended up the way it did and why it will never be what it should be.

Commentary on "11/11/18: Nationalism vs. Imperialism"

http://www.unz.com/isteve/111118-nationalism-vs-imperialism/

@Jake

Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.

It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along with others. But as it became richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.

Initially, German provinces were unified to create a nation. But Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe, and the logic of power is to expand. So, nationalism can serve as a base for imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British National/Racial Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK) from invasion(by foreign armies or hordes). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.

The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country of Imperial Britain. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, they sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t pan out, but the young nation moved Westward to take land from American Indians and then waged war on Mexico to wrest the SW territories. So, the historical theme of US has been both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spanish Empire to grab more territory and gain foothold for worldwide hegemony. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spanish Empire withdrew into humble nationhood.
But the horrors and the heavy cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough here’ and 'we just about had enough over there'(meddling in European affairs led to huge headaches). But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, not to develop them further. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State became addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.

For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political territoriality was always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of bond with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you've never met in life and will never know. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than with capitalist Italy or France. Germanism trumped economic theory. West Germans and East Germans shared common ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians. And secular Jews feel closer to religious Jews than to secular non-Jews. A secular Jew may work together and be friends with a secular Arab, BUT he will feel a closer brotherly bond with religious Jews in Israel. And the secular Arab will feel closer to Muslim Arabs.

Imperialism today is an insane idea, but it had its place in history as a useful and constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world, which would likely be ruled by local elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades.
In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants beneath them were stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, clearing the way for the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model of the people as fellow countrymen than mere subjects of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites depending on the circumstances. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. In such cases, the Western imperial fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees(the comprador elites). The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that pushed for something new. Still, because the collaborationist native elites came to be seen as toady puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost prestige and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people. No one admires a puppet king.
Anyway, if not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who ruthless suppress any possibility of change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but, in time, developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.

That said, whatever good imperialism may have done in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. We can acknowledge of the benefits of past imperialism without calling for more imperialism. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists may have committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. They now do a lot of trade with each other due to the World Order created by European/American Imperialists. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by Western exploration, discover, and conquest. So, we have to give imperialism its due. Now, globalism would be fine as long as it's about the world trading and communicating with one another. Sadly however, globalism has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means violating of border security by masses of migrants who’ve been given the green-light to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.

Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism AND nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire could be a friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, European Christendom in WWI is a bloody stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.) French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism. Though China and Japan are currently not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation(Japan or Vietnam) seeks alliance with a great imperial power(the US) to gain leverage against the bigger national power(China). So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear. There have also been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.

Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is now possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about in its founding. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals in America. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions, but if he murders a homeless person, he has face the Law. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples. Weak people had few protections or rights.
European Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial in their logical implications. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind in non-white cultures and civilizations. Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees than in most of the non-West. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this mutual-solidarity led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the acts of conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers trampling on their subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elite who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this proved fatal to Western Imperialism.

Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project following WWII when so many newly minted nations emerged from the collapse of European Empires. But United Nations is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity. Non-whites once valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights and security from bigger powers. As the non-West was far less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to regain hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. In both cases, it was about helping to protect national independence from the other Evil Empire, be it American(from the communist perspective) or Soviet(from the capitalist perspective). Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message in the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.

But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The Third World went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.

It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better in their own homelands. Instead, they are glued to the TV or smart-phone beaming fantasies of the US as paradise of Cool & Wealth or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire and serve its aims.

While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence. It turned non-whites into Caravandals.

A Response to Eric Margolis’ Denunciation of Ken Burns’ THE VIETNAM WAR Documentary

For Eric Margolis’ article, click: THE VIETNAM NIGHTMARE – AGAIN

I don’t think Ken Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who were involved in the conflict. Sure, there were warmongers, profiteers, and egomaniacs. And paranoids.

But Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Now, Eisenhower could be aloof or angry. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But they were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for the military brass, well, what would one expect? They were educated, trained, and prepared all their lives to think of the world in terms of team sports. They were trained to fight and win, not to think of higher matters or deeper truths. Sure, West Point and Annapolis educated bright students who learned history and ideas, but it all came down to one thing: Fighting and Winning. As for the CIA, it is a sinister organization by design — an agency of necessary evil — , but then, let’s keep in mind that Soviets had a worthy counterpart in the KGB. Let’s remember Soviets infiltrated FDR’s government and stole a lot of secrets and planted a lot of subversives. Soviets even got the Bomb during the Truman era. Also, Soviets ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted dissent in their own empire. And EVERY nation has its own version of the CIA. If CIA did more damage, it was because powerful nations just have more means to do so.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if it was on the verge of being united under a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. After all, the US didn’t intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved in Vietnam was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino Theory is thought to have been ‘debunked’, it certainly made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed it. So did Mao, which is why China, though poor and backward, sent aid to rebel groups all over the world. Soviets believed that a sign of US weakness could spark revolutions all over the Third World that equated capitalism with imperialism. Che Guevara certainly believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would start a wildfire of anti-Yanqui revolutions all over Latin America and then eventually spread to the US as well. Che really believed this, which is why he spent some time in the Congo and later died in a failed insurgency in Bolivia.

Also, at least in part, the Domino Theory did come true. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind that the communist victory in Malaysia was prevented only by ruthless British strategy of hurling huge numbers of people into concentration camps and hamlets.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be on the wane, not least because of social conflicts and cultural decay that defined much of the 60s and early 70s. Americans threw in the towel after losing ‘only’ 58,000 men. The outside world got the impression that Americans no longer had the resolve to impose their hegemony on the world. If a ragtag army in Cuba could defy Uncle Sam in the early 60s and if guerrilla troops in Vietnam could defeat the greatest technological power, maybe America lost its warrior soul as the result of excessive freedom, pleasure, and individualism. It seemed like dejavu of Pax Romana's decline, what with a populace that was no longer respectful of authority and no longer willing to make sacrifices.

Not only communists were emboldened by American troubles(and ultimate 'defeat') in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was inspired in part by Vietnam(though it ignited as a silly scuffle about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was a World Power. French troubles in Algeria weren't all that surprising as France was an empire in decline. French defeat was a setback for a European power, not a World Power.

So, after the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat Goliath anywhere in the world. The Shah regime in Iran fell, and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened to roll in the tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador and Guatemala. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Salvador Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by CIA-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It certainly blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn’t all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics… at least in perception. Ironically, the Vietnam example inspired the US and the Mujahadeen to pull off something similar in Afghanistan against the Soviet Empire.

In the end, communism wasn’t defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn’t sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa was a constant drain, like flushing money down a toilet. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. As Eastern European nations were limited in natural resources, their economies had to rely on manufacturing, which meant Soviet industry had to be suppressed. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster in economic terms. Maoism was hell on earth.
Some might argue communism failed because Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of neutral nations willing to do business with communist nations — India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets — , the real reason for the failure of communism was it just doesn’t work.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina — brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia — and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam eventually made the switch to market economics, it’s clear that US was on the right side of history at least on basic economic theory.

Also, the Vietnam conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, occupying the southern half, dropping bombs, and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they sought to impose Stalinism on the entire nation when, in fact, many people didn’t want it. After all, more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? Because there’s something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone, and there are so many things you aren’t allowed to do. It’s a system where you can’t do so many things and are told to do lots of things that make little sense.

Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory… just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way in the Pacific War instead of calling it quits to save lives. Also, many atrocities were carried out by the communists as well. The massacre in Hue, for instance. In war, all sides do horrible things.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn’t have intervened in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided. There is no getting around the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot who devoted his life to gaining independence for his people. Even though communism was an unfortunate choice, his formative years were defined by a world in which the great empires were capitalist while the Soviet Union lent a hand, symbolic or material, to Third World peoples yearning to gain independence.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for a b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, perhaps his rather sympathetic take on Cold Warriors reflects the neo-hegemonic worldview of globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the dissemination of agendas favored by people like CucKen Burns: Homomania, Afromania, feminism, Diversity, and EOJ(or Empire of Judea). Today’s progs want the world to become neo-Americanized because America itself has been remade into a giant globo-experiment. We now live in a Metropolar World.
Indeed, in today’s Vietnam, as journalist Linh Dinh had duly noted, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet communists had fought for patriotism and national sovereignty, it could be that the new Western ‘progressives’ now almost feel as though the US was on the right side of history all along.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make Joe McCarthy blush? They all seem to have learned to love the empire. Their ilk are now in the commanding heights of all institutions and industries. So, US imperialism now means the spread of more proggery all over the world.

Fascist-Democracies are the Best Bet for the Future

A Facist-Democracy in Action

Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History was not marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profound changes in its forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.

Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’ and 'liberal', supposedly the quintessential attributes of the West?
Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And huge swaths of what had been Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. If a people-and-culture are defined by a set of ideas, are they no longer that people-and-culture if the ideas were to change? If we say the samurai system and ethos are the indispensable essence of what it means to be Japanese, then are we to assume that the Japanese stopped being Japanese once they abandoned the samurai order and embarked on the path of Westernization? While it is true that samurai culture and mindset left a huge imprint on Japanese history, isn't the core essence of Japanese-ness the story of Japanese people in their homeland? Likewise, while it's true that political democracy & individualism originated and came to fruition in the West, the core essence of the West goes far deeper than any philosophy or set of ideals. More than anything, it's about the people, the land, and their sense of history REGARDLESS of whatever ideas or values they may have espoused. Thus, barbarian Vikings were no less a part of the West than Republican Romans. And Spanish living under autocratic Franco were no less part of the West than Swedes living under Social-Democracy. France was just as much a part of West under monarchy as under revolutionary populist ideals. So, the notion of distilling the entirety of the Western Experience into a bottle of 'democracy' is rather glib and shallow.

Also, there is no need to fetishize democracy. The historical lesson of democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, has often led to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.

For democracy to thrive and ensure survival of the civilization it serves, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that are now prone to spouting such sentiments such as “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” In Iran, Israel, and Turkey, the democratic institutions serve, respectively, Iran-ness, Jewishness, and Turkishness. Democracy serves than dissolves nationalism. (A fascist-democracy allows liberal freedoms and free elections BUT enshrines the core fascist themes into the Constitution whose primary function is to secure the survival and well-being of a particular ethnos on a specific territory justified by a certain narrative. The danger of autocracies is the power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few that grow increasingly paternalistic and corrupt. The danger of democracies is the people become fractured into atomized individuals succumbing to appetites and alienation, thus allowing cynical elites to gain plutocratic power behind the scenes. In contrast, a fascist-democracy provides direction & meaning to freedoms that ultimately go to preserving the ethnos and mythos. Thus, people do enjoy freedoms and choices as individuals but are inculcated from cradle to find meaning as organic members of a larger community of blood-and-soil. Too many people tend to see politics in terms of right-wing aristocracy vs left-wing democracy, but democracy can be made to serve nationalism via fascism, which also allows for compromise between capitalism and socialism.)

America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom bound to powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. A democracy without fascist themes to keep it loyal to a people & culture will eventually dissipate because an idea serving an idea(instead of something specific and tangible) will grow weak and decadent. In time, the people are made to value the idea more than the realness of their own existence as ethnos and culture upon a territory. Thus, French people no longer believe their political system exists to defend and preserve the French nation. Instead, the French people and nation now exist to serve the Idea that, in a state of abstraction, becomes universal and is no longer specifically bound to the national interests of France as blood-and-soil. (While the cosmopolitan ideal of the French Enlightenment is not a new one, its corrosive impact had been tempered in the past by nationalism, traditionalism, and chauvinism that favored the French over their colonial subjects who, furthermore, had little chance of moving to France. Today, it's so easy for millions of non-whites to invade white nations every year. What had been the privilege of the affluent has become the tangible dream of countless mobs in the Third World. The practice of cosmopolitan universalism went from rich & educated white Europeans traveling to exotic places to millions of Africans and Muslims arriving in France and UK to shake their booties to rap and shake down whitey for free gibs.)

Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a proud Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ for all of humanity that may want to migrate to Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.

That is precisely what is happening in the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if current trends are left unchecked, the future of Europe will be doom and demise.

A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people & culture of a nation.

A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population that has been demoralized and deracinated by PC. If some native people do remain idealistic and passionate in a decadent-democracy, it's only in welcoming racial and national suicide in the name of serving the ideas of 'democracy' and 'openness'... and 'diversity', another essential 'Western Value' recently discovered or invented by PC. It goes to show that 'Western Values' are really dictated by whomever wields the power to control the narrative. Deracinators or 'Deracists' are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.