Whites, Jews, and Blacks — Need for White Race-ist Unity — Whites must be like Asian Indians if they're to avoid the Fate of American Indians

https://buchanan.org/blog/the-new-systemic-racism-that-is-coming-138889

A commenter asked in reply to the Patrick J. Buchanan article:

"I still don’t get how all this happened… Whites aren’t dumb or weak… Where did it all go wrong?"

'Dumb' and 'weak' are relative terms. In relation to whom and what?

If Jews never came to the US, whites would still be on top and would be setting the narrative and agenda. Sure, there would be liberal whites, but they would be in balance with conservative whites. Both liberalism and conservatism have value, and one provided reform and novelty while the other provided stability and continuity, sense of heritage and roots. But Jews came along and used their power to tip the scale in favor of Liberalism. Thus, white liberalism came to be severed from white conservatism. (American History went from reconciliation and mutual respect between Northern whites and Southern whites following the Civil War to such condemnation of white identity & the American South that even white Southerners now do nothing to defend their heritage from feral blacks and PC radicals egged on by Jews who, at the same time, demand that white Southerners support Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. Dixie Chicks just calling themselves Chicks is typical of total Southern cuckery to Jews and the mob.) Liberalism without roots finds itself adrift. Liberals may bitch about conservatism, but liberalism without conservatism is like trees severed from roots. After all, liberalism is an outlook, and it needs a vantage point, i.e. it has to be liberal on a conservative foundation. Liberalism is like the sails on a boat, which would be like conservatism. Without the boat, the sails are useless. Or liberalism is like wings on a plane.Without the main body, the wings are useless.
Therefore, when white liberalism was severed from white conservatism, it had to serve another root-foundation, and this is where Jews made it serve Jewish Power aided and abetted by Jungle Fever/Faith & eventually Globo-Homo. As for white conservatism, it faced difficult times because Jews and their white liberal cucks said whiteness is problematic, then bad, then evil. So, white conservatism could no longer preserve white pride. For white conservatism to be viable, it had to drop the 'white' and just be conservative. Conservative about what? For some, conservatism merely meant conserving wealth(property values) or, paradoxically, the engine for change. (Consider David French whose idea of 'conservatism' is preserving the social forces that led to drag-queen story hour. In other words, American Conservatism = Conservation of forces that bring about the most rapid change.) But conservatism must conserve something other than 'muh money'. If whiteness is no longer worth preserving because of 'white guilt', then white conservatism, having dropped the 'white', had to serve another identity and culture, and again Jews made whites serve Jewish identity that was deemed noble because of Holy Holocaust Cult and its great heritage. If white liberals became subservient to Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish victim-hood, white conservatives became reverent of Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish heritage — Paul Johnson, one of the premier cuckservatives of the Cold War era, often made the case that Judaism is essentially conservative and so, Jews will eventually come around to the political right; the fool overlooked the fact that Jewish 'conservatism' is about maximizing Jewish Power by any means necessary, even by pushing deracinating liberalism on whites, which explains why so-called Neocons worked with Jewish Liberals to undermine white identity and pride. The Neo-Con-Federacy alliance didn't last long. White Southerners supported Zionists, but Zionists took a big dump on white 'racism', just like Apartheid South African support of Zionism didn't prevent most Jews from reviling white-ruled South Africa as the worst thing possible. At any rate, adopting Jewish Identity as the main theme of American Conservatism was bound to be devastating to white conservatism because the main villains of the Shoah were 'white supremacists'(though, to be sure, Nazi Germans were 'Aryanists' whose greatest crimes were against other whites, especially Slavs and Jews, if counted as 'white'). Jewish victim-narrative essentially blames whites and Christians for everything.

Now, Jews could pull this off because they are smarter than whites by one standard deviation. But what about Episcopalians whose IQs are comparable to Jews? Their religion was weak, they were more about class & privilege than blood-spirituality(or ethno-religious identity of Jews), and over time, their values just became bloodlessly following the latest fashion among trendy elites. Also, Jews have stronger and pushier personalities than Episcopalians who would rather lose a fight against feisty Jews than get down and dirty. Jews were especially effective in subverting white power because of their passive/aggressive nature. If Jews were ONLY aggressive, whites would have told them to screw off. But Jews would approach whites with sappy eyes and plead for sympathy for Anne Frank and 'muh holocaust'; and whites, out of Christian magnanimity and conscience, ceded to Jews the notion that the Holocaust was the greatest evil in world history and therefore ANY negative aspersion about Jews is 'antisemitic', therefore akin to Nazism. Whites thought they were being nice to poor pitiful Jews, but Jews were planting a moral trap underneath the white ass, especially as the history of 'antisemitism' was mainly a white European/Christian thing. Once that premise was accepted as part of Official White Morality, it meant that Jews could dump on whites all they want but whites better not dump on Jews in kind because it'd be so awful and hurt the feelings of those poor pitiful boo-boo-baby Jews. Fast-forward to today, and NYT & other Jewish-run media dump on whites endlessly but whites dare not say anything back in kind to Jews. Jews dredge up all the dark past about white history, but whites dare not do the same about Jews. If anything, both white 'liberals' and 'conservatives' compete with one another on who is more pro-Jewish. Jews kick white ass, but whites are eager to kiss Jewish ass. Kick-Ass-Kiss-Ass is the dynamics between Jews and whites. And of course, to consolidate white cuckery and submission, Jews also pushed the Noble Negro cult to guilt-bait whites for all eternity. So, Jewish-run NYT and other media outlets feature black and yellow bitches dumping on white women as abettors of white male terrorism against blacks, but white men say nothing about how countless white women had been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks. Tally up the numbers of white women robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks, and it far dwarfs the number of black thugs lynched by white mobs in a hundred years. But white men, 'lib' and 'con', are a bunch of maggoty wussy boys.
But then, there's another reason white men don't defend white women. Too many white women, being mental clay in Jewish hands, are into white self-loathing and anti-white hysteria as virtue-signaling. Indeed, consider how most of these 'Karens' who are denounced by Ugabundas and Skankishas happen to be urban 'liberal' proggy bitches. To many on the dissident right, there is a certain schadenfreude in watching these insipid whores get their just desserts, a taste of their own medicine. These deracinated slutty lowlife white traitor bitches watch TV shows and movies where white female characters go with Negro men and where white men are presented as creeps or dorks, and their worldview conforms to Jewish Hollywood propaganda. But when they are confronted with black thuggery and vileness, the first thing they do is CALL THE WHITE POLICE. Now, one may ask why did their parents raise such insipid kids? Because white parenting, especially beginning with the boomers, was 'anti-racist', but a people are finished without race-ism. Jews are race-conscious and gain in power. Blacks mess up everything but still gain in power because they are race-conscious. Whites lose and lose because they lost their race-ism. As boomer parents think there is nothing worse than 'racism', they raised their kids to worship Fartin Poother Bling. And these kids grew up to madonna the muddy skank and rap music and sexting each other photos of Negro dongs. And all they heard in schools is 'white racism', 'white supremacism', 'evil of antisemitism', 'evil of homophobia', and etc. But on some subconscious level, they grew up feeling uncomfortable because it's not natural to hate your own kind. It's no wonder the 'gay' stuff spread like wildfire among whites, even with 'conservatives', because it's like the last expression of 'whiteness'. And it's no wonder that blacks eventually caught onto this and are insisting on making June the month of Homeys than Homos. Sheeeeeeiiiit, Juneteenth be da thang.
BLM and LGBT marching together is funny as hell because, despite the outward show of solidarity, they are expressions of opposing trends. BLM is about blacks doing as they please with roughhouse reparations of looting and burning, whereas Globo-Homo is about gentrification and yuppie-regeneration of the 'inner-city', code-word for parts of the town plagued with black crime and violence. Granted, there is a connection between blackness and homo-ness as plenty of white 'gay' buns crave black dongs — the butt-cucks — , but generally speaking, homo community caters to high-earners and the fancy-pants crowd than to hood rats.

Now, the 'weak' part. Again, it's relative. Without Jews and blacks, whites would be on top of the world in the West. Mentally, whites are strong against all groups except Jews. Some may say yellows have IQ comparable or even slightly higher than whites, but the difference isn't all that notable. Also, as yellows happen to be docile and dog-like, they are incapable of gaining power and authority as a minority. Chinese are successful minorities in Southeast Asia but in a precarious than prestigious position — it's no wonder Chinese would rather settle in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the US where they face less animus and violence from the majority. If recently yellows are berating at and bitching about whiteness, it's only because they are dutiful and servile dogs of the prevailing ideology set by elite Jews. They are following orders as good little boys and girls.
So, only Jews could make whites seem 'weak' of mind. Jews have noticeably higher IQ, strong identity rooted in blood & spirituality, and pushy personalities, along with sneaky passive/aggressive strategy. The only other people who make whites look weak are, of course, the Negroes, especially as American Culture is mainly about pop music and sports. Rock music has black roots, but moreover, blatantly black rap overtook rock as the most popular musical form, and what is rap about the thuggish cult of black aggression? Also, Americans worship sports, and who dominate? Blacks do. NFL culture is rather odd in its current configuration, and it's no wonder that it is in a state of crisis. Most players are black, and the game is getting even blacker. These black guys rose up the ranks by thumping white guys in high school and college, and they hump tons of white women. BUT, the majority of the fans are white males, and many white male fans of football happen to be 'conservative'. So, you have a game that is mostly about Democratic black guys dominating the field and humping white women that is cheered on largely by white males, the majority of whom are 'conservative'. White male 'conservatives' have 'evolved' to the 'anti-racist' position along the lines of, "Look, we cheer for you awesome black guys, and you whupped our pathetic white butts and you can hump my wife and marry my daughter, but please oh please, show some respect to the red, white, & blue and stand during the national anthem." That's Rush Limbaugh 'conservatism'. But black players feel differently. They feel, "Sheeeeeeeiiiiit, we be badass mofos who be da kangs of dis here sports, and we done whup fa**oty white boys and hump white girls, and dem white boys in da stands just a bunch of punkass pussies who be begging fo' our autographs while dey's girlfriends be lustin' after our dic*s." Yep, that is how black players see the game, and why not? Suppose Germans were taken as slaves to Japan, and suppose they came to dominate the sports by beating up scrawny yellow Japanese men and were humping the yellow girls. Would these Teutonic giants feel any respect for yellow dorks begging for their autographs? Would they pay respect to the Japanese anthem and identity for long? No, they would be feeling, "We be Vikangz".
For better or worse, sports is at least 1/2 of American culture and identity. So, who dominates sports comes to shape the image of America. Without blacks, whites would dominate sports in the US, and the racial-national perception would be very different. Indeed, look at the harm done to French identity and pride as the result of black domination. Sure, the white French pretend they are all beyond race and that Frenchness has no color, but blacks notice color. They know they are kicking white French ass and France is being Africanized.

Now, one may argue that white people as a unity are more powerful than any other. After all, white imperialists took over all of Africa at one time. British fleet defeated China in two Opium Wars. Spanish took over all of what is now Latin America. This is true, but white power depends on unity of identity, and that means race-ism. Without white race-ism, there can be no white unity. Then, whites can only compete as individuals, and then they will lose mentally to Jews with higher IQ & nimbler verbal skills and lose to blacks who are more muscular and athletic. This is why 'anti-racism' is the most fatal thing to happen to whites. But with white unity, whites could easily push back against Jewish Power. And whites as a unity can kick black ass. In the movie ZULU, each black warrior is more muscular and faster than whites, but whites work as a disciplined team and mow down the savanna bunners with awesome race-ist efficiency. This is why only race-ism can save the white race or any race. This is why any white person who uses the term 'racist' as epithet is part of the problem and hardly better than fools who yammer "Democrats are the real racists."

Ultimately, the great tragedy of American History is that American Indians didn't have the personality and wiliness of Asian Indians. American Indians were a stoned-faced stone-age people who put up a fight against men with guns and wagons, then later trains. They had no hope of military victory. They fought bravely and have been honored as such, but their defeat was a foregone conclusion, and following their surrender, they just remained on Reservations and lived on bacon, tobacco, and firewater. They were 'dumb' like the big 'Injun' in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.
But imagine if American Indians were more like Asian Indians. After a few setbacks with fighting the white men, they would have put down the bows & arrows and try to deal with whites with words & wit. After all, white folks were far less likely to shoot a people who are always talking and balking than shooting off arrows or hurling tomahawks. Through incessant talk, the hindu-like American Indians might have wore down the white men on the matter of immigration. A compromise might have been reached where white Christian immigration is okay to a certain point, but come on, let's leave something for the Indians. And then, the hindu-like American Indians might even have convinced whites to send the blacks back to Africa on account of America being the land of the Indians, not of the Africans who have their own gigantic continent to themselves. Hindu-like American Indians might have argued incessantly, "Look, you white people come here and take so much. But, you built stuff and we Indians benefit too. But why did you bring all those blacks? It's bad enough we lost this land to you whites but should we lose it to blacks as well?" And hindu-like American Indians might have gotten better deals from whites with contracts. The real American Indians just trusted the white man, smoked the peace pipe, and went back to their teepees... only to discover that Pale Face was just fooling them. But hindu-like American Indians surely would have pressed upon whites to keep the word. "Look, we remember you people buying Manhattan with bead necklace. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, and no shame on me this time."

In DELIRIOUS, Eddie Murphy says you got to SING to get the girls. In SEVEN BEAUTIES, Pasqualino says, "More you pee, more you live." In our world, the more you talk, the more power you got. Even when they try to silence you, you have to keep talking and talking and talking. You have to join the conversation but not on their terms because PC is all about them talking while your side only listens or chants along or barks according to orders.




It's been observed by some that whites are like the NEW American Indians. Then, the lesson whites must learn from the fate of American Indians is that whites must act like Asian Indians to survive. American History could have been very different if American Indians fought less and talked more. Indeed, one reason why white folks in the South lent a certain ear to blacks was because the Negroes were always talking, like Jim in HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It's like the white massuh played by Chuck Connors in ROOTS has a fondness for Chicken George who always be talking. Frederick Douglas was full of talk, and of course, Fartin' Poother Bling was nothing without talk. And, you don't even need a boombox voice. Gandhi sounded like a geek, but he talked and talked and drove the British nuts like Groucho Marx with the Wasp characters.

It's incredible that Jews of all people hold such a vaunted MORAL position in the American Narrative. After all, if any people experienced something like 'genocide' and destruction on American soil, it was the American Indians, all the more tragic because they have roots here going back eons, tens of thousands of years. And yet, there is the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. than one commemorating the 'American Holocaust' of the Red Man. And even though mass immigration did in the Indians, the Statue of Liberty as symbol of immigration is so highly prized and celebrated. Also, the US has been nothing but a blessing for Jews. They didn't face the kind of discrimination they did in the Old World, and furthermore, Jews took part in slavery/slave trade and sold supplies to whites who rubbed out the Indians. So, Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust'. And yet, Jews hold the high moral ground in America. Why? They never stopped talking. In the end, talk determines 'truth'. If Bob did wrong to John, but if Bob does all the talking while John sulks and sits in the corner, everyone will go with Bob's word. He sets the narrative. It's like the scene in GOODFELLAS where Martin Scorsese's mother tells a joke about a man who never says anything.



How did Christianity became a great religion? The Early Christians faced persecution, but they never stopped talking and eventually caught the ears of some powerful and influential folks. In the end, it wasn't a case of "meek shall inherit the Earth" but "speak shall inherit the Earth". And this is why white Americans, as they face a demise similar to that of the American Indians, must not make the same mistake. Instead of being like the noble but 'dumb' Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, they must be like Asian-Indians who never shut up. They must be like Babu(of THE SIMPSONS) or Ben Kingsley as Gandhi who's always talking and talking, even when he's sent to jail time and time again. To reiterate this point, white Americans should speak with a Hindu accent. Doing so will remind them that, unless they keep gabbing like Hindus, they will end up like the Red Man.
Whites should start with the topic of creating the white leagues in sports on the basis that white athletic inferiority needs is own space from blacks who make it virtually impossible for any other race to play, especially certain positions. So, let blacks have NBA and NFL, but let there be the white leagues. And why not? Blacks got their own chess tournaments as they can't compete with Jews. Now, the Powers-that-be will say NO, but whites should still keep talking and never drop the issue and should re-package it in so many ways. After all, the US has said NO to reparations-for-blacks so many times, but it's still on the menu because blacks never stop talking about it. (Whites should demand Realization among blacks. Realization over reparations. What would this Realization be? That, even though blacks got less than whites in the US, they got so much from contact with whites than they would have on their own if left alone in their own savagery of bongo drums and chucking spears at hippos. Sure, the argument of the Realization would be condemned as 'racist', but one must never stop talking. Even if the other side says NO, you keep making your case and drive home the point. It's like even a brick wall eventually breaks if you keep picking at it. In those prison movies, inmates eventually make a hole with a spoon. Why? They never give up picking at the wall. Words wear down the opposition only if you must keep on talking.) If whites give up on certain issues and stop talking, they lose. Even if there are setbacks, one must keep talking. Like 'gay marriage' for instance. Don't just accept it as 'the law of the land' but keep talking against it. Chip away at it bit by bit by bit. If the power of words made the Roman Empire eventually succumb to Christianity, the religion of pesty Jewish heretics, it can do wonders for whites in the long run but only if they keep talking. If the idea of White Leagues is rejected and banned, should whites give up on the idea? No, they should keep pushing for it with new arguments. Did homos and Jews give up on 'gay marriage' when the courts initially said NO? No, they pushed on. Meanwhile, American cuckservatives began to say NOTHING in opposition. When one side talks while the other side remains mute, the talkers win. So-called 'culture war' was really a game of Culture Words, and Jews and the 'left' talked more. In contrast, the 'conservatives' said close to nothing or took orders from Jews and merely said, "Muh Israel" and "Democrats are the real racists", thereby undermining the need for race-ism among whites.

Say the word and you will be free. There's a song by the Bangles, "Walk like an Egyptian", but the real lesson is "Talk like an Asian-Indian". And use their dotty accent to always remind yourself that if you don't keep talking, you will end up like the American Indians. In a way, it's ironic that American Conservatism is in such sad state despite having dominated Talk Radio. They sure did a lot of talking... but about what? 'Muh Israel', inanities about 'Feminazis', cheerleading for more Middle East Wars, Russia-bashing, Chicom-bashing, and 'Democrats are the real racists'. In other words, total BS and nothing about real issues, real truths, and real needs. White folks need to speak the truth of HBD in hindu accent. Talk truth, not nonsense.

'Minority Rights' means Different things to Minority Elites and Minority Underclass. To Minority Elites, it means the Right to Rule. To Minority Underclass, it means struggle for representation. Jewish Minority Overlords and Non-White Minority Underclass.

There are different meanings to ‘minority rights’. We must ask, what kind of minority are we talking about, and what is meant by ‘rights’?

After all, both British imperialist elites and the native Untouchables were minorities in India. But whereas one minority, the Brits, was at the top, the other minority, the Untouchables, was at the bottom.

For the British imperialists, ‘minority rights’ meant the right to rule over Hindu(and Muslim) masses. For the Untouchables, 'minority rights’ would have meant the modest hope of having the same legal protections conferred upon other Indians of 'higher' castes.

A similar confusion of meaning perplexes the Current West when it comes to 'minorities' and 'rights'. After all, right-to-rule(like the Divine Rights) is light years apart from right-to-representation. One is for kings, the other is for the peons. (To be sure, universal rights flowed from elite rights. The idea of rights began at the top and gradually reached the bottom.)

In the US and UK, Jews are the ruling minority or the minority elites. (Homos also belong to this group.) But Mexicans, many blacks, and many immigrant groups are either part of the minority underclass or minority ordinary folks; they have no special power or out-sized ambitions & expectations(though blacks have out-sized egos that demand attention and adulation, the blings and glitter). Asians do better academically & economically than most other immigrant groups, but their dim sense of identity and servile attitude don't translate to much power and prestige. Even in Hawaii where yellows constitute the majority, they lack political will or cultural vigor. They are just parrots and puppets of PC emanating from Harvard and Hollywood.

So, ‘minority rights’ means different things to Jews and to other minorities. For Jews, it means the quasi-divine right to rule over US & UK and make demands & dictate policy. Old ‘antisemitism’ used to mean denial of basic rights and liberties to Jews. New ‘antisemitism’ means any kind of criticism of or challenge(no matter how justified) to the Jewish supremacist right-to-rule over goyim.
And the logic is similarly operative with homo politics. ‘Gay rights’ used to mean the tolerance of allowing homos be homo and do their own thing without persecution. Today, ‘gay rights’(or Gay Rites as the neo-religion of Homomania) means we must admire, celebrate, and worship homos as angels and even change marriage laws to appease the Great Holy Homo. It means those who mock or deride the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, culture, lifestyle, or agenda must be quarantined as being afflicted with 'phobia' and be blacklisted. (In Castro's Cuba, homos suspected of HIV were quarantined and stigmatized. In the Jew-run West, sane people who seen LGBTQ nonsense for what it is are effectively contained and blacklisted from engaging in social discourse and economic competition.) And we must even put homo regalia(or re-gay-lia) in churches. It’s as if homos have some divine right to be admired and adulated, and so, we humble folks must perform our obligatory duty to homos as our 'spiritual' superiors. In all big cities, it is virtually mandatory for all politicians and 'respectable' citizens to sing hosannas to homos & trannies and take part in 'gay pride' parades. Indeed, people mustn’t even joke about(or cringe over) something as ridiculous as Bruce Jenner calling himself 'Caitlyn' or Bradley Manning(as Chelsea) expressing joy over replacing his penis and balls with a fake 'vagina'. (In the UK, a criminal investigation is under way to hunt the man who cursed out precious Brucie.) We must laud and applaud like dumb dogs at the feet of their master.

Now, there are other minorities that also demand special favors. Blacks demand affirmative action, and Mexicans demand affirmative immigration(amnesty). But many blacks and Mexicans are on the bottom looking up. Their hope is to reach the middle. (To be sure, too many blacks just fantasize about being sports stars or rappers, goals out of reach for most blacks, but then, blacks are stupid.) But even if blacks and browns demand special favors, they won’t amount to much and will never gain elite power in the West(unless they race-mix with higher-IQ Jews, whites, or Asians). Historically, all they could hope for was equality(and then some) under the law.

In contrast, equality of any kind isn’t good enough for Jews(and homos) anymore. For them, ‘rights’ means something closer to ‘divine right to rule’. Jews are now addicted to supremacism and won't settle for anything less. The New 'Antisemitism' isn't about denying Jews basic rights(what the rest of us have) but refusing to cave to all their demands(as rightful decrees of overlords who deign to rule over us as 'sheeple').
But the current arrangement makes Jews nervous because it is natural for the masses to resent and challenge the ruling elites, especially if of another racial, ethnic, and/or religious identity. Jews are different from non-Jews both ethnically and religiously. This makes Jews nervous because they, as the current ruling elites, make natural focus of the critics of power and populist angst.

So, to morally shield their power, Jews associate themselves with minorities who are relatively powerless. (Notice how Jews rig admissions at Ivy League Schools to favor Jewish students but obfuscate this operation by making all the usual noises about the need for 'Diversity'. Jews hide behind affirmative action for blacks and browns to justify the current 'holistic' system, the main agenda of which is to favor Jews uber alles.)

Since many immigrant groups have historically arrived with little and started on the bottom), they've been pegged in the popular imagination as humble and vulnerable(like a newborn baby), indeed as if Ellis Island Blues is still the anthem of New America. So, Jews associate with immigrants as 'fellow minorities'. This way, Jewish minority supremacist power is morally sanctified in association with the 'huddled masses' of recent arrivals who presumably need protection from the native populist mobs and nationalist 'xenophobes'. By posturing as noble defenders and champions of newly arrived minority immigrants, Jewish minority supremacist elites pose with(and even as) the 'powerless' by association. It's like the desperate alliance of the minority Afrikaner minority elite and the black Inkatha Freedom Party in the twilight yrs of Apartheid South Africa. Even though whites were at the top and Inkatha party members were on the bottom, they were both minorities(racial or political) and faced the challenge of the ANC party supported by the great majority of blacks. (Inkatha Party, as the political embodiment of the historically aggressive & expansionist Zulus, found common ground with European-Imperialists who came to dominate South Africa.)

The logic behind Jewish minority uber-elite alliance with economically depressed non-white minorities(mainly browns and blacks) and scab-immigrant-mercenaries is comical if one thinks about it. (Keep in mind the British Imperialists also used Migration-Collaboration to bolster their empire. Brits used Chinese migrant-minorities in Southeast Asia and shipped tons of Asian Indians to Africa to do their bidding. It was also under British Empire that the Jewish migration to Palestine began in earnest, and we know how that turned out for the native Arabs. Today, Jews control US & EU and use mass-migrations of non-whites to alter the balance of power in the West by reducing native whites into just another minority at the mercy of the divide-and-rule master strategy of the Tribe.) Imagine if the British Imperialist Elites in India sided with the Untouchables as ‘fellow minorities’ against the ‘bigoted’ and ‘populist’ masses of Hindus and Muslims demanding national liberation and independence from alien imperialism. Imagine the gall of the British ruling minority elite making overtures to the Untouchables, the underclass minority, and claiming shared victim-hood as ‘fellow minorities’ regardless of the fact that the British minority rule as the Master Class whereas the Untouchable minority is mired in poverty at the bottom. That would have been pretty amusing. But devious as the Brits could be, they didn't have the sheer audacity of chutzpah to pull off something that ridiculous.

That said, there were times when the Brits did advance the Minority Issue to morally justify their rule over India. In Richard Attenborough’s movie GANDHI, the British ruling minority presents itself as the protective guarantors for the Muslim minority from the potentially domineering Hindu majority were India to gain independence. The Brits were "masters in someone else's home" just like Jewish globo-homo elites are currently in the West. For Jews, everything is a question of "Is it good for Jews?", and this is why Jews get hysterical when whites begin to ask a similar question, i.e. "Is Jewish power good for whites?" As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and whites must share the same premise: "Is it good for Jews?" Jews must operate to serve Jewish interests, and so must white folks. One might call it shared interest and destiny, but the same can be said for master and dog. Master and dog both act on the basis of "Is it good for the master?" Shared interest is not the same thing as common interest. In a case of common interest, both sides have autonomy and arrive at a compromise that benefits both sides more-or-less equally. In contrast, there is no guarantee of parity in shared interest. Master and slave have shared interest, but it's all about the slave serving the master. Jews and whites cooperating on the basis of either 'Is it good for Jews?' or 'Is it good for whites?' is a case of shared interest, but the former is about whites serving Jews whereas the latter is about Jews serving whites. It makes all the difference.


Thankfully for India, it had a leader of Gandhi’s caliber who was witty, shrewd, and devious enough to match wits like a lawyer with the British. (He would have made Professor Kingsfield of PAPER CHASE proud.) Too bad the West lacks such leaders with just the right combination of cleverness, will, tenacity, and resolve.
Back then, the British Imperialists claimed that India was ‘British’. Now, the bloody fools in UK, under the influence of their Jewish masters, say non-white immigrant-invaders are the ‘New British’.

Gandhi urged Indians to engage in civil disobedience until the British minority elites left. Maybe white Europeans can do something similar. A strategy of mass non-cooperation and civil disobedience until the West is cleansed of globo-homo imperialism, cuck-collaborators, and Third World migrant-invaders & African sexual colonizers doing ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).
Since overt resistance has been banned by the PC state, whites can exert their collective will through mass non-cooperation. (Whites can start by asserting that they will no longer support WARS FOR ISRAEL and act as goons for Jewish Imperialists. Let Jews fight their own wars.) But then, so many whites have been led to believe that Diversity is sacrosanct and that restoration of nationalism is unacceptable. After all, PC reminds them endlessly that the truest expression of 'European(or Western) values' is hankering for spicy exotic restaurants and jungle fever mating with Negroes. (Interestingly enough, Brexit won in UK because of older voters, but Macron won in France especially with the older demographic, 80% of whom chose him over Marine Le Pen.)

The future of Europe will be determined by whether it can produce leaders like Gandhi, Mao, Lenin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Castro, T. E. Lawrence, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, DeGaulle, and maybe Putin(as fate of Russia is still uncertain). While some of those men were pathological and dangerous, they could play politics on the grandest scale. When a civilization is faced with an 'existential' crisis, it calls out for visionaries and prophets, not technocrats, paper-shufflers, and wine-sippers. Run-of-the-mill 'leaders' won’t do. The current heads of state in Europe are not leaders but spineless flunkies of globalist oligarchs(with Jews having the most power due to Moral Advantage stemming from Shoah-Worship, the reigning religion of the West; a white goy with $10 billion is richer than a Jew with $1 billion, but the latter has 'spiritual' advantage because the Shoah Cult confers holiness upon him; the material has a price tag whereas the spiritual is priceless, and Jews have priceless value due to their moral exploitation of the WWII tragedy). Just look at Justin Trudeau the Man-Child cuck of Jewish donors. Why did so many Canadians vote for such pathetic clowns? Because Jews control media & academia and have infected so many white minds with nothing but PC and Pop Culture. 'Celebristianity'(largely shaped by Jews, Afros, and 'gays' or JAG) is the neo-religion of the West.

If Europe keeps producing nonentities like Merkel, Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Blair, Cameron, May, Berlusconi, and even Farage, it’s finished. Things are getting serious, and it will take real visionaries of wit and grit who can take the shit.
As for nationalists, the likes of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and others won’t do. (The exception may be Viktor Orban.) They are too much part of the system(despite disapproval from the ruling elites) and unable or unwilling for bold action under current rules that are totally rigged by media, academia, and deep state. Trump made it in the US, but he is not a serious man. He’s a showman and salesman, and he can’t be counted on to do much that really matters.
Also, as long as enough white people are comfortable and satiated with bread & circuses and mentally infected with PC for the time being, it's difficult to shake them out of their doldrums.
If Europe is to be saved, it will require the rise of truly remarkable individuals with the power to inspire, lead, and forever alter the trajectory of history.

Extreme times call for powerful personalities.

The threat that Europe faces is the greatest ever. Past wars and repressions were horrible, but WWI and WWII were still about white Europe. So, even after millions died, it was the same white Europe. And as bad as communism was, it didn’t change the demographics in most communist nations.
But now, things are direly different. Not only is Europe being colonized physically by foreign masses but European minds have been PC-colonized to ‘welcome’ this as a good thing, even as a 'European' thing.

We need a new set of leaders and rulers who can eradicate the mental virus from European minds and purge them of this ‘guilt’ and ‘fever’. Indeed, the task is daunting because whites welcome mass invasion not only out of ‘white guilt’ but because of ‘afro-fever’, aka jungle fever. European women are turning into sexual deserters who are offering their wombs to millions of African men who are storming the beaches of Europe. As African birthrate is 6 or 7 children per women and since EU has a policy of ‘saving’ millions of self-stranded Negroes in the sea, the demographic and sexual math for Europe is horrible.

White minds are colonized by Jewish PC, white lands are colonized by Third World mobs, white males bodies are brutalized by stronger Negro men, and white females’ wombs are colonized by Negro seeds. It is White Nakba.

In Jewish history, there were two kinds of cleansers: prophets and warriors. Prophets cleansed Jewish minds of the virus of pagan idolatry and reminded them of the Covenant with God. And the warriors took up arms to do battle with enemies of Jews. (The third kind of Jews were diplomats who used wit and cunning to negotiate with rivals, enemies, or overlords of Jews.)

Anyway, unless warriors have vision and conviction, they are mere mercenaries(or Janissaries). In order for white knights to rise, white souls must be cleansed and purged of the PC virus of guilt-and-fever.
It’s like Islam has two meanings for ‘Jihad’. One means to do physical combat against infidel, but there is another meaning that says the soul must be cleansed of infidel ideas and images.

In the present, even if great white leaders were to rise, majority of white masses will curse them and denounce them since their minds have been infected with the crazy idea that ‘racism’ is the greatest sin when, in fact, race-ism is a most noble creed and conviction.

The Paradox of Equality’s Origin in Oppression — George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM as HBD Tale — Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Resentment of Aesthetic Injustice

We are accustomed to thinking in terms of oppression versus equality. We resist oppression to be free, and freedom allows for equality. Thus, oppression is the enemy of equality. People throughout history have rebelled against oppression for equality. Overthrow of oppression means freedom, and freedom must mean equality, right? There is much truth in this in that an oppressive order is obviously unequal. Those with the Power use the means at their disposal to perpetuate a system whereby some are on the top and keep the rest on the bottom. So, naturally, an oppressive order is unequal. What could be gained by opposing and challenging oppression? Is it the hope that the oppressed will be equal with the oppressors? But this is impossible because resistance and overthrow means that the oppressors will be destroyed or expelled. What if the goal of the rebellion was for ALL people to become equal with the oppressors? But how could this be possible? If peasants rise up against the noblemen, could both sides arrive at a compromise where EVERYONE will be equal as a nobleman? But how can a society be made up entirely of noblemen? Who will do the hard work out in the fields? Who will do the heavy-lifting and the drudgery necessary to keep society going? If everyone cannot become like the privileged oppressors, should the goal be to get rid of the oppressive element altogether? Without oppressors, will all the people, in their newfound freedom, become equal with one another? But without oppressors to hold down the people, won’t some use their freedom and smarts to rise above others? And in time, won’t they become the New Oppressors?

Paradoxically, it appears that the concept of equality couldn’t have been possible without oppression. Even though an oppressive order throughout history has been inherently unequal, it forced a kind of collective equality for most people. For most of history, only a few people were part of the royalty, nobility, and elite clergy. Just about everyone else was more or less equal as slaves, serfs, servants, toilers, peons, peasants, soldiers(whose lives were all-too-expendable), or worse. Even though various classes or castes existed that perpetuated a complex hierarchy, it wasn’t much of an exaggeration to say most societies were divided between the 1% and the 99%. For most of history for most human communities, there was hardly anything that could be called a ‘middle class’. Rather, it was the elite oppressors and the unwashed rabble. And because the elite oppressors had most of the power & wealth and threatened & terrorized the rest of the population into compliance and obedience, there was a coercive kind of mass equality. It wasn’t an equality of freedom but of tyranny. But the perverse truth has been that NOTHING is more effective in enforcing equality than tyranny. While the tyrants are far more powerful and privileged than the rabble, they use their power to force the masses to hunker down, bow their heads, and just accept life as it is. One of the most egalitarian orders is the prison, and why? It is essentially tyrannical. The prisoners, regardless of their ability or background, are given the same clothes, fed the same meals, and must deal with the same conditions. It is one place where a lawyer with high IQ convicted of murder must share the same cell with a derelict with low IQ convicted of murder. It is in prison that people who’d known privilege and power all their lives come face-to-face with brute equality. And they realize that equality is essentially the product of repression and coercion.

Imagine an order made up of high-IQ Jewish geeks, low-IQ black thugs, capable Germans, mediocre Mexicans, unimaginative & earnest Chinese, thieving Gypsies, stilted American Indians, haggly Arabs, boorish Russians, and etc. Suppose they are all placed on a giant tanker in the middle of the ocean. The ship is closely guarded by a ultra-repressive force that metes out ruthless violence to anyone who messes around. All people on the ship, regardless of identity or background, are made to eat the same food, do the same kind of work, and own the same minimum property. They are all prisoners, and they must all comply with the rules. There is no opportunity to rise higher or do much of anything. They must all toil and perform similar basic tasks regardless of their innate ability. So, it doesn’t matter if someone has the brains of Albert Einstein or the physical might of Mike Tyson. They must all mop floors and do their share of daily drudgery. While this order is clearly oppressive and even though there is great inequality between the oppressors on ship and the oppressed prisoners, the fact is most people on the ship, being prisoners, find themselves to be equal with the others. Shared oppression and the suppression of their innate abilities are the great equalizers in terms of status and condition. Now, would such sense of equality and shared experience have been possible IF NOT for the oppression? Suppose all these various groups had encountered one another without coming under the equalizing force of the oppressors. Would the concept of equality ever have passed through their minds? Did humanity discover the meaning of equality only under shared oppression? Was equality the product of oppression? Then, how ironic that mankind came up with the idea of overthrowing oppression in the name of equality. After all, if oppressors are overthrown, there will no longer be a power that forces people to be equal. Some will rise higher and come to rule over others. This is why communism could only exist as Theory of Tyrannical Justice. If the oppressors are overthrown and if the people are allowed to do as they please, their freedom will lead to the rise of all kinds of hierarchies where some will be on the top, some in the middle, some on the bottom. Equality must be maintained by force by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The difference between the Old Order and New Order would be that while the masses were forced to be equal as exploited peons under the Old Order, they would be equal as protected workers in the New Order. If people in the Old Order were equal in having been used as human cattle, the people of the New Order would be equal in being forced NOT to exploit one's fellow man. But if the New Order has anything in common with the Old Order, it'd be that the people would be forced to be equal as members of the Working Class.

Take George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM. Under human oppression, all animals are more-or-less equal. Even though some animals are much smarter and far more capable than others, they are all equal in the sense that their main value to the farmer is as livestock and cattle. Humans are not interested in their intelligence or ability. Pigs may be much smarter than ducks, chicken, and sheep, but as far as humans are concerned, pigs exist to be slaughtered to make bacon, ham, and other stuff. So, if animals come to value equality as any kind of virtue, it’s only because human oppression forced all animals to be more-or-less equal. Even the magnificent horse is raised mainly to serve human needs, and when the time comes, it too will be slaughtered for profit. Humans think of animals in terms of profit-or-pleasure value. So, what does it matter if pigs are far more intelligent than sheep. If people want bacon, they will kill the pigs just like they kill the sheep... or chicken or ducks or whatever. There is a huge difference in intelligence and ability between the smart pig and the dumb hens, but they’ve all been equalized by human oppression. Pigs have been forced to be equal with all the other animals that are far dumber and far less capable. And even though the horse is a more impressive creature than other animals, its worth is assessed in the same manner: "What value does it have for humans?" So, the horse has no intrinsic, individual, or independent value as far as humans are concerned. Its only value is to be assessed in terms of its usefulness or profitability to humans. It's like Jews believe that goyim have no value other than to serve Jews. (This means that Jews would have innate value even if not a single goy existed in the world. But if Jews were to vanish from the world, goyim would have no reason to exist because the only value for their existence is to serve Jews. Without Jews to serve, they might as well just die.)
All animals are equal as peripheral planets that must revolve around human need and ‘greed’. If the animals come to value equality, it is only because they share the equality of oppression under humans. It’s like the scene in THE FUGITIVE. Harrison Ford plays this rich doctor with a nice house and beautiful wife. But when he is falsely convicted of murdering his own wife, he is made equal with all the losers, derelicts, and lunatics on death row. And if Gandhi truly tasted equality for the first time in his life, it was when the whites called him a ‘coolie’ and forced him off the train in South Africa. It was oppression that made Gandhi look around and feel equal with the rest of the downtrodden colored folks. When Gandhi had experienced freedom and privilege as a law student, he wasn’t looking to be equal with anyone. He wanted to rise high and be with the privileged folks, white or colored. It was only through oppression that he tasted equality with the masses he never really thought about until then.


In ANIMAL FARM, what happens to equality when the humans are overthrown? Initially, the idea is that equality will go from a condition to an ideal. As properties of humans, most of the animals were more-or-less equal under condition of human oppression. Equality had been imposed on them. In their shared misery under human ‘greed’, they came to value equality as a kind of camaraderie. It went from a condition to an ideal. And the dream was that once the humans were overthrown, animal equality would be sustained and strengthened through mutual respect. But without the flattening effect of human oppression, pigs realize that they are much smarter than other animals. Being so smart, they figure they should lead and take charge. Initially, they say they deserve the power because they will use their smarts for the good of all animal-kind. But as time passes, pigs begin to feel contempt for the lesser and dumber animals. They find it insulting to pig-hood that they must remain equal with animals such as chicken, ducks, horse, and the like. Even as they invoke equality as an ideal, they feel that equality was something that had been forced on them by humans who, in their narrow-minded greed, regarded pigs as no more valuable than the dumber animals. As far as humans were concerned, chickens existed to provide eggs and pigs existed to provide bacon and ham. Deep down inside, pigs resented having been forced to be equal with the rest of the dumb animals. They were actually special. Because they couldn’t prevail over humans all on their own, they forged an alliance with the other animals. The full force of the beast rebellion ousted the human oppressor, the farmer. Because pigs gained power with the help of other animals, they had to keep the grand bargain. Despite their higher intelligence, they pledged to devote their ability toward serving the common good of all animals. But due to their gluttonous porcine instincts and the natural contempt of intelligence for dumbness, pigs weave an elaborate web of lies whereby they become more and more powerful and less equal but in the Name of Equality.

Though George Orwell was a socialist and ANIMAL FARM is a satire on Stalinism, it can now be read more as a tale of HBD(human bio-diversity) than ideology. It’s essentially about how biology reasserts itself in a state of freedom and creates a natural hierarchy that favors the clever and devious over the earnest, naive, and dumb. Once humans are gone from the farm, ideology bends to biology. Despite the collective ideal of equality, the fact is biology comes to determine who gains the power. Smart win over the dumb. The ruthless and devious win out over the naive and childlike. Higher intelligence and personality-of-cunning win out.
While 1984 is the greater work, indeed Orwell’s masterpiece, it is more particular to a certain time and place. Though many observations of 1984 are still applicable today, it is very much a satirical indictment of Stalinism. Though ANIMAL FARM was intended as an allegory of what happened to the Soviet Revolution, its larger implications are more relevant than ever. Indeed, it now says more about what happened to Russia AFTER the fall of communism than under Stalinism. For starters, even though it could be said that the Bolsheviks, especially Stalin and his henchmen, betrayed the ideals of Marx(and perhaps Lenin), they were genuine ideologues. Stalin was a serious communist, as were those around him. And even though they gained great power and privilege, they were still committed to the Revolution and weren’t mainly focused on material wealth. Even though they lived better than most people in the USSR, they were not obsessed with riches and good times. They were committed to creating a new kind of society. If Stalin really wanted to live lavishly like Gaddafi, Kim Il Sung, Shah of Iran, and etc., he certainly could have. But in fact, he didn’t wallow in luxury and essentially led the life of a bureaucrat. Also, even though smart and cunning people took power under Bolshevism, Stalinism was not about the triumph of HBD. Indeed, unlike most of the smart Bolsheviks, Stalin was not Jewish. He was a Georgian, and he surrounded himself with mostly non-Jews at the highest levels of power. In ANIMAL FARM, Napoleon(Stalin) the pig wins out over Snowball(Trotsky) the pig. Napoleon wins mainly by raising puppies to grow up to be his attack force. He doesn’t have to go through the trouble of outwitting the other pigs or win arguments because the dogs around him have been raised to be loyal to him and to obey him. He has power beyond mind and wit. He has the power of blind loyalty. The dogs will maul anyone who disagrees with him, and Terror and Fear Factor become the ultimate arbiters of policy. Napoleon wields the dogs like Jews in the US use Antifa to attack and silence any opposition. Orwell was right to illustrate how Stalin prevailed over Trotsky by the use of Blind Loyalty and Terror, but I wonder if it was accurate to portray Stalin and his henchmen also as pigs. Though Stalin was pretty bright and recruited some men of considerable intelligence like cretinous Beria, triumph of Stalinism was ultimately not the victory of intelligence and ability but of mediocrity based on loyalty, fear, and discipline. Perhaps Stalin in ANIMAL FARM should have been portrayed as a wolf pretending to be farm animal that surrounds itself with loyal dogs.

If any period in Russian history truly resembled what happens in ANIMAL FARM, it was the post-communist heyday of the 1990s when Jews gained control of Russia and could do pretty much as they pleased. That truly was a Time of the Pigs. Whatever may be said of Stalin faction vs Trotsky faction, both sides were genuinely committed to the Revolution and Communism. Trotsky could be cunning and headstrong, and Stalin could be ruthless and manipulative, but there was no doubt that they were committed to the Revolution. So, what happens at the end of ANIMAL FARM doesn’t really apply to Stalinism. Stalin’s USSR was a brutal place of terror and fright, but it remained, from top to bottom, a system committed to Marxism-Leninism. It was after the death of Stalin that the elites of the USSR grew more cynical and apathetic. But these elites were more like mules than pigs. Men like Brezhnev took the helm for their utter lack of imagination. The system regarded them as 'safe'. And despite rising corruption and expanding privileges of those in the inner circle, there were limits to how much one could enrich oneself as long as the communist system remained in place. It was with the fall of communism that piggishness really ran wild in the USSR. If there was communist ideology to restrain individual greed and material self-interest in the 1920s and 1930s, the 1990s were an era of hog-wild for the New Russia. Granted, there was the new ideology of the End of History that said Russia was ripe for ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘free markets’ that would supposedly lift all boats in an era of privatization and profiteering for all the Russian folks, but that didn’t happen. Most of the wealth went to a handful of Jewish oligarchs who were supported by Global Jewry mostly centered in the US. So, what happened in the 1990s of New Russia more closely resembles what happens in the final part of ANIMAL FARM. It was all about the smartest people in Russia, the Jewish pigs, slurping up all they could find and then some. It didn’t matter that some of these Jews had been communists or had communist ancestors. They invoked ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘privatization’ as cover to rake in as much as they could for themselves. And like the utterly cynical pigs at the end of ANIMAL FARM, the Jews of the 1990s had only one thing in mind: "We Jews grab and loot everything." Say what you will about Stalin the mass killer and tyrant. The fact remains that he and those around him were mostly True-Believers in communism. That’s one thing you can’t take away from Stalin. He died a communist. He may have violated all sorts of Marxist principles, but he didn’t take power just to pig out for personal gain. But that is precisely what happened in the Russia of the 1990s. And if Stalin favored loyalty and mediocrity, Russia of the 1990s favored the most ruthless and nihilistic kind of Jewish smarts & greed to run wild. Of course, Jews did much the same in the US with the Dot.com bubble and Housing bubble, but thankfully the US economy and system were sturdy enough to withstand Jewish greed gone hog-wild. Unfortunately, Russia was too weak, dazed, and disoriented after the fall of communism to weather the piggish Jewish onslaught that ravaged Russia 100,000x worse than any band of Cossacks who, at most, ransacked one village at a time. Jewish Globalists were like Mentally Advanced Cossacks or Mongols who’d devised global strategies to descend upon any vulnerable nation like a swarm of locusts to devour as much as they could until they set their sights on a new target. These Jews are like George Soros the vulture-hawk who is perched high above and looking for the next kill. When Jews spot the next prey, they all coordinate their actions and move in for the kill and take all they can. Jewish globalists are glocusts.

But then, Jews pose a problem to all societies because they are most pig-like in their intelligence(higher) and appetite(voracious and insatiable). Indeed, Karl Marx said as much about Jews, and if anything, argued that one of the reason why capitalism must be destroyed is because it enables Jews, the kings of capital, to go crazy with greed and mess up all the world. Letting Jews practice capitalism is like letting pigs loose on the farm; they will dig up and eat everything. It’s like taking fat black women into an all-you-can-eat fried chicken joint. It’s like homos entering a bathhouse. Jews just can’t help it. They see that money, and they go crazy. They got to have more and more and more... like in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence are a marriage made in hell. Jewish personality is arrogant, sneering, pushy, contemptuous, rabid, and virulent. Jews often say ‘anti-Semites’ are ‘rabid and virulent’, but so-called antisemitism is a strong counter-reaction to Jewish foulness. Jewish intelligence is restless, tireless, and obsessive. Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence conspire to act like pigs with locust-wings. Jews are like a swarm of flying locusts. Just like pigs dig up and devour the roots of all plants, Jewish pigs gnaw at the roots of all cultures and sever a people from their identity, territory, and roots. Jewish pigs have been digging up and destroying the roots of European folks. Jews are now even going so far as to change European mythological and historical figures into blacks. So, Lancelot and Achilles are made black. So is Julius Caesar. And white cucks go along as they worship the Holy Negro, and blacks love it because they believe that their innate ‘badassness’ makes them the superior race, and that means everything great and noble must be associated with blacks even if blacks had nothing to do with it. The logic goes as follows: PC says blacks are great, so if there was a great European figure, his greatness should be conflated with blacks because blacks are great. Blacks = Great, just like Homos = Pride.

Flying Jewish Pig with voracious appetite about to devour a city

Flying Jewish Pig with restless intelligence figuring out how to take over the world

Even though the pigs don’t spell it out in ANIMAL FARM, they seem to be especially angry at humans for having forced them to be equal with the lower animals. How dare the humans to have treated pigs the same as all the other creatures that aren’t possessed of high intelligence, cleverness, and the power of will? So, even as pigs lead the dumb animals, they feel contempt for them. They feel the insult that the humans had regarded them, the smart pigs, as hardly better or higher than ducks, chickens, and sheep. Pigs, with their ambition and ability, want to be like humans. But because of the history of human oppression of animals, including pigs, they also want to destroy humans. Pigs wage war on humans but to become the New Humans. They claim to represent the animals, but they find it insulting for their kind, the superior pigs, to be associated with dumb animals. In a way, pigs are not the villains of ANIMAL FARM. In the end, they are following their own nature. It’s not so much that they choose to be evil. It’s that the power of biology and nature inevitably drives the pigs farther away from the rest of the animals that simply aren’t all that cunning and capable of brain power. Granted, pigs become evil in the sense that they betray their stated ideology, but the principles were an accidental product of certain conditions. Because humans oppressed all animals more-or-less equally, pigs found themselves in the same straits as the rest of animal-kind. And since they needed collective effort to overthrow the humans, pigs embraced egalitarianism. But once the humans were no longer around to impose and enforce the equality-of-oppression on the animals, nature took its course and favored the smarter and more cunning pigs to rise higher than the rest of the animals. Sure, the pigs lie and cheat a lot, but then, being smart is about finding ways to run circles around the less intelligent. Take gambling. Why is it such a big industry? Because smart people dupe so many pathetic dummies into giving up their money. If a Jew told some guy, "How about you give me $1,000", the guy would give the Jew the middle-finger. But if the Jew shows the guy a machine with lots of flashing lights that offers the promise of a jackpot, the guy may happily blow his $1,000 that ends up with the Jew. The clever Jew took his $1,000, but the guy thinks he had a swell time because of the fun machine with flashing lights. (How pathetic that the GOP relies so heavily on Las Vegas for funds. So much for the Family Values party.)

Anyway, we can learn much about Jewish psychology by considering the pigs of ANIMAL FARM. Why were Eastern European Jews so bitter? While some Jews became fabulously rich, especially in Western Europe, many Eastern European Jews faced limited opportunities and hard times. Though smarter than the goyim, many had to toil as working-class folks and small-time peddlers. Many couldn’t rise much higher than the poor goy sods who toiled the fields or factories. And this drove many Eastern European Jews toward various forms of radicalism ranging from anarchism to communism. But subconsciously, just like the pigs of ANIMAL FARM, they must have felt resentment that they, the smart and special Jews, had to rub shoulders with the dimwit goyim. The People of the Book had to make common cause with people-who-couldn’t-read-books. Being tireless, restless, and intelligent, many Jews made able revolutionaries, and they were instrumental in exploiting the crisis of WWI to take power. Because of their experience of oppression and deprivation, many Jewish Bolsheviks were sincere in their commitment to communism, at least consciously. But Yuri Slezkine’s THE JEWISH CENTURY indicates that, early on, the victorious Jewish communists began to realize that the upper echelons of the New Order was filled with Jews. Even though they dare not say it openly, there was a sense that they, as smarter and more capable commissars, should take control of the USSR. And as they began to gain dominance in the elite institutions, they grew ever more distant from the rabble, the masses. All that had been denied to Jews under the Tsarist system was suddenly open to them. There was no institution, however high, that shut its doors to Jews. Jews could enter the innermost sanctum of power under the New System. And they took full advantage. The more they did this, the more they realized, at least subconsciously, that they are not part of the rabble, the dimwit toiling masses. They were meant for higher and better things. They were becoming the new elites, the new aristocrats. And yet, because they came to power in the name of the Revolution devoted to equality, they tried to square elitism with egalitarianism. Just like the pigs in the early stages of the revolution in ANIMAL FARM, Jewish elites sincerely wanted to believe that they deserve special privileges because people-of-the-mind must think and strategize without the distractions of the daily grind. And yet, what happens when one’s elite position becomes entrenched? And when one marries someone of similar intelligence & ability and raises one’s own kids to also be part of the system?

In the US, Jews are the most powerful and the richest people. They are the least equal and most privileged. And despite Jewish feminist bitching, Jewish women make more money than goy men. Jews got almost all the media, much of Wall Street, almost all of Hollywood & Gambling, the biggest prizes in Silicon Valley, and etc. Most politicians are bought-and-sold whores of Zion. Jews control elite academia and mold the minds of young goyim who will manage the West according to the wishes of Jewish oligarchs and neo-prophets. And yet, because of Jewish perception of history wherein they were oppressed along with the rest of humanity, especially by Europeans/whites, Jews still act like they’re in rebel-egalitarian mode. Of course, Jewish historical perception is seriously warped. While it’s true that there were periodic outbursts of violence against Jews in Europe, Jews also did things that understandably pissed off many Europeans. Jews collaborated with Moors who occupied Spain. Jews later aided the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. Jews were heavily involved in slavery and the selling of millions of Slavs to North Africa and Middle East. Also, Jewish financial power funded much of Western imperialism, and it was Jewish David Sassoon who was the main seller of opium to the Chinese. And in the American West, Jews sold guns to white people to kill Indians with. So, Jewish historical perception is perversely selective and bogus. Because Europeans sometimes bashed Jews, Jews would have us believe that they were of kindred spirit with black slaves and non-white subjects of Western Imperialism. More often than not, Jews were funding the black slave trade. They were working with Western Imperialists in the colonization of non-white lands and profiting most handsomely. Yes, there was Shoah, but Nazi madness was a historical reaction to horrible Jewish behavior in the Soviet Union(where millions died under Bolshevism) and in Weimar Germany where Jews acted like Russian & American Jews in the 1990s. Shoah, horrible as it was, didn’t just happen out of blue for no reason at all. Rather, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was an extreme reaction to extreme actions. Just like Japanese bad behavior led to events that spiraled out of control and led to the mass-bombing of Japan(and the deaths of many innocents as well), Jewish bad behavior led to massive reaction that went mad and committed a horrific genocide. Nothing justifies the Shoah, but Jews got burned by playing dangerously with fire. If you piss off enough people, don’t be surprised if things get out of control and you get burned twice as bad as you deserve. Angry people lose all sense of limits. Jews have a way of pissing people off, and Jewish behavior today in finance, media, culture, and politics really makes us wonder if ‘antisemitism’ was irrational or unjustified. I can’t imagine how any sane person could not be anti-Jewish in today’s mad climate of Jews gone rabidly and virulently hog-wild.

Just like the pigs, Jews seem to harbor a two-front hostility. On the one hand, they continue to see the White Race as the Eternal Goy Enemy, the people who, as Christians, persecuted Jews for over 1,000 yrs and carried out the Holocaust. Jews want to get back at whites as much as possible. Jews want white nations to be inundated with non-whites. Jews want white wombs to be colonized by blacks and want white men to become castrated cucky-wucks. Jews still see themselves as champions of progress against the forces of White Reaction and ‘Racism’. As the leaders of the movement, Jews see themselves as allied with the wonderful and noble People-of-Color, especially the blacks. But on the other hand, Jews seem to be resentful that past white denial of equal opportunity to Jews forced Jews to identify with the inferior and lower orders of society such as ‘white trash’ working class, blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. The smarter and superior Jews were put in a situation where they had to make common cause with the dummy rabble of the world. But just like pigs needed the other animals to overthrow the humans, Jews have needed allies as they simply don’t have the numbers. In the USSR, they eventually lost out because their quality of power was so overwhelmed by the quantity of power of non-Jews. And in the US, the Jewish-favored Democratic Party kept losing elections from the Nixon Era to the Bush I era. Thus, Jews relied on Mass Invasion-Immigration whereby the contract between Jews and non-white immigrants would be (1) Jews would keep pushing for more non-white mass entry into US and (2) non-whites would vote for the Democratic Party to keep Jewish elites at the helm. But how do Jews really feel about jive-ass blacks, mediocre Mexicans, lame-personalitied Asians, swarthy Muslims, and grubby ‘dotkins’? Deep down inside, Jews wanted to be with the white race. But the white race’s response ranged from "You can’t join our country club" or "You can’t marry my daughter" to the Holocaust. Or, that’s how Jews remember things.
Of course, whites have now changed their tune and want Jews as allies against the darkies. The White Conservative proposition to Jews is, "We will embrace you Jews as fellow whites, indeed as superior and best kind of whites, on condition that you work with us and for us against all those darkies." But why should Jews take the bargain when they got even more power, privilege, and prestige than the whites? Whatever appeal such an offer may have had many decades ago, it’s hopeless when Jews already got just about everything that counts in the US. Jews have gained Jewish supremacist power in the US, and their main obsession is to keep whites in Submissivist mode to serve Jewish supremacism. Jews no longer see white elites as superior people to aspire to or model themselves after. Jews respect only one thing, and it’s smarts. Once Jews figured that they are smarter than whites, their attitude has been, "You dumb whites serve us Jews or shut up." It’s like blacks measure everything by physical toughness, and once they realized that they could beat up whitey, their respect for the white man went down the toilet. Blacks had more respect for whites in the distant past when they feared the white man as a frightful character. But upon watching all those white boys knocked out by black boxers, blacks came to see white boys as ‘slow faggoty-ass mofos’. Blacks see white males in the way that white males see Hindu, Mexican, or Asian males. Not seriously.
At any rate, Jewish hatred for whites isn’t just about memory of past injustice or contempt for dimwit white goyim. (Imagine how William Kristol must have been laughing to himself when he used to tell the world that Dan Quayle was the most credible candidate for the 1996 election.) It’s about Jewish self-image. Rightly or wrongly, Jews feel incredibly ugly. They feel God gave them a raw deal in offering the Covenant but denying them beauty. While there are plenty of attractive Jews, the general idea is that Jews, by and large, are gross and ugly. Jews really feel this way even if they may not admit it. Some Jews react to this self-image with humor and mockery: Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Howard Stern, Marx Brothers, Don Rickles, Albert Brooks, etc. Some turn to sexual extremism, like Philip Roth in some of his novels, and the likes of Harvey Weinstein with their perversions(that largely set off the #MeToo mania). In some ways, this is what angers Jews the most, why they hate whites the most. It is bigger than history or any theory of justice. It is bigger than intelligence. It’s like the character of PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT is many times smarter than the shikses he bangs, but he feels powerless before them. And in CASINO, the super-smart Jew, who calculates every move, gambles everything on the blonde shikse whore. Also, Nazism was essentially an aesthetic movement to preserve Aryan Beauty from the clutches of Jewish ugliness. What troubles Jews is that even as they rail against the Beauty Cult of the Nazis, they can’t help acting according to Nazi stereotypes. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and other such Jewish tales in books and movies do indicate that Jews believe in racial hierarchy in beauty. Jewish men want to stick their dongs into ‘Aryan’ shikses and generally dislike the looks of Jewish women. (Lately, Jewish women have formed their own cunt-covenant or clit-covenant or clitonant with history, and they’ve decided to let their pussy-craving dictate their behavior, and this has led to massive Jungle Fever among the Jewish American Princesses.) The fact is even if all whites denounce Nazism forever and profess their sympathy for Jews, Jews will continue to resent the white race for superior beauty that makes Jews look ugly and gross in comparison. Now, we can’t blame whites for being more attractive as such would be irrational. After all, white beauty is not the creation of ‘anti-Semites’. Still, like the envious three sisters in CINDERELLA, ugliness resents beauty. Even beauty resents beauty, as in SNOW WHITE where the Queen is offended that there is a woman who is prettier than she. Just like ancient Jews called for the smashing of all false idols, modern Jews want to desecrate white beauty that keeps reminding Jews of their inferior looks and ugliness. Jews have pride of higher intelligence and stronger personality. But one must make an effort with intelligence and personality to achieve things. In contrast, beauty is effortless in attracting attention and affection. And Jews hate this about whites even though it’s not whites’ fault that they are prettier. So, how do Jews handle this? Some Jews just marry whites. But other Jews seek to desecrate and destroy white beauty through promotion of miscegenation, especially with blacks. This is why Jews promote Jungle Fever among white girls. Especially Jewish women who feel great envy for blonde ‘Aryan’ women want white wombs to produce children with flat noses, fat lips, and kinky hair. They want white wombs to produce kids that look like baby monkeys.

Jews promote ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs so that white women will give birth to kids that look like this. Jews, who are so envious and resentful of white beauty, seek to destroy it by having it mixed with other races, especially blacks. Jewish girls will celebrate with joy when the beautiful white girl whom they've envied all their lives go with blacks and produce some kid who looks half-simian. Jewish feminists used to bitch about sexualization of women into objects, but they no longer do so because so much of sexuality in pop culture now promotes Jungle Fever that will encourage more white women to destroy the posterity of their beauty by going with 'groids' and producing from their wombs kids who identify as 'black' and work against the white race. Of course, Jew-run media give special attention to such race-traitor whores.

Though Jews tend to moralize their gripes against whites, the fact remains that the MAIN reason for Jewish hostility toward whites is aesthetic. Indeed, suppose your average Jew looked like Clint Eastwood or Paul Newman(a very handsome half-Jew) whereas most whites looked like Ralph Kramden or Rosie O’Donnell. Jews would be happier, more at peace with themselves, and less hateful of whites.
Jewish God is a jealous God, and this jealousy was a projection of Jewish personality, the most jealous personality in the world. Jews feel they must have everything. Jews are jealous of Russians for having all that land. Jews want it for themselves. Jews want to own and control the US, the lone superpower. Jews want control of all of media. But one area in which Jews lose out is in looks, and this makes them furious. Consider the very semitic-looking actress in MULHOLLAND DR.(at 42 sec of the video below). Even though she’s an insignificant character in the movie, people who look like her are all over Hollywood. Imagine what is going through their minds whenever they see some pretty shikse. I don’t know if the actress Kate Forster is Jewish, but David Lynch clearly made her out to look Semitic with frizzy hair. Also, it’s strange that she is introduced as ‘lovely Martha Johnson’ when she is clearly made out to look unfeminine and ‘alien’, hardly waspy like ‘Johnson’. Jewish self-image fuels much of the neurosis that drives Jews to act crazier, more reckless, and more pathological in world affairs. It wouldn’t matter if Jews weren’t powerful, but they are very powerful, and just like Hitler projected his pathology onto the world, Jews are doing much the same, and this bodes ill for mankind. Some Jews have maintained that Wasps are all looks but no soul whereas Jews are no looks but all soul, but what if Jews are no looks and no soul? Not many seem to have entertained that possibility. In BROADCAST NEWS, the Jewish guy lacks looks and grace but speaks much truth and stands for principles whereas the wasp guy is nice-looking and likable but so shallow and without scruples. But the fact remains that Jews have maintained total control of much of the media, and with each passing year, they’ve exhibited less and less principles and integrity. Things got worse with the rise of Boomer Jews. At least older Jews grew up with some culture of restraint and dignity. Boomer Jews who grew up with permissive individualism and insatiable egotism have no inner brakes in using media or whatever instrument at their disposal as their personal sex toys.



Anyway, what can we say about the future when Jews, the least equal people on Earth, insist on carrying on as the champions of equality and fairness? What can we say about Jews who bitch about ‘white supremacism’ but then demand that all whites go into submissivist mode and support Jewish Supremacism all around the world, even the IDF death squad’s shooting down of hundreds of Palestinian protesters commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map, surely an act far more grievous than Japan’s invasion of Manchuria or Germany’s takeover of Czechoslovakia. When Jews sound the alarm about ‘white supremacism’, they are not denouncing supremacism per se but rather demanding that whites must suppress any sense of white identity and interests if they are to serve as agents and puppets of Jewish Supremacism. After all, why would a people who primarily care about their own race and culture prioritize the serving of ANOTHER people? If slaves began to put their own interests first, why would they serve the master? Jews are triggered by something far less than real white supremacism. I can understand Jews being freaked out by genuine neo-Nazis(though Jews don’t seem to mind forming an alliance with such ilk in Ukraine), but Jews fear run-of-the-mill white identity even more. While neo-Nazism can easily be discredited, white identity and interests that call for limited white nationalism in white nations is NOT supremacist and, if anything, anti-imperialist. Such white people are saying white/Western nations should NOT meddle in the affairs of non-white nations, and in turn, non-whites have no right to demographically inundate and invade white nations. It sounds reasonable, and that is why Jews are trying to smear such views as ‘far right’ and ‘nazi’. Because if white people gain sensible nationalism and mind their own business, they will be far less likely to sign up to serving Jewish globo-homo supremacist imperialism.

In the Animal Farm of the future, what we need is separate nationalism for each species of animals. Let horses have their corral, let ducks have their pond, let chickens have their coop, let cows have their pasture, and etc. Let all animals get along but also respect each other’s spaces. And all animals must tell the pigs to keep to their own pigsty. Let pigs do their own thing. Sure, pigs, being smarter, can do much for other animals, but due to their piggish nature, pigs will just manipulate and abuse others for their own aggrandizement; it's just part of their nature; they lack nobility of heart despite their superiority of mind. So, it’s best for other animals to be wary of the pigs. And lest pigs use dogs to frighten and pressure other animals, the Animal Farm of the Future needs to re-train dogs to regain their autonomy as free dogs and not serve as lackeys and Janissary of the pigs.

Of course, on some level, Jews know that equality is no longer tenable given their great power and privilege. Why would Jews want equality? In a truly equal world, Jews as 2% of the population should make up only 2% of media, academia, law, Hollywood, high-tech, and etc. What Jew would want such equality? Jews love and cherish their immense power. This is why Jews came to favor Diversity over Equality or try to trick people into believing that Diversity is the New Equality when, in fact, Diversity leads to even more inequality as it brings together different peoples with wide-ranging variances in ability and talent. Not for nothing is California the most diverse and the most unequal state. But Diversity among goyim means they will be too busy squabbling among themselves to be able to unite against the Jews who will just 'eat like effendi'.

How the World went from Universal Nationalism to Universal Imperialism - The Hidden Empire of Judea - The Lost Chance after the End of the Cold War - Donald Trump’s Betrayal

Nationalism is the best defense against imperialism.

Nationalism means minding one's own business. It means having national sovereignty and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

Imperialism, in contrast, means trampling on the rights and independence of other nations.

If Nazism or National Socialism had remained in nationalist mode, it couldn’t have done much harm. But it went into imperialist mode and violated & trampled on the rights of self-determination and self-rule among other nations.

Initially, Japan modernized for nationalist reasons. Threatened by British and American imperialism, it emulated Western science & technology to defend the homeland.
But it went from nationalism to imperialism upon the realization that the great powers were conquering and dividing the world among themselves. In order for Japan to be compete and command the respect of other great powers, it felt a need for an empire of its own.
Furthermore, UK and US, two imperialist powers, welcomed Japan into the imperialist club as counterbalance to expanding Russia and uncertain China.

Prior to the emergence of modern nationalism, the world had been divided among empires with little regard for established borders. Indeed, it had been so since time immemorial. Power and might decided the boundaries and limits of power. So, Persians conquered and laid claim to huge swaths of territory, even areas inhabited mostly by non-Persians. Same with the Romans, the Mongols, the Russians, the Ottomans, and Western European empires. There was no Rule or Ideal in the world that insisted on a Basic Right of security, ownership, independence, and self-rule. Jews did have the concept of the Covenant and Holy Land(promised to them by God), but this 'right' meant nothing to the greater empires that dwarfed the Jews.

Security could only be assured by might. There was no universal ideal or international law agreed upon by all the peoples of the world. And no global institution existed to enforce higher principles. For most of history, peoples were too busy conquering, defending, adventuring, or discovering to think in terms of universal political morality for the whole world. If a kingdom or state was sufficiently powerful and ambitious, it could very well embark on invasions and control of more territory. It was about grabbing more and more..

But then, there was the rise of modern nationalism in Britain, France, US, then followed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Modern nationalism was a noble development insofar as it obligated the national elites to represent, serve, and defend the national people AND ignited the nascent idea that a nation had a RIGHT to land, security, and independence. Nationalism made national autonomy a right in terms of ideals and principles. Indeed, the main theme of the American Revolution was the idea of the colonists right to break away from the British Empire and establish a free and independent nation-as-republic.

However, due to the long legacy of imperialism(stretching back to beginning of history itself) and backwardness around the world, modern nationalism inherited the ambition for empire-building. This led to a contradiction. Even as nationalism defended the homeland from other nations and empires, it sought to expand its own imperial base. So, Japanese nationalism went from defending Core Japan to conquering and claiming other lands that were non-Japanese. Earlier, the British had gone from forming a secure Island Kingdom to conquering other territories that would eventually constitute a gigantic world empire. Though a nation born of independence from the British Empire, the US went from creating a new nation out of the wilderness in the New World to searching overseas for imperial domination, especially after the defeat of the Spanish Empire.

Western Imperialist expansion seemed only natural because most of the non-West was also in the imperial mode of constant invasions and counter-invasions. They lacked the nationalist ideal of (1) elites-and-peoples bound by historical and cultural covenant(which would have made foreign invasion more difficult) and (2) the political principle of the rightness of national autonomy and self-determination. Their political philosophy was essentially might-is-right. When the Brits invaded the territories of what came to be known as ‘India’, they merely usurped dominance from the Muslim Mughals.

But WWI and especially WWII dealt a serious blow to the imperialist model. Nazi imperialism and Japanese imperialism were not only defeated at huge cost but denounced as the epitome of evil. Also, it wasn’t long before almost all Third World folks demanded their own national independence, waged wars of liberation, and eventually expelled the European imperialists(sometimes with moral support from the US or the material support of the Soviets). And the Vietnamese fought a long hard battle to drive the US from what had once been ‘Indochina’.

So, with the end of WWII, there was the gold standard of Universal Nationalism. The new consensus was that EVERY people deserve to have a safe and secure homeland. Such ideal had been expounded by Woodrow Wilson after WWI, but it didn’t go far because the Great European powers weren’t about to abandon their empires, without which they couldn’t be great powers because their homelands were limited in territory, resources, and population.
And as the West set the template, Japan was determined to have an empire too. This all came crashing down after the horrors of WWII in which Europeans themselves suffered the ignominy of imperialist domination and rule under Nazi Germany.

Due to the Imperialist Legacy, the modern nationalism developed as nationalism + imperialism for some nations. If some European nations were content to remain and defend their own territories, others had embarked on imperial ventures long before the rise of nationalism. Thus, the French nationalism inherited the French empire and valued it as a source of prestige and power. This was a system of 'Nationalism for me, but not for thee'. The modern British and French were proud nationalists at home but sought to suppress and crush nationalist consciousness in their subject peoples.

But with the eventual fall of empires following WWII, the new template was "Nationalism for me and for thee." Let each and every nation, big or small, or powerful or weak, rich or poor, be free and independent. And this was to be a moral right. In the New Order, the richest, biggest, and most powerful nation had no right to conquer and claim a small, weak and poor nation. At the very least, even the biggest nation and smallest nation were equal in the area of the universal right of national self-determination. After all, there was a reason why the world body of international law came to be known as United Nations than United Empires.

In the post-WWII era, many progressives and liberals were supportive of the national liberation struggles of Vietnam, Algeria, and Cuba for independence and autonomy. And when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, even leftists denounced it as a communist form of imperialism.

Still, US and USSR remained as the two great empires. Of course, neither admitted that its version of world order was imperialistic. Soviets insisted their world order was about the brotherhood of man under communist ideology. And the US claimed to serve as the defender of the Free World.
And if their apologists did detect elements of imperialism in the US or Soviet world order, they argued it was different from Bad Old Imperialism. It was imperialism-as-necessary-evil against either Communist Tyranny or Capitalist Exploitation. So, even if Pax Americana was an empire, it was a noble containment strategy against the insatiable fanaticism of communism. Or, the Soviet empire was necessary to lend support to peoples around the world seeking independence from the exploitative greed of Western capitalism. At any rate, the assumption was the imperialism-as-necessary-evil would no longer be necessary IF the Evil Empire(communist or capitalist) finally vanished from the world.

Eventually, the Cold War did end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of nations no longer under the Soviet-Russian yoke: Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and etc. It appeared that universal nationalism came to prevail over Soviet Imperialism. Russians now ruled over Russia, not over other peoples who had their national autonomy.

With the end of the Cold War, many hoped that the US empire would wind down too. After all, US-as-empire had been justified on grounds of containing and, if possible, rolling back the Soviet empire. With no more Soviet Empire, what need would there be for the US empire?

Maybe just maybe, the US empire could have come to an end, and America would have returned to nationalist mode: US minds its own business, and other nations mind their own business, and, as good neighbors, all nations trade with one another, share ideas, and communicate. Fences make good neighbors. Also, bridges among nations are supposed to transport ideas and goods, not allow one people to mass-invade and colonize other nations.

But three things happened that kept the US in the imperial game.


1. The US got filled with hubris of End of History. Having won the Cold War, the American elites thought the American Way was the only way. In terms of political philosophy, mass culture, economic theory, and military prowess, the idea was that America, as an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, has the right to ‘lead’ and ‘defend’ the world. "If you're not with us, you're against us." My way or the highway.

2. The West’s cult of mass immigration as not only an economic good but a moral imperative resulted in an all-out mass invasion of white nations by the Third World. This had a profound impact on world consciousness as non-whites, who’d previously demanded and fought for nationalism and independence, came to devalue nationalism in favor of a new kind of imperialism. As non-whites figured it is so much easier to have a good life by moving to the West than by working as patriots to reform and develop their own nations, they effectively became champions of demographic imperialism and mass-colonization.

And if, like Fareed Zakaria or Nikki Haley, they gained elite positions in the West, they became cheerleaders for globo-imperialist warmongering against non-white peoples. After WWII, peoples in the Third World sympathized with one another in what they regarded as a common struggle against White Imperialism. But in the Age of Globalist Empire, non-whites who rose up the ranks in the West function as servitors of the Zionist-controlled Empire against non-white nations. Having been groomed & appropriated by the West(that serves the Empire of Zion) and flush with status & privilege, the likes of Haley and Zakaria are more than happy to cheer on the bombing of nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and etc.

As for the EU, by some estimates Brussels is already one-third Muslim and is expected to become majority non-white in a few decades. As non-whites settled in the West, they identified neither with their nations-or-origin or with white Westerners. Many came to exist in an ideological limbo of globalism, a kind of Universal Imperialism. Take Francis Fukuyama, the man who declared the triumph of ‘liberal democracy’ as the End of History. He's no longer Japanese in any meaningful sense, but he's not part of the White West either. He resides in the lala-land-of-the-mind called Endofhistoria. And Amy Chua feels as a member of what she calls the 'supergroup'.

**Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist Western nations became so pro-immigration was their subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, imperialism once spread diversity around the world(especially permanently in Latin America), and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity. Algerians and Vietnam eventually rejected and resisted the Diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians did everything they could to stem the flow of Invasive Diversity of Zionist colonizers. And Tibetans certainly aren’t happy about mass-migratory Diversity of Han Chinese who keep flooding into Tibet. Anyway, by welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of having imposed Diversity on subject territories that couldn’t say NO to well-armed European colonizers and their collaborators... like Hindus who followed in the heels of British Imperialists into Africa and Southeast Asia. Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.**

3. Another reason why the US empire grew only bigger was because Jews became the new ruling elites of America. Why did this matter? Because Jewish power is essentially and intrinsically imperialist. As Jews are a minority elite in the US, they don't identify with most Americans who are seen as dumb and filthy goyim, an untermensch. Jews regard themselves as superior to goyim and mainly identify with other Jews in other nations. So, from the perspective of Jewish supremacists, gentile nationalism is regarded as independence and autonomy from Jewish Hegemony, just like the British Imperialists regarded the nascent nationalism among the American colonialists as a threat to British Imperialist hegemony. Jews fear and loathe gentile nationalism as an hindrance to Jewish globalist networking for Jewish supremacist hegemony. After all, if a gentile folk put their own people and culture first and foremost, their nation would take precedence over Israel and Jewish interests.

Jews are like the British imperialists who feared the rise of nationalist consciousness in Third World nations. After all, British elites didn't feel an affinity with the native majority in any of the subject domains. Their affinity was with the Mother Country and to the network of British Imperialists and colonizers all over the world. British Imperial power could sustain itself around the world only by making the subject peoples mainly 'identify' with British Imperial prestige than with local national concerns.

Kenyan nationalism meant Kenyans asserting authority against the British rulers. It meant Kenyans should defend and serve their black identity in their own nation than the global ambitions of the British imperialists. Indian nationalism meant the brown people of the subcontinent demanding self-rule & self-determination and, furthermore, asking the Brits to leave. As Gandhi said:


If the British were about the ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’(or imperialist-nationalism), Gandhi was about universal nationalism, or ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’. British imperialists feared such an attitude because it would meant the end of the Empire of Albion. After all, if every non-white domain(or Ireland for that matter) of British Empire insisted on its own autonomy, how could British hegemony be sustained?

Today, Jews feel and act like the British imperialists. Most Jews don't feel a shared sense of identity, history, or destiny with gentile nationals in US, Canada, Poland, France, UK, and etc. To Jewish minorities(elites or otherwise) in such nations, most of the people are just seen as replaceable and interchangeable filthy goy untermensch. To sustain Jewish supremacism, Jews suppress goy nationalism. Consider how David Brooks and William Kristol are obsessed with keeping Israel as a Jewish ethno-state BUT they’d love to see whites in Europe, US, and Canada reduced to minorities in their lands of their ancestry or epic founding. And hideous Jewish supremacists like Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin think gentiles exist to fight Wars for Israel. To Jews, gentiles are little more than cattle. Jews look upon gentiles like pigs look upon other barn creatures in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM.

Jews now practice Imperialist Nationalism of ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’. So, Jews say all Western nations must support Israel as a JEWISH STATE but also say white gentile nations must abandon nationalism(even one that says ‘for me and for thee’) because gentiles exist to serve Jewish power first and foremost. Jews don’t want gentile nationalism to come between Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism. Also, Jews push for Mass Invasion(aka ‘immigration’) to turn the native white majority populations into minorities in their own nations. That way, Jews can control the native majority by guilt-baiting them with accusations of 'racism' for being insufficiently ‘welcoming’ of non-white mass invaders and leeches. And as the nation grows ever more diverse, Jewish Imperial elites hope to play divide-and-rule by pitting non-whites against whites, whites against non-whites, non-whites against non-whites(as they are racially diverse), and whites against whites(as they’re ideologically divided).

This is why Jews fear being ‘gandhi-ed’ out of the West. Indeed, what would happen if white folks woke up and told the Jewish supremacist-imperialists, "It’s time you left"? What if whites decided on mass civil disobedience against Jewish Power? Say NO to Wars for Zion. Goycott Jewish Hollywood, Goycott Jewish media, Goycott Jewish-run businesses that are hostile to whites, Goycott Jewish Casinos. No to Zion. That would surely make the Jews shit. As Hindus(against Brits), blacks(against Segregation), and National Socialists(against Jews) proved, boycotting businesses can be very effective. Palestinians are leading the way with BDS. of course, Jews use Economic Warfare all the time. Consider how Jews use the West to sanction Iran and Russia.

As it stands, Jewish imperialism is far more insidious and dangerous than British imperialism. At the very least, British Imperialism, like the French or Spanish kind, was OUT IN THE OPEN. It wasn’t denied. If anything, the British made a big deal of it 24/7. Brits were singing anthems about how Britain rules one third of the globe. So, there was NO DOUBT as to who was in power in the British Empire.

In contrast, Judea is an Hidden Empire. Even though the biggest power in the world is Jewish Global Network — most of US politicians, academics, media people, etc are agents or shills of Zion — , Jewish power uses gentile nations as fronts to carry out its dastardly deeds. So, even though the Power of Zion was behind the recent Syrian attacks, we've been led to believe US, UK, and France done it! Jewish supremacists are craven but cunning a**holes who use their vast capital to manipulate, bribe, and threaten OTHERS to do the fighting and killing.

It was very different in the Age of British Empire. Everyone knew the British were in command of using their proxies and subjects to further British Imperial interest. So, even when Brits recruited and ordered Indian, African, and Arab troops to fight in wars, no one would have thought India, Kenya, or Arabia were leading the charge. Everyone would have known that those non-white forces were only doing the bidding of the British.
But, because the Empire of Judea is a Hidden Empire, so many people fall for the charade that 'liberal democratic' Western nations are deciding to wage these Wars for Human Rights which are really Wars for the Hidden Empire of Zion. UK and France are essentially vassal nations of the US that is a vassal state of the Empire of Judea.

The problem with Donald Trump isn't nationalism. If the US had gone into nationalist mode after the Cold War, the world would be a safer and better place. All of a sudden, the Soviet Union was gone, and Russia was no longer a threat and wanted political and economic cooperation with the world. And if Anglo-Americans had still ruled America, maybe something could have been worked out. But Jews were rapidly gaining elite dominance in the US in the 80s and 90s. And Jewish attitude toward Russians was hardly different from their attitude toward white Americans: Both are mere cattle, replaceable and interchangeable. To Judeo-Nazis, white Russians and white Americans are filthy goyim, or untermensch. So, the hope of Russia’s transition from communism to a market economy was lost. Jewish globalists took hold of the reins of ‘reform’ in Russia and economically plundered the nation in the 1990s. Also, Billy Boy Clinton, a shill of Jewish globalists, pushed NATO right up to Russian borders.
Jews figured, "Don’t let a crisis go to waste." Jews exploited the End of the Cold War for their own nefarious agendas. Instead of having the US empire subside with the end of the Soviet empire, Jews took advantage of America-as-sole-superpower to consolidate control over EU and Russia. Thus, European nations soon became mere vassal-states in the coming decades. Also, clever Jews manipulated the vanity of warriors like John McCain and ‘thinkers’ like Samantha Powers into believing that they, as redemptive gentile leaders of the ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, deserved the right of Enlightened Empire Building to remake the whole world in their image.

Of course, Jewish directed the power of the US mostly toward Jewish-Supremacist agendas, which is why most of US aggression has been directed at the Middle East and North Africa. Consider how Jewish power directed the US to use sanctions, invasions, and even support to Jihadi terrorists to undermine stability in the Middle East, all for the supremacist interests of Israeli hegemony.

Trump ran on nationalism that promised to end or severely limit US ventures overseas. US was the imperialist destroyer in Iraq, Libya, Syria(where CIA aided Alqaeda, the very people who did 9/11), and recruited Neo-Nazi elements to pull off a coup in Ukraine.
Trump sounded good during the campaign, but the Deep State now circles him like sharks and force his hand to do the bidding of the Empire of Judea instead of focusing on the problems of Americans. (Globalist ‘humanitarians’ say the rich and powerful US shouldn’t be so greedy & self-absorbed and instead must help other nations. But their idea of ‘humanitarian’ intervention mostly comes down to destroying nations hated by Jews. And the bulk of US foreign aid is more money for Israel to keep on crushing Palestinians and destabilizing the Middle East with threats and attacks.)

Jews hate the idea of American nationalism because it means the goy sheeple of the US will no longer go baaaaah and support Wars for Zion. Furthermore, the theme of American Nationalism would be, "American leaders must do what is good for MOST American people(most of whom are not Jewish)." Jews hate the notion because Jews feel zero affinity with gentile Americans. Jews want the bulk of American energy to be channeled toward serving globalist hegemony of Jewish Power. The mentality of Jews isn’t much different from that of a king. King expects the people to serve him, not vice versa. The Jewish 2% expects the gentile 98% to serve them, not vice versa.

The world needs universal nationalism. Nationalism for Me and for Thee.
But as long as Jewish power rules the West, it is becoming ever more difficult. Jews fear gentile nationalism because it undermines the neo-imperial globalist Jewish hegemony of the US.
To better understand the Jewish mindset as a microcosm, consider the Israel-Palestine conflict. How nice it’d be if Jews went for ‘Nationalism for Me and for Thee’ with their Palestinian neighbors. Jews would have Israel as their homeland, and Palestinians would have West Bank as their homeland. But nope, Jewish power summons the support of the West to crush Palestinian nationalism while maximizing their own nationalism with massive walls and military violence. It is a form of Imperialist Nationalism: ‘Nationalism for Me but not for Thee.’ So unjust.

‘Nationalism for Me but for Thee’ is like the logic of American Slavery, which was ‘Freedom for Me but not for Thee.’ Abolitionists began to ask, if white folks should be free, why not blacks too?
Likewise, if Israel has a right to be free and independent as a Jewish state, why doesn't Hungary have a right to be free and independent as a Hungarian nation? Jews call upon the West to praise and support Zionist nationalism but then pressure the EU to sanction and destroy Hungary for having chosen national survival and self-determination.

We know why things are so. It's because Jews seek to maximize their own tribal power, they seek to weaken the ethno-national power of all other peoples so that they will serve Jewish globalist hegemony.

Anyway, how depressing that Trump, who ran on nationalism and an end to globo-imperialism of US interference, has now been pressured by the Deep State Zionists and Military Industrial Complex to cook up BS about 'chemical attacks' to sabotage Syria's rightful nationalism.
US now illegally occupies much of Syria. US accuses Russia of meddling in elections and harboring aggressive global ambitions when, in fact, Jewish-controlled US is the #1 meddler in other national elections and the invader & destroyer of Iraq & Libya and an enabler of terrorists in Syria and Ukraine. When will this madness ever end?

Anyway, the overall arc of history.

1. Imperialism. The mighty dominate and rule over all others. Might is right.

2. National Imperialism. The right of one's own nation to be safe and secure from invasions but no such rights recognized for other peoples. Example: Japan defended itself from other empires but tried to take over China. ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee.’

3. Universal Nationalism. The right of each nation/people/culture to be free and independent. Nationalism for all peoples of the world as the core basis for international cooperation. It is the Template that emerged from the ashes of WWII and the end of empires. ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’.

4. Universal Imperialism. The right of great powers to militarily, financially, and culturally invade and transform other nations: Drop bombs, take over banks, bribe politicians, and spread Homomania as the new crusading faith. In turn, the the great powers must welcome vast demographic invasions by rest of the world. ‘Imperialism for me and for thee.’
We see this dynamics playing out between EU and Middle East. EU supports the Zionist-US invasions of the Middle East and then welcomes millions of Muslim 'refugees' displaced by those invasions. EU becomes demographically invaded in turn.