Notes on Matthew Yglesias' Call for a Billion Americans via Mass Immigration-Invasion

For Steve Sailer's criticism of Matthew Yglesias' book One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger, click the following link:

https://www.takimag.com/article/666666666-immigrants/ 

Billionaires for one billion Americans or a billion minions for billionaire oligarchs. It all depends on the perspective. To a cattle rancher, what matters is how many heads of cows, not how they fare in ever more crowded conditions. Does a pig farmer care about the well-being of his pigs? No, he doesn't care if they're crowded together and can hardly move as long as it means more profits for him. Same with chicken farmers. So, for billionaires, a 'billion Americans' just means more livestock. Matthew Yglesias is their scribe and spokesman, especially because many billionaires are Jewish and he is one too.

Yglesias’ main argument for adding 666,666,666 immigrants is that this would help us compete with populous China.

China's main advantage isn't population per se but relative homogeneity(as even non-Han Chinese are mostly East Asian). India has a population equal to China's but is deeply divided and ineffective. Why? Far greater diversity and caste mentality. US has increasing diversity and the rise of a caste-mentality due to both economic and ideological factors. Economics favor Jews, Asians, and elite whites, whereas ideology favors the consecration of blacks, many of whom are mired in socio-economic problems. Jews and homos enjoy both economic success and ideology-idolatry, whereas many whites do well economically but are vilified ideologically while many blacks, though placed on the pedestal, are stuck with the panhandle. China's capitalism encourages enterprise, and its communist legacy ensures some degree of 'national socialism' to sustain a sense of unity and equal justice. Still, this is easier to pull off in a nation that is more than 90% Han Chinese and nearly 97% Asian(of the yellow variety). If MORE PEOPLE is the formula for China's success, then India and Africa should be major players in the global power game. But India would probably do better with a population of around 500 million, and MORE PEOPLE in Africa have only led to desperate scramble for other parts of the world. For sure, the US has benefited from brain-drain immigration, taking in smart people from around the world; this is where China can't hope to compete with the US. It seems the best of the Greeks and Irish came to the US. Greece and Ireland now seem to be run and inhabited by second-raters. US has also taken in lots of smart Chinese and Hindus. Quality trumps quantity. No wonder Japan has a bigger economy than India or all of Africa. But the danger of new quality is it may take over as the new elites, and that is precisely what happened with Jews in America. If the US hadn't taken in Jews, most likely Christian Anglo/Germans would still be ruling the place. Now, why are Jews not threatened by New Quality? They correctly see Chinese and other East Asians as essentially weak in identity once separated from their homelands. They regard Hindus as more identity-oriented, but Asian-Indians are a divided lot. Also, Jewish Power relies on support of Whites and Christians who, for reasons of Holocaust Cult and Biblical Prophecy, feel okay with Jews. They don't feel the same for Chinese or Hindus. So-called White Guilt is almost entirely about Jews and blacks. Even American Indians don't much count(as their tragedy is a lesson in the dangers of mass-immigration-invasion, as with the case of the Palestinians). In a way, 'white guilt' is more a social and political construct than the product of white conscience or 'pathological altruism'. If indeed whites are more conscientious by nature, why aren't they ashamed of what they've done to the Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims by their support of Zionism and Wars for Israel? Why aren't whites as guilt-ridden over American Indians as over blacks? It's because white minds are molded by academia and media to weep and atone for certain groups but not for others. If indeed white conscience was genuine, it would follow its own moral logic than be led by the nose by the Power. Anyway, Jewish elites figure East Asians are too mellow to challenge Jews. Hindus are too divided and distrusting of one another. Unlike Judaism that binds Jews together, Hinduism has always divided Indians along caste/color lines. As for the teeming masses of immigrants without elite prospects, they are just more serfs, peons, consumers, foot-soldiers for empire, cattle.

In short, Yglesias seems to imply, America must invite the world in order to invade the world. Just think of the possibilities! If we had two-thirds of a billion more immigrants, we could conscript a humongous army and militarily conquer the world…which would finally give us some place to dump all the teeming masses of immigrants.

I doubt he has such in mind. After all, most immigrants are coming for jobs and stuff, not to join the US military. As the military relies mostly on high-tech, manpower is far less important. Unless the US is planning to invade Russia or fight a long bloody war with China, manpower in the military isn't an issue. Besides, Americans have no stomach for wars with high casualties. Iraq War killed only a fraction of lives lost in the Vietnam War but upset a lot of people. As many Americans have few or just one child, they don't want them dead in combat. The only effective way to increase military personnel would be with the draft but no one wants it, especially the elites. Many elites, especially Jews, protested against the Vietnam War because they might be drafted and sent into steaming jungles infested with Viet Cong guerrillas. But once Richard Nixon ended the draft, the protests faded fast. The elites don't much care as long as they aren't the ones to end up in body bags. Americans are now are lured into the military with money and benefits, which has made the military far more expensive, but that also means the military cannot have too many people. As for INVADE THE WORLD, the plan is not for the US to invade the world but to steer the Third World to invade the First World with the exception of Israel. Jews have the mindset of 'nationalism for me, not for thee'. Jewish Power sees national unity of any gentile nation as an obstacle to Jewish penetration and influence. So, it seeks to increase Diversity in both Poland and Japan. Any kind of Diversity is okay as long as it allows Jewish Globalists and their minions to play divide-and-rule, especially by guilt-baiting the native majority with charges of 'racism' against the immigrant/migrant communities. And as the elites of Japan, Poland, and other nations are influenced by US media and academia, they go along with the suicidal nonsense. US leads, others follow. Look how Canada, UK, and Sweden all accepted their own form of 'Americanization' by reformulating their nations as those of 'immigrants'. So, Yglesias' plan isn't to make the US literally invade the world. Rather, it is for the US to serve as the role model for all other First World gentile nations to open up and invite diversity. That means, while Israel gets ever more Jewish, other First World Nations get more Diverse. So, the greater unity of Jews shall exploit the greater divisions among the goyim. Yglesias mentions China, but he thinks more like the British Imperialists in India. As a small minority-elite, the Brits often found Indian diversity useful in playing region against region, Islam against Hindus, caste against caste, that is until Gandhi and Jinnah, at least for awhile, banded together to oust the British.

Seriously, Yglesias argues, we couldn’t have won WWII or the Cold War without a big population.

If US already had a big enough population during WWII, why did it need more? Why does the US need a billion? Of course, 'big' is relative. China now has 1.3 billion, but its population was considered super-big when it was half that 50 yrs ago. Also, modern technology in agriculture has made it possible to feed many more people. Who would have thought India could sustain a population of 1.3 billion that is poised to take over China's(if it hasn't already). And some say African population will be in the billions in coming decades. Still, one crucial difference between US and China/India is the former developed as a Big Land for a growing population. There was bigness as empty space to be filled. Also, US population grew along with technological development that made life easier despite bigger numbers. In contrast, Chinese and Indian populations expanded in a Malthusian trap that wasn't solved or half-solved before the coming of modern technology to those parts. Mechanization of agriculture means that a nation doesn't need tons of laborers to produce food. Only 2% of US population works in agriculture. The value of More People to the modern world is as producers and consumers. But unless Yglesias and his ilk are willing to promote economic nationalism and bring back factory jobs(and slow down advancement in mechanization), more people will not mean more production. A lot of people who come to Europe just end up living on the dole. Still, don't More People have value as More Consumers? But More Consumers without More Production sounds like an economy based on More Debt. (If consumption is key, why not create robots that consume? Have robots to go some fast food joint and order burger and fries.)

Of course, mid-20th-century USA was far more unified, due to the immigration shutdown in the 1920s that wisely ruled that no interest groups would be allowed to use immigration to change the country’s ethnic balance. Hence, the political system was more cooperative and functional than today...

But in retrospect, maybe immigration-restriction wasn't such a good idea in the 1920s. As race was a factor in immigration, more immigration would have meant more White Immigrants. It would have made the US whiter. And as the immigrants came from different parts of Europe, their only hope of unity and assimilation was by learning English and adopting the Anglo-American model. Also, European emigration to the US might have alleviated economic conditions in Europe, thereby lessening the threats of both communism and fascism. In a way, a billion Americans isn't a totally terrible idea. Ideally, the US should have stopped at 250 million, if only for nature's sake. But US can easily accommodate a billion people as it has the best land in the world. If India, a nation 1/3 the size of the US, can hold 1.3 billion that is still growing, the US can hold a billion. The habitable space in Japan is only that of Indiana, but it has over 100 million people. There are still lots of empty spaces in the US. If US could have a billion people who are mostly white, it might be doable, even a worthy goal. But of course, a Billion Americans means 250 million whites being outnumbered by 750 million non-whites. It'd be like Afro-Latin-America on a super-scale. Now, Jews don't mind because they'd be rulers at the top. Also, as Jews were a tiny majority throughout US history, they have no majority-status to lose. Besides, Jewish Power has relied on money and pulling-the-strings, not electoral numbers. They buy off and control the politicians who are voted by the dummy masses. Now, if Jews were to identify strongly as whites, they might fret about losing their white majority to non-whites. But Jews primarily identify as Jews and regard whites as the Other, even the Enemy. Therefore, More Diversity among Goyim is regarded as Jews as good for their power.

Now Democrats envision using immigration to alter the racial balance to achieve perpetual one-party rule.

The problem isn't one-party rule per se. Japan pretty much had one-party rule since end of WWII. China has one-party rule, and it's nationalist. Putin's Russia is a semi-autocracy with one dominant party, but it looks out for Russian interests. The problem with one-party Democratic Rule in the US is it is essentially Judeo-centric than concerned with majority interests. But then, given the slavishness of the GOP to Jews and Israel, the US is already a two-party-as-one-party-state, at least when it comes to total obeisance to Jewish Power. Consider the spectacle of Jews calling Trump a Nazi but Trump going to hell and back for Jews. In a way, democracy is bad because it divides a populace and pits one group against another. White 'liberals' vs white 'conservatives'. Indeed, one-party groups have gained so much against two-party groups. Jews are a one-party group as most are Democrats. In contrast, whites are a two-party group as roughly one half votes GOP and the other half votes Democrat. In the past, the Irish in big cities gained big against Anglos because, unlike the divided Anglos, the Irish were mostly a one-party group whose power was centered around Democratic Machines. Blacks fail in so many areas, but their one-party mentality has led to great gains against the divided two-party whites. One-party groups are united, two-party groups are divided. The tragedy for whites in the US is they are the ONLY two-party group in America... and even the whiter party, the GOP, is usually making more noises about being good to Jews, blacks, browns, etc.

One obvious problem with this plan, however, is that all the immigrant ethnicities would then turn on each other in a struggle to control the capital of the world.

Not true. Most immigrant groups come with weak identities and just become globo-Americans. They hardly care about their nations of origin, cultural heritage, or ethnic loyalty. Black African immigrants soon become like rapping black Americans. Asians turn into globo-homo advocates and, if anything, berate their nations of origin for 'racism' and relative lack of diversity. They all support Zionism and give speeches at AIPAC. Also, non-white groups gain currency only with the support/sympathy of the white community. As Jewish Power has steered whites to care mainly about Jews, blacks, and homos, most other groups receive no special sympathy. Therefore, they realize they must join with the idolized-identities that matter. So, they become shills of AIPAC, wave the homo banner, or chant BLM slogans. Take Muslims. As most whites don't care for Islam or Arabs, many Arab-Americans feel their only chance of gaining favor is by displaying their globo-homo bona-fides. But as globo-homo is really a tool of Jewish Power, they unwittingly become dupes of Zion. Palestinian-Americans who wave both the Palestinian and Homo flags put themselves at a moral disadvantage because Israel is more pro-'gay' than Palestinians and Arabs are.

Why compete with the United State militarily if you can use your co-ethnic immigrants to simply subvert the USA from within (such as this week’s example of an immigrant NYPD officer arrested for spying for China on Tibetan exiles), especially if Washington were so foolish as to invite in two-thirds of a billion immigrants?

Except he didn't subvert US interests. Tibet has nothing to do with the US, that is UNLESS the US intends to interfere in Tibetan affairs. It is precisely because US interferes in Tibet(and other problem spots in China) that some Chinese in the US spy for China on the matter of Tibetans-in-American working with the US. There are Chinese spies who carry out corporate espionage or funnel secrets from the US government, but Chinese keeping an eye on Tibetans in US seems more like Chinese Politics by other means precisely because US interferes with Chinese affairs. Also, it is nothing compared to American Jews doing all they can to suppress BDS, Palestinian-American voices, and critics of Zion. Some Chinese NYPD spying on some Tibetans is kid-stuff compared to Jewish campaigns on college campuses, industries, and government to shut down any effective criticism of Zionism and Wars for Israel. So, if the big fear is about China or some foreign nation taking over and subverting American Interests, it has already happened under Jewish Rule. Perhaps, whites are still under the delusion that Jews are white and working for 'white interests'. Or maybe some whites regard Jews as Prodigal Whites who will finally return home and side with whites. This is like battered wife syndrome with no basis in fact.

Germany would have liked to do that using German immigrants in 1917, but the self-righteous WASP ruling class proactively crushed any German-American resistance with heavy-handed assimilation methods, such as banning Beethoven concerts.

It's too bad Germany failed to. US had no business interfering in WWI. It only ensured Germany's defeat and all the hell that followed. US intervention in WWI had nothing to do with American Interests but with Banker Interests and Jewish interests. Indeed, even UK had no business entering the war. Without Brits in the fight, Germany would have won within a year or two. But UK got involved and ultimately dragged the US into the war, turning a continental war into a World War that led to many more millions of white deaths. A strong anti-war movement by German-Americans might have kept the US out of the war. It would have been better for US and Europe, but US got dragged in. It's a shame that German-America caved under pressure to Anglo-America. US would have been better as an equal partnership of Anglos and Germans. Such a nation might have been a fairer broker between UK and Germany. But as German-Americans assimilated fully into Anglo-America, they became foot-soldiers of the Anglo/American Empire. Though the Anglo/American Narrative depicts Germans as militarist aggressors, the fact is World Conquest was spearheaded and dominated by Anglos, British and American. Germans fought WWI to secure its place in continental Europe, not to take over the world. In retrospect, Anglo paranoia about Germany proved disastrous. If Germany had been given a place in the sun alongside UK and France, so many disasters could have been avoided. An Anglo-German alliance would have been better for the West than the eventual Anglo-Zionist one. Of course, Anglo-German amity was impossible by Adolf Hitler came along, but there would have been no Hitler if UK and US hadn't intervened in WWI. Indeed, without UK and especially US intervention, it wouldn't have been a world war but just a continental one in Europe.

But these days the Chinese are slowly learning how to play the White Guilt card against America.

But when Asians play the 'white guilt' card, it's usually not about Asian victim-hood but Jewish, black, or some other victim-hood. Chinese know they are 'uncool' and disliked by whites(and other peoples), and so, they seek to gain 'woke' points with BLM slogans or 'taking the knee'. The history of Southeast Asia suggests that, even as Chinese know how to get rich, they aren't really into ideological or political domination. And despite so many Chinese having settled in Canada, they are mostly spineless imitators of white 'wokeness'. If anything, they adopt 'white guilt' as their own and imitate white 'virtue-signaling'. Perhaps, some immigrant Chinese feel loyalty to the motherland, but this isn't the case at all with most born outside China, especially with all the race-mixing. All this China-bashing seems so much like Russia-bashing, the product of an unwillingness to face the fact that Jewish Power has done most to subvert and destroy traditional Americanism and sensible patriotism. The 1619 Project and TV shows calling for Mitzvah murders of 'white supremacists' are the products of the Jewish Media and Imagination(that stokes of flames of black rage, not least to use the black-Jewish alliance card to cover up Jewish Segregation and 'Jim Crow' antics in the West Bank). Also, I don't see much in the way of the 'circular firing squad'. It's more like The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly style, with Blondie and Tuco understanding, wink wink, 'get Angel Eyes'. Now, there are problems between blacks and non-black POC, but blacks cause problems for everyone. There is some disagreement between browns and yellows on Affirmative Action, but as yellows tend to be rather sheepish and servile to prevailing ideology, their elites seem to be pro-diversity and pro-affirmative action. Asians are not supportive of Trump's noises about anti-Asian discrimination. Muslims and 'Latinos' don't seem hostile to one another. As for Jewish-Muslim tensions, it's hardly a thing because Muslims have little chance of making it to elite ranks. Also, the kind of Muslims who do gain prominence tend not to care about the Palestinian issue. Fareed Zakaria is only to happy to work with Zionists and cheer on the bombing of Syria. More immigration is the main issue for Muslim groups, and they will work with any group, even Jews, to secure more immigration. If all those Muslims in North Africa and Middle East have been so ineffective in working together on behalf of Palestinians, what hope is there for Muslim-Americans who come from all over the world?

Indeed, one reason for this summer’s mania over whites supposedly oppressing blacks is because blacks vaguely realize that the white man’s days are numbered due to immigration. Once the immigrants take over, nobody will take seriously anymore African-Americans’ sad stories about George Floyd, redlining, and Emmett Till.

Perhaps. I think black rage politics is more in competition with globo-homo, the designated celebratory item in June. True, not all blacks are enthused about immigration. Still, blacks, especially elite ones, care less about immigration because their power is invested in the Democratic Party and more immigrants mean more power to Democrats, and that means more power to blacks-who-matter. On some level, blacks know that they've become the sacred cows of the US due to Slavery Narrative, Jim Crow Narrative, Lynching Narrative, Civil Rights Narrative, MLK cult, and black prominence in sports and pop music. It's like blacks are lionized and celebrated all over Europe, even in Poland with few blacks. Anatoly Karlin says even Russian TV is filled with blacks. So, while most immigrants remain faceless masses and minions, blacks will dominate the celebrity of Americanism. That means an endless tug-of-war between whites and non-whites in laying claim to fealty to Noble Negro-hood. Why wouldn't that be possible? After all, just about all groups in the US are now into Globo-Homo as the new spiritual theme. So, when push comes to shove, blacks feel more empowered than emasculated by mass immigration. It will mean whites and other groups bidding for black blessing. If people used to bid for black slaves long ago, the new auctioneering is about bidding for blessings by black godhood.

The better part of One Billion Americans is about how to reverse the declining fertility of American citizens... The total fertility rate for American women was dropping even during the Trump Boom before the pandemic, down to a below replacement rate of 1.72 children per woman in 2018. And yet when asked how many children they’d like to have, women and men both average about 2.6.

Too many women in the workforce, and too many women with elite aspirations. After all, even nations with traditionally low or no immigration are cratering in child birth. Japan didn't have much immigration for decades but is so sterile that it has no choice but to take in immigrants. There is immigration to a nation with healthy fertility to bring down wages. That is bad stuff. But in the case of Japan, immigration is becoming necessary because birthrate is around 1 child per woman. And Russian birthrates are still far below what it should be. American women may want 2.6 kids, but of course, their expectations run pretty high, especially among the college graduates. This means MOST MEN are not good enough for them. And many men may have higher expectations for the women as well. If most women want successful men, most men want supportive women. But if more women take jobs from men, there are fewer successful men. Also, if women have been instilled with bitchy feminism and trashy slut mentality, they are far less likely to 'stand by your man'; even Tammy Wynette didn't stand by hers and went through D.I.V.O.R.C.E. Even without overt feminism, education and work for women are going to lower birthrates. While most women may want man and family, they would prefer to be single than be stuck with an inferior man and/or low-IQ children. Their attitude is the Moon or Bust. They want the Best or Nothing at all. Such attitudes are as common in Iran and Japan as in Germany and UK. Educated Iranian women are less likely to get married and have children. Many choose to be single and self-supporting. Many Japanese men are ashamed to work at 'dirty jobs', and Japanese women only want to find 'winners'. Unless society turns away from individualism and adopts a more organic function of life, nothing can be done about the problem of birth dearth in the developed world... that is unless future of mankind is Brave-New-World-like. Lab-created people.

Why does Yglesias want to make the U.S. three times as crowded, especially at a time of infectious pandemic, riots, urban looting, and wildfires? The most likely reason is that he doesn’t, really, but taking an extremist stance on immigration, calling for an order of magnitude more than the 52 million immigrants expected under Joe Biden’s plan, inoculates him from getting canceled...

No, he probably does really want it. He likes crowded America. He knows Covid is utter BS and just part of the coup to wreck Trump's economy. He figures more immigrants in cities will mean less rioting by blacks and Antifa ne'er-do-wells. Most immigrants groups don't indulge in rioting and looting, the expertise of blacks and Antifa thugs, the Janissary of Jewish Supremacists. And maybe more immigrants will lead to less forest fires as more forests will be cut down for building communities or for fuel.

As he admits on page 256, “I am not personally a nature lover or an outdoorsy person…”

He should know nature exists for its own good, not to serve us. I don't much care about the bottom of the ocean, but that doesn't mean it should be destroyed. I don't much care to visit the jungles, but rain-forests should be preserved. He's sounding like Woody Allen.

GLENN BECK SLAMMED AFTER CALLING FOR ONE BILLION IMMIGRANTS TO COME TO AMERICA

Some Observations on Jewsteronomy — What are the relations between Jewish Power Elites and Ordinary Jewish Masses — Jews compared to Japanese — To Own and to be Owned

Notes in Reply to GGAllin's comments on the Saker's ruminations on Russians and Jews:

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/our-fundamental-disagreement-about-wwii-hitler-jews-and-race/#comment-3706681

Since I began earning over $20/hour late in life, I’m not nearly a billionaire. Have little to no influence other than if I write something in an online forum or Tweets. It’s weird to read about “me” as an existential threat, but it’s interesting to grasp the context, of past harms done by “my people” who I pretty much don’t know any other than immediate siblings. It makes more sense than “irrational hate”.

It's not about YOU per se, though an average Jew, with an income of nearly 100,000, does make more than $20 an hour. The fact is powerful Jews will likely look down you as a 'dumb Jew'. That said, rich Jews do care about lesser Jews more than rich whites care about lesser whites, and that's something. We goyim don't see YOU, an individual, as an 'existential threat'. Indeed, if all or most Jews were like you, whites and Jews would likely get along. Most people want to peacefully co-exist with others, even folks of different ethnicity, in a sound and stable system. Even under Nazi rule, most German individuals were like you. They were not fire-breathing Nazi monsters. They were working stiffs who got up every morning, went to work, returned home to family, and relaxed, then did the same the next day. But Germany was then under Hitler's rule, and Hitler could be batshit crazy. National Socialist elites guided Germanic energies towards dark ends. In a typical socio-political order, most individuals are powerless and end up serving the agenda of the rulers. So, even anti-Nazi Germans ended up working and paying taxes to support Nazism. And most Jewish individuals end up supporting Jewish Power. One reason is relative powerlessness of the masses(who are like herds of cattle without control of levers and steering wheel of power), but the other reason is most people, with free will and left to their own devices, will choose their own side(as the devil they know or feel familiar with) over the other side. Even as they know their cabal of elites are plenty flawed and even rotten, they figure its rule is preferable to being conquered and/or controlled by the other side. Even Jewish Israelis who are deeply critical of Zionist rule would rather be ruled by Jewish elites than by Arab overlords. And this is why many Jewish individuals continue to support Jewish power. Furthermore, even as they know much of it is rotten, they nevertheless feel a pride of power — the incredible fact of Jews as 2% of America controlling the greatest power in the world — and a paranoia for the Other, the potential new pogromites or 'nazis', if goyim were to regain elite power. Indeed, this is why Germans and Japanese also supported their regimes to the very end in WWII. What if the conquering Russians kill or rape all Germans? What if victorious Americans wipe out all Japanese?

Also, even though a single German was like most other 'ordinary individual' around the world, there was a certain tendency within Germanic Teutonism to push things too far. It's like one straw on a camel's back is nothing, but enough of them will break its back. Even though Nazism and its horrors were not inevitable and could have been avoided(without defeat in WWI and the ensuing economic depression), there was still something powerful and irrational in German national character that, under certain circumstances, could cast a dark shadow over the world. It's like one little flame is nothing, but if you combine the flames together, it can form into ag massive pyre that can burn down a forest.
Same was true of Japan during WWII. Your average Japanese guy was a nice person. But there was something extreme and insane in Japanese national character that, under certain circumstances, could unleash a hellish kind of madness. It's like there is the sane side of Yonoi in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR LAWRENCE but also the obsessive side driven by dark national mythos.
Same with Negroes. One Negro isn't much of a problem(though, to be sure, problem enough), but too many Negroes leads to a critical mass or critical badass of jivery, criminality, and madness.

If a single Jew was dropped into any goy community, he would likely just get along. Much the same if just a few were dropped. But with sufficient numbers, Jews tend to go into Judeo-centric solar mode: They feel goyim must revolve around them than vice versa. They alter the gravitational dynamics between Jews and goyim. Though much smaller in number, the Jewish Covenant-mentality and pride-of-intellect provide Jews with a super-gravity-pack that can warp the relativity of political power.
Even as a minority, they feel like they own the place and should set the agenda and tell others what to do. Look at Jewish behavior under early Bolshevism. Look at Jewish behavior in 'capitalist' Russia of the 1990s. Granted, Jewish chutzpah wouldn't be so effective if not for goy goopery. Jewish culture taught Jews to be resilient and tenacious, even at the genetic level via selective mating that favored merchants and scholars. In contrast, Russian Orthodox culture and agro-centrism bred a race of people who were passive, witless, and expended most of their energies on useless diversions like swilling vodka, wrestling with bears, and dancing in such manner to blow the knees. While Jews were singing with their minds, Russians were dancing with their bodies. Guess which side gained advantage over the other?



So, while it's inconceivable that a tiny number of Russians could ever gain control over a vast majority Jewish population, even a small number of Jews could gain power over Russians. It's like a horse can't own a man, but a man can own a horse and ride it. Indeed, Jews even gained power over Anglos, the mightiest people that ever lived, so they naturally could so easily toy with Russians. Yet, there is a certain paradox here when we consider Jews-and-Anglos and Jews-and-Slavs. How strange that, in the end, Jewish power over Anglos was more total than power over Russians(or Italians). Why would this be if Russians and Greasers have been far less impressive and competent than the Anglos? This is where corruption and lack of scruples are almost an advantage for the goyim. Anglos, being more committed to Rule of Law, meritocracy, and fair play, were bound to be more sensitive to charges of hypocrisy and dirty tricks. Also, Anglos came to revere Rule of Law as a cornerstone of their might. So, Jews could exploit Anglo Ethos and Rule of Law to gain total power over Anglos on legal and ethical grounds. But among Russkies and Greasers, legality counts for less than machinations of power. So, despite being less impressive than Anglos, Russkies have been more adept at wresting power back from the Jews by dirty means(but then Jews also used dirty means to gain power over Russians).

Even though an average Jew is just an ordinary person, doesn't he share the values and worldview of powerful globo-homo Jews? After all, Jews, more than any other people, support globo-homo. Jews, more than most white groups, support Diversity. If all powerful/rich Jews were to die of some disease today, and if they were replaced by average Jews as new elites, would things really be all that different? I think not. Look at Max Boot, Julia Ioffe, and the Vindman Brothers. They came to the US with little or nothing. They began as ordinary Jews. But once they gained elite positions, they've been working with rest of World Jewry to mess things up for white goyim. A new batch of Jewish elites would likely push for mass immigration, great replacement, White Nakba, wars for Israel, cold war on Russia, hate-war on Iran, promotion of 'white guilt', total blind support for Israel, and etc. Now, YOU yourself may be an atypical Jew of a more pro-white and 'conservative' bent. But most ORDINARY Jews voted for Obama and Hillary. Most Jews hate Trump, and even most of those on his side are merely using him to serve Zionism 200% than merely 100%. Alan Dershowitz hasn't any good will toward Trump and Deplorables. He's such a fanatical Zionist that he figures Trump is more useful to the Israeli agenda.

Since middle school, I grew up in a suburb with many Jews, and most of them were nice people. As individuals, I'd say they were generally better, or preferable(and conscientious on the personal level), than most other groups, such as Scotch-Irish hillbillies, 'dumb Polacks', messy Mexicans, haggly Hindus, trashy Irish, doglike yellows, and of course, the ghastly Negroes. As individuals they are nice people, but over the years I've learned most of them are for globalism, great replacement of white goyim, exploiting collective 'white guilt', pushing jungle fever, and the like. Also, their hypocrisy on political matters amazes me. Most are staunch Zionist nationalists, but they denigrate nationalist feeling among goyim. They incessantly yammer about 'white guilt' about blacks but expect whites to support Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. They go on and on about Shoah but never face up to Jewish role in 20th century historical 'crimes'. And they push globo-homo. Most voted for Obama and think pushing jungle fever on white women is the greatest thing while they talk about Arabs and Palestinians as near-animals who should be pushed out of Greater Israel. I know this from personal conversations. So, even though a Jewish individual can be a nice person, associate, or friend, his political attitudes, combined with those of other Jews, signal danger to the well-being of goyim. I mean, isn't there something truly rotten in how Jews, the most privileged and powerful(and over-represented people in elite circles), berate whites for 'white privilege'? Isn't it lowdown for Jews to say Americanism is about colorblindness but then insisting ALL Americans must support Zionist-Israelis over Palestinians and Iranians? If the US must be a colorblind nation and fair broker among all peoples, why this supremacist outlook that favors Jews uber alles?

Even though your average person, Jew or otherwise, is different from members of the elite, the fact is elite outlooks don't come from nowhere. Often, they spring from the national character of the people. After all, Jews didn't land on American shores as elites. Many of them came with little or nothing. So, most members of today's Jewish elites have humble origins and rose from the bottom. So, that means their elite attitudes are, to a large extent, an expression of something intrinsic to Jewishness. Same with blacks. If all elite blacks were to die this moment and be replaced by ordinary blacks, the result would be much the same because black jiggity-ness has roots in core blackness. Blacks who write for the New York Times just offer a fancier and more haute version of, "Yo, I want all the blings and shit."

I never read the Talmud.

I believe you, but you don't have to read the thing to be affected by it. Talmudic attitudes and outlook have seeped into so much of Jewish life that, even without having read it, many Jews live it in so many Jews(and this true of secular as well as religious Jews). It's like most communists never read Das Kapital but its ideas defined so much of communist life. And plenty of Christians, incredible as it may sound, never read all(or any) of the New Testament, not least because so many goyim were illiterate over the ages. But its tenets still colored many aspects of their lives.

In a way, the problem now is less with Jews than with goyim. Instead of trying to make Jews be like goyim, we should try to make goyim be like Jews. Why should Jews want to be like goyim when so many goyim are so stupid and pathetic? Arabs can't get their act together. Japanese have tentacle porn as culture. Russians are lazy drunkards. Mexicans are garbage-tossing tards. Even the once great Germans and Anglos are castrated cucks. So, why should Jews try to be like them? No, we should all strive to be like Jews. Now, this isn't easy because most goyim don't have Jewish intelligence. But they can still emulate the next most potent thing about Jews: Chutzpah and covenant. Whites must think like Sean Connery in UNTOUCHABLES, written by Jewish David Mamet no less. If the enemy brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun. If they push, you push back harder.



The problem is goyim hasn't been pushing back against Jews. When Jews push, goyim must push back. Also, Jews got the Covenant that says they have a special contract with the ultimate power. The problem with Christianity and Islam is their versions of the 'covenant' are too bland and broad, shared with too large a population. I mean how can whites preserve their unique identity and power if their Christo-Covenant must be shared with Negroes, yellows, browns, and etc? No, just like Jews have a JEWISH covenant, whites must have a WHITE covenant, and this will require a white man of prophetic power who communes with the ultimate power and then brings this truth to his people. (Imagine what Hitler might have been capable of if he'd spoken for all whites, Germanics and Slavs and Latins and even pro-white Jews, instead of just for the Nordics and 'Aryans'.) He must be a river to his people. But do whites have a prophetic soul? Maybe the Germans once did. After all, unlike Greeks and Romans who lacked the Big Picture and emphasized individualism — on grounds that after you died, you just ended up in Hades and that was that — , Germanic mythology had a grand vision of fate and destiny whereby all the great warriors of Valhalla would unite once again to fight the final battle. It was such bigness of vision that made impassioned Germans the greatest musical composers. And it's no wonder that Richard Wagner and Nietzsche were both Germans. And it was Jews in Germanosphere who developed the most powerful ideas, even if dangerous. Could French or Italian culture have produced a Marx? (Also, it was the German quasi-prophet Martin Luther who altered the history of Christianity with a defiant vision of his own.) Jews have long had prophetic power, but this was magnified under Germanic influence. Granted, the problem with Germanic prophecy was its excessive doom-and-gloom, a fatalistic nihilism that unsurprisingly led to the hyper-Wagnerian excesses of Hitler. The awesome side of Hitler couldn't have been possible if he were moderate, but a bit of moderation could have saved National Socialism from itself.

Now, goyim can't be smart like Jews just because they want to be. But even the un-smart can work on chutzpah and covenant. After all, even the idiot Arabs produced a great prophet in the figure of Muhammad. White folks need a White Muhammad who attains the covenant for his people. As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad. Blacks are proof that chutzpah goes a long way(and homos are proof of the power of Poopchutespah). Even though blacks don't make much sense, they always push back when they are criticized. Jews easily run roughshod over apologetic whites, but even a bunch of angry Jews can't make Al Sharpton budge because the wildass Negro hollers back. And look how Ace Rothstein is frozen with fear when Nicky Santoro uses greaser-chutzpah on him. Anglos were never up for that kind of push-back. This is why Jews run circles around Anglo-types in Marx Brothers movies. But imagine what would happen if Groucho and Chico tried to do a number on Nicky Santoro or Tommy(in GOODFELLAS). If Anglo elites had talked to Jews like Nicky does with Ace Rothstein, they'd still have the power. But they had to keep their 'dignity' at all costs. Now, dignity, or true dignity, is about standing your ground with integrity and pushing back against BS. It's not about staying 'clean' by the art of 'reputation'. For Anglos, 'dignity' really means haute status, and that's why they focus on perception than conviction. So, if the New Normal says globo-homo is the New Dignity, Anglos immediately go along with that to maintain their conceit of 'dignity'. They regard 'dignity' as dress and gown than body and soul. Look how Charles Murray the bald-headed cuck-fool supported 'gay marriage' when it became the fashionable thing among elites. In contrast, even though blacks are dumber and poorer than whites, they hold their own against Jews because they push back and possess a special sense of black covenant called FOABP, or Fear of a Black Planet to scare 'honkeys' with, though one might call it POTA or Planet of the Africans.




There are two kinds of people in the world. Owners and the owned. Masters and Slaves. Masters own, slaves are owned. When we consider the Jewish Worldview, it is to be owners of the world. But before you own others, you must own yourself. You must see yourself as special, not a commodity to be traded. And your people must treat others of the tribe as fellow owners. Jews developed this sense via the Covenant that said even the lowest humble Jew was equally precious in the eyes of God the Almighty who didn't favor some Jew simply because he was richer than others. Thus, every Jew, even a lowly Jew, felt that he owned himself as a human. He wasn't owned by others. The only power that owns him is God. In contrast, goy orders were made of masters and slaves. Masters owned the slaves, the minions, the rabble who had no autonomous self-worth. (Also, the elites felt as owners ONLY IF they retained political/military power over the minions. Without worldly power, they felt as worthless.) So, only the elites felt as owners whereas the masses felt as the owned. This was Russia under the Tsars. The Tsar was the master, albeit supposedly a benevolent patriarch, over the masses of Russians who were deemed childlike and cattle-like. Most Russians felt owned by the Tsar and the nobility, and this mentality lingered even after serfdom was abolished. It is then hardly surprising that a single Jew in Russia had 100x the confidence and will-power of an average Russian. Communism didn't help matters. Though it spoke of liberation, Russians just became owned by the Iron State ruled by the likes of Lenin and Stalin as new master-owners.

In contrast to Russia/USSR, the US imbued its citizens with the sense of ownership. And yet, even this couldn't stand up to Jewish power because Anglo-American concept of ownership was centered on individuality, dry letter of the law, property rights, and opportunity. In other words, it was bound to lead to atomization and the Coming Apart along class lines. Also, the excessive emphasis on property rights meant that consumers obsessed with commodities could themselves become human commodities whose only value is economic or GDP-related. No wonder we hear stuff like, "Great Replacement is okay as long as economic activity goes up." Also, excessive materialist-individualism meant that rich Americans would feel as winners or uber-masters, while poorer Americans would feel as abject 'losers' or servant-class.
If whites had a Jewishy concept of ownership that was essentially tribal, cultural, historical, and spiritual, they would be in a much better shape. For one thing, they would be united as a people on grounds that all whites, regardless of class, would be considered as brethren within the white family with shared destiny. Such a rich cultural sense of ownership would mean that even a poor white owns something of great historical-spiritual value, something that cannot be priced with dollars. But the soulless materialist concept of ownership in the US means that the haves feel like masters(as long as they keep on 'having') while have-nots feel like slaves or 'losers'. It's like what Kurt Vonnegut said.

Jews are owners twofold in the US. As the wealthiest group, they own so much of America. But as Covenant-ists, they feel that they own themselves. They are their own people with a deep and rich history. Indeed, even when Jewish immigrants arrived on American soil with little or nothing, they still felt that they owned themselves, not by goyim no matter how richer the goyim may have been. You see this in the Bible too. Even when Hebrews are held captive by more powerful groups, Jews feel they own their own souls. If any Being owns them, it's God and only Him. This is in stark contrast to the Japanese Way where nearly everyone felt he was owned by someone higher. The essence of Japanese-ness was to serve. To serve the master than be a master. And besides, even being a master meant one had to serve a higher master with absolute devotion. 'Bushi', the term for samurai, means 'to serve'. So, when we compare Jews and Japanese in the US, the difference couldn't be starker. Jews feel they own themselves(and even feel that they should own the silly inferior goyim). But Japanese-Americans are happy to be owned by the dominant power. Look at Francis Fukuyama, that worthless spineless cuck-servant before the Jewish globo-homo masters. He's like the Japanese after World War II who groveled at the feet of General MacArthur as the New Shogun. Of course, it was right for Japan to surrender as they couldn't continue with the war effort, but did they have to grovel before the power that had so utterly crushed them? Even if Israel were to face defeat and be conquered by the Other, Jews won't grovel. They will smile, shake hands, and pretend to go along, but they will not surrender their sense of ownership to the Other. Indeed, even after Exile in Roman Times, Jews never lost their sense of spiritual ownership of the Holy Land. That is the difference between Jews and Japanese. This is why, even though Israel is a much smaller nation than Japan, it is getting stronger while Japan is dying. Even as Jews spread globalization to goy nations to destroy them, they maintain total Jewish ownership of Jewish homeland, Jewish bodies, and Jewish history. In contrast, the hapless Japanese cucks, in total obeisance to their globalist overlords, are committing massive harakiri, also true of other East Asian nations with the possible exception of China. Japanese surrendered their Narrative to the West, and Japanese regard their women as sex toys as pornography is a big feature of their 'culture'. It's a nation of plastic toys than soulful humans.

White people used to feel as owners in America. They owned their bodies and souls. They owned their narratives, icons & idols, and the land. They conquered it, they claimed it, they built it, and they kept it. They sometimes owned other peoples, especially the blacks as slaves, but the idea of white folks being owned by the Other, or White Slavery, was anathema to white pride and dignity. And this was due to White Race-ism, the greatest thing in American history. White Race-ism was the glue, the bond, and a kind of emotional sub-covenant that held white folks together.
But the over-emphasis on individualism, materialism, and universalism eventually frayed this sense of white unity of ownership of body, soul, and land. Individualism led to atomization, an excessive focus on me-as-winner than we-as-owners. So, if a white individualist could betray his own kind and cut a deal to make money, he did just that. So many whites became a bunch of Mitt Romneys. Materialism meant that the essence of life was to buy stuff. So, one's value was tied to consumer goods and services. That meant one had no value unless attached to some hedonistic-economic activity. In other words, if electricity were to go out, a white person would have no value, no reason to live. And all this talk of universalism meant that white bodies, white lands, white wealth, and even white history could be owned by others. So, we got jungle fever and Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. We have white-built sports taken over by blacks who now reign as heroes and idols of whites; this means whites are owned by black demigods in fantasy, recreation, and entertainment. Whites used to protect their heroes from the Other. So, white sports kept out blacks, the tougher race. But individualism and universalism undermined white race-ism and paved the way for black supremacism. This has been crucial because the most impressionable things in peoples memories are the peak moments of thrill. People ignore or forget most things in their daily lives and remember only the most exciting moments. It's like we look at peaks of mountains than at slopes or valleys. As blacks took over the peaks of sports, pop music, and sexualized culture, most whites conflate blackness with peak thrills of life. Whites don't even own their heroes. As the demigod heroes are of the Other, it's like blacks own the sensations of whites. And as black entertainers and athletes are owned by Jewish moguls, it's like Jews own whites two-fold. They own the blacks who own the whites-as-hapless-cucky-wucks.
With the fading of white race-ism, whites can no longer claim ownership of white lands, even in Europe. Whites are not owners but mere commodities. White lands can be claimed by anyone, and white people can be declared obsolete or 'antique' and replaced by new people as new cattle, new pets, or new furniture. The rise of pornification of society means whites have gone from owners to the owned. Look at Miley Cyrus and other creatures of Jewish-run Disney, now a shikse-whore-factory. They are not humans but commodities, sex dolls. And white people accept this because they don't even own their minds. Indeed, white minds are now mere extensions of Jewish-owned electronic media. If Jews say 'gay marriage is holy', white minds hooked to Jewish-owned TV nod along. Even the white religion of Christianity has been owned and altered by Jews into worship of Globo-Homo as so many churches now are essentially about worship of Sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting than anything else. (But then, the fact that whites had been converted in such huge numbers to Christianity, a religion originating from the Other, suggests whites are easily owned. Incapable of creating a prophetic vision of their own, they surrendered their souls to a Jew as Son of God.)

Now, imagine Arabs in Israel controlling prostitution & pornography and using Jewish women as sex meat for Arab men, Palestinian men, and Negro men. Jews would be outraged that another group is treating Jewish women as objects to be owned and exploited. They would see it as Arabs treating Jews like commodities. But Jews apparently see nothing wrong with treating whites that way. Worse, if whites a hundred years ago would have been shocked and offended by Jews using whites in such manner, white cuck-maggots of today are sheepishly resigned to the fate of existing to be owned, bought/sold, and ordered around by Jewish Power. Even Donald Trump, who'd been harassed by Jewish Power from day one, is totally owned by Jews and do their bidding, like killing Soleimani, a proud man who is NOT owned by Jews. (And of course, young white men in the US military don't fight to defend America as a nation they own. No, they are mere mercenary goons owned by Jewish Power that sends them to slaughter Arabs and Muslims for the glory of Zion that owns almost all US politicians who are worthless toadies.) Indeed, it seems as if owned white fools like Trump and John McCain are envious of goyim who are not owned. No wonder McCain barked so loudly at Vladimir Putin. No wonder Trump took out Soleimani, a painful reminder to cuck-dogs like The Donald that indeed a goy can be his own master and not be owned by Jewish supremacists.
Under Sorosian Jewish Supremacism, a white man in Europe who says his nation belongs to his own people is now a 'far rightist', but at the same time, all European elites are expected to say Israel belongs to Jews and Jews only. So, Jews are to be admired and supported as Owners whereas whites must resign themselves to Owned status. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where whites can't even own their own history as justification for owning their lands. Under Jewish control, white narratives are being taken away from white hands and rewritten by Jews, white cuck-scribes, and blacks into a 'Diversity' narrative. In other words, Swedes have no ownership of historical narrative to buttress territorial ownership of their land because... uh... the Vikings were black and shit. Right, and because some European merchants visited China and India, those Asian lands belong just as much to whites as to yellows and browns. Can you imagine anyone in China or India falling for that bull? But then, Japan seems falling for it as it's just a cuck-wussy colony of the US that is a cuck-wussy colony of the Empire of Judea.

Implications of White Flight from Black Fight — Nature of Globalist Elitism and its War on the National Covenant — Upper-Class Consciousness among the Globo-Homo Elite Class — National Unity vs Global Diversity

White Flight After the Greater Migration: http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-flight-in-other-countries/

"The Great Migration of 6 or 7 million African-Americans from the South to Northern cities in the 1940s-1970s contributed heavily to white flight to the suburbs. With sub-Saharan Africa forecast to quadruple in population to 4 billion over the rest of the century, first world countries need to be thinking seriously about what would be the impact of a Greater Migration of blacks out of Africa of one or two orders of magnitude greater than the Great Migration that caused so much havoc in 20th Century urban America."

White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.

Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)

In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.

But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.

Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.

A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.

We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).

Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.

Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.

Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.

Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.

Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)

Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.

Commentary on "A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism”, Part II"(by the Saker)

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-crash-course-on-the-true-causes-of-anti-semitism-part-ii/

The Unspoken Truth about the history of American Power is that went from Wasp Elite to Jewish Elites. It didn't go from Wasp Elites to All Americans.

‘Antisemitism’ is now a trick term used by Jewish Elites to discredit any criticism of Jewish power and influence.

Contra the prevailing PC Narrative, the Power didn’t go from Wasp Elite Rule to All-American-rule(or power dispersed equally and proportionally among all groups of Americans). In other words, the power didn’t go from the Wasp tower to the American square. Rather, it passed from Wasp tower to Jewish tower. It went from Anglo-elitism to Judeo-elitism. THAT is the crux of the problem of American Power. If anything, the New Elitism of Jewish domination is even more unequal and unfair than the Old Elitism of Wasp domination. After all, Anglo-Americans made up a huge part of America. So, Wasp elites were representative of large section(the majority well into the 20th century) of America. In contrast, Jews are only 2% of America, and that means Jewish Elite Rule is really about domination over the 98% by the 2%.
Now, Jews may flatter themselves by claiming that their power is used for the good of all Americans and all peoples around the world. Really? Just ask the Palestinians. In fact, Jewish power compels the US to support Zionist mass murder of Palestinians. And Jews use US power to subvert Russia, Iran, Syria, or any other nation hated by Jews. Also, Jewish Power shuts down BDS movement in the US. Also, Jewish power favors the network of Jewish oligarchs in Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood who rake in all the profits for the globo-expansionist Tribe. And the ONLY reason Jews push for Mass Immigration-invasion is to increase Diversity among goyim so as to play divide-and-conquer over them. Notice Jews do NOT push for non-Jewish immigration to Israel.... even as they demean Hungary and Poland for wanting to maintain their ethnic, cultural, and territorial integrity.
According to the Jewish Narrative, Bad Old America was about Wasp elites hogging most power and privilege for themselves. So, the rise of Good New America was about the Power passing to All Americans equally. But it didn’t happen that way. The once-Wasp-Power went mostly to Jewish elites instead of to All of America equally. THIS is what Jews are trying to hide. They want us to believe either that

(1) The Power went from Wasp elitism to All of America equally(than to Jews)

or

(2) The Power still remains with Big Bad White Male Privilege, and therefore, Jews and non-whites must work together to bring down this Nasty Wasp Country Club Power.

The problem with this Narrative is that it totally ignores the fact that Wasp Elite Power passed over to Jewish Elite Power. In other words, Jews are the ‘new wasps’. Actually, it’s worse. If Wasp Power was out in the open, Jewish Power remains hidden. It is plain-as-day for anyone who wants to notice, but if the observer is honest about what he sees, he is denounced and destroyed as an ‘anti-Semite’.
If awareness about ‘antisemitism’ in the past was about protecting vulnerable Jews from bigots, it is now about safeguarding the ultra-power of the super-privileged Jewish elites. Jewish elites simply want us to remain blind, deaf, and mute about the fact that Wasp elite power did NOT surrender to All-American Power of All Groups, white and non-white, but instead surrendered to Jewish elite power.

Jews want non-white Americans to see Jews as allies and fellow comrades against white elite power. In other words, the American People are to believe that Jews have been anti-elitist and working hard to transform the elitist nature of American Power(in the hands of Wasps) into something more democratic and egalitarian. Burn down the white-shoe country clubs of privilege and turn American Power into one big square for everyone.
But in fact, Jewish Power did no such thing. Rather, it took over the elite institutions from the Wasps and has been ruling America on the basis of “Is it good for the Jews?” Jews didn’t burn down the country clubs. They took them over or built bigger and more lavish ones for themselves. To hide this fact, Jews train and hire yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to bark at the ur-specter of White Privilege.

The fact that Jewish power hates Populism with such rabid virulence gives the game away though. Elitism is their thing. As for the former Wasp elites, they carry on with the charade of dominance even though they take their orders from the Jewish Bosses. Why? Because as long as they obey the New Jew Bosses, they are given a seat at the table. Clintons, Bidens, and Bushes can have a seat at the table as long as they sing hosannas to Jews and Israel while turning up their noses at Deplorables and Palestinians. So, we have Wasp politicians signing on to Wars for Israel and promoting Hatred against any people Jews don't like: Palestinians, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. Also, cucky Wasp toadies kinda like the idea of 'White Privilege' because, despite its anti-white rhetoric, it gives the impression that Wasps still have the Top Power. Thus, craven Wasp cuckery can masquerade as magnanimity. Thus, Wasp comprador elites(who suck up to Jews) can play at being generous and 'inclusive' of non-whites and helpful to Holy Holocaust Jews even though, in fact, they are just toadying up to Jewish Power that uses the smokescreen of  'white privilege' to conceal the reality of Jewish Dominance.