Response to "Hungarian Foreign Minister DEMOLISHES triggered BBC reporter calling for open borders in Europe"

Actually, this is what the Hungarian Foreign Minister should have said:

Diversity works only within the EUROPEAN Union. In order for the EU to be European, it must be by Europeans and for Europeans. As it currently functions, the EU might as well be called the World Union, or especially the Afro-Islamo-European-Union. It says something about current EU that it is so hostile toward fellow whites in Russia and Hungary and Poland while being so celebratory and welcoming of Africans, Arabs, and Asians. So, basically, the current EU wages war on White Europe and tries to unite Europe with non-Europe. Furthermore, it wages war on the meaning of what it means to be European. According to EU, a 'European' is anyone who just comes to Europe and signs a piece of paper. So, history, culture, and blood no longer matter. A European with 10,000s of years of racial evolution in Europe and 1,000s of years of cultural history in Europe is NO MORE EUROPEAN than a newly arrived African or Arab who just learned the language and signed a citizenship paper. Basically, it means that the roots of a European has NO meaning. It doesn't matter if your roots in Europe racially go back eons and culturally go back millennia. You are NO MORE EUROPEAN than some Arab or African who just came for free gibs and to assimilate to globo-homo Hollywood-Rap culture.
Calling Africans, Arabs, and Asians the 'New Europeans' is a sleight-of-hand trick. It's like replacing orange juice with lime juice and labeling it as 'new orange juice'. Suppose I take over your house and call myself the 'new you'. That way, YOU didn't lose your house to me because I'm the 'new you'. So, the house still belongs to you because I am 'you', or the 'new you'. Isn't that ridiculous? It's all semantic BS.

Hungary joined the EUROPEAN Union to cooperate more fully with fellow Europeans. It didn't join to become one with Afro-Islamo-European Union. Also, Hungarians know what a real European is. He is a person with deep racial, historical, and cultural roots in Europe. But EU has changed rules so that ANYONE can become an Insta-European by signing a piece of paper. The rich stream of European blood has been replaced with the stamp of globo-homo ink. A true European has no more claim or birthright to Europe than billions of non-Europeans around the world. (This is the logic of colonialism and imperialism. Just like European imperialists tried to suppress the birthrights of the peoples they conquered, the globalist project of EU seeks to suppress any notion of ancestral claim and birthright among Europeans in their mother-continent.) EU will say dumb things like 'Europe was always a world of immigrants', but virtually all those peoples were fellow whites, fellow Europeans. Surely, a bunch of blacks going from one African nation to another is less jarring than a bunch of non-Africans settling in Africa. The same is true of Europe. A bunch of Poles going to Germany or UK is less jarring and disruptive than millions of black Africans and Arab Muslims taking over entire areas of Europe. Also, the history of Europe was about resistance against foreign invaders. Mongols invaded Russia and even reached Poland. They were eventually pushed out. Moors invaded Sicily and Spain. They were pushed back to North Africa eventually. Turks invaded Greece and parts of Balkans; they tried to invade more. Europeans rolled back the Turkish tide. Europe wasn't about inviting invasions by non-Europeans but about repelling them.

Anyway, it is not Hungary or Poland that violated the agreements of the European Union. It was the globo-homo elites of EU who've decided to collaborate with the Empire of Judea. They are not real leaders but comprador-collaborators. Their duty was to keep Europe European and to facilitate easier and more efficient cooperation among Europeans, but they undermined their own project by effectively uniting Europe with Africa and the Middle East(and even Asia). Meanwhile, they badmouth Russia because they're puppets of Jewish Supremacists filled with hatred for Putin who said NO to Homomania(as proxy of Jewish Domination).

Also, there is no greater human right than for a nation to survive as a people and culture. Demographic Imperialism that replaces the people and culture is a form of geo-ethnocide. It's obvious from the creation of Israel that massive movements of peoples can lead to a destruction of a people and culture. Massive Jewish demographic imperialism led to the eradication of Palestine. Palestinians live like animals in a zoo in Gaza. They live under Apartheid conditions in the West Bank.
After WWII, the anti-imperialist struggles of Third World peoples were all nationalist. Hindus in India told the British to go home because India is for Indians. Africans told Europeans to pack up and leave because black Africa belongs to black Africans. Anti-imperialism founded on the principle of universal nationalism was the most fundamental form of human rights. Before we can have individual rights and liberties, we must be free as a people from foreign or imperialist domination. For example, Palestinian individuals in Israel have many individual rights and liberties, but they are NOT free as a people. Their nation, Palestine, has been taken over by Jews, and all Palestinians, no matter how rich or free as individuals, don't have a nation because their land now belongs to Zionist overlords. If it happened to Palestinians, it can happen to anyone. Consider how Kosovo had once been the sacred homeland of Serbians. But over time, Albanian Muslims moved in and settled in Kosovo under Ottoman rule, and the Serbs lost their ancient homeland forever. But I suppose EU can advise Serbians to just see Albanian Muslims as 'New Serbians'. Of course, Albanians don't see themselves that way.

Also, Diversity has many meanings. The World is Diverse, after all. So, Diversity as a condition of the world isn't a problem. The world will always be diverse, made up of various races, ethnic groups, nations, cultures, religions, regions, and etc. But Diversity as PC formula is about forcing Demographic Imperialism on each nation(except Israel). Every nation must be made into a mini-world. But why? Hungary is Hungary, and it should be Hungarian. If you want to see China or Africa, visit China or Africa. Why bring China, Africa, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and etc. into your own nation, especially if it's small? If rising Diversity is such a huge headache for massive nations like the US and Brazil with so much space, imagine its impact on smaller nations like Hungary and Poland? At the very least, white Americans can flee from Diversity. In small European nations, you are stuck with it right outside your door.

The kind of Diversity pushed by EU is really a form of imperialism. Diversity as a condition of the world is just a reality. But Diversity as a formula is about coercing all nations(except Israel) to surrender to massive demographic imperialism and replacement. It's usually about higher-IQ prosperous nations with low-birthrates being demographically taken over by low-IQ peoples from poor nations with high birthrates. The result will be loss of entire civilizations. Just do the math. Over time, the current Diversity policy of EU will turn all of Europe into something like Morocco. Is Morocco a happy place? If diverse North Africa is so great, why do people there want to move to white Europe?

Also, EU's pontificating about Human Rights is so much BS. If EU really cares about non-whites, why doesn't it ever stand up to Jewish-run US neo-imperialist policy that destroyed so much of the Middle East and North Africa? For the most part, the EU didn't do anything about George W. Bush's illegal war on Iraq. EU was silent about Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright's sanctions that killed 100,000s of Iraqi women and children. The EU has continued to support Israeli occupation of West Bank. EU has gone along with US sanctions against Iran that hurt so many people. EU supported Obama-and-Hillary's destruction of Libya even though Gaddafi made peace with the West. EU worked with the US to aid terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart. 400,000 people died. EU never stood up to Jewish-run US empire that destroys millions of lives in the Muslim World.
Indeed, the so-called 'refugee' crisis is the result of Jewish-run US neo-imperialism in Middle East and North Africa. But the EU, that is gutless in standing up to Zionist-American power, huffs and puffs about Hungary and Poland whose only desire is to protect their nations. It is the Jewish-run US that is pushing the Invade-Invite Policy. It says the US should freely invade and destroy nations around the world(especially to serve Israel's interests), and as millions and millions of people will be displaced by such invasions, the white world must 'invite' those people as a 'humanitarian' gesture. So, Jews use Western Power to destroy all nations hated by Israel, and then, Jews morally pressure white nations to accept the 'refugees'. Of course, Israel takes none and won't even give back Golan Heights that was stolen from Syria. What a bunch of a**holes.

Finally, Diversity-as-Formula is a form of imperialism. Nazi Empire was about diversity. It was about many peoples being forced to live under the Nazi umbrella. Soviet Empire was diverse. It was about many peoples being forced to live under Soviet Hegemony. The EU is now about forcing demographic imperialism on every European nation to make them more diverse. Just like Nazi Empire forced Slavic lands to accept German settlers, the EU forces European nations to accept African and Muslim invaders displaced by Jewish globo-homo imperialist wars in the Middle East and North Africa. (Jews apparently want to use wars to empty the Middle East so that they can grab more territory.)

The EU project could have worked if it had remained European and respected the national rights of all European peoples. But it turned into an arm of Judeo-Globo-Homo project. As such, it went from a sunny project of uniting and preserving Europe to a stormy project uniting Europe with Africa, Muslim World, and South Asia. It came to be about forcing the Diversity Formula or the Demographic-Imperialist Agenda on each and every nation.

So, why did so many white people fall for this poison pill? Because Political Correctness imbues vain white people with a new kind of supremacism. If imperialist whites of the past were racial supremacists, today's whites are moral supremacists. They think they are soooooooo very goody-good and holier-than-others because they are so obedient to the Globo-Homo Agenda that demeans anything white and patriotic as 'racist' while extolling anything Diverse(usually black) as sacrosanct. So, just by mouthing sacramental platitudes about 'diversity' and 'human rights', these insufferably smug PC whites think they are superior to nationalists and patriots. But then, communists also felt morally superior by mouthing off platitudes about 'equality' and 'revolution'. Just another form of supremacism among people for whom every corner of the world must be made to cave to their dogmatically imbecile notion of right-and-wrong.

Drasilist Principle of the Need to Grow Both Ways — The More We Move Forward, the More We Need to Look Backward

In the current state of political discourse, it’s as if we have only two choices: Conservatism that looks backward and Liberalism that looks forward. Looking backward has its advantages because the past is a treasure trove of legends, lessons, traditions, and heritage. Especially if a civilization is steeped in written memory, the past is indeed a rich country. But looking forward also has its advantages. It searches for new possibilities, discoveries, and achievements. If someone only learned from the past, he might do pretty well but he will be stalled in the status quo, like Ottomans under Islamic orthodoxy or East Asia under Confucian dogma. But if someone only looked to the future, he might become unmoored, lost, adrift, and disoriented. The problem of arch-conservative order is the fear of change lest it upset the sacred balance or the existing ‘harmony’. The problem of ultra-liberal (dis)order is the foolhardy embrace of fads and fashions until culture becomes vain, shallow, and trivial(like so much of the Current West where many grown-ups are obsessed with tattoos & piercings and where many educated people think the highest value is Homomania.
In contrast to such trivialism is the deep-rooted traditionalism of Iranian Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and zealously religious Jews. However, even though they are deeply rooted in tradition, they are prisoners of dogma and the fear of the unknown. The worst example of Liberalism gone bonkers was the crazy community of Jim Jones, a heretical Christian cult that practiced all the platitudes of Love, Tolerance, and Diversity. In recent times, a terrible example of Conservatism gone bonkers was the Taliban that demolished Buddhist statues in Afghanistan out of strict adherence to Islamic laws.

But why does everything have to be seen as a dichotomy? Why are so many people prone to thinking in terms of cops and robbers, as if one has to be either ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, only ‘backward-looking’ or ‘forward-looking’? This is even stranger if we consider that even most liberals are partly conservative and most conservatives are partly liberal. After all, even though universities are said to be ‘liberal’ or even ‘radical’ places, their functions are also profoundly conservative. Universities exist to store, preserve, guard, and transmit the glories of past knowledge. If you attend art school, you learn of the history of art. If you study literature, you read the great masters. If you learn history, you read and ponder about the past. If you study philosophy, you must understand the history of ideas. If you study science, you are taught not only the latest theories but how the history of science led to current conclusions. Also, colleges are inherently hierarchical because admission operates by restrictive standards of ability.
As for American Conservatism especially, it tends to be quite open to excitement, adventure, and opportunities. This is certainly true of Mormons, the majority of whom are socially conservative. But as heirs of the Protestant Work Ethic, they believe in hard work, achievement, new knowledge, and more opportunities. They have lots of ‘liberal-ish’ energies.

One of the strange ironies of American Political Ideology is that the ‘conservatives’ tend to be less knowledgeable of the past and even downright amnesiac. When they say they love heritage, it means just a few generations or loyalty to simpleminded symbols, such as good-ole Country Music, the roots of which aren’t very deep in America. Most American Conservatives have no sense of deeper roots in Old Europe. As more rural folks, they may feel close to the soil but they have little or no sense for their roots in the ancient soils of Europe in which their race evolved. As such, many American ‘conservatives’ are more about guns and anti-literate Evangelical faith. Or they are about the red, white, & blue, the military, and cliched symbols of what makes America the ‘greatest nation on earth’. They are ‘conservers’ of symbols and gestures than of real knowledge or rich tradition.

In contrast, ‘liberals’ tend to be better-read in history, literature, arts, and culture. (To be sure, your average ‘liberal’ is a moron addicted to pop culture, trash TV, dumb fads & fashions, and vanity, BUT, given the dominance of ‘liberals’ in academia and media, it’s fair to say more of them show interest in ideas and knowledge. Some might argue that ‘liberals’ dominate media and academia because both institutions are biased and favor their own kind, and that is surely part of the reason. But I suspect that EVEN IF media and academia were skewed toward favoring more 'conservatives’, they would still attract more ‘liberals’ because more ‘liberals’ than ‘conservatives’ show interest in ideas, arts, and knowledge.

Also, ‘liberalism’ tends to attract the more intelligent because they want to believe that they are changing society for the better. In their minds, ‘conservatism’ is either about being stuck in the status quo or moving the clock backward to the bad ole days whereas ‘liberalism’ is a tireless project of creating a better and more just society. Given the arc of the 20th century, this view of Liberalism wouldn’t be wrong.

However, both ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ fail due to dogmatic tendencies. Too often, ‘conservatism’ has this idea that something has value because it is traditional. It’s a sentimental or even hoggish attachment to certain attitudes or way of doing things. In contrast, ‘liberalism’ has this idea that something must be better because it has novelty value — it’s so exciting! — or represents ‘change’. But truth or meaning cannot be determined by sentimental attachment or want of thrills. Take the issue of ‘gay rights’. Certain Christian anti-‘gay agenda’ people failed because they based their sense of truth on the Bible. So, they never gave any thought to the issue. The Bible says ‘homosexuality is sinful or evil’, therefore, homosexuals must be devil-possessed or just infected with sin-germs. In fact, the truth is some people are BORN with homosexual tendencies. At its base, it’s not a moral issue but a biological one. Some people are born to be tootkins, tooters, fruitkins, or fruiters. But because arch-conservatives stuck to Biblical truth, the discourse on the matter became one of ‘conservatives irrationally attached to ancient texts’ versus ‘liberals rationally enlightened by secular science’. Naturally, intelligent people are going to choose to be ‘liberal’ on the issue of homos and trannies.

But in fact, even the ‘liberals’ were full of shi*. They didn’t stop at the fact that some people are born with homosexual orientation but insisted that, somehow, it is uber-‘rational’ and uber-‘secular’ to believe that a homo-man’s anus is just as legitimate as a sexual organ as a woman’s vagina. One produces poop while other produces babies, but we are supposed to believe this. Or, we are supposed to believe that homo fecal penetration is just as valid as sexual activity as the union of the complementary organs of men and women. More bizarre yet, we are to believe that if a man gets a ‘sex-change operation’, his penis and balls can be turned into a real ‘vagina’. Stranger yet, we are now told that even a man with penis and balls is a ‘woman’ if he declares himself as such. So, penis and balls are no longer strictly male organs. And for all their rationalism and secular acumen, 'liberals' decided to conflate homosexuality and tranny-business with ‘rainbow’ colors. What homo fecal penetration or tranny penis-cutting has to do with the rainbow, I have no idea. But it doesn’t end there. Theses supposedly rational and secular people love to push homo colors into churches, as if there is nothing more sacred to God and Jesus than symbols that celebrate homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting.

If ‘conservatives’ failed on the ‘gay’ issue by sticking to the Bible, the ‘liberals’ failed because they conflate ‘change’ with More Truth. Of course, it is also why so many were duped by communism. Hey, it promised radical change, and it must be TRUE because it will be so different from the existing or current system. So, how true did Marxist or Leninist economic turn out to be? The sanest position on the ‘gay issue’ would have been for both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ to acknowledge that some people are naturally born as homos. That said, it remains that homosexuality is a sexual defect and deviance that have no biological value. Sex is, at the root, a bio-reproductive process, and homosexuals are like automobiles that pass through the assembly line with faulty wiring. Surely, there is something wrong when a man wants to spend all his life having other men ram their dongs up their bungs. Still, it is a natural defect, and we can’t blame homos for having been born and ‘mis’-wired that way.

To be sure, there is a reason why homos have come to such prominence in civilization. In a rough warrior society, men who can’t be manly have little value. But in civilization with surplus food, leisure, and privilege, people seek out fancier things. Homos have an edge in creating such things because they love fantasy, artificiality, and vanity. So, even though homos rank zero in terms of biological creation, they rank rather high in aesthetic creativity. That aspect of homo also need to be addressed.

Anyway, we need to understand a certain paradox if we are have a richly meaningful society. The more we need to push forward, the more we need to push backward. It’s like a rocket rises only by blasting tons of force against the ground. The energy is pushed back in order for the rocket to propel forward. Better analogy is with a tree. A young sapling hasn’t reached very high, and its roots are shallow in the soil. For the sapling to grow taller into a tree, it must also deepen its roots in the ground. After all, without the firm entrenchment of roots deep in the soil, the tree will easily topple over. So, the bigger and higher the tree grows upward, the deeper and lower it must reach into the soil as anchor and source of nutrients. After the great Yggdrasil tree of Germanic Mythology, we might call it the Drasilist Principle.

In construction, taller the building, stronger and deeper its foundation must be. To reach higher, you must dig deeper. And in war, the further one advances, greater the need for a support system of logistics and supplies.
This lesson seems to have been lost in the Modern West. There’s been such an emphasis on progress, development, growth, and change that people have forgotten the lesson that the higher one rises, deeper one must dig. Or the more one wanders, the greater the need for a solid homeland. There is always a need for a base of operation. Once the connection between the wanderer and the base has been severed, the wanderer is on his own, lost and confused... like the Burt Lancaster's character in THE SWIMMER. Imagine Odysseus without a home to return to. A state of permanent exile.
Why did Western Man forget this lesson? Was it the effect of media, academia, entertainment, and political correctness(PC)? Granted, those institutions/industries weren’t always so hostile to moral and traditional civilization, but they’ve certainly become so in the last several decades. Media promote tabloid news, academia teaches vapid formulas, entertainment is degenerate & promotes Mammonic idolatry, and PC tells most people to reject everything but the fanatical fads of the Current Year. Fanatic infatuation with fleeting fashions may seem contradictory, but the human mind works that way. Today’s mania becomes yesterday’s mania, and no one ever learns.

But the problem is even more grave. In the past, the influence of modern academia, liberal media, trivial entertainment, and ideological fashions were countered by four steadying forces: Church, Family, Tradition, and Patriotism. While much of modern influence was good, it had its deleterious aspects as well. So, everyone, especially in childhood, needed more than information, entertainment, theories, and trends. One needed the grounding of something more permanent, deeper, and ‘eternal’. Church, Family, Tradition(sense of history and heritage), and Patriotism provided such emotional, moral, and symbolic needs. But they have all lost prestige and meaning, especially for whites. Churches now hang homo colors and worship homos & trannies over God and Jesus. Family is just a lifestyle option if you want it, so much so that we are supposed to tell ourselves that ‘gays can have kids’. We are supposed to believe that single-mothers are just as capable of raising the kids alone, and men don’t need to stick around. And men and women don’t need to mature and become adults. Even with kids in the house, parents can be about tattoos and piercings. Feminism and Homomania have had a terrible impact on the Family.

There is no sense of tradition when the only culture for most Americans is amnesiac Pop Culture. When people are addicted to constant barrage of new thrills(even if much of them are recycled and repackaged trash), they see little value in ‘lame old stuff’.
And whatever passes for patriotism today is utterly meaningless. It is not about roots and remembrance but smashing memorials, digging up graves, and knocking down statues. It’s about spitting on the graves of ones’ ancestors, a most terrible crime. It is about desecration, not consecration. It’s not about defense of the realm but inviting mass invasion and convincing oneself that it’s great to be replaced by peoples of different races and cultures. So, the very opposite of patriotism is the New Patriotism.

Did modernity grow so demented due to its own inexorable logic? Or was it engineered largely by Jews who wanted to weaken gentile sense of unity, continuity, and morality? After all, it would have been difficult for Jews to gain so much control over whites IF whites had retained a powerful sense of memory and pride in who and what they are. The result was the West as a tree that keeps growing taller and wider but not digging deeper with roots to secure the base. But without the complementary growth downwards as well as upwards, the tree will eventually topple and fall.

I suspect the Jews had something to do with this because they have long understood that the source of Jewish Power derives from Growing Both Ways. The more Jews moved into modernity, the more they had to look into history so as not to lose the sense of who they are and where they came from. Because modernity is so bewildering, hectic, breakneck, and fast & furious, one can easily become lost, alienated, confused, decadent, and/or disoriented. Without roots and remembrance, one could be swept away by the relentless tides of modernity. Therefore, one needed to hold onto a rope of identity, history, and heritage so as not to drift out to sea. Jews are big in real estate and know that taller a building, greater its foundation must be. Jews are big in finance and know that bigger the investments, bigger the reserves must be. Jews control the World Empire and know that the more US military expands overseas, greater the need for a expanding military-industrial complex in the US.
This is the secret to their power, and apparently, they don’t want to share it with other peoples who may become rivals and enemies. Is this a conscious strategy or do Jews subconsciously act this way due to evolutionary traits that evolved from savvy middlemen activities that sought to maximize one’s profits and position at the expense of others.

Anyway, the secret is to Grow Both Ways. The more we look forward, the more we need to look backward. And the whole point of looking backward is to gain insight and inspiration to move forward. If one’s ambition is petty and narrow, there is no need to justify one’s actions that are of little consequence. But if one’s ambitions are truly grand and transformative, they must be justified by the lessons of history.
Of course, this can be done in a bad way. Consider the ways in which the globalist neo-imperialists hark back to the Founding of the United States and the Constitution to justify their insatiable drive for more hegemony by EOJ or Empire of Judea. Globalism’s invocation of the past to justify its ambitious vision for the future is mostly a lie. We are told that American Founding was all about how whites should eventually embrace ‘diversity’ and replacement by non-whites. We are told that Western History teaches us that Western Values are about celebrating homomania, worshiping Jews, and welcoming ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The PC sophists and globalist commissars tell us that Hungary and Poland are against ‘Western Values’ because they want to preserve their race, culture, and territory, whereas nations like UK, France, and Sweden are all about ‘Western Values’ because they not only welcome tons of Africans but cast blacks in white historical roles. According to Globalism, ‘Western Values’ are mainly to lead the White West into extinction.

Cynical manipulators, charlatans, and Machiavellian rival tribesmen will always exist, and they will always misuse and corrupt essential ideas. Then, all the more reason for white people to master the art of Growing Both Ways. Consider a spaceship. If it is only orbiting Earth, it doesn’t have to make much effort to communicate with the world below because of its close proximity. But suppose the spaceship moves to Mars, then to Jupiter, then to Pluto and then heads toward a distant star. Now, its ambition has greatly expanded. But this makes it all the more necessary to ramp up its efforts to maintain contact with the home planet because, after all, its mission has no meaning apart from the plan on Earth. The spaceship is traveling far into the reaches of space because people on Earth want to know about the cosmos. Indeed, it’d be difficult to imagine something more terrifying than to be a spaceman adrift in space without knowing how to return to one’s own solar system and planet. Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR isn’t much of a film, but the dangerous mission makes sense only because it all comes back to Earth. And in INCEPTION, the ultimate goal of the main character is to find one’s way back home where the children are.

Now, it’s been said that the past is a foreign country, and in a superficial sense, it is. But on a deeper level of sentiments and symbols, they and we are the same. Jews know this. Even though today’s Jews are very different from ancient Jews in many ways, the big themes of family, community, continuity, and spirituality are the same. This is why Bob Dylan and Darren Aronofsky feel such great rapport with the stories of ancient Semites in the Bible. If we obsess so much about technology, fashions, and ideologies, we may conclude we have nothing in common with ancestors and the ancients. And in our shallow and stupid age, such attitudes are sadly commonplace. So, today’s idiot millennials cannot conceive of a time when people saw no value in ‘gay marriage’. Pop Culture addicts them to latest fads, and Political Correctness fixes their insipid self-righteousness to the Current Year. As such, lacking in true empathy and imagination, they find it nearly impossible to feel any deep bond with their forebears who were ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’. Jews would love to morally invalidate all of Western/Christian history on grounds that it was ‘pathological’ about Jews. But even if we were to agree that the Western/Christian World was often deluded about Jews, it isn’t very difficult to feel a connection to one’s roots and history.

Anyway, even if all the people of the past are dead and gone forever and even though we must largely live for today, it is a sense of continuity that lends meaning to why we are here now and why we are not only justified in but compelled to work for our people and the order. After all, why do Polish patriots defend their race, culture, and territory? They didn’t create those things. If current Polish people didn’t make Poland its culture and territory, why do they feel a passionate need to defend it and build upon it? Because they know it was made and bequeathed by their ancestors. Also, it was defended with much blood and sweat. And there were tragic periods when Poland faced the threat of being wiped off the map. It is by knowing all that and feeling deeply about it that the future Poland feels justified. If the connective threads of memory are cut off and if Polish people accept Pop Culture and Political Correctness as their main culture, they will no longer feel a sense of roots and remembrance, and then the righteousness claim to one’s own domain will fade. Before UK was invaded and cucked, its culture and ideology had to be weakened. It’s like an octopus will inject enzymes into the bodies of its prey before sucking up the resultant liquid. Thus, the meat of a crab is turned into liquid by the enzymes, and then it’s easy for the octopus to suck it dry. Jews and cucks did the same to Briton. Pop Culture was used to undermine real culture, memory, and mores. And then Political Correctness was used to instill Brits with ‘white guilt’ and with sophistry such as "Britain was always a Nation of Immigrants." Thus, the body of British culture and politics was turned into liquified jelly by the enzymes of PC and Pop Culture. Next, the Jewish globalist octopus can just suck it up easy.
But before Jews and cuck took over Britain, the Brits had a profound and deep sense of their race, history, culture, and territory. They understood that the British could travel so far and be so ambitious precisely because they had a rich sense of history and heritage to draw from as inspiration and guidance. But look at today’s UK. It has lost that lesson, and most white Brits are not even complaining about the looming loss of their nation because Pop Culture teaches them to worship the Negro and PC teaches them that they are the scum of the earth if they believe that Britain belongs to the native whites who have deep roots there. For those who seek to Grow One Way without Growing the Other Way, it can’t be sustained because a people without a powerful sense of where they are from won’t know where to go. If Jews abandoned their sense of history and heritage, they will go the way of Episcopalians who, for all their individual success, are like ship without a anchor, rudder, and mast that is adrift in the ocean without rhyme or reason at the mercy of other forces.

Play a Simple Children’s Game to Demonstrate that Maximum Homogeneity is Best and Maximum Diversity is Worst for Nations

A simple children's game can easily demonstrate the ideal conditions for World Peace: More Homogeneity or More Diversity? To find the answer, just get yourself a World Map.

The game is played thus:

Take a good look at Europe on the map. Now, erase all national borders until all of Europe is one landmass without divisions. Then, redraw national borders to either...

(1) Maximize homogeneity

or

(2) Maximize diversity.

You can draw borders around where the bulk of Polish people live to maximize Polish Homogeneity OR you can draw borders so that what is now Poland is broken up into 5 parts, each of which is included with OTHER nations that are also made diverse.

If you go for Maximizing Homogeneity, your newly drawn Poland will be mostly Polish.

But if you go for Maximizing Diversity, your nation will include a part of Poland, part of Germany, part of Hungary, part of Czech Rep, part of Ukraine. Polish people, instead of having a nation in which they are the solid super-majority, will become like the Kurdish people who are scattered among other nations.
You might do the same with Germany until there is no single Germany in which most Germans are situated. Instead, Germany would be divided into five or six parts and joined with other nations made up of diverse peoples, not unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Now, which will be more socially peaceful, culturally meaningful, and politically more stable? A Poland where Polish people and culture are maximally homogenized or an entity where Polish people are divided and included as minorities in six other nations(in which no people are a majority)?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Polish people with a nation of their own are likely to feel far more content, secure, and happy than if Polish nation is dissolved and if Polish people are divided and included as minorities into a bunch of nations filled with diversity of Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovenians, Croatians, etc.

A nation may gain something by having minorities, but it’s always good to have a super-majority who define the identity, character, culture, and heritage of a nation and people. After all, don’t we pity the Kurds because they don’t have a nation in which they are the solid majority and can feel at home? Instead, they are scattered in nations like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. As a minority in each country, they always feel oppressed or marginalized. And other people look upon them with suspicion and hostility. Indeed, let’s play this game in the Middle East where much of the problem stems from maps(drawn by Western Imperialists) that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Was that a good idea? Well, just ask the Kurds who are a thorn on the side of every nation in which they constitute a sizable minority and to whom every nation seems like a boot pressed upon their face.

Anyway, let's suppose we are back in 1918 after World War I. Suppose we have the chance to draw borders in the Middle East to create new nation-states. We have two choices. We can draw borders to

(1) Maximize Homogeneity in every nation

or

(2) Maximize Diversity in every nation.

Which would be the wiser option? To draw the borders on the map so as to give Kurds their own nation(or at least one where they are the overwhelming majority) OR to break up Kurdish-populated areas to be included into other nations designed for maximum diversity?

When we look at the current mess in the Middle East, the answer is pretty obvious. If the map of the Middle East had been drawn to maximize homogeneity after WWI, much of the political problems, at least pertaining to ethnic and/or sectarian conflicts, could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced. Take Iraq. If the imperialists had allowed a separate Kurdish nation, had united Sunni Arabs in Iraq with Sunnis in Syria, and if Shia Arabs in Iraq had been given their own nation, there would have been far greater stability. Instead, imperialists created nations like modern Syria, modern Iraq, modern Afghanistan, and etc. to be excessively diverse. As such, only an iron-fisted strongman could keep the peace as democratic experimentation would have led to divisions along ethnic lines.

How things might have been different if, following WWI, the Europeans had carefully surveyed the demographic reality of the entire region and drawn national maps to ensure that one particular group would be the overwhelming majority of every new nations. If Kurds in what is now Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and maybe even Turkey(if Turkish resistance could have been overcome) would have been given a nation of their own, they would be far happier and securer. They would be causing far less trouble to their neighbors and vice versa.

Now, let’s play this game in crazy-quilt region of Southeast Asia. Suppose we erase the current map and draw new borders to either

(1) Maximize Homogeneity

or

(2) Maximize Diversity.

Would it be better to draw maps to create a maximally homogeneous nation for Vietnamese, a maximally homogeneous nation for Cambodians, maximally homogeneous nation for Laotians, maximally homogeneous nation for Thais, maximally homogeneous nation for Burmese, OR would it be better to draw arbitrary borders so that one nation(shaped like a longitudinal snake) is created that is demographically 1/5 Vietnamese, 1/5 Cambodia, 1/5 Thai, 1/5 Burmese, etc.
Which would be the wiser option? A nation that is as homogeneous as possible for each people OR a bunch of nations that is made of maximally diverse populations?
Would it be better for Vietnamese to have Vietnam, Cambodians to have Cambodia, Thais to have Thailand, Laotians to have Laos, and etc., OR would it better for there to be several nations in which every group is a minority? So, instead of the Vietnamese having a nation to call their own, Vietnamese people would be dispersed, like Kurds, among other nations filled with diversity?

We can also play this game with Northeast Asia. Currently, Korea is divided in half because the US, after Japanese defeat, split the nation with the Soviet Empire. If European imperialists forced different peoples into a single nation in the Middle East and Africa, Americans divided one people into two peoples in Korea.
But suppose there is a chance for great change on the peninsula. What would make more sense? To erase the border between North Korea and South Korea and form one nation composed of people of shared ethnos, language, and history... OR to join North Korea with Manchuria and to join South Korea with Japan? If we want to maximize homogeneity, North Korea and South Korea should merge. But if we want to maximize Diversity, North Korea should be added to Manchuria and South Korea should be added to Japan(like Ireland used to be joined to Great Britain). What would be better? To maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity?

What does history tell us? I think even a child would figure this out. Maximizing Homogeneity wherever possible has been the best formula for peace within nation and with other nations. The threat to world peace usually happens when nationalism is violated in favor of imperialism. Imperialism causes diversity by invading other nations or by turning one’s nation into some cosmopolitan center welcome to all... in which case foreigners arrive to take advantage and eventually take over demographically, which is exactly what has happened in many cities and towns in France, UK, Sweden, and Germany.

Finally, let’s play this game with Israel and neighboring nations. Suppose we erase all existing borders and draw new ones. We can draw borders to maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity for each people. Now, what would be better? To draw borders to maximize, say, Jewish homogeneity in Israel or to break up Israel into three parts and include each with other geo-political entities for the purpose of more diversity?
Now, suppose northern third of Israel is joined with Lebanon and parts of Syria. The middle third of Israel is joined with Jordan and a part of Saudi Arabia. And the southern third of Israel is joined with a part of Egypt and a part of Libya.

So, would it be better to draw maps to maximize Homogeneity of Jews within a nation to call their own OR to divide up Israel and Jews(like Kurds) and turn them into minorities in diverse nations?

Now, isn’t the main problem facing Israel due to diversity caused by Occupation of West Bank?

The answer is SO OBVIOUS, but Jewish globalist elites pressure the entire world to maximize diversity(except for Israel where Jews support JEWS-ONLY immigration to maximize homogeneity). Why do Jews give such bad advice when it’s bad for gentile nations? Because it is good for the designs of Jewish Globalist Supremacism. When nations turn overly diverse, it’s easier for Jews to manipulate in divide-and-conquer fashion. Also, a diverse nation hardly has any useful nationalism. Because the various groups don’t trust one another, they tend not to unite as ONE PEOPLE but forge alliances with foreigners and imperialists to gain an advantage.
This is why Jews find homos so useful. Because homos feel alienated in many nations, they will gladly collaborate with World Jewry that showers them with money and favors. As such, homos around the world have effectively become the proxies of Jewish supremacism.
This is why truly independent and autonomous nations like Russia, Iran, China, and now Turkey do NOT allow the US(the primary tool of Judea or World Jewry) to force Homomania on them. Turkey used to allow ‘gay pride’ parades but finally stood up to World Jewry and said NO. But puppet-whore nations of the US, such as Germany-UK-Italy-Japan-Mexico-Ukraine-S. Korea-Taiwan-UK-etc. all put on massive Homomania festivals. If Uncle Samowicz tell them they better, they better.

Jews know that a patriotic and unified people can stand together against Jewish infiltration. That’s why Jews do everything to weaken and dilute gentile national identity. Jews do this by spreading Homomania that says Minority Privilege must take precedence over Majority Values. Jews also use Afromania to make people all over the world addicted to rap music, black sports, and jungle fever. Afromania destroys the manhood of non-black gentiles around the world because black rappers sing louder, black athletes got more muscle, and black hustlers got bigger dongs.

And of course, Jews try to promote Holocaustianity as a neo-religion all over the world so that every people will feel sorry and ‘guilty’ about Jews. And then, once a nation’s identity and patriotism have been weakened, Jews use their immense power of media, academia, and finance to brainwash the gentile elites into believing that DIVERSITY is not only a great boon but a moral necessity.
The result is something like the disastrous experiment taking place in Sweden, a nation where hideous feminists rule, where men are castrated cucks, and where endless streams of invaders are ‘welcomed’ as adding more wonderful Diversity to the nation. Well, goodbye to Sweden. With Jews, You Lose.

Law of Tribalism says People want to be with their own kind - Law of Supremalism says People want to be the Superior or the Inferior even if Different

It is part of nature(and human nature) to fear and ward off the different. Nature exists in a state of terror and aggression. All organisms are hungry and want to devour others and fear being devoured by others. Organisms seek to get closest to organisms they want to eat and furthest from organisms that would eat them. To be sure, there are various organisms that remain oblivious to one another and co-exist peacefully as they don’t regard each others as rivals, predators, or prey. Full grown trout will swim alongside full-grown carps. Sparrows, pigeons, and ducks co-exist and just ignore one another. Indeed, often there is more violence among similar species or the same species than among different species. Chimpanzees are most violent with other chimpanzees and get along better with other animals. Squirrels are often quarrelsome and aggressive with one another while ignoring skunks, opossums, and pigeons.

In some ways, organisms feel closest to their own kind but also most competitive and acrimonious among their own kind as well. This is why many people prefer to leave their own community and go to another one where they can just be strangers. Indeed, that's been of the great attractions of America. If there were two very tribal societies, people in Tribe A would think twice about going to Tribe B. After all, Tribe B will see the member from A as an outsider. He may be treated as an outcast or come under great pressure to convert/conform to the ways of Tribe B. Therefore, in a world of tribalism, it’s best to stick with your own Tribe. Despite all the acrimony, bad blood, and competition within the Tribe, you are still treated as an organic member.
But what if there is land where everyone is a stranger? One may feel lonely and lost but also loose and liberated. One no longer has tribal obligations and duties. If you belong to Tribe A, you must carry out the duties of your Tribe, and they could be time-consuming, burdensome, or just plain boring. But if you move to a land of strangers, you can just do what you want. You are no longer part of a Tribe(and that is alienating and disorienting) but you also feel free and independent. It’s like when kids go to college and are surrounded by strangers. It can be lonely and confusing but also exciting and stimulating, as opposed to being at home where you must act in accordance to the rules of the family. Going from one’s Tribal community to a land of strangers isn’t really like going to the Other. If member of Tribe A goes over to Tribe B, he has to adjust to the Other. But in the land of strangers, there really is no Other since every person is on his own.

The land of strangers may be especially welcome to a minority living in a Tribal system. For instance, if you were a Jew in Poland or Hungary, you were reminded of your Jewish minority status at all times. There was a sense that Poland really belongs to Poles and Hungary really belongs to Hungarians, and YOU, as a Jew, was a mere guest. But in the land of strangers(like how Jews saw the US), the land belongs equally to each individual. A Pole or an Hungarian in America has no special claim on the land over a Jew. Now, Anglos and Northern Europeans who founded and built America may insist on a special claim, and Jews always saw such claim as a threat, and that was why they were so adamant from putting the Immigration Experience at the Center of the American Narrative.
And yet, there is a further twist. If indeed Jews only want to come to the US as a land of strangers where every individual is equal to any other, things might not have gotten so crazy. If Jews really only want to be individuals, there would at least have been consistency in their view of New America.
But, being free individuals hasn't been enough for Jews in America. Rather, they want to lay claim to America as theirs, indeed, the Jewel in the Crown of Judea or World Jewry. (Judea is the most powerful force in the world. The combined wealth of US Jews, Israeli Jews, European Jews, Russian Jews, Latin American Jews is much bigger than the US economy.)
In a way, Jews left Europe to get away from Tribalism and came to the US to be free as individuals. Jews valued the erosion of tribalism even among the Anglos who’d founded and built this nation. Jews envisioned a Melting Pot of free individuals easily co-existing with one another in a land defined by liberty, commerce, ambition, and potential. And yet... even as white gentile tribalism and identity grew ever weaker, Jewish identity and tribalism grew ever stronger. If the rise of Anglo-American power led to Wasps seeing themselves as a universal neo-imperial people spreading Americanism all over the world and taking in New Americans from all over the world, the rise of Jewish-American power led to Jews feeling more proud as Jews, Zionists, and citizens of Judea, or World Jewry. In the land of strangers where every group was supposed to let go of their tribal loyalties and just become ‘Americans’, Jews did the very opposite despite urging all other groups to lose their tribalisms. Jews can be Jewish, but all other groups are supposed to be just deracinated individuals whose only points of identity must be Israel/Shoah, Homomania, and Afromania.

Anyway, what is true among humans is also true among animals. A wolf may run from other wolves and prefer to live with other animals that leave it alone. While a wolf may ideally want to belong to a wolf pack, if its own pack is scattered or destroyed, it may have a difficult joining another wolf pack. Indeed, other packs may see it as a threat and try to kill it. In that case, a wolf has most to fear from its own kind and may seek solace as a ‘stranger’ among other species that just ignore him. And that is why people seek refuge in other nations. A Turk might be politically or legally persecuted by other Turks in Turkey. A Burmese may be tyrannized by other Burmese for political or whatever reasons. A Pakistani may be hounded by other Pakistanis who vie for power and dominance. Such an individual might prefer to just become a stranger in a place like UK, Canada, Australia, or the US. Or even in Japan. He may feel lonely as a stranger, but because he’s a nonentity, people will just leave him alone. This is especially true in many parts of the US where the ONLY thing that most people have in common is the fact that they are strangers in a strange land too.

An animal that flees its own kind may seek sanctuary among humans who tend to be more compassionate, at least in comparison to cold-hearted and ruthless nature. After all, wolves evolved into dogs because they preferred to be with humans than with other wolves that might kill them. While humans could be brutal to animals, they could also be kinder and empathetic. Also, as wolves could sense great intelligence among humans, they looked to humans as a guide. Animals can instinctively tell which animal is more special. Even a dog that has never seen a human or cat before will react differently to both. It will see a cat as just another animal but react with far greater curiosity toward the human. Even killer whales sense something special about humans.

Humans are organisms too, and even though many people want to be with their own kind and feel most comfortable around one another, there is also a wish among some humans to be with the superior or the inferior. This is where the Law of Supremalism comes into play. Supremalism can be (1) wanting to be with the superior people than with one’s own that seem inferior in comparison (2) wanting to feel superior over others who are deemed inferior. Missionary types are often (2) kind of supremal people. They want to feel special, admired, loved, and appreciated as a superior people. Of course, being Christians for whom humility is crucial, they won't admit to such supremal urges and instead will just claim compassion for humanity. But, in a way, they want to go to the wretched of the earth because it makes them feel as demigods or angels. Such missionary supremalism also exists among celebrities, like Bono of U2 going to Africa and standing among adoring black children. He feels like a white god bringing love and compassion to the jungle folks. Whether it’s a Christian missionary going to some poor country and playing the role Angel Savior or some Social Justice activist or journalist globe-trotting around the world and recording all the misery, a kind of supremalism is at play. Chris Hedges loves feeling important as the Big Caring White Guy who had stood with and over the Wretched of the Earth all over the world.

But there is (1) Supremalism where people want to depart from their own kind and be with the superior folks who could be superior in wealth, ability, creativity, beauty, athleticism, talent, and/or glamour. Many people want to leave their boring little town and go to the city(filled with very different peoples) where the action is because that’s where all the talent and glamour are. Many people want to move to the West because they see white nations are richer, white people are better in management & fairer with Rule of Law, white people are more attractive, white people are more capable, and etc. So, we have millions upon millions of Africans and Muslims heading to Europe. And we have people all over the world flocking to US, Australia, and Canada to be with superior white people.
Of course, they will never admit to this since it would be shameful. No one wants to admit, "Yeah, my people suck, they are ugly, they are corrupt, they are moronic, and I feel ashamed of them, so I want to go to a land filled with capable and pretty white people." No Mexican or Hindu will dare admit it. But he feels it deep down.

As for whites who welcome mass immigration-invasion, (2) Supremalism is a factor because all these non-whites flocking to white nations means that superior white Liberal folks get to lord over these ‘darkies’ pleading for a better life. Diversity makes white people feel more magnanimous as the superior breed. Again, they won’t admit to harboring such feelings because PC says we’re all equal, but such emotions are there. If indeed all people are equal, why can’t Mexicans make their own nation as good as the US? Why must they scramble to the US to live under Gringo to have a better life?
But there are also whites who want to be part of another people. Some whites see blacks as superior. They want to be with blacks, admire blacks, have sex with blacks, and have black kids. Rachel Dolezal wants to be black. And in the movie GET OUT, white people want to literally enter black bodies.
But some whites want to be with the Other because it makes them feel special. If you’re a white nobody in the white world, you must feel special if you’re among poor folks in Bolivia or India who look upon you as a kind of white god-angel.

Supremalism is built into our psyche and underlies all religions. Why do we imagine God or gods? Because we want to be with the superior being. Just as dogs prefer being with us than with their own kind in nature, we want to eventually take leave of our world and be in the world of God or gods, be it Heaven or Valhalla.

Among humans, there are many cases of preference for the Other that is perceived as more just, more able, more fair, more attractive. Taiwanese are Chinese but they prefer American hegemony over the Pacific because they see fellow Chinese in the mainland as ugly yellow barbarians. Taiwanese want to regard themselves as honorary whites. Many Zimbabweans want white farmers back because their own black kind have ground everything to dust. Most Arabs would rather go live in Germany than deal with their own cutthroat, corrupt, and haggly-waggly kind. And some whites wax romantic about the Other as wiser or more spiritual or ‘cooler’. People tend to undervalue & take for granted what they got and overvalue & obsess about what others got.

Many non-whites are drawn to white nations because they see whites as superior in every way. These non-whites get little or no justice from fellow non-whites who are superstitious, corrupt, brutal, and clannish. So, they want to go to America(or Canada or Australia) and live under white rule. Also, they find whites to be sexually more attractive.
This may seem counter-intuitive because non-whites scream about ‘white racism’ and ‘white guilt’. One might think, “If they hate whites so much, why do they want to run from their own kind and live in white nations?”
But it is precisely because they prefer whites and want to live in white nations that they employ PC to lower white defenses against non-white immigration/colonization.

And in a way, whites who welcome mass-colonization from Third World are practicing a kind of soft subconscious supremacism. They feel, “You darkies wanna leave your own inferior nations and cultures because you know that the white world and white people are better. You want to live in our superior world because you are incapable of creating anything so good in your own world.”

Most non-white ‘immigrants’ are closet-white-supremacists. They want to run away from their own kind, own nations, and own cultures to start new lives and take on new identities under white rule. They prefer white nations(esp those created by Northern Europeans) to their own kind despite the long history and culture. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs have deep history, culture, and identity going back 1000s of years, but they are willing to give that all up just to have a chance to live with whites, have sex with whites, work for whites, and take on white names like ‘Heather’ and ‘Robert’.

How Jews Fixed the Problem of Dual Loyalty - They Bought out the Competition

Wherever Jews settled around the world, they were plagued with accusation of dual loyalty(which, by the way, wasn’t as bad as accusation of outright Treason, which also haunted Jews). The reasons were obvious. While Jews faced some degree of discrimination(varying in degree from region to region), they were also ‘auto-discriminatory’, which is to say they willfully set themselves apart from the gentile kingdom, state, or nation in which they set up their own community. Even as Jews plied their middlemen trade with the larger gentile society, they were mindful to maintain their own sense of identity, culture, and heritage. Because Jews had no claim to the lands of goyim(even though Jews now make such claim and try to secure control over white lands by promoting mass non-white immigration and then siding with non-whites against whites), the borders between themselves and ‘goyim’ had to be ethnic and cultural. And oftentimes, the gentiles were more than willing to oblige by restricting Jewish residence to the ghetto. But even upon Emancipation, many Jews maintained their own separateness from the gentiles in ways subtle and blatant. There were factors other than religion that reinforced separateness. One was in appearance. Even though European Jews were at least half European in blood, they did have distinctly Semitic features that set them apart. Also, higher intelligence and stronger personality also distinguished Jews from most gentiles. In most cases, the differences weren’t as stark as between William Hurt’s character and Albert Brook’s character in BROADCAST NEWS, but at any rate, the contrasts weren’t only about matters of theology. If indeed Jews simply happened to be just like any other white Europeans EXCEPT IN religion, Jewish-gentile relations would have been far less troublesome. Consider the Mormons who were initially persecuted in the US as a heretical sect. But over time, Mormons and other whites got along just fine. Why? Despite doctrinal differences, your average Mormon is just another white person who happen to be into the ‘Latter Day Saints’.

Anyway, the problem of loyalty haunted the Jews wherever they went. And it stemmed from the attitudes of both gentiles and Jews. For most of European history, gentiles were not willing to grant Jews full liberties or rights. Gentiles regarded Jews as a people apart. Perhaps essential for their financial services, but then, for that very reason, not to be trusted or even hated as ‘blood suckers’.
Granted, the problem of loyalty wasn’t as important prior to the rise of modern nationalism. Before the French Revolution’s new idea of nationalism, most Europeans, gentiles included, had no stake in the political process and had weak sense of larger ‘national’ community. Most people belonged to villages and serve the local nobleman. And they could even be ruled by foreign elites, like when Austrians ruled over parts of Italy, and Prussians ruled over parts of Poland. Prior to rise of modern nationalism, most people lived and thought locally. They might be called up to serve in the military, but it was to serve a nobleman or the king than the nation. As the people were supposed to serve the rulers than vice versa, there was little sense of loyalty to the larger nation and people. With the rise of modern nationalism, things began to change. Loyalty no longer meant just serving the local lord or the King. It meant serving the nation. Also, the king was no longer just a pompous monarch but the representative of the popular will. Even though the French Revolution and Napoleon were eventually crushed by monarchies, the idea of the nation-state and general will survived and were absorbed into the resurgent kingdoms that adapted to the new mindset. And it was during this period when the issue of Jewish loyalty became more problematic. Prior to the rise of the nation-state, the Jewish community only needed to be loyal to the local lord or the monarch. And the relationship was almost entirely financial. Jews would lend money to the lords, and lords would offer protection. There was no great meaning to the relationship. And Jews didn’t need to have any loyalty to the larger community as a whole. It didn’t matter because the people were seen as subjects and servants of the lord. In some ways, Jews liked this arrangement better. They only needed to form a mercantile bond with the lords and could just ignore all the ‘loser deplorables’. And when not working for the lord, they could devote themselves fully to Jewishness.

But, the rise of the modern nation-state changed all that. In some ways, Jews welcomed the new changes. The rise of people power and the principle of citizenry with rights could mean not only greater freedom for the gentile masses but Emancipation for Jews. So, Jewish freedoms would ride on the coattails of the new freedoms for the masses. And indeed, in most parts of Europe, Emancipation of Jews soon followed the liberation of the masses(that came under democratic rule) or increasing liberality(that eased up on monarchical authority). But these changes were fraught with dangers because Jews had traditionally forged alliances with the gentile elites, whose protection made it possible for Jewish merchants and tax-collectors to treat the gentile masses with disdain and contempt. In the New Order, Jews had more rights and freedoms(like the gentile masses), but the declining authority of the elites and the rising power of the masses meant Jews had to navigate between the elites and the peoples, both of which were undergoing great transformations that seemed beyond the control of any regime, institution, or ideology.

With the rise of nationalism, every modern state came to be defined by loyalty not only to the elites but to the people. Prior to nationalism, Jews only needed to demonstrate their economic usefulness to the local or regional elites. But in the National Order, Jews had to show that they were loyal to the Identity of the Nation. For some Jews, this was welcome. They had grown tired of Jewishness as an outdated tradition. They wanted to assimilate and just become Hungarians, Austrians, Frenchmen, etc. But some Jews reacted to it badly. Ultra-conservative Jews believed Jewish loyalty should only to be God and Torah-Talmud. The idea of Jews pledging their main loyalty to gentile national identity and culture seemed anathema to spirit of Jewishness.
But some Jews reacted to nationalism by adopting radicalism. They figured, "If goyim want me to reject my Jewishness and pledge my allegiance to their identity and culture, then I’ll go the one better and support a movement that calls for the eradication of all nations to create a world community of all humans as One People." To what extent such utopianism was fueled by idealism or revenge, it’s hard to say. But even secular radical Jews, on a subconscious level, may have felt that gentile nationalist demands were an affront to Jewish heritage and pride. Why should a people with 3,500 yr history reject their own culture and pledge allegiance to cultures and histories that were younger and less illustrious? But if gentiles were going to pressure Jews to give up on Jewishness, then why shouldn’t Jews push the logic even further and light the world aflame with a movement that compels all gentiles to surrender their national identities so that they can all be remade into the Universal Human Race? Perhaps, Karl Marx, on some level, did feel this way. One thing for sure, this dilemma still hasn’t gone away. Even today, we have Jews waging war on gentile nationalism and populism. Jews would rather deal with elites of the world and convince them to surrender nationalism in favor of globalism. Nationalism binds the elites to the people, and that makes it more difficult for Jews to ply their trade. Being smart and energetic, Jews are bound to reach the top. And at the upper echelons, they want to make deals with gentile elites. They feel contempt for gentile masses who are just seen as pigs and sheep. If gentile elites are in national mode, they feel some obligation to the masses, and that might get in the way of their dealing with Jews. Vladimir Putin, in serving the needs of the Russian people, restored some degree of nationalism that served as an obstacle between Jewish elites and Russian oligarchs. Jews would prefer it if the Russian elites & oligarchs just dumped the Russian people and dealt solely with Jewish globalists. (It's like Max dumping his friends in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA to get "what's mine". Don't let the People stand in the way of your extreme ambition to have it all.) But Putin’s national concern for the Russian people has stood in the way of the Jewish Plan.
In contrast, prior to the rise of Donald Trump, Jews in the US had almost created a state-of-affairs where the white gentile elites lost all sense of obligation to the white masses. All they cared about was making deals with Jews to ‘get what is mine’. So, if white middle class, white working class, and white underclass were slipping more and more, who cares? Let them have TV as culture, let them grow dependent on opioids, let their daughters become sluts and skanks hooked to celebrity junk culture. Hillary Clinton and all the GOP candidates except Donald Trump seem to voice no opinion on the needs of American Nationals. They were to be ignored as Old Americans to be replaced by New Americans who, just to gain access to the richer West, were willing to vote for the globalist elite class. Given the chaotic state of affairs, it’s hard to tell what is or isn’t an American Interest. There was a time when most Conservatives and most Liberals would have been more-or-less agreed on what constitutes Americanism. But today, we have the likes of Nancy Pelosi saying that Illegal aliens "make American more American." If illegals who barged into the US by violating its Rule of Law are what America is all about, what is ‘America’? And this isn’t just some fringe opinion but the mainstream view of the Democratic Party and even of many in the GOP. Today, California looks more like Mexico and Guatemala, but I guess that’s what America is all about. And dirty Chinese money buying up swaths of real estate. Either Pelosi is really flaky & stupid OR, like most politicians, she is just a shill of Jewish globalists who have subverted nationalism by corrupting its meaning.
Indeed, Jews have changed their tactics against both gentile religion(especially Christianity) and gentile nationalism. If radical Jews in the past sought to eradicate both by smashing churches in Russia and erasing national identities, globalist Jews today seek to render them powerless and meaningless by changing their core programming. Instead of blowing up churches, spread Homomania into churches. Once Christian churches associate God & Jesus with homo decadence & tranny trashiness, Christianity becomes a silly and ridiculous religion. It’s like if you dress the king in a clown-suit, he is a laughing stock than respected lord. As for gentile nationalism, Jews decided to subvert it from within by using PC virus to alter the meaning of what it means to be a member of a nation. So, there is nothing essentialist about nationhood. It’s ‘all made up’, and that means anyone can become anyone. So, a Swede doesn’t have to be a traditional Swede. It can be a New Swede from Afghanistan or Africa. And white Swedes are to find fun and thrills in gaining New Swedes who add so much color and ‘vibrancy’ to their nation. Anyone can become a German, Pole, or Hungarian. Why are Poles and Hungarians insisting on their traditional national identity? Jews assure that Polish or Hungarian identity will not be threatened by massive immigration since the new comers will simply be New Poles and New Hungarians. Jews say that the invaders will add to nationalism by providing Poland or Hungary with fresh blood.
Of course, we know that is total Jewish BS. If anyone can be a Pole, then Polishness has no meaning. It no longer has any ties to Polish history, culture, and blood. A Pole with ancient roots in Poland would be no more Polish than a newcomer from Africa who, by the way, only came for better material life and to demand, "where the white women at?" We also know Jews are full of shit because they don’t push this nonsense on Israel. Jews take great pride in Jewish identity precisely because it is so rich in history, bloodlines, culture, and meaning. Jews know that if anyone could easily become Jewish and come to Israel, Jewish identity would turn to mush overnight. This is why Jews don’t try to convert gentiles into Jews unlike Mormons who now try so hard to win over new converts in Mexico and Africa.

Anyway, if radical Jews waged a full-frontal attack on nationalism, today they are far more devious and pretend to help gentile nationalisms all over the world by training gentile elites to recode their nationalisms with Diversity and Inclusion. Every nation is to believe that there is no higher value than Diversity and Inclusion and that its national glory will greatly benefit from more Diversity and more Inclusion via mass immigration. Of course, pop culture and feminism are also used to facilitate this. A people hooked to pop culture will produce pimps and whores than fathers and mothers. And feminism will rob men of many jobs, and then, fewer men will be able to afford families. So, there has been a rapid decline in childbirth in European and East Asian nations. Jews assure those nations that Diversity and Inclusion via Mass Migration will boost their national prosperity and vibrancy.

Anyway, how have Jews solved the problem of being accused of Dual Loyalty? After all, many nations have felt that Jewish loyalty is, at best, questionable, and at worst, totally useless. Gentile elites had hoped that the Emancipation might cure Jews of their narrow tribalism. After all, Emancipation wasn’t just about granting Jews full rights as citizens but about Jews ditching their religion and tradition and embracing modernity. If secular or modern Jews abandon their tradition and culture, wouldn’t it be natural for them to identify mainly with the gentile nation in which they reside? Make the Jews leave the ghetto and identify with the nation-at-large, like Hungary, Austria, Germany, or etc. As it turned out, Jewish allegiance to tradition hadn’t been the main hindrance to patriotism and loyalty. The main hindrance was the rise of Judea, aka Power of World Jewry. If Jews weren’t scattered across so many nations and hadn’t gained prominence in so many of them, they might have been more willing to commit themselves to a particular gentile nation. But modern Jews everywhere couldn’t help but notice the rise of Jewish power in UK, France, Germany, Poland, Austria, Russia, Italy, America, and etc. Why should an Hungarian Jew offer his main loyalty to dinky little Hungary when he could see himself as a proud member of a Worldwide Empire of Jewry? And indeed, it became customary for Jews to use the term ‘Judea’ to denote this worldwide power of immense proportions. So, Jews considered themselves as Polish Jews, Hungarian Jews, Russian Jews, German Jews, French Jews, Italian Jews, and etc than as Jewish Poles, Jewish Hungarians, Jewish Russians, Jewish Germans, Jewish Frenchmen, Jewish Italians. Now, there might have been a temptation for Jews in the US to see themselves primarily as Jewish-Americans, but, despite being called that, they feel more as American Jewry. In the US, Jews don’t primarily identify with fellow Americans be they white, black, Mexican, Muslim, Hindu, or Asian. They identify mainly with Jews in Israel, Russia, UK, Germany, France, and Latin America. Because of this immense worldwide power, Jews have been reluctant to pledge their allegiance to any gentile nation in which they reside. Instead, every gentile nation is seen as a way-station for Jews always on the move to expand their control of the world. Jews see Israel as their wife but see gentile nations as just harems. They are to be humped but not committed to. The shotgun marriage between Jews and particular gentile nations never worked. Jews may blame WWII, the Shoah, and ‘antisemitism’, but there’s a bigger reason. The pride and power of Judea. After all, following WWII, there were great efforts in the US and Europe to make amends to Jews. If Jews wanted to be good Americans, good Canadians, good Germans, good Frenchmen, good Dutchmen, good British, and etc., they had all the chance in the world to take up on the offer. But what did Jews do with all their freedom and prestige? They only expanded the power of Judea while waging war on the national sovereignty of all gentile nations. And not only European nations guilty of Crimes against Jewry but on ALL gentile nations. Jews have used PC to train all gentile elites from around the world to reprogram their national identity with Diversity and Inclusion. (Jews stopped using ‘Judea’ as it attracted too much hostility and resentment. For example, when National Socialists came to power in Germany and implemented anti-Jewish measures, JUDEA declared war on Germany. This made Germans hate Jews even more. World Jewry was out in the open declaring war and pressuring gentile nations to economically destroy Germany. It not only made Hitler angrier but even nations that were wary of Nazi Germany didn’t feel like being told what to do by pushy Judea or Jewish World Empire. After WWII, Jews learned their lesson and stopped using terms like Judea. Even as their power kept expanding, Jews figured it’s safer to use other nations as fronts for Judea. Today, Jews don’t say "Judea declares war on Iran" or "Judea declares war on Russia." Too many gentiles will think, "Why are Jews declaring wars left and right?" and "Why should we aid and abet Jewish hatreds?" So, Jews today hide behind terms like ‘Neocons’, and they urge the US, UK, EU, and NATO to declare war(hot or cold) on Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. That way, the agenda of Judea get laundered through Gentile nations. Even though it’s really Judea’s wars, so many gentiles are fooled into believing it’s their own war. So, Iran isn’t a threat to Israel but to the US! So, Russian power isn’t an affront only to Jewish supremacist globalism but Americanism because, gee whiz, 13 Russian Trolls ‘hacked’ the 2016 election.)

In the past, when UK and US were ruled by Anglos, Jews could be suspected of Dual Loyalty. Since the national interests and agendas of both nations were set by a people other than Jews, there was no guarantee that their interests would complement or jibe with Jewish interests. Indeed, British and Zionist agendas often ran counter in the first half of the 20th century. Even though the Brits had promised Palestine to the Jews, the restive Arab population sometimes left the Brits no choice but to renege on the promise somewhat. As British prioritized their position in the Middle East more than any Jewish dream of homeland, they didn’t want to endanger their good relations with Arabs. So, British interests and Zionist interests didn’t always run side-by-side. And when Jews used terror against the British, there were Brits who surely wondered of Jews in Britain could be trusted. Did British Jews side with the British Empire or with Zionists? Stalin also had trepidations about Jews and Zionists. Would Soviet Jews be loyal to the Soviet Union if it aided the Zionist cause? But when Israel leaned toward the US, Stalin decided Jews are not trustworthy. Their dual loyalty was all-too-real.
And in the US, Anglos worried about Jewish loyalty for three reasons. (1) Too many Jews were radical leftists and may be agents of USSR (2) American Jews may be more loyal to World Jewry or Judea than to Anglo-America (3) Being smarter, Jews may lose respect for Wasps and seek to gain dominance in the US and then change all the rules of what constitutes Americanism.

As it happened, all three came to pass, but (1) faded in significance since Jews eventually tired of communism which collapsed in the USSR at any rate. Still, many Jews had indeed been more loyal to Soviet Union than to the US. As for (2), Anglos were totally correct. Jews anywhere in the world first-and-foremost identify with World Jewry than with the local gentile population. As for (3) it did indeed come to pass, and in time, Jewish elites became the new ruling class(or even caste) of America.
And that is how Jews fixed the problem of Dual Loyalty that had plagued Jews for so long. Jews had been accused of Dual Loyalty because they didn’t get to devise and control the main agenda and narrative of gentile majority nations. When gentile elites ruled gentile nations, they decided "What is good for our nation" and "What our nation is all about". Naturally, such could run counter to the Jewish Agenda or Narrative, most spectacularly so in National Socialist Germany, but in any nation(even ones mostly hospitable to Jews) where gentile elites hold the reins of power. Even in a Jew-friendly nation, the gentile elites might vehemently disagree with the Jewish minority, World Jewry, and/or Israel.
But what if Jews gain control of the institutions that get to decide the Agenda and the Narrative of the nation? If Jews get to write the book on what US and UK are ‘really about’, then the problem of Dual Loyalty is no more. If Jews say that "Israel is America’s greatest ally" and "What is good for Israel is good for the US", then how can there be any dual loyalty? The formula would be Americanism = Zionism. Under Jewish domination of America, the main themes of America is "ADL and SPLC only speak the truth", "Israel, Israel, Israel", "Palestinians suck so bad", "Russia is an Evil Empire", "Iran sucks worse than Palestinians", "Americans must praise and worship Jews", "Shoah is new religion", "Homomania, proxy of Jewish power, is holy", "white identity is evil, therefore whites must channel their tribal instincts toward Israel", "BDS is un-American and must be shut down", and etc. Since Jews control the media, internet platforms, finance, academia, and all the whore politicians, they can push their Agenda and Narrative as being American as apple pie... or as bagel and cream cheese. If Jews get to decide what Americanism(or Britishism) is all about, then Americanism and Patriotism is whatever Jews say it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s bad for white Americans, black Americans, or brown Americans. The fact is Jews get to decide. It used to be said, "What is good for General Motors is good for America", but today, the Agenda says, "What is good for Jews is good for America(and the world)." And if you disagree, maybe you’re an ‘anti-Semite’, and of course, there is nothing more ‘anti-American’ than ‘antisemitism’ since New Americanism is all about WE LOVE JEWS. Because Jews get to control the Agenda, they get away with stuff like "Would-be-immigrants are MORE AMERICAN than Americans with deep roots in America." So, some Burmese who wants to come to America is MORE AMERICAN than a Wasp whose ancestry goes back to the 17th century. Because Jews have such total control of media and academia, even many white Americans have been sold on this Jewish globalist agenda. But they don’t see it as a Jewish Agenda because Jews used shabbos goy shills like Clinton and Bush to hoodwink Americans into think it’s all a ‘mainstream’ and inevitable historical thing.

In a nutshell, the charge of Dual Loyalty is no longer a problem since Jews used media and government to push the Narrative that US and Israel interests are one and the same. They bought up all whore politicians to spout the same line. So, dual loyalty has been made into a single loyalty since the official US line is "What is good for Israel is good for the US."

It used to be Dual Loyalty when Jews didn’t control the US. Back then, American interests could diverge from Jewish/Zionist interests since Anglo elites didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with Judea. But ever since Jews took over, they rigged the system so that whatever Israel wants, the US has to oblige, and all politicians and all of media must sing praises to Israel, mute any criticism, and chant over and over, “Israel is America’s greatest ally.” That way, Jews fixed the problem of dual loyalty. They made American interests same as Israeli interests. Just like there is ‘Judeo-Christian’ to preach that Judaism and Christianity share the same values, the New Americanism might as well be called ‘Judeo-American’ to imply that Jewish interests ARE American interests. Under this logic, any gentile American who disagrees with the Jewish agenda is deemed ‘un-American’ or ‘unpatriotic’, as indeed people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were smeared as when they opposed the Iraq War. In other words, True Patriotism is to blindly obey Jews.

Indeed, that brings up another issue. The real problem wasn’t so much Jewish dual loyalty as their denial of dual loyalty to other Americans. By making the Jewish loyalty to Judea(and gentile loyalty to Jews) the ONLY True American Loyalty, Jews denied dual loyalty to others. Jews made their dual loyalty into a single loyalty by brainwashing or forcing all gentiles to share in the Jewish loyalty(even against their own interests), and this denied the chance of dual loyalty to other groups. So, whites can’t have dual loyalty to both America and their European homelands. Polish-Americans better not support Polish patriots defending their motherland.

Anglo-Americans don’t mind Jews having dual loyalty to US and Israel. But Jews can’t stand Anglo-Americans having dual loyalty to the US and white-Anglo-UK. If anything, Jews say UK must take in tons of blacks and Muslims as ‘new British’ while they never pressure Israel to do the same. If anything, most Jews support the exclusive immigration policy of Israel. Jews seethe at any Anglo-American who says the US has a SPECIAL relation to UK as the mother country. But Jews strong-arm all white politicians into saying US has a special relation with Israel. Jews criminalize BDS and Palestinian-American agenda. Jews not only serve Zionist interest but insist that Zionism = Americanism. So, even Jewish dual loyalty(to Israel and the US) is sold as a single loyalty. In contrast, Palestinians can’t be loyal to both the US and to Palestine. BDS is being criminalized and suppressed left and right. Worse, even if Palestinian-American were to forgo Palestinian ties and decide to become 100% American, it’s impossible since the New Americanism = Zionism. What’s the point of a Palestinian-American pledging loyalty to a nationalism that says one of its main missions is to aid and abet the Zionist destruction of remaining Palestinian territories and praise Jews 24/7 while pissing all over Palestinians?

If all peoples can have dual loyalties, there would be far less problem in the US. But ONLY Jews are allowed this. And because ONLY Jews are allowed to have it, their dual loyalty has become a mono-loyalty since US and Israel has been joined at the hip into USrael. All politicians and all media now agree that Israel is the closest ally of the US and that Israeli interests and American interests are one and the same. So, it’s not even dual loyalty anymore for Jews since they melded Americanism and Zionism into one. But if American interests(in a nation where 98% of people are gentile) are the same as Jewish interests and if 98% of Americans have no choice but to say YES, then the US is about ONLY JEWISH INTERESTS ALLOWED.

For there to be dual loyalty, there must be divergence of interests in the objects of one’s loyalties. So, if two nations are enemies, but if a person feels great love for both nations, then there is a crisis of dual loyalty. But if one nation’s interests have been made totally subservient to another, then it’s not a matter of dual loyalty but of Total Mastery and Mono-Loyalty. Jewish Power has Total Mastery over non-Jews in the US whereby all gentiles must go along with “Israel is America’s greatest ally.” Even Palestinian-Americans must see their tax money go to supporting the Occupation.

If Jews were in a situation where they had to juggle dual loyalties, the US would be in a much healthier shape because it would imply that the US is independent of Jewish supremacist power. It would imply that US interests could conceivably go against Jewish interests. And that had been the case in the past when Jews did have dual loyalty because their agenda were often at odds with the interests of other or even most Americans.
Jews were angry over this and, over time, rigged the System via media, whore politicians, deep state, finance, and the courts to make sure that the New Narrative is “US interests and Jewish/Israeli interests are ONE AND THE SAME.” It’s like Jews associated homosexuality with the rainbow and even with the Christian church. Homosexuality = rainbow = christianity. Such Pavlovian tricks have made so many Americans salivate liked dumb dogs at the mere mention of LGBTQ-ism. Rainbow! Rainbow! It’s fruitcake weather!

Through suck trickery, Jews can no longer be accused of dual loyalty since American policy has been made totally subservient to Jewish interests: Israel is America, America is Israel.
Indeed, if anyone questions this crazy arrangement, HE is accused of being ‘anti-American’ when he simply wants Americanism to be independent of the will of a small minority. When one company buys and merges with another company, there is no longer any divergence of interests or competition between them. They share the same interests. And that is what happened in the US. The Jews bought up all the competition and turned them into whore-spokesmen for Jewish Power.

Jews are not hated because they are rich or successful. They are resented because they try to gain total mastery over non-Jewish nations. It’s one thing for Jews to feel as masters in Israel, a Jewish state. But Jews want mastery over Russia and other nations as well. Russia is 0.2% Jewish but 20% of the richest people are Jewish. But Jews hate Russia because it won’t allow total domination by Jews. IN A NATION WHERE JEWS ARE 0.2% of the population.

Now, imagine if Polish Catholics made up 1% of Israel but controlled most media, finance, entertainment, academia, and etc, and used the power to instill Jews with self-loathing and then called on Jews to allow massive non-Jewish invasion in the name of Diversity.
How would Jews feel?

One reason people have problem with Jews is the discrepancy between what Jews preach and what Jews practice.

Italians, Iranians, Chinese, Turks, and etc don’t go around preaching to the world in the self-righteous manner that Jews do. They do their own thing in their own nations, and leave others alone.

But Jews preach to the whole world about how their way is the only way… but they don’t practice what they preach.