It's almost as if Jews just can't get enough jollies with their PoP or Power of Prophecy. Every Jew is itching to play micro-prophet and 'spiritually' lord over goyim. Traditionally, Jewish prophecy meant the Tribe had a special link with the one and only true God and was thus blessed with spiritual privilege to peer into His Mind. Holiness + Big Think. These days, Jewish holiness(in the eyes of Jews and goyim alike) has much to do with the Shoah — "nobody knows the troubles we've seen, nobody knows but we Jews" — and cult of Jewish Genius. So, goyim look upon Jews as the geniuses, teachers, and visionaries of the age with the ADDED advantage of tragic wisdom that comes with the Holy-Caust.
With such an edge, it's as if every Jew wants his or her piece of PoP or Power of Prophecy. In a way, PoP is the universalized narcissism of Jewishness. It isn't much different from what has become of physical narcissism. Once, it used to mean the beautiful being obsessed with their own beauty, the pretty falling in love with their own prettiness. But over time, what with celebrity culture spreading vanity far-and-wide and in conjunction with the cult of 'equity', everyone(and that means the ugliest fattest women and grossest trannies) feels it's a human right to regard oneself as attractive and worthy of stardom. If some fat ugly guy with hairy chest wants to believe he is one hot chick, we must accommodate his delusions. Likewise, so many Jews now believe themselves to be mini-Moses, mini-Marx, mini-Freud, mini-Milton-Friedman, or some other mini-prophet whose great truth-as-commandment must be heeded by others, especially goyim.
As Jews control the media and academia, the universalization of trashy physical narcissism among goyim flows from the near-universalization of PoP, or prophetic narcissism, among Jews. It used to be only a handful of Jews dared to claim prophetic power(which was still many times more than among goyim). But over the years, as most Jews, boys and girls, went to college and got to feeling awfully clever(especially over goyim), as well as drawing inspiration from seminal Jewish thinkers of the modern era, many of them wanted a piece of the prophetic pie. (After all, so much of current dogma revolves around the conviction that we'd all be lost without foundational, seminal, revolutionary, and/or radical Jewish thinkers. It's as if there would be no freedom for women without Betty Friedan, no free markets without Milton Friedman, no socialism without Marx, no sexuality without Freud, no film criticism without Pauline Kael, and etc.)
But when so many Jews want to be Big Thinkers, it means a lot of silly ideas get added to the mix. After all, even if Jews are on average smarter than goyim, there's only a limited number of real thinkers within the Tribe. (Just because Bob Dylan and Paul Simon are Jewish doesn't mean every Jewish song-writer has musical talent.) But, Jewish Power is nothing if not about Jews helping Jews, or at least Jews tolerating other Jews with their wild ambitions. And over time, much of Jewish Pride has come to depend on the rule of JEWS SAY, GOYIM OBEY, especially with the fading of Christianity and its 'antisemitism'. (But then, even Christianity has been a manifestation of JEWS SAY, GOYIM OBEY. Even in their anti-Jewishness, goyim relied on instructions from Jews who created Christianity. Even in hating Jews, goyim need inspiration from a bunch of Jews. Jews Say, Goyim Obey.) So, it tickles the Jewish Mind that whatever crazy shit they cook up, goyim follow like sheeple.
If Jews say 'diversity is our strength', goyim chant the mantra like programmed robots. If Jews say, 'homosexuality is like rainbow colors', goyim are waving 'gay' flags all around. If Jews say, 'pride' is now synonymous with globo-homo, goyim just sing and dance along. If Jews say 'whiteness is evil', goyim nod along and go about expunging everything-white from society. If Jews say 'blacks are sacred and always victims of injustice', goyim blame all black problems on whites or non-blacks. Jews have come to believe, 'whatever we say, idiot goyim obey'. Over time, Jews have come to not only expect but DEMAND such relational dynamics between themselves and goyim. Jews feel entitled to PoP over goyim. Even the most ridiculously stupid Jew now feels, "Whatever I say, goyim better obey." It's like a Jewish Right and Jewish Rite(of passage).
So, perhaps much of the crazy shit that's happening has less to do with genuine Jewish conviction in the ever sillier ideas they come up with. What they really relish is a sense of power, prestige, and control. It's like they're playing the godlike game of 'Simon Says' with goyim. Whatever Simon says, the players must do. And those who deviate from the rule are purged until only the ultra-obedient players are left.
Swedes may be higher IQ than world average and all, but their one-dimensional Northern temperament and deeply embedded Christian earnestness turned them into emotional children for Jews to exploit. Of course, modern Swedes, especially following World War II, considered themselves to be well-educated, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, enlightened, and progressive, but their euro-neurotic or 'eurotic' conceit could be maintained only in a provincial and homogeneous world unperturbed by real world problems and events. Jews went to Swedes and said, "If you are all those things — intelligent, modern, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, and progressive — , then you Swedes should pay special heed to us Jews because we are even more intelligent, modern, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, progressive... and furthermore steeped in holy tragedy because of the Holocaust at the bloody hands of Germans... with whom you Swedes did business with during WWII..." (Of course, whereas Swedish cosmopolitanism was meant to override, as well as deride, national identity, the Jewish counterpart was mainly adaptive in the goy world with the ultimate aim of preserving Jewish identity as a matter of greatest importance. It's the difference between someone who takes to the sea to drown & sink and someone who does so to swim & float. Head beneath waters vs Head above waters.)
This worked like magic as Swedes came to feel guilt in their virtual collaboration with Nazi Germans. In some ways, it was deemed as worse than collaboration by the French and Norwegians. After all, some nations were under German Occupation and were forced to bend to Hitlerian will. In contrast, Swedes did it of their own accord. Even though Sweden didn't send Jews to Nazi death camps, it did business with the German War Machine when it was killing the Jews. It implies that Swedish progressivism was a hypocrisy, therefore Swedes must do all they can to rectify this historical horror, appease Jews as moral superiors, and heed their advice as the divine word. The dire result has been of course obvious. SwEden became Swodom.
While it's true that Germans acted monstrously and the Swedes were a bunch of hypocrites, Jews were no better in the 20th century. Jews kvetch about Holocaust Denial but they are seriously into Holo-Cause Denial. What caused the Holocaust? Even if we agree that what the Germans did was inexcusable, it was an extreme and radical reaction to horrible Jewish behavior... just like even if we say the nuking of Japan was extreme and unwarranted, it was in large part in reaction to Japanese aggression and war-mongering lunacy. It takes two to tango. So, while it's ridiculous to deny the effect(German evils in WWII), it is also ridiculous to overlook the cause(Jewish provocation that rubbed so many goyim the wrong way). Even if the six million number is almost certainly false, many Jews were killed by the Nazi death machine. That much any sane person should acknowledge. However, it must also be acknowledged that Germans went crazy because Jews did much to drive them crazy. (Jews will say the Holocaust has been meticulously documented, but such assertion is misleading because there are laws and taboos in the West that insist on certain narratives and penalizes anyone who dares to revise, question, or counter the official line. It's like so much has been written about the Race Problem in the US, but the Narrative demands that we focus on Innocent Blacks being lynched and never ever ask why whites used vigilante means to keep blacks under the lid. We must pretend blacks were all innocent, and white people were infected with irrational 'racism'. Never mind all the black thuggery and criminality. And according to the Jewish-run Narrative, lynchings were happening all the time and every other Negro was hanging from a tree when, in fact, they were relatively rare, especially in the 20th century. And despite all the scientific evidence, virtually all mainstream discussion on Race is it doesn't exist. So much 'documentation' and 'science' on race has resulted in so much BS. It goes to show quantity is rendered worthless by the quality, or lack thereof, of what is allowed as part of discourse.)
Jewish behavior in Russia of the 1990s and in the US especially since 9/11 goes to show they haven't learned a thing. We expect the Japanese to commemorate Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also expect of them to reflect on their own war-making and mass mayhem in the Pacific. But while all of us are expected to remember the Holocaust, Jews never expected to reflect on whatever they did to make so many goyim hate them. And as Jews control media, academia, and the deep state, so many goyim have been raised from cradle to believe Jews are the Perfect People who were set upon by 'Anti-Semites' because goyim are so very imperfect, whether they be European or Arab. Holocaustianity would have us believe that sinful goyim killed Jews as the Perfect People, a perverted twist on Christianity that says Jesus the Perfect Man was killed by sinners. Well, at least Jesus was forgiving of His tormentors who knew not what they were doing, but Jews have nothing but revenge on their minds, totally oblivious to the fact that many goyim took part in the Shoah as revenge against Jews. If Jews feel righteous in their vengeance, the same justification could be made for goyim who attacked Jews. Righteous Revenge!
In the Current Year, the Perfect People Privilege is shared by blacks and homos. If more black students are suspended from school, it can never be their fault. It must be 'racism'. If blacks are incarcerated more for rape and murder, that can't be their fault either. It must be 'systemic racism', an idea that is a total perversion of social morality, one that burdens a certain race with all the guilt while another race is always exonerated no matter how its members behave. If homos spread HIV all around and dropped like flies, it couldn't have been because they buggered each other like a bunch of perverts. No, it must have been 'homophobia'. Despite all the facts about homo-behavior-related diseases and black thuggery/criminality, the main cults of the West are globo-homo 'pride' or poo-ride and black-sacred or blacred BLM nuttery, along with Holy Holocaust narrative that insists on Holo-Cause Denial. Yeah, Jews were these perfect saintly people who were persecuted for NO REASON. But Jews got Power of Prophecy or PoP over goyim, and so, whatever they say, the goyim obey.
It is about a ‘Great Reset’ vs. longing for greatness
It is about Jerusalem vs. Athens
It is really about the ‘last days of the Weimar Republic’ all over again.
Throughout its history, capitalism has been using different tactics to suppress opposition.
It's really about Jews vs the World. Granted, not all Jews are neo-satanist and crazy. Not all are powerful. There have been righteous Jews who tried to speak the truth or some portion of it. Stephen Cohen, Norman Finkelstein, Brother Nathanael, and etc. But they don't have the power. Finkelstein couldn't even keep his gig at the second-rate university DePaul because of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power spearheaded by the odious Alan Dershowitz.
Now, there would be problems in the world without Jews. Even if all Jews vanished into the thin air, there would be conflicts everywhere. Consider the recent conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. There are drug wars in Mexico. There are tensions between China and Vietnam. India and Pakistan hate one another. Still, Jewish Power makes it far worse by interfering in hot spots in the world. Instead of letting the locals come to terms a regional power playing broker, Jewish Power often intervenes by using its control of the US as the lone superpower. Would Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan be in the states they are in if not for Jewish Power? Would there be a 'new cold war' with Russia? Without Jewish interference, there would have been no coup in Ukraine and all the bloodbath that followed. Syria would be in one piece. Now, Assad is hardly an ideal leader, but what sane person would prefer Al-qaeda or ISIS? It seems Jews prefer ANYONE(even quasi-nazis in Ukraine) if it's GOOD FOR JEWS. That's about the extent of Jewish moral consciousness. Just about ANY nation has internal divisions. They could be ethnic, religious, ideological, or whatever. There are some aggrieved factions or minorities in any society. Usually, they just go along because doing so is the best bet. It keeps the peace. But when the order becomes destabilized and these groups are supplied with arms & materials, a war can break out. Same is true of Israel. Suppose foreign powers undermined government there and supplied arms to Palestinians in both Israel proper and West Bank. Things would go up in flames in street-to-street fighting, like in Syria. Such a Yinon-ist divide-and-rule strategy has been concocted by Jews for goy nations. So, Syria is on fire and Yemen too. Why? Jews don't want those nations to be stable, secure, and close to Iran. So, ANYTHING is justified in undermining them. So, a limited conflict within Syria blew up into a major war. Thanks Jews.
But then, a low-level Yinonist Plan has been devised for the West as well. Why do Jews push for mass-immigration and Diversity on goy nations(while never for Israel)? Because Jews know that more Goy Diversity means they can play divide-and-rule game more effectively. But even in relatively homogeneous nations, Jews create and play on ideological and idolatrous divisions to tear them apart. Take Poland. Jews are masters of psychology and understand the Polish Mentality. Poles suffer from the Polish Disease of Slavic Inferiority Complex. Poles don't want to be associated with Oriental Despotic Russians who seem so crude and backward. They want to be considered as part of Western Europe. They never tire of bleating on about how they are CATHOLIC than Orthodox and how they use the Latin Alphabet than Cyrillic. Poles were once powerful but came to ruins and weakness. They got swallowed up by Russia and came to idolize the West. So, they are a bunch of suckass dogs who crave approval from the West. Jews studied the 'Dumb Polack' psychology and know what to do, which is why so many young Poles are into globo-homo and Afromania. (As Catholicism has been replaced by Gay Rites and Jungle Fever in the West, young Poles are dropping Catholicism and raising the new banner of BLM with 'rainbow' colors. They go with whatever is 'cool' in the West.) Their modus operandi is essentially 'West is cool and awesome, and Polish value depends on how much the West approves of us.' Now, this wouldn't have been so bad in the past when, indeed, the West was far more advanced than the East. Western Enlightenment over Russian Oriental Despotism. Also, there was a time when the West was more race-ist than the East. Russia, with its polygot empire, became somewhat mongrelized. In contrast, Western Europeans, especially of Central and Northern Europe, were more homogeneously white and proud of it.
But what is the current West? It's about total cuckdom to Jews, Negroes, and Homos. It's about Erasism, or erasure of the native population. It's about the Great Replacement or White Nakba. If anything, current Russia is whiter than many parts of Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, and UK(which should stand for United Kolony than United Kingdom). But the Polish Disease is blind to all that. It only cares about seeking approval from the West that still hogs the global prestige. Due to the Polish Disease, Poles have no autonomous or independent way of gauging meaning and worth. All that matters is sucking up to the Prestigious West. One may wonder why the West has prestige when its popular culture is garbage, its borders are broken, its elites are cucky-useless, and its cultural expression is 'twerking'? One reason is the power of hype. West controls the media machine and advertising. It creates the glitter in your eyes. But it's also because the nationalist, Christian, and/or conservative forces are so dull, boring, or corrupt. It's great to be nationalist and it's good to be Christian but one doesn't live on seriousness, morality, or eternity alone. People need sensory stimulation, especially in our modern era of electronica. It's like people love the celebration of Christmas more than its true meaning. It's the celebration of it that spread to Japan as well, a nation where only 1% is Christian. Consider the Beach Boys song, "Fun, Fun, Fun". Too often, people feel that the Right takes the T-Bird away. Of course, the Left took it away too under communism, which is why capitalism won the 'culture war' against communism. Capitalism offered rides on the T-Bird. Especially as Pop Culture prizes youth uber alles, shallowness has come to dominate social attitudes. And too often(and understandably), 'growing up' is seen as synonymous with losing one's idealism and coming to terms with the corrupt ways of the world. Too many 'grown-ups' are compromised professionals. Consider all those 'experts' in government. Would it be possible to create a culture where to be grown-up means to be more truthful and principled? To be wise than to compromise?
But it isn't easy to root out corruption since anyone who tries will have to go up against the whole system that put him into place. It's far worse when society is corrupt in general. Then, even as people gripe about corruption, they resist efforts to reform society because they themselves are so used to benefiting from it, which are the cases in Southern Italy and Greece. Southern Italians and Greeks complain endlessly about corruption but resist all attempts to end it as it's how most of them do business. It's like blacks complain about crime and violence but resist attempts to root them out as they don't like white police sticking its nose into black affairs. Poland is also very corrupt from top to bottom. Perhaps, Poles associate corruption with the Eastern Way and look to the West for a cleaner model. But while the workings of the bureaucracy may be cleaner(at least in Northern European nations), the West is also deeply corrupt and compromised at the very top because it lacks national autonomy. EU nations are all vassals of the US that is controlled by Jews. You can't have a sound national policy when your leaders are essentially led by the nose by the likes of George Soros. The fact that cleaner government is no panacea to current problems can be seen in UK, Germany, and Sweden. They have cleaner governments than Italy, Greece, and Poland, but that didn't stop them from embarking on national suicide. If anything, perhaps cleaner government paved the way for the demise. Clean government means law and order, and law and order can lead to prosperity. Order and Wealth leads to boredom and neurosis(like with the characters in Ingmar Bergman films). Also, prosperity means a more generous and naive outlook about the world, such as 'Save Africa'. Also, extended peace robs people of the warrior spirit that can sense danger. (Of course, Jewish-guided PC informs white people that their survival instincts are 'atavistic', 'backward', 'extreme', and 'far right' even as Jews stress upon survival instinct in Israel. According to Jews, any white will to survive as an identity is a 'pathology'.) Boredom, naivete, and good-will have spelled doom for Sweden. One silver lining about less clean orders is people tend to be less trusting and more survival-minded than good-will-minded. Now, a trust-culture is better than a distrust-culture but ONLY IF the elites are worthy of trust. If the elites are worthless cucks whose agenda will lead to national demise, a trust-culture is the worst possible thing for that society. The people will trust the elites and go over the cliff like so many lemmings.
Anyway, it's about Jewish Power that is messing up so much of the world, not least because Jewish intervention blows up local conflicts into global ones. Syrian War would have ended quickly with Assad victorious IF it weren't for the fact that Jewish-controlled US encouraged Turkey, Saudis, Israel and others to descend on that nation like a pack of vultures. Thus, it turned into a major conflagration. While US-Iran relations would be sour due to what happened in 1979, it would be a lot better if not for the Jewish Lobby that insists on Israel remaining the ONLY Middle East nation with nukes. How surreal that Israel with hundreds of nukes gets billions in 'aid' while Iran, a nation with no nukes, gets sanctioned savagely. And what's the beef between US and Russia? Sure, many Americans hate Russia, but why? They rely on the Jewish-controlled Media that say Putin is 'Putler' and etc., or Russia is evil because it won't have homo parades. It's like dogs barking at something because the master ordered them to. If not for Jewish Power, most Americans would feel no hostility toward Russia. They might not agree with the Russian Way, but no one would get worked up for another 'cold war'. Anti-Russian policy is totally about Jewish sour-grapes because Putin didn't allow Jewish oligarchs to do as they pleased. Also, the notion of a white majority nation being proud of its identity/heritage and its religion and saying NO to the NWO(or JWO) is threatening to Jews because it might spread to other white majority nations: No More Sorrows with Soros. Jews pretend that they oppose Russia because it's against 'liberal democracy', but these same Jews have destroyed free speech in the West. They use Antifa terror and thuggery to shut people down. According to Jews, 'democracy' is whenever their puppets win. If the people freely elect someone Jews dislike, it's 'autocracy'. Jews would have us believe Ukraine is about 'liberal democracy' because Jews and their puppets run it.
Jewish Perfidy goes all around the world. Why does Jewish Power make things so difficult for negotiations with North Korea? Because North Korea has nukes and sets an example for nations hated by Israel. (Never mind N. Korea rushed to get them because Neocon Jews urged Bush II to include that nation in the 'Axis of Evil'.) Also, why would Jews tolerate a possible reunification of the peninsula and withdrawal of US forces when South Korea is such a useful puppet in the global chess game? This Jewish craziness extends all over Latin America. Jewish-run US policy toward Latin America is as follows: Any nation that exhibits any sign of defiance and independently negotiates with Russia, Iran, or etc. must be targeted for regime-change. So, Bolivia came under crossfire. Venezuela has been targeted. All this talk of Venezuela interfering in US elections is rich coming from Americans who've been interfering in Latin American affairs forever. But as the Jew Taboo dictates that you can never mention the Jews, you got to blame something other than Jewish Power. If a Jew kicked Alex Jones in the butt, he would blame the Arabs or the 'Chicoms'.
While Jews aren't the sole reason for the world's problems, they often make things worse by using their proxies, all in the name of 'good for Jews'. Whether it's George Soros breaking the Bank of England or Paul Singer financially leeching off other nations, there is the Jewish Hand. And who spread all this hideous neo-satanic globo-homo madness? Jews did. And why did so many whites become completely defenseless against such rot? Because their minds have been molded by the 2 PC's of political-correctness and pop-culture controlled by Jews. And of course, proxies of Jews spread degeneracy(especially of globo-homo nature) and conflicts all over the world.
Karl Marx failed, but a kind of Marxism did come to fruition. That of Groucho, Chico, and Harpo. Look all around and world politics is like DUCK SOUP(or Cuck Soup). Wily Jews pull all sorts of tricks and lead the stiff/square white goyim by the nose. The build-up to the Iraq War was like the scene in DUCK SOUP. Jews run circles around goy politicians like Groucho and Chico do with Wasps. Jewish Power is always several moves ahead, and the goyim are often taken by surprise and succumb in bemusement. Of course, as we're supposed to take it so seriously, current world affairs is like a straight-faced comedy, but what a joke it is. In an earlier time, one might have regarded DUCK SOUP as a satire of warmongers, but it no longer seems that way. It's more like a funny manual of how Jews can manipulate thick-skulled, square, lame, or dimwit goyim into just about anything. How is the scene in DUCK SOUP any different from what happens in Congress, CIA, or the Pentagon?
Another revealing figure about the Jewish Way is Jerry(or Jewry) Springer. What was his shtick? He would bring on these disgruntled goyim and make them beat one another up to the audience chant of 'Jerry, Jerry, Jerry'. Naturally, people have gripes all across America, but Springer exploited it and blew up these squabbles into 'national' feuds, a kind of World War Trash. He exploited trivial matters and turned them into big comedy-drama for national TV. And while these hapless and stupid goyim made total fools out of themselves(while also delighting in their 15 min of fame as insta-celebrities), Springer stood apart, safe and aloof, giggling with contempt at the easily duped goyim. How is this any different from how Jews play world politics? True, there are deep-seated tensions and problems all around the world. But they are local in nature and remain limited in their implications AS LONG AS some global power doesn't come between them. The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict wouldn't have gotten this bad IF Soros didn't encourage Armenia to make dumb decisions and if Israel didn't supply Azerbaijan with weapons. Notice how Jews play both sides, just like Jerry Springer pretended to have a sympathetic ear for all his guests when, in fact, he was doing everything to goad them into violence. On the show, there was Jerry Springer as the grandmaster, a kind of Soros-ian figure. And the big beefy security guys were like the US military. They kept the order. But did they keep the order for order's sake? No, the order was kept on stage just to make the guests fight like demented gladiators and make total fools of themselves. And what happens to these hapless goyim? Just ask the Armenians... or will anyone learn? Jews mess with the world, but the world pleads with Jews for sympathy as the Tribe has ungodly powers of finance, media, academia, big tech, gambling, deep state, and Shoah Worship(which deems any criticism of Jews as 'antisemitic' and 'nazi'). So, even people like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump who've come under special abuse by Jews (must) go through the ritual of appealing to Jews for 'advice' and 'approval'. It's like a mafia extortion scheme where one must pay 'protection money' and show respect. But protection from whom? From the one providing the 'protection', as if you don't pay, your place will go up in flames.
In this new ‘Left’ Identitarian amalgam, every ‘as a’ voice is welcome except the White one.
It's been said Diversity Craze and PC(or 'wokeness') are about Anti-White-ism and celebration of all non-whites, but this isn't really true. If it were truly anti-white across the board, it would gain little traction with most whites. Why then do so many whites embrace it? Because it's white-elitist and appeals to the suppressed 'spiritual' side of man. A white person who adopts PC feels morally elitist over incorrigibly 'racist' whites and socially elitist because most higher institutions are governed by PC codes. Furthermore, man is naturally spiritual even if irreligious. Just like vegans crave meat — mind can be moral but the body isn't — , modern secular folks, despite their conceit of rationality, crave the sacred and spiritual because emotional balance demands it. Of course, if one needs spirituality, it's better to go with real religion or mythology, just like it's better to have meat-protein than the soy kind. Religion says God is above all. Now, why is this a problem for Jews? Because if Christianity or Islam is true and if God is above all, then it means all races should bow down before God as the ultimate judge. Under God, Jews and Goyim would equally be judged. Jewish Supremacists don't want equality with goyim, and so, they pushed for secularization. Now, the secular order can also be for justice for all. If the Law calls for equal justice regardless of race, color, or creed, that means Jews must be treated and judged like anyone else. But, that's no good for Jewish Supremacist ambition. So, Jews, the masters of psychology, infused the modern secular mind that hungers for spirituality with the quasi-spiritual worship of Jews and their favorite allies. So, Diversity isn't about equal celebration of all non-white groups but special celebration and apotheosis of Jews, along with blacks and homos. If PC or 'wokeness' were truly about equal justice for Diversity, then the media would run as many pro-Palestinian and pro-Syrian stories as pro-Jewish stories. Hollywood would have made many TV shows and movies about Nakba and the dark side of Zionism. But, while the media almost never run anti-Zionist stories, they are filled with anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian, and anti-anything-hated-by-Jews stories. When Michael Brown strong-armed an immigrant business owner whose store was later ransacked by black thugs, where was the concern for his kind? None. Blacks matter, they don't. If Diversity is about celebration of all sexual expressions and deviancy, how come there is no month-long celebration of incest? It's telling that most non-whites don't stand up for their own identities and cultures but seek attachment to one of the sacred identities, namely Jewish, black, and homo. How many non-whites would succeed in Wall Street, Hollywood, or Big Tech if they displayed the Palestinian Flag? A Burmese-American showing pride in Burmese identity doesn't get him very far. An Iranian-American extolling the greatness of Iran wins almost no wokemon points. For approval or success, they are better off waving the homo flag or displaying a BLM sign. In contrast, it's great for a Jew to say he's proud to be Jewish. It's sensational for a homo to say sodomy is 'pride'. It's awesome for blacks to pontificate about how 'black lives matter' even though blacks are main killers of blacks. So, Diversity is less about the celebration of non-white identities but about most non-white groups circling around the altars of Jewish Identity, Black Identity, and Globo-Homo, the Tri-Supremacism.
Now, what do whites get from this? While many whites do lose out, it offers quasi-spiritual succor to elite whites and wanna-be-elite whites who, lacking privilege, settle for the next-best thing, which is attitude(of virtue-signaling), as in "I work at Starbucks and live in a crammed apartment, but I listen to NPR and read the New Yorker like all the sOpHiStIcAtEd people". Oh wow, we are so impressed. PC is designed so that not all whites lose out. While it beats many whites with the stick as 'racist', it offers 'spiritual' and careerist carrots to those who repent and seek redemption. This atonement can be sincere(among the naive & childlike) or cynical(among the craven & opportunistic), but what matters is it either bestows immediate status or justifies the existing privileges of those whites who've chosen to be 'baptized'. In a way, 'wokeness' is more exciting for whites than for non-whites. Whereas Jews, blacks, and homos can only feel righteous rage, whites can experience the full drama, the passion play, of sainthood. Or the Road-to-Damascus Moment, though it's more like 'dumbass-cuss'. Just like it's refreshing to take a shower when one's dirty and sweaty, it feels great to be washed of 'sin', which among secular whites is 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'. Evangelicals are about being Born-Again, and white secularists are essentially Evanglobalists. They feel born-again, hallelujah. Furthermore, the notion of 'white privilege' has a perversely empowering effect on whites. After all, if 'white supremacism' is built into the System, then it means whites are indeed superior in power, wealth, and everything. That means whites have two options. Be greedy and keep all the goodies for themselves OR share the bounty with the less fortunate and show off their magnanimity. So, privileged whites who buy into 'white guilt' regard themselves as the all-powerful group that is being so kind and generous than a declining racial group being bullied and intimidated into acquiescence(even though the latter may be closer to the mark). Besides, 'wokeness' really aids and abets white privilege. How? If White Power(meaning the shared and united power of all whites) is taboo and must be stamped out, then there can only be privilege for white individuals. The notion of 'privilege' NEVER applies to all members of a group. In Old Europe, the privileged were the noblemen, not all white people. So, if white people cannot consolidate power as a group or collective, then the only option is for white individuals to seek privilege for themselves and children. When PC speaks of 'white privilege', it's as if ALL whites share in it. But, privilege is inherently exclusive. For example, the white advantage over blacks in Old America was the result of white power. Whites were united then and identified with one another, top to bottom, east to west. Power cuts through privilege, i.e. poor whites without privilege shared in the power of whiteness. Power exists without privilege. If power is forbidden, there is only privilege for those who seek it on their own. So, for whites who don't want the burden of uniting with all whites and leading them as a united folks(as Moses did with the Israelites), PC is just fine because it allows them to work only for their own privilege than for the power of the whole race. After all, privilege is a less daunting task than power. It would have been easier for Moses to keep his privilege in Egypt and live well than give that up to strive for the power of his people as a collective unity.
Besides, as 'born-again good whites', these white cucky-wucks are allowed to feel oh-so-righteous and holy-schmoly, and this is in more ways than one a continuation of Christian Psychology. Elevate oneself by humbling oneself. "Oh, I'm a sinner, I admit it, and I said my 'Hail Marys', and that means I'm so much better than those who haven't, let alone the benighted who aren't even of the faith." Humbly bowing before God and Jesus means your kind is holy and has the right to conquer the heathens and destroy the heretics. It's the Christian Paradox: The lower you kneel, higher you feel. Same with today's cucky-wuck worshipers of Anne Frank, Barbra Streisand, MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, and Harvey Milk. And this mentality now infects the so-called 'right' as well as the 'left'. Look, Trump has the endorsement of magical rapper Kanye!
There is much talk about how leftists are anti-nationalist and pro-globalist, but this overlooks the fact that leftism was as much a father of nationalism as rightism was. Indeed, at certain moments in history, it was leftism that was pro-nationalist while rightism was anti-nationalist. Of course, the meanings of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ have changed in relation to the dynamics of the ruling power, international conflicts, levels of economic/industrial development, reigning credos, and dominant idols/icons. Also, we must be mindful of the difference between core principles of leftism/rightism and the pragmatic, opportunistic, or unscrupulous manipulation/exploitation of them(as essentially political fronts) to push through certain agendas that, upon closer scrutiny, have less to do with ideological principles than tribal interests or elite policies.
For those who believe that leftism must be anti-nationalist, consider its origins. The leftist French Revolution was nothing if not nationalist. What did it demand? It was for the National Interest of all Frenchmen. It posited that the leaders must represent and serve the national folks. In other words, the people didn’t exist to be subjects of kings and noblemen, but rather, the ruling elites existed to voice, defend, and represent the needs and will of the people. The French Revolution also argued that the ruling elites must primarily identify with the national masses. Against this, the French monarchy and aristocracy tended to regard the people as subjects. The people existed to serve the ruling elites. Also, as royalty and noblemen, the French elites were more likely to identify with kings and noblemen of other domains. Indeed, the royal houses all across Europe were united by blood. Despite the periodic battles fought among various kingdoms and principalities, the ruling elites across domains regarded each other as kinsmen and brethren bound by royal or noble lineage. It’s like elite athletes battle each other on the playing field but identify more with one another than with the masses of faceless fans. It’s the same way with the gods of mythology. Gods may lock horns with other gods, but they are all still part of the fellowship of immortals who look down on the mortals.
Then, it is no wonder Jews did something very clever with their God. By making Him the one and only God, He could not form alliances with gods of other tribes against the Jews, the people who worshiped Him. Furthermore, the Covenant meant that His main purpose on Earth was to make things better for Jews. In that sense, Jews were proto-nationalists on the cosmic level. They made sure that their spiritual ruler served them as much as they served Him. And yet, Jewish cosmo-nationalism was problematic as it was inherently proto-imperialist. After all, if God is the ruler of everything, everyone, and all-that-is, His power isn’t limited only to Jews but over all mankind and all the world. And yet, if He has a special Covenant with Jews, it means He mustn’t be an impartial emperor over all mankind but a ‘racist’ ruler who favors the supremacism of Jews over all other groups. This contradiction within the Jewish conception of God as both the ruler of all and a rigger in favor of Jews led to the rise of Christianity and then Islam that altered the terms of the Covenant. If God is the ruler of all, He must be a fair and impartial emperor to all peoples and tribes. Anyone or any group that would worship, serve, and honor Him should be just as precious in His eyes. If anything, Jews would be less favored in His eyes because, according to the new covenant, they insisted on being stingy with the original Covenant that said God is theirs alone. From the Jewish perspective, Christianity and Islam are not only horrible heresies but the greatest thefts in history. It was a case of goyim stealing God from the Jews with the aid of Jewish traitors such as Jesus, Peter, and Paul. This is why Jews will do anything to destroy Christianity. While Jews do have a legitimate grievance in feeling that the goyim stole their God, their spiritual conception made the rise of universalized forms of Judaism almost inevitable. After all, if God is the only God and the ruler over all, why should/would He favor the Jews over others? Also, given that Jews themselves admitted over and over in their sacred texts that they’d often been disloyal, treacherous, and verminous in the eyes of God, why would/should He stick by the so-called Chosen who too often chose to act like a bunch of cretins and psychos?
Anyway, those at the top love their power and privilege. And they naturally look down on the less powerful, less rich, less privileged, and less connected. The ‘best’ prefer the company and the acknowledgment of others with the ‘best’ status. They look down on the hoi polloi as mere employees, servants, consumers, and/or subjects. The problem with individualism as a political ideology is it results in hyper-elitism than equal dignity of individuals. After all, while Jeff Bezos and his many employees are all individuals with the same set of basic rights, Bezos-as-individual is worth the power and wealth of countless individuals. He is a giant-individual whereas most individuals are mere ants. Political individualism doesn’t mean that each individual counts as much as all the others. It means a relatively few individuals come to accumulate so much wealth & power and tower over other individuals who mean absolutely nothing. It’s not a forest of more or less equally tall trees but of giant redwoods that reach ever higher while most people are mere shrubs at ground-level. Elite psychology is the same whether the system is aristocratic or democratic. Those at the top come to feel a certain contempt or at least condescension toward the masses, just like star athletes look upon all those faceless fans as a bunch of ‘losers’. In some ways, aristocracy is more honest in its brazen elitism, whereas democracy is one of the most dishonest systems ever created, one where the ruling class pretend to represent and serve the people when it’s really a cabal of oligarchs, elite managers, and commissars. And elitism is made far worse if the ruling class tends to be dominated by a group whose identity differs from that of the great majority. While the US was always an oligarchy, white Christian elites once felt some degree of sympathy and camaraderie with the toiling white masses, not least because rags-to-riches white elites remembered their own years of poverty and hardship. But with Jews(and their proxies, the homos) as the current ruling elites, forget about any genuine elite feeling for the masses. While rich and powerful Jews feel something for fellow Jews in Israel and around the world, they feel only hatred, fear, and contempt for the masses of goyim.
In the age of kings and aristocrats, nationalism didn’t matter so much. Indeed, most peoples of Europe were ruled by the Family than by their own national leaders. Due to intermarriage across domains, many of the kings, princes, and dukes were related by blood, and many of the elites preferred to speak French than the language of the subject peoples. Also, monarchical systems tended to be imperial, and this meant boundaries often shifted to incorporate various ethnic groups who felt little affinity to the ruling class. The most extreme example was perhaps the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was dominated by ruling elites of Germanic Austrians who constituted only 20 to 25% of the entire population. Nationalism was problematic for the ruling elites in imperial mode because it meant they must favor their own people, i.e. if the imperial ruling elites favored their own national folk over all the other imperial subjects, it could lead to much resentment. Indeed, the problem of Jewish rule over West Bank is it is both nationalist and imperialist. As good nationalists, Israeli Zionist leaders favor fellow Jews, but this means resentment among the Palestinians who are treated as subjects than citizens. A system where all peoples are treated as either citizens or subjects is bound to be more stable than one where one people are treated as citizens while others are treated as subjects. If both Jews and Palestinians were treated as subjects, at the very least both groups would be in the same boat. But when Jews are treated as citizens while Palestinians are treated as subjects, it is grounds for grievance and resentment among the latter. For this reason, nationalism and imperialism are like oil and water. Nationalism works best within national borders; it becomes problematic in imperialist mode across national borders. If the ruling elites want to rule over a stable empire, they must treat ALL peoples under their power as either subjects or citizens. Either even foreign peoples must be granted the same rights as citizens or even the national folks must lose their rights and be treated as subjects. In the current neo-imperialist globo-homo New World Order, the New American Way is to treat even non-Americans as ‘fellow Americans’ & ersatz citizens while, at the same time, eroding the rights of Americans as citizens with ever less protections of free speech, gun rights, border security, and freedom of assembly & association; in other words, make American Citizens more like subjects.
Neo-Imperialist Globalists learned the lessons of the past. They figured that the main reason why the European Empires failed was they were national-empires and, as such, bred much anger and resentment among non-white subject peoples. If the European imperialist rulers had treated all peoples, even their own, as subject peoples, then there would at least have been the equality of tyranny. Whether one was a white Briton or brown Hindu, he would be no better or worse than any other subject in the empire. But British Imperialism was also nationalist whereby the British elites felt racially, legally, and politically bound to white Britons who were granted rights and privileges in the UK and across the empire that were denied to non-whites. It was this nationalist or 'racist' element in British Imperialism that especially bred so much animus among non-whites, not least among local non-white elites. Non-white elites, despite their riches and privileges(and collaboration with the foreign overlords), realized that, in some crucial way, they counted for less than even the lowest white Briton. All said and done, even the lowest White Briton was treated as a citizen of the mother country whereas even the highest non-white was regarded as a subject of the empire. Then, it was only natural that many non-white elites decided to struggle against the empire and create their own national orders. In a way, they were aping the Europeans because most non-white cultures hardly had any tradition of people power. The masses had long been treated as mere subjects by local elites, and in a way, nationalism served not only to drive out foreigners but to undermine the traditional order. Even as white imperialists were pushed out, the white national ideal of 'leaders serving the people than vice versa' came to define non-white societies.
At any rate, today’s globalists are in neo-imperialist footing, and they don’t want to sacrifice their global hegemony with the ‘old mistake’ of nationalism. In order for them to rule the world indefinitely, the current ruling elites of the US and EU must send a message to all mankind that they have the same regard for non-whites and non-nationals as for whites and nationals. Indeed, the current PC goes out of its way to demonstrate that any white person with nationalist sympathies/passions will be attacked, defamed, blacklisted, fined, and even imprisoned. Even after Brexit, nothing has been done about the dangerously high levels of non-white immigration-invasion into UK. The only group that is allowed to practice national-imperialism is the Jews, but then, Jews are not only the richest, most privileged, and most powerful group in the world but were clever to shroud their power with the holy-holocaust shield. Also, even as Jews elevated themselves to sacro-saint-victim status, they have no qualms about acting like cutthroat gangsters with elaborate and complex intelligence networks to gather dirt on just about anyone. Also, by control of media and moral hysteria surrounding notions of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘Russia-Russia-Russia’(or ‘Russysteria’), even those who are clean as a whistle in professional life can be smeared one way or another. Consider how any idealistic antiwar activist has been smeared as an ‘Anti-Semite’ or ‘Russian agent’. Another reason why Jews and only Jews are allowed national-imperialism is to ensure that goy-elites will serve as comprador-collaborationist-elites of the Jews. In other words, while goy elites can only be rich and successful individuals who function as managerial elites of the New World Order, they cannot stand together with their own ethnic folks lest such unity serve as a bulwark against Jewish Supremacist Power. After all, goy national unity means the goy elites of a particular nation must primarily be committed to representing and defending their own peoples than serve an alien power, the Jewish Supremacists.
Generally, empires fear other empires as they clash for imperial spoils. But empires also have problems with nationalism because nationalism wants to be left alone and doesn’t want to be recruited into the imperial power game. It’s like various Greek kingdoms didn’t want to be drawn into the quasi-imperialist adventurism of Agamemnon against the Trojans. Imperialism sees nationalism as an obstacle to its ambitions. Franco’s Spanish nationalism that wanted no part of Adolf Hitler’s imperialist ambitions angered the Fuhrer to no end. Polish nationalism that insisted on neutrality between National Socialist Germany and Soviet Union was seen as a stumbling block for Hitler. If empires seek to conquer and colonize certain lands, it seeks to use other lands as military bases and launching pads for further expansion. The Jew-run US has no ambition to colonize the Middle East with Americans, but it seeks to use nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to encircle Iran. And the US has used Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to encircle and contain China. This is why even mere neutrality of humble nationalism is often regarded as a threat to the imperial world order. Imperialism fears that if it tolerates one neutral nationalism, other nations may demand the same and insist on being left alone. Then, empires lose their bases of operation to expand their hegemony.
At any rate, nationalism, though currently regarded as a ‘rightist’ or even ‘far-right’ ideology(except when Jews and Israel practice it), has had a leftist as well as rightist pedigree. The rise of nationalism in the French Revolution was certainly leftist. Also, even the founding of the United States was, ideologically speaking, more leftist than rightist, as it was about the creation of an independent national republic where the leaders would be mindful of the interests of the national folks. After all, the Declaration of Independence argued that the American colonies were no longer bound to British Tyranny that regarded the colonials as subjects than as free people deserving to be heard and represented by the ruling elites. (Much of the accusations against Britain was malarkey, but the elaborate justification for independence had to do with leftist-nationalist aspirations, and it’s hardly surprising that the American rulers were supportive of the French Revolution despite the fact that the French King had done so much to fund and support the American Independence Struggle.) Furthermore, most of the post-WWII national independence struggles against European Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism were associated with leftism. In many cases, communists led the struggles for national independence, as in Cuba and Vietnam. In many cases, it was socialists like Nehru of India. Also, even though the Catholic Church has been regarded as a ‘right-wing’ and ‘reactionary’ force in world affairs, the role of the Church in Poland wasn't merely against communism but unfettered capitalism & globalism. In economic theory, Catholicism has been closer to socialism than capitalism. Indeed, only in the US and UK has it been the norm to associate ultra-capitalism, ultra-individualism, and anti-statism as ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’. In most European nations, such positions are considered ‘liberal’, and it is often the right-wing parties that call for more state power and more socialism(though nothing like communism). What Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler both understood was that the most winning formula was the combination of nationalism/patriotism with some measure of socialism. For the most part, Bismarck succeeded because he focused on the German nation. But in World War I, Germany under the impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm went into imperialist mode(along with other European nations) in Continental affairs and brought itself to ruination. Hitler also succeeded on the national level with his formula of nationalism and socialist-capitalism, but then brought Germany to total ruin with another round of imperialist ventures that alienated too many sides.
The point is nationalism has never been entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. It’s been a combination of rightist and leftist tendencies. In its focus on People Power, nationalism is indeed leftist and partly egalitarian. Under nationalism, people aren’t mere subjects of the ruling hierarchy. They don’t exist mainly to kneel before noblemen and bow before kings. They are citizens of the state with certain rights. Under the Old Order, only the aristocrats had rights that had to be respected by monarchs. But under nationalism, the concept of rights was universalized to everyone within the national realm. And yet, nationalism is also rightist in that it limits the guarantee and administration of human rights within the national realm. So, even as a nation like Poland or Hungary subscribes to the notion of universal human rights, its role is to ensure and protect such rights for the national folks within the realm. It isn’t their duty to spread such values or practices to OTHER nations. While it is hoped that all nations and all peoples will, of their own accord, come to see the light and practice the Western form of human rights(prior to the rise of degeneracy as the new normal), it is not up to any single nation as ‘liberal hegemon’ to play crusader and force all nations to conform to the one true vision of universal justice. Furthermore, as communism demonstrated all too powerfully(and brutally), a system and a set of principles are NOT the final chapter in human progress and justice simply because they dogmatically believe themselves to be. As it turned out, communism was the god that failed. So, even though the notion of Human Rights is a noble idea, it is not infallible and, furthermore, there are many more ways than one to conceptualize what constitutes ‘human rights’. Also, ‘universal’ can be a generous idea but also a threatening and aggressive one. It can mean the willingness to share one’s good ideas and values with all the world, but it can also mean the use of ruthless force to spread one’s idea of Truth on the entire world. The wars between Christendom and Islam were battles of universalisms that led to countless deaths. The wars between Catholics and Protestants were also about universalism vs universalism, and they turned the rivers red with blood.
Apart from the dogmatism of something like the Crusades and the Inquisition(and later communism), there is the cynical exploitation of universalist rhetoric — globo-babble about ‘spreading democracy’ and championing ‘human rights’ — to push what are essentially tribalist, capitalist, or imperialist agendas. Notice how Jewish Supremacists veil their essentially tribalist agendas with think-tank yammering about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘free enterprise’, ‘liberal world order’, and etc. If they’re sincere about this, one wonders why they're silent about the Zionist tyranny over West Bank. Indeed, the notion of ‘universalism’ has been so corrupted by Jewish supremacists in the West that countless minions now believe that there is no greater or more urgent ‘human right’ than an infamnia such as ‘gay marriage’ or lunacy such as ‘trans-gender’ rights. In the Current West, decadence and degeneracy are now part and parcel of ‘human rights’. The ‘gay rainbow’ is now a more sacred symbol than the US flag or the Christian Crucifix. And, the so-called ‘conservatives’, who take their money from scum-weasels like Sheldon Adelson the casino crook, do NOTHING to push back against this foul tide. If anything, current ‘conservatism’ seem perfectly content with creatures like ‘Lady Maga’ being the face of New Conservatism.
Leftism, like a chameleon, changes colors in relation to what is considered most urgent, noble, sacred, and redemptive. Also, leftism seeks its heroes and saints within the perimeters of the domain. Under British Imperialism, what was deemed most urgent, courageous, and worthy of sacrifice was national independence among the Irish. Thus, the Irish Left were full-blown nationalists. Back then, Irish Leftism was Irish Nationalism. Leftists love the idea of being underdogs putting up a good fight against the Power. Prior to national independence, the Good Fight was all about resisting the British Empire, the most powerful force in the world, and struggling for liberation and sovereignty for Ireland as an autonomous nation. It is then no wonder that such romanticism attracted many Irish with leftist leanings. By joining the national struggle, they could see themselves as warriors for justice & freedom against tyranny. Also, leftists must play with the cards they are dealt with. If their domain happens to be mostly homogeneous and limited to national borders, leftism will tend to favor the working folks and thereby de facto end up supporting nationalism. Indeed, consider Swedish Leftism prior to the rise of globalism. It was limited to Swedes in Sweden. Swedish leftists observed that the Swedish working folks are the underdogs in the system and need representation. As the working class traditionally made up the bulk of the national population, a pro-prole politics could only be nationalist in effect even if not by design. National leftism, by urging the working class to demand better wages and more benefits, had a galvanizing impact on mass politics. Also, such mass demand from below led by leftist activists compelled the ruling elites and the rich class to be more mindful of the economic needs of all the people in the nation than of profits-uber-alles. Thus, in a homogeneous national order, leftism can actually serve to reinforce national unity and national consciousness. It can lead to the fusion of capitalism and socialism that works for the good of all. It can remind the ruling class that the people and workers matter as the bulk of national folk. Indeed, consider the effects of the New Deal on American Nationalism. The impact of the New Deal cast a long shadow well into the early 1970s. Despite its excesses and problems, it did create national consensus from top to bottom that Americans must be one people where even the lowliest worker must possess the basic dignities of life. Leftism could strengthen nationalism. If the American Right was focused obsessively on individualism & ‘muh profits’ and therefore had a splintering and alienating effect among the classes, the American Left pushed for pro-worker policies that made the Common Man feel that he had a stake in the system and in the national order. Still, leftism was so useful to nationalism precisely because relatively homogeneous nations operate on the race-ist basis. The Swedish Working Class made gains because the Swedish Left championed them against the Swedish Rich. And the White American Working Class made great strides because race-ist America was one where white elites were compelled to represent and offer better opportunities and conditions for the white working folks. During the Great Depression especially, there were tons of poor white folks like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Back then, leftists didn’t need to champion non-whites to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou as even plenty of whites were homeless or just barely eking out a living.
It’s interesting how leftism can so easily go from nationalism to anti-nationalism. Within a homogeneous political-and-cultural context, leftism often aids and abets nationalism by standing up for the working masses. It forces the ruling elites to connect with and be responsive to the totality of the national folks. In a homogeneous setting, leftism is invariably about the people. It may not be particularly ethnocentric or race-ist, but its overall effect is to bolster People Politics. As most people within a homogeneous political order share the same ethnicity, leftism unites the working masses to be heard as a national folk. Ideally, to prevent the spread of radical leftism, it is best to have a right-wing or centrist government that comes under pressure by the left. Because of its virulent nature, leftism-in-power tends to be restless in trying out NEW policies, most of which turn out to be useless or, worse, harmful. However, when leftism is a critical/supportive force than a dominant one, it has a way of pressuring the ruling elites to be more responsive to the masses. It sends a signal to the elites that unless they are mindful of the needs of the national folks, the people might opt for more radical measures, which would not be good. Indeed, it was leftist pressure in late 19th century Germany that urged upon the right-wing ruling elites to enact certain socialist policies to provide safety nets and basic protections for workers. Wittingly or not, German leftism, by cooperating and compromising with the Ruling Class, lent credence to the German Right. Indeed, German Nationalism was the intersection of rightism and leftism.
And yet, leftism can just as easily turn anti-nationalist. How could something that could be so useful to nationalism be so against it? Because the CORE principles of leftism are not about tribalism, nationalism, or particularism but radical messianism, universalism, egalitarianism, and/or underdog-ism. Furthermore, the core leftist psychology is about holier-than-thou-ism and moral/spiritual puritanism. This is where leftism is different from libertarianism. Decadence and degeneracy as libertarian rights are all about freedom and liberty, not about moral sanctimony. Libertarianism doesn’t morally defend self-indulgence and depravity; it merely defends the right of individuals to take part in them. In contrast, when leftism merges with decadence/degeneracy, it feels a 'spiritual' urge to sanctify and ‘sacralize’ them as the ‘new normal’ or even the ‘new holy’. Though leftism has largely been approached and analyzed ideologically, it can also be understood as a psychological tendency. In some ways, the psychological factor may be more important. After all, if leftism is all about ideology, it should have died with the fall of communism. Also, what is more hierarchical than globalism that has created a world of the Master Class of super-oligarchs and the rest of us? If ideological leftism were still active, it should primarily be anti-globalist and anti-hyper-capitalist. And yet, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ sides with the Deep State, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, and super-capitalism. Ideologically, it makes little sense, but psychologically it makes plenty of sense. Even if leftist ideology is pretty much dead, leftist psychology is alive and well, and it cannot be extinguished because it’s a psycho-emotional tendency that some people are more prone to for genetic reasons. Some people are born with psycho-leftist tendencies, just as some are born with psycho-rightist tendencies. While sanctity matters a lot to both psycho-rightists and psycho-leftists, the former are more into preservation of familiar symbols & entrenched values, whereas the latter are more into moral outrage of the moment. Thus, psycho-rightist emotions are rarely as heated as psycho-leftist ones. Obviously, defending the realm requires less hysterics than changing the world. Granted, psycho-rightism is not without passion. Many psycho-rightists have a deep and powerful sense of connection to their land, folks, customs, & history. Psycho-rightism is about the sacred mansion, psycho-leftism is about the holy mission. Also, because psycho-rightism is rooted to the soil, it is more resilient in the long run IF it can weather the storm of change. It’s like trees with roots deep in the ground recover and regrow after harsh storms, cold winters, and even forest fires. In contrast, because leftism not only lacks roots but is anti-roots, when a particular leftism is discredited, rejected, and passes from history, it really vanishes without much of a trace. However, there is a way in which psycho-leftist fervor and fury can overwhelm psycho-rightist passion. Because psycho-rightism is more an emotion — the feelings one has for family, home/homeland, heritage, and etc. — , it tends not to be articulated or intellectualized. In contrast, because psycho-leftism is about finding faults in the system and changing it radically or altogether(and even trying to change the entire world), it has to be more than a passion or hysteria. It has to be intellectualized into an ideology or dogma. As such, leftism tends to be more articulated and ‘rhetoricized’ than rightism is. It’s like someone who believes in ‘home sweet home’ feels a certain sentimentality, and that feeling is enough for him to feel justified in maintaining his home-sweet-home. In contrast, someone who says the home should be torn down to make way for something new, different, and better has to explain why his plan should be realized. Precisely because leftism goes against the ‘natural’ and normally-accepted way of doing things, it has to justify itself morally and intellectually. Thus, leftism gains greater mastery over the Politics of Words. As words have the power to convert minds and as converted minds go about joining the crusade, words can change the world.
Between the psycho-rightist mentality and the psycho-leftist mentality is the psycho-libertarian mentality that neither feels a strong attachment to folks, culture, land, & heritage nor feels a particular tendency toward moral outrage & redemption through transformation. Psycho-libertarians find psycho-rightism to be stuffy and repressive and find psycho-leftism to be rabid and virulent. If psycho-rightists want to keep homos in the closet, psycho-leftists want to elevate homos in the church. Psycho-rightists want to restrain perversion, deviance, and difference to maintain the Traditional Way or the Current Norm, whereas psycho-leftists want to restrain tradition, natural norms, and ‘reactionary’ views to push through the New Agenda. As both are founded on sacred emotions — psycho-rightism is about the holy, psycho-leftism is about being holier-than-thou — , there is a limit to which either can accept freedom and liberty. If freedom threatens what is sacred to psycho-rightism, it must be curtailed to preserve what is believed to be noble, essential, and true. If freedom threatens what is holy to psycho-leftism, it must be curtailed to ensure the continuance of the march forward. Because psycho-libertarians hold nothing sacred, they have a difficult time understanding the rightist emotional attachment to tradition/heritage and leftist emotional attachment to ‘social justice’. Granted, there is one thing that is quasi-sacred to certain psycho-libertarians. As near-worshipers of the Individual, psycho-libertarians tend to idolize the super-individuals who achieved the most, especially in business. So, as often as not, psycho-libertarians will slavishly agree with whatever the richest bunch of oligarchs have to say. So, if superduper rich corporations use monopolies to limit free speech and push globo-homo, such matters have the full stamp of approval from psycho-libertarians who are star-struck with the image of the superduper individual who is so awesome because he’s worth billions and billions of dollars. Indeed, this is why so many psycho-libertarians are fully on-board with Israel and Zionism. Not because they have a sentimental attachment to Israel or harbor worshipful feelings about Jews as the Chosen but because they are so impressed by Jewish wealth and Jewish achievements as individuals.
Because the globalist elites know that ‘leftism’ now exists essentially as a psychological than ideological quality, they’ve used their control of academia, information media, entertainment, and the deep state to manipulate and exploit psycho-leftism. Globalist elites know that psycho-leftists are concerned less with ideological consistency and intellectual honesty than with emotional fulfillment of being self-righteously outraged and/or smugly & snidely feeling superior in being ‘more evolved’ or ‘on the right side of history’. Leftism used to be wedded to a particular set of ideals and ideological worldview. Now, it’s mostly about ‘muh feeling’. Just like a person who is fixated mainly on the orgasm doesn’t care about love & commitment as just about any sex partner will do, a psycho-leftist doesn’t really care what he or she is up-in-arms about AS LONG AS it provides him or her with the emotional satisfaction of being holier-than-thou and self-righteous. So, as long as the globalist elites find clever ways to tickle their ‘outragenous’ zones, the psycho-leftist rabble are happy. It’s like dogs need to hunt for or chase after something. It can be ANYTHING as long as they get to run after it. It could be a rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, ball, or a stick. As long as as a dog is given something to chase after, it is happy. Likewise, as long as the psycho-leftist is given something to throw hysterics about, he or she feels fulfilled with the moral-orgasm or 'morgasm'. Indeed, the Jewish globalists prefer this because ideological leftism insists on an underlying consistency of ideas and principles. Thus, ideological leftists are harder to manipulate hither thither. This was indeed why Jews eventually lost out under communism. Communism, being an ideological form of leftism, stood steadfast with a certain set of principles. It was anti-wealth, anti-individual, and anti-enterprise. It favored mediocrity and conformism above all. In a system governed by such principles, Jewish communist elites were targeted and brought down a peg in the name of greater equality. So, even though Jews started out strong in the Soviet Communist Order, they kept losing power as the years went by. In contrast, Jews went from strength to strength in the US because it allowed individualism and meritocracy, two areas in which Jews were advantaged for their pushy personalities and higher IQ. Still, Jewish leftism was useful as a moral cover precisely because Jews were gaining so much in terms of power, privilege, and wealth. If Jews were only associated with money and position, people would look upon them with suspicion and resentment, even hatred. But if many Jews were associated with the Left, it would create the impression that Jewish Role in America is more about justice and equality(and concern for the little guy) than about Jews getting ever richer and more powerful. While capitalist Jews and leftist Jews didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things through much of the 20th century, the depressing fate of Jews under communism, the amazing success of Jews in the US, the galvanizing cult of the Shoah, and the rise of Zionism all led to a mutual understanding between two camps. Jewish capitalists would keep getting richer and richer and gain greater control of society while Jewish ‘leftists’ would make a lot of noises about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ to lend the impression that Jews are more about 'social justice' prophecy than material wealth & profits. In other words, Jews pretty much gave up on ideological leftism and formulated ways to manipulate psychological leftism by using media, academia, and deep state to concoct new idols, the latest issues of the day, and fashions/trends to rouse up moral hysteria. Ideology and ideas matter far less than idols and icons, especially those of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, Homos as ‘gay rainbow’ angel-fairies, and Negroes as Mandela/Mandingo stud-skank-saint-victims. So, never mind what Zionists are doing to Palestinians. Just weep over and over about the ‘muh 6 million’ and go hunting for ‘New Nazis’. And never mind that Homos deeply embedded in the Deep State and working with CIA and other goons to spread US neo-imperialism(aka Wars for Israel) that have devastated entire nations and peoples. Homos are holy-schmoly, and it feels so gratifyingly self-righteous to wave the ‘gay’ flag and holler at ‘homophobia’. And never mind that blacks kill blacks(and other races). Just chant the mantra of ‘Black Lives Matter’ as if blacks are the ones who need to be protected from the ‘white racist police’. And forget about what Jews, Liberals, and ideological leftists once said about McCarthyism and ‘paranoid red-baiting’. You better hysterically believe it’s Russia-Russia-Russia that is interfering with our elections — of course, Russia is EVIL because it said NO to Globo-Homo, one of the most fashionable current moral outrages among psycho-leftists. And never mind Obama turned out to be just another neo-imperialist stooge who did the bidding of Zionists and spread more Wars for Israel. Why, he is the first black president, and that means he’s holy and a symbol against the evil of ‘racism’. With psycho-leftists, it’s really a game of ‘fill-in-the-blank-slate’. As ideological leftism is dead, today’s wanna-be leftists have no long-term vision or no deep set of principles to live by. Psycho-leftism is like a gun that wants to fire off endless rounds. It doesn't matter what ammos are loaded into its blank cartridge as long as it gets to fire them. One thing for sure, today’s ‘leftism’ isn’t about equality or anti-imperialism as so many on the so-called ‘left’ cheer on US neo-globo-imperialism, defend the deep state, and praise Wall Street & Silicon Valley. Now, why would ‘leftists’ be for the super-rich and globalist imperialism? Because having no real ideology to ground them in a certain worldview, today’s ‘leftists’ are really just psycho-leftists who mainly want to feel moral outrage and holier-than-thou about something. As most of them are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to come up with their own issues and topics to get all worked up with, they rely on the powers-that-be to supply the idols, icons, and issues about which to get most rapturous or hysterical about. It’s like a dog cannot throw the ball or stick to chase. It has to be thrown by the master. Likewise, psycho-leftists are like dogs that rely on their Jewish globo-homo masters to toss balls and sticks for them to chase. This is why today’s ‘leftists’ are so malleable and seem so arbitrary in their moral outrages. Their moral outrage is not the cart behind the ideological horse. Rather, their moral outrage is the horse, and it will carry just about anything loaded onto the cart. Consider that most ‘leftists’ had no concern about ‘refugees’ who were detained under Obama’s administration. They had no concern about US deep state’s use of Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. They had no concern about Obama administration’s support of military coup d’etat in Egypt that toppled a democratically elected government. They had no concern for the Kurds in Syria. And they sure as hell cared little about Muslims. But when Trump became president, these ‘leftists’ would suddenly throw fits about whatever ball or stick was thrown by Jews for them to run after. For awhile, one got the impression that ‘leftist’ believed there is nothing as American-as-Apple-Pie as the Muslims. And yet, these are the same ‘leftists’ who support globo-homo that represents everything that Islam detests. To get a sense of psycho-leftism, consider the ridiculous case of Justin Trudeau who is all about smug moral upmanship about things that contradict one another. So, he will dress up as a Muslim and embrace Muslims as his brothers, but then go off and wave the ‘gay’ flag at a ‘pride’ parade. What do Islam and ‘gay pride’ have in common for psycho-leftists like Trudeau? Never mind the ideological inconsistency. What matters is both offer him insta-doses of ‘virtue highs’. Mingling with Muslims he is one with much-consecrated Diversity and against ‘Islamophobia’, and dilly-dallying with homos he is one with the holy ‘rainbow’ and against the dark sin of ‘homophobia’. The fact that ‘transphobia’ also became a hot topic and object of a new crusade almost overnight goes to show that psycho-leftism is almost entirely about senses and emotions than about ideas. As Joe Biden and others have pointed out, the rise of globo-homo owed less to ideological or intellectual debate than the power of idolatry and iconography via TV shows, movies, advertising, pageantry, and propaganda. In a world where image and sounds count for more than ideas and where chants-mantras-slogans-platitudes have precedence over words as tools of logic and facts, people have forgotten how to think. Indeed, so many people now want to be rid of Free Speech because certain words, even if true and factual, offend their sense of the sacred, mostly about Jews, blacks, and homos. Why, it might be 'hate speech'.
In a homogenous order, leftism will tend to side with the working masses against the rich elites — we may call it national leftism. But in a diverse order or in an order(even if homogeneous) where diversity has been sacralized, leftism will side with diversity of minorities, immigrants, and foreigners against the national folks — we may call it ‘global leftism’. While national leftism and global leftism don’t see eye to eye, they do have something in common at the psychological core. Both are predicated on the need to feel moral outrage and self-righteousness. National leftists feel holier-than-thou in supporting the poor and toiling workers against the rich and privileged. They feel like little jesuses standing with the have-nots against the super-haves. Global leftists also feel holier-than-thou but in their coddling defense of marginalized minorities, distrusted foreign elements, and struggling immigrants. For global leftists, the peoples of the Third World are even needier than the white working class in the West. Because leftism is about feeling self-righteous by sticking up for the little guy against the big guy, its politics is always relative to who happens to be the littler guy. In a homogenous setting of nationalism, leftists see the national proles and poor as the little guys(like in populist Frank Capra movies). In a diverse setting of globalism, leftists see the global poor as the little guys who need to be championed and coddled. But such mindset can take over EVEN BEFORE diversity takes over a nation. Before homogeneous Sweden embarked on its agenda of Diversity and national suicide, its media and academia instilled countless Swedes with the idea that Diversity is not only good but downright sacred. And that meant that National Sweden was an imperfect and even vile place lacking in vibrant Diversity. Apparently, it didn’t have sufficient diversity that bestowed proper blessing upon the nation. Once Swedish psychology was inculcated with the notion that Diversity is next to godliness, Swedish leftists kept pushing for more immigration. And once non-white immigrants got a foothold in Sweden, Swedish leftists went about embracing, championing, and coddling them as the new ‘little guys’, the sacrosanct victims deserving of the most love and sympathy. Swedish elites, who only care about money and privilege, figured they could be spared the leftist ire if they signed onto the Diversity program. What did they care since they got the money and means to keep themselves safe and sound in their affluent enclaves even if Sweden were to fill up with foreign hordes? Indeed, the rich class and the Swedish leftists could scapegoat the Swedish nationalists(mostly lower-middle class and working class) as the ‘racist’ villains who aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about holy Diversity.
This is why the world needs National Humanism or Neo-Fascism as the only workable formula for fusing the right with the left in the name of national preservation and against imperialisms of all kinds.
Power can be understood in terms of quality vs quantity. If you don’t have quality-power, you must rely on quantity-power. In World War II, the average German soldier was better than an average Soviet soldier, but the Soviets made up for deficiency in quality by sheer quantity. In the Korean War, the US military was far superior to the Chinese military that had nothing approaching modern logistics and air power. But Chinese were able to hold their own with sheer numbers. Quality-power is preferable, but your people at least have quantity-power, they may survive or even prevail in a conflict with quality-power. After all, even a tiger or grizzly bear will fall to sheer quantity. In India, there’s a wild dog known as the dhole. While a tiger is immeasurably bigger and stronger than any single dhole, a huge pack of dholes have been known to bring down a tiger. And while a single wolf is no match for a grizzly bear, a wolf pack can bring down the biggest bear. Some peoples mainly rely on quantity-power. Mexicans in American don’t expect to take over elite institutions and industries. They know they don’t have the skills to do so, but they do have the numbers to take over entire SW territories and form voting blocs. If the mantra of the Civil Rights Movement was "We Shall Overcome", Mexicans figure, "We Shall Overwhelm"(though, to be sure, Mexican birthrates have declined and, if anything, Mexico has the danger of being inundated by poorer folks from Central America. (Mexicans don’t care for them and do their best to shoe them across Mexico to reach the US, just like Greeks have been known to urge their non-white migrant population to move to greener pastures of Northern Europe.)
Jews, as we know, are all about quality-power as they are a tiny minority in all nations except Israel. As Jews can’t rely on numbers, they rely on number-crunching. Over time, their wits and smarts have made them the richest people in the US by far in per capita terms. (Though only 2% of the population, Jews are well-poised to owning more than 50% of all wealth in the US.) With their control of media, academia, entertainment, and deep state, Jews have turned huge numbers of goyim into calculus of Jewish Power. Jewish Influence has colonized the hearts and minds of so many people via power of tele-communications, search-engine monopoly, and social-network-domination. So, even though most Americans are not Jewish, their ‘souls’ have been Jew-infected and, unbeknownst to themselves, they think, feel, talk, and act in ways that ultimately serve Jewish Power. This goes to show that a clever use of quality-power can lead to a kind of proxy control over quantity-power. As most goyim in the US rely heavily on Jewish-controlled media for news and ideas, their minds are essentially molded by the Jewish Hand. Of course, there is always the possibility that goyim may shake free of these controls — become ‘red-pilled’ — , and this is why Jews are paranoid all the time and so eager to set one bunch of goyim against the other. One thing for sure, if the white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ really hate each other, Jewish ‘left’ and Jewish ‘right’ are Jews First and Ideologues Second. If anything, both ‘rightist’ Jews and ‘leftist’ Jews manipulate ideology mainly to increase and secure Jewish supremacist power.
Oppenheimer in the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY
Jews have both a modern ideological mind and ancient tribal mentality. Throughout history, ideologies tend to come and go, whereas identities tend to be more resilient. People who put ideology above identity will eventually lose out to those who put identity above ideology. Because whites now care more about ideology, white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ hate each other, thus the white race is a house divided unto itself. But because Jews put identity above ideology, the Jewish ‘right’ and Jewish ‘left’ are brothers and sisters behind the mask. Also crucial is the general truth that a people whose identity encompasses the unity of the elite and the people will outlast a people whose identity is owned mainly by the elites. Among the many great ancient tribes, why are Jews among the very few who survived intact as a people and culture? Because the Covenant made every Jew, even a poor wretch, feel that he was the favored of God. Thus, Jewishness belonged equally to every Jew, and the Jewish Prophets(who spoke for the entire community, rich and poor) had more prestige than Jewish kings, merchants, and diplomats. Even though rich Jews surely exploited poorer Jews, there was the sense that all Jews, rich or poor, are one people: All Jews are the subjects of God, not of other Jews. In contrast, the goy civilizations were mostly elite-centric and regarded their peoples mostly as subjects, fodder for work and war. Because they were more militaristic than mindful, they needed lots of expendable soldiers. And as they ruled over vast territories, they came to regard ordinary folks as mere subjects and tax-payers than as Our Folks. In contrast, the smaller and more close-knit Jewish tribe/civilization could focus on preserving the worthiness of Jews. As the result, Jews weren’t the best warriors or great conquerors, but Jewish culture came to value Jewish lives more than goy civilizations came to value the lives of goy subjects. Of course, Jewish concern for their own kind didn’t mean they gave a damn about the lives of goyim, whom the Jews mostly despised. (Still, the fact that Jews regarded fellow Jews as blessed in the eyes of God provided the moral foundation that eventually led to the arrival of Jesus and Apostles who preached that Jews should regard goyim in the way they do fellow Jews: Brothers and sisters equally beloved by God through Jesus as the great mediator. As for goyim, they should see themselves primarily as worthy children of the just and loving God than as chattel-subjects of their lords.) Because goy civilizations were so elite-centric, when the elites fell to ruin, the people were scattered to the winds without much in the way of identity or culture. Among Jews, it was as if every Jew had a mind/soul that made him equal in the eyes of God, whereas the mind/soul thing among the goyim was hogged by the elites. Thus, even if Jewish elites were toppled, Jewish people survived because every Jew still had the mind & agency to be Jewish; in contrast, when goy elites fell, the goy masses were lost and confused as to what they were about and what they should do. The meaning and direction of their lives had been wholly controlled and defined by the elites. Every lowly goy looked to the ruling elites to define what his culture and civilization were about. This is why Japan is now falling. Japanese-ness was always defined by the elites, and in the past, Japan was ruled by the proud samurai caste who upheld the mythological underpinnings of Japan. But after the defeat to the US, Japan has essentially been ruled by the soulless merchant-class that will do just about anything for money. As the elites have failed Japan culturally(especially since the 80s), Japanese today are deracinated idiots whose idea of culture is anime, video-games, and pornography.
In contrast, despite the great power of Jewish elites, Jewish identity is not solely invested with elite power. Even if the Jewish elites were to fall or be rounded up & shipped to Gulag, ordinary Jews would still retain a powerful sense of Jewishness that is defined mainly by spirituality, history, and blood than the matter of who-rules-over-us. Of course, it’s possible that Jewish culture came to value the average person more than other cultures because Jews-as-individuals have been more troublesome, demanding, and argumentative. Consider the hard time Edward G. Robinson’s character gives to Charlton Heston’s Moses in TEN COMMANDMENTS. He's an incessant pain in the ass. If most peoples were either dumb or timid and left it up to the elites to figure everything out, your average Jew was more likely to question their elites as to what was up. Such an argumentative culture would have had to settle things either by constant internecine warfare or by the development of the Law where issues are to be settled by the power of the word that applies to everyone, including the king.
Many white people(especially on the ‘right’) are increasingly frustrated with meritocracy, mostly for fallacious reasons. It’s the same reason why they blame ‘democracy’ for all their problems. They figure, "Since the liberal democratic West is dying, the fault must be with democracy itself." (But then, if aristocracy is so superior, why did it so easily lose out to democracy?) But there are plenty of kingdoms and aristocracies that declined and faded away just the same. In the end, it depends on WHAT KIND of democracy(or any kind of polity). After all, democracy in Israel and Turkey turned those nations more rightist. And apparently, the right-wing Franco regime in Spain failed to mold Spaniards into dutiful rightists. Soon after Franco died and a republic was established, the vast majority of Spaniards decided to support some of the most decadent and globalist elites one could imagine. And it was under rule by reactionary monarchies or autocracies that powerful leftist movements developed in Russia and Latin America. And, it was often the reactionary forces that were either imperialist or collaborationist-with-imperialism, whereas the leftists stood for defiant national independence and sovereignty. The Russian Tsar was too involved with matters outside Russia to focus on the needs of his people, and the ‘right-wing’ Latin American juntas maintained their grip under the umbrellas of US neo-imperialism. In the 60s, it was the leftist Cubans, North Vietnamese, and Algerians who symbolized the nationalist struggle against American or European Imperialism. So, just like there is no one kind of reaction or autocracy, there is no single kind of democracy. Democracy is not doomed to become ‘decadent’ and ‘degenerate’. Democracy can be friend or foe to nationalism. It all depends on who controls the hearts and minds, the themes and narratives, the icons and idols, of a nation.
Same goes for meritocracy. To revile meritocracy as the reason for the White Demise would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Granted, there are some who argue that, in fair competition, whites would beat all comers. According to this view, Jews are not all that smart and gained great wealth and influence mainly through nepotism, tribalism, and other nefarious means. Asians are just grinds who mainly focus on acing entrance examinations. There was a ridiculous site called Caste Football that argued that sports are rigged against whites, and THAT is why blacks dominate boxing, football, basketball, running, and etc.
Oddly enough, even though the Glob and Progs denounce ‘white supremacism’ as the worst thing, they should credit it as one of the main reasons for the White Demise. Granted, not all expressions of white supremacism were the same. Some were overtly hostile and aggressive. But other forms were enlightened, magnanimous, and generous. Indeed, the reason why white elite power loosened its grip and turned to fair play was because it assumed that, all things being equal, whites would beat all the other races in just about everything. It was this gentle kind of white supremacism that made the white race(especially the elites) feel so confident in their dominance, rest on their laurels, and not take the competition too seriously. All over the world, whites gained such power and renown via science, technology, trade, war, and know-how that they thought they were destined to rule the world for all eternity no matter what. So, what did it matter if the Rule of Law was extended to include all groups? Whites would win anyway. It’s like men would not worry about letting women into men’s sports because they know women are No Match against men. White Success and Power were such that, at some point, white people took their supremacism for granted and decided to be Nice Supremacists. Let non-whites compete against whites and in the white world. What did it matter? How could non-whites possibly win the competition against the great white race? If white inferioritism had shaped white thinking, whites would have been far less likely to loosen their grip and go for fair play and competition with other races. This is why so many female athletes are upset over tranny-men playing as ‘women’. Women know that they are inferior to men athletically, and entry of wigged men into women’s sports will lead to women losing out. Indeed, imagine if whites had thought in white inferioritist terms vis-a-via the other races or peoples. Actually, it would have made them even more race-ist, and their descendants today would be in a much better situation. Suppose a hundred years ago, a white guy said to another white guy, "You know, those blacks are tougher and more aggressive than us. They are superior as athletes and more powerful in masculinity. They got more muscle and bigger dongs, and that means they will kick our white butts, rob us of our manhood, and then our womenfolk will lose respect for us as a bunch of cuck-losers. And then, blacks will take over as the new symbols of American Manhood, and our daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters will become a bunch of jungle-feverish mudshark skanks." Such white inferioritism would have sobered up the white race, and white folks would have done everything possible to allow blacks to carve their own nation and remain separate from the weaker white race(that is inferior in thuggery). But too many whites, full of supremacism, were either too arrogant or generous. The arrogant ones were too busying shouting, "We can beat up any nigger" to wake up to reality. And the generous ones were sure that whites would not lose out in fair competition to the blacks and called for equal rights for the Negroes.
Enlightened White Supremacism was also the reason for whites losing out to Jews. Anglo-Americans were too full of themselves to see the danger posed by Jews. As the great conquerors and masters of America(and with the mighty Imperial Brits as their racial brethren), Anglo-Americans thought they were the kings of the world forever. Instead of soberly assessing the threat posed by Jews, too many Wasps rested on their laurels and saw no great danger in letting in lots of Jews and trusting them. Sure, there were Anglo-Americans like Henry Ford who were all-too-aware of the Jewish Question, but too many Anglo-American elites regarded Jews as hard-working immigrants with dreams of becoming Good Americans. And besides, even if Jews found some success, how could such a people compete with the great Anglos? It was such supremacist assumptions that made Anglo-Americans blind to what the Jews really represented. White supremacism could breed complacency of security and power. It's like a lion, as king of the jungle, not worrying about threats posed by other animals. Now, imagine if Anglo-Americans were mostly in inferiorist mode vis-a-vis Jews and said among themselves, "You know, those Jews are pretty intense. And intelligent too. They are pushy, driven, and have radical wills. Not only are they smarter than us, they have stronger personalities, greater will, deeper hatreds & resentments, and bigger ideas, the kind with prophetic power to cast a spell on our young ones. If we let them in and offer them equal opportunity, they will not only take over elite institutions but use them to destroy us because they are driven by arrogance, hatred, and hostility." White inferioritism would have seen the dangers posed by Jews, but too many Anglo-American elites, being so full of wealth, pride, and privilege, took it for granted that their kind would be on top forever. Enlightened White Supremacists thought, "Sure, in open competition, some Jews will do better than dumb whites, and some blacks will do better than weaker whites, BUT all in all, smart whites will prevail over Jews, and strong whites will prevail over blacks." Or so the white elites, so full of themselves, assured themselves. White elites took their dominant position for granted as virtually eternal. In a way, it’s like the naivete that many modern people have about nature and animals. It wasn't always thus. When mankind struggled in nature, they understood all-too-well that humans were inferior to animals in many ways. Other species could do things humans couldn’t, like swim under water and fly through the air. And big animals were many times stronger than humans. Indeed, even many animals smaller than humans were stronger and posed a danger. So, humans didn’t play around with animals. They knew that humans, being inferior in speed and strength, had to find and develop certain methods to defend themselves against other species. But modern comfort made so many people feel so smugly superior over the animal world that they take their vaunted status for granted. While it’s true that civilization has given humans a huge advantage over animals, it doesn’t follow that animals aren’t dangerous or that humans aren’t weak. Indeed, without the protection of civilization, most humans would find themselves utterly helpless against the forces of nature. Just because the system favors your well-being and power over the Other, never assume that your advantage is natural or eternal. Likewise, the white race gained tremendous advantage over other races due to many factors(which could change over time, especially if whites allowed non-whites to rise too high in the white world). White advantage and power relied on the system. Lose the system, lose the advantage. Just because the white race was on top, it didn’t mean that whites, as individuals, were naturally superior to other races in just about all endeavors. That was fatally fallacious thinking.
In some ways, one might argue that the white race is the most talented all-around race. It is not the toughest race, but it is tougher than most peoples and bested only by black Africans. It is not the most intelligent race, but only Ashkenazi Jews(who are at least 50% European) are more intelligent, and only East Asians are comparable in cognitive abilities. It may not be the most creative in certain areas — like ‘funk’ & ‘boogie' dominated by blacks and the kind of wit, humor, & strangeness Jews are known for — , but it has been, by and large, the most creative race in many areas of arts, culture, philosophy, and technology. It may not be the most profound race as one could argue that the Semites, Hindus, and East Asians came up with greater/deeper spiritual concepts, but the white race came up with the greatest myths(especially among the Greeks), and it has explored and achieved great things under the influence of Christianity. (Furthermore, the early Jews who formulated Christianity were said to have been profoundly influenced, directly or indirectly, by Greco-Roman ideas and culture). Just like the decathlon athlete is not the best athlete in every particular event — he will lose in events matched against the very best sprinters, shot-put throwers, javelin chuckers, etc. — , the white race will lose in particular endeavors to other races, but the general all-round talent of the European people has been hard to beat. And in order to preserve this all-around-excellent-but-not-the-very-best advantage, the white race has had to resort to intra-meritocratic competition while being wary or even downright hostile toward inter-meritocratic conflicts. Indeed, such wariness went back to the Greeks who restricted participation in the Olympics only to Hellenic folks. As the Greeks warred with hostile tribes(and even enslaved them), what would have been the point of letting non-Greeks participate, kick Greek butt, and hog prestige as the top hero-idols of the Hellenic World? (Roman Gladiator spectacles did allow non-Romans to beat all competition and win great glory, but this had the impact of making the Romans lionize stronger Africans and bigger Germanic barbarians, with the effect that Roman women, even from elite backgrounds, lost respect for Roman men and went off to have sex with barbarians and savages.) Even though the merito-competitive spirit of the Greeks did wonders for their civilization, it was also well understood that the Greeks had to make a clear distinction between Greeks and ‘barbarians’. The winners in the Greek world had to be Greek or sufficiently acculturated and absorbed into Greekness in order to be part of the Power/Prestige Game. Jews understood this principle too, which is why they came up with the Covenant that restricted the Sacred Learning of the Jews to the Jewish people. If non-Jews wanted to join the Tribe, they had to undergo the most grueling hazing in the form of circumcision. Most Jews never wanted non-Jews to join the Tribe, and even Jews who were open to the idea of goyim converting to Judaism insisted that Gentiles had to get their foreskins cut off, which made most Gentiles run like a mothafuc*a. Even among early Jewish Christians, it was assumed circumcision was essential for conversion until Paul argued that the New Faith was about circumcision of the heart than the pud. At least Jews were circumcised as babies who had no idea what was up and had no memory of the agony they were put through. Just like it’s much more difficult to learn a new language in adulthood, it was obviously much more difficult for grownup Gentiles to go under the Jewish Knife.
When white people see black domination in sports, the spread of jungle fever, the black takeover of pop music, Jewish domination of finance-academia-media, East Asian & Hindu gains in college enrollment & high-tech jobs, and etc., some are apt to blame meritocracy per se, but that's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Such whites might argue, "All those non-whites are taking over because we gave them opportunities to compete against us." Then, would it be preferable for whites to live in a stable Racial/National Aristocracy where the white ruling class, as the BEST of society, protects the interests of white folks? Some might argue that aristocracy was about meritocracy, but actually it wasn’t. While there were surely talented and intelligent aristocrats, one was an aristocrat mainly by birth, not by achievement. The most intelligent child born of a serf was a serf, whereas the dumbest child born to an aristocrat was an aristocrat. Though all aristocrats were raised with certain principles and codes to live by, there was equal chance that an aristocrat could be smart or dumb. The true emergence of a meritocratic elite began with the rise of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie, being men of enterprise in production or trade, had to have business sense. Also, as capitalism made the greatest profits by offering new-and-improved items on the market, it provided huge incentives and rewards for those with knack for science & technology and design & engineering. While intelligence was prized all throughout history, never had it been so ‘monetized’ to produce super-profits. Today, consider the billions upon billions made by the ‘geeks’ at companies like Google and Apple. Given that the bourgeois order has been infinitely more meritocratic than the aristocratic order, what has been its downside? A key factor is that, whereas the aristocracy was raised and inculcated with notion of honor and dignity(notwithstanding the fact that many aristocrats neglected their obligations and abused their privileges), the bourgeoisie expanded mainly with wealth and profits in mind. Aristocrats had class, whereas the bourgeoisie were merely constituted a class, one aspiring to be dominant by More Money. (In contrast, because honor mattered so much among aristocrats, even the richest aristocrat might have to face off squarely against a poor aristocrat in a duel where the two men had to meet on equal terms independent of wealth.) The competition between aristocracy and bourgeoisie was one between elite vs elite as neither group constituted the huge swaths of unwashed masses. Aristocrats ruled over vast numbers of peasants, and the bourgeoisie ruled over vast numbers of factory-workers. As both groups constituted elites by blood or money, they were held in distrust by the masses. Therefore, both elite groups appealed to the masses in different ways. The kings & aristocrats spoke of the Divine Right to rule & the noblesse oblige of the aristocracy that supposedly had the well-being of the peasants in mind. The Russian Tsar wanted his subjects to see him as a father-figure of the nation. In contrast, the bourgeoisie presented themselves as agents of tireless change and progress of great benefit to mankind with more rights, freedom, and goods. The aristocratic types argued that the greedy bourgeois merchant-class only cared about more money, whereas the bourgeois types argued that the haughty aristocratic snobs only cared about protecting their own privilege. It all came to a head in the French Revolution. In the US, the bourgeoisie vs aristocracy conflict erupted in the American Civil War where the bourgeois North of industrialists and factory-workers locked horns with the South of plantation owners and black slaves and white farm labor. Even though the bourgeoisie eventually won out(despite setbacks that restored the reactionaries in Europe after the fall of Napoleon), the problem remained that the new ruling class of bourgeoisie was really the ‘new boss’ who took over from the ‘old boss’. Furthermore, following the trauma of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie grew less confrontational and more accommodating of one another, forming a kind of ‘aristogeoisie’. Why spill more blood when both sides could come to an understanding? The aristocracy would allow the progression of history whereby the West would be transformed by the power of bourgeois capitalism. It was a force that simply couldn’t be stopped. In return, the rising bourgeoisie would try to attain some ‘class’ and ‘dignity’ by emulating the aristocratic ways, marrying with aristocrats(who were in decline), lending money to aristocrats, and buying titles from aristocrats for a good price. This accommodation more-or-less held firm across Europe until World War I, and then the implosion of the Old Order and the weakness & ineffectiveness of the new democratic order led to mass frustration and dissatisfaction that led to a powerful communist movement that many feared would take over all of Europe.
Communists argued that the rise of the bourgeoisie, though inevitable and necessary, could NOT be the End of History since the bourgeoisie also constituted an exploitative class like the aristocracy. Bourgeois power also meant continued Elite Domination. The ONLY way to ensure People Power was by communist revolution that would ensure the dictatorship of the proletariat. A counter-argument for People Power came from Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. While, contra communism, fascist ideology argued that elites were not only necessary but natural, it also argued that true People Power could be secured and protected by inspired national leaders who stood for something other than received privilege or more profits. Fascist ideology believed in the need for struggle(as the very essence of life), and the problem with the aristocracy was that it eventually led to pampered children raised in an entitled bubble-world of plenty. The appeal of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had much to do with their modest and ‘humble’ origins. Unlike aristocrats who were born into power and privilege, men like Mussolini and Hitler had to struggle for every ounce of power to climb to the top. Thus, according to fascist ideology, their power was real and well-earned whereas aristocrats were essentially soft and passionless because everything had been handed to them on a silver platter from birth. (Of course, such charge wasn’t entirely fair because, even though aristocrats were BORN into privilege, plenty of aristo-families were strenuous and demanding in the way their children were raised. At its best, the aristocracy stressed upon the young the need for dignity, honor, arts & culture, and virtues such as courage and commitment, and plenty of aristocrats proved their mettle in battle and other endeavors.) Fascism also distrusted the bourgeoisie, at least as the ruling elites of a nation. While Fascism recognized the economic worth of the bourgeoisie and wasn’t murderously averse to them in the way that communism was, it thought the bourgeois class was unfit to rule and/or define the culture because capitalism was mostly about profits, individualism, and greed. The bourgeoisie should be relegated to the business world, and their ‘values’ should not define the essence of the nation, people, and culture. If communism said the People can have justice ONLY BY getting rid of the ruling class of elites, fascism argued that the People as members of a nation can lead meaningful lives ONLY BY being ruled by the right kind of elites who are inspired — a notion rooted in Romanticism — and possess a vision of society & culture that aren’t mainly about received privilege or more profits. Fascism rejected communism because it was regarded as too ‘materialist’, too much at odds with nature, too drab and ‘plain’ in its idealization of the Worker, and too abstract in its universalism. Part of the reason why the embattled fragments of the ruling class following World War I decided to support fascism as protection against communism was it had elements of both aristocratism & bourgeoisie-ism — fascism valued elitism in ways that communism did not, though one can argue that communism-in-actual-power was just rule by party elites as the new boss — , and the reason why fascism gained such mass appeal in certain nations had to do with more than social crisis & hunger for order. For the masses of the modern world, aristocratism was too reactionary, unjust, and irrelevant to changing times while bourgeois-ism was too materialist, heartless, self-interested, and ‘greedy’. Also, even many among the working class felt that communism was too radical and fanatical in its ideology and vision. For the elites and the masses, fascism was like the great mediator among the plurality of forces from top to bottom, between the past and the future.
Anyway, the old aristocratic order is long gone, and it could only have existed in an agrarian society where most people toiled in the fields while the noblemen, as either protector and/or tyrant, lorded over them. As modernity led to rise of huge cities and with the dwindling of the agrarian class, the days of the aristocrats were numbered. (In the US, aristocracy was out-of-favor even among the agrarian folks because there was enough land that allowed landless people to move to greener pastures and own/run their own farms than for their lords.) As people became concentrated in cities, there was power in numbers, and this led to democracy and electoral politics, as well as socialist measures to ensure certain basic dignities and rights for the Worker. Freedom is an infectious thing, and in Europe, even the urban poor felt freer than their ancestors who'd toiled in the fields as tenant-farmers and the like. Even if their freedom didn’t lead to riches or fame, it was psychologically reassuring to be ‘free’ and ‘independent’ than live under the power of lords and their overseers. While one didn’t have much say on the factory floor, one truly belonged to oneself after work whereas tenant-farmers, even off-work, always felt like subjects of the land-owner. Unlike farmland that always belongs to Someone, urban spaces belonged to anyone and everyone. While private property could be excessively expensive and valuable in the city, urban spaces were organized so that all the streets, parks, and squares belonged to The People. Thus, while city life could be alienating and disorienting, it could also be liberating and exciting. And so, there was no way modern people could accept a reactionary return to aristocratism.
And yet, late modern capitalism is now exposing the dire consequences of what has come to be known as ‘globalism’, a massive contradiction in terms, rules, and management, not least because it purports to be about equal justice, opportunity, and freedom for all peoples around the world but is really dominated by the US as neo-empire that is, furthermore, controlled by Jews, an intensely tribalistic and supremacist people.Furthermore, even as globalism champions meritocracy and equal competition for all peoples and all the world(in the spirit of libertarianism), it violates its own principles of individualist meritocracy with calls to Diversity, Inclusion, and Identity Politics(especially geared against whites). In addition, even as it demands respect and appreciation of all cultures, it seeks to replace every faith, tradition, and culture with globo-homo degeneracy, rap music, dumb Hollywood blockbusters, video-games, and pornified pop culture as One World Consensus. It promises equal hope and dreams for all people regardless of race, color, or creed, but the result is domination of entire fields by just a few races or groups. And the matter of who/whom means everything to globalism as currently practiced, especially among Jews, fruitkins, Afro-Jivers, and the dotkins(aka Hindus). Apparently, it’s totally okay and just for SOME peoples or groups to have dominance far out of proportion to their numbers, whereas the demise of certain groups, especially White Goyim, cannot be welcomed enough EVEN WHEN white representation in nations that they'd built falls below proportionality.
For those who are understandably distraught about the state of the white race in America, meritocratism is an easy scapegoat. Even if it’s fair play that opened up competition in America to all the races and peoples, many white people feel, "Why should we hand over what our ancestors built to OTHER peoples?" Even if Jews and Asians do better in colleges, why should they take over and dominate the very institutions built by Europeans and Christians? There’s a saying, "finders keepers". The white race didn’t only find the New World but did most to build it. Then, why should they allow OTHER Peoples to take over America EVEN IF it is by fair play? (And exactly WHO gets to decide that America belongs to ALL THE WORLD even though ALL THE WORLD didn't found it and build it? Why should America belong to MOST PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD who had NOTHING to do with its foundation and development? Such a view assumes that whites have no autonomous worth & value and therefore whatever whites do must be for the Others. It's like humans make sure that cows produce milk and chickens produce eggs for HUMAN consumption. On farms, cows and chickens have no self-worth. They exist ultimately to serve Others, the humans. The rejiggering of Americanism can only imply that everything whites have done, do, and shall do must be for the Good of the Other. But in a way, with notions such as the "White Man's Burden", whites brought it upon themselves. Conquer the world, then you must feed the world.) The more libertarian-leaning white folks are convinced that the main reason why so many white people lost out in the New Order is due to ‘affirmative action’, quotas, and other forms of statism. They regard libertarianism as defacto white-power-ism because they believe, all things being equal and under fair play, the Great White Race has most to gain and win by a combination of intelligence, creativity, ingenuity, inspiration, and individualism. But as the years pass, libertarianism-as-virtual-white-power-ism is wearing thinner by the day. In sports — powerfully important in American mythos, idol-making, hero-worship, and symbol of manhood, for good or ill — , libertarianism is obviously a total bust. Under fair play, the black race has totally defeated and humiliated the white race into a bunch of bench-warming cucky-wucks. But white libertarians comforted themselves with the conviction that whites would outperform blacks in all endeavors other than sports. But then, rap became mainstream, and it spread jungle fever far and wide, and white males began to lose sexually as well as athletically. Still, if not for ‘affirmative action’, wouldn’t whites win in areas that require brain power? But here, whites lost out to Jews. Still, whites told themselves that Jewish success isn’t a bad thing since Jews are also white people. But as Jews gained more power, they didn’t act pro-white but anti-white, using their vast resources to chip away at white advantages by any means necessary. So, in areas where whites lost out to other groups by meritocracy, Jews promoted fair competition. But where whites did better than blacks and browns, they were hamstrung by the ‘social justice’ ideology of ‘affirmative action’ that forever invokes the past to secure permanent advantages in the future. But, libertarianism really failed with mass non-white immigration. After all, even if blacks beat whites physically and Jews beat whites mentally, both groups remain minorities, esp with Jews being only 2% of the population. So, even as whites lost out to them in some fields, they had the advantage in numbers. But even that eroded away with massive arrival of browns from ‘Latin America’. Even the demographic advantage was lost, but as libertarians only care about the INDIVIDUAL and ignore the power of UNITY, they ignored this most crucial fact. And if masses of browns from the south reduced white demographic power, the arrival of yellows and Hindus from Asia posed another cerebral challenge to the whites. Prior to massive arrival of Asians, only Jews bested the whites. But now, so many Asians are taking slots in colleges and institutions that were founded by white folks in the American Past. They did it for posterity but got kicked in the posterior... mainly because, at some point, the Anglo-American elites lost confidence & pride and silently transferred their ruling power over to the Jews. Given all these challenges, it’s understandable why so many whites aren’t so keen about meritocracy.
But the White World couldn’t have risen without the principles of meritocracy. Even within the West, why did certain societies make advances far ahead of others? It had a sense of fair play, rule of law, sense of honor, code of conduct, and culture of dignity. Such mind-set became more pronounced among Northern Protestant Europeans than among Eastern and Southern Europeans, such as Sicilians and Greeks who represented the bottom of the barrel when it came to ethical outlook and behavior. Southern Italians, Greeks, and certain Eastern Europeans were utterly shameless in their pettiness, self-interest, boorishness, and/or clannism. Also, given their temperaments, even upon being exposed they didn’t confess and apologize but just pulled their hair, threw tantrums, and went into hysterics like in all those Italian and Greek movies. But then, meritocracy factored even less in most non-white nations where whom-you-know mattered far more than what-you-did. East Asia, with its Confucian culture, did have some sense of meritocracy, but as the Sino-centric civilizations defined worth and merit in a very rigid and narrow way, so much of brainy talent was wasted on memorizing Confucian texts that hardly had any applicable value outside politics and family.
Now, if meritocracy did such wonders for the West, especially Protestant Northern Europe, why has it been so problematic in recent years? It’s because Western Meritocracy lost its race-ist foundation and sense of limits. (By ‘race-ism’, I mean belief in race & racial differences and the necessity for racial/ethnic consciousness. It’s not meant as an epithet as is commonly used in our idiot PC discourse. In a way, globalism is the ultimate supremacism as it is obsessed with victory and domination of all the world by the very Best. What is called 'white supremacism' is actually defense against Global supremacism that presses upon all peoples to favor and choose the Best even against the interests and integrity of their own people. According to globalist logic, if a bunch of tougher blacks beat up members of your race in sports, you should idolize the victorious blacks and disregard your own kind because all that matters is the raw prowess of the Best. According to globalist logic, if Jews are the richest & most powerful group and even if they're doing everything to harm your group, you should still admire and obey the Jews because they've demonstrated via inter-meritocracy that they are the most awesome race when it comes to intelligence, drive, radical will, and cunning ruthlessness. Race-ism, in urging you to favor your kind even when it is inferior vis-a-vis other races, is actually counter-supremacist against globalism that says all races and all peoples should bow down to the best of the best EVEN WHEN the globalist victors are clearly enemies of your race. Globalist supremacism is the ultimate nihilism of power.) For most of white history, meritocracy was limited to the people of the race and community. While exceptions were plentiful, especially with OTHER whites across Europe and the Americas, meritocracy wasn’t simply a means of ‘let the best man win’, but "May the best of us rise to the top to do great things for All of Us." It wasn’t only the triumph of the best atomized individual(regardless of race) but a kind of heroic endeavor whereby the best of the community was allowed to rise to the top to use his ability, skills, and knowledge for the good for the whole community. (Of course, if another race or people were ahead of the game and had made key advances, their superiority should be recognized, and your people should learn from them, as the Japanese did in the late 19th century to catch up to the obviously more advanced West. But, the thing was to learn from the Other to strengthen your own people. Jews certainly learned a lot from non-Jews, but at the end of the day, it was to boost Jewish Power, not to serve the goyim simply because they happened to be ahead of the Jews in certain areas.) To assure that meritocracy will serve the community, it had to be intra-meritocracy, or fair competition and fair play among those within the Tribe. In any classic tale of the hero, the extraordinary individual ventures beyond the norms to attain something higher, but it is for his people than merely for the self. Ethno-Nationalism is the Goldilocks middle between the self and the world. While individualism is important(and a key factor in the rise of the West), it must be part of something bigger than merely ‘me’. As for the entire world and all of humanity, they are TOO BIG and TOO MUCH to constitute any kind of viable community. While one can feel a spiritual or philosophical camaraderie with large swaths of humanity — like among Catholics or Muslims or Communists or Liberal Democrats around the world — , such can hardly serve as an organizing principle for a meaningful community. It’s like family is limited to blood relations and close ones. While one can feel brotherly love for those outside the family, the family constitutes those living under the same roof. National community is much bigger than a family, but its sense of community simply cannot include all the world filled with peoples of different races, cultures, and customs. Under such circumstances, everyone must forgo too much that is meaningfully particular in order to accommodate the Other or to assimilate into the Other. America has gone past the limit beyond which a meaningful sense of Americanism is all but impossible. Initially, America went from an Anglo nation to Anglo-Germanic-Celtic nation to one where Other Whites sought to assimilate to Americanism. Because, at the very least, all those whites were part of the same race and sprung from the same continent, Americanism as accommodation/assimilation was doable. Next, America became a massive laboratory of turning non-whites into Good Americans. This had always been problematic with blacks. But when massive amounts of non-whites kept coming and coming, they went from trying to assimilate into white norms to demanding that whites accommodate to ever increasing numbers of newcomers and their relatives and so on and so on, as if the white race/nation was nothing but teats on a dairy cow for all the world to suckle from. If the numbers of non-whites had been controlled by gradual immigration, it might have worked, but it is failing in the US, Canada, Australia, and across Europe(that now models itself on the Jew-run US as a Continent of Immigrants).
Under such conditions, meritocracy for all peoples, or Inter-Meritocracy, can only hurt the white race, not least because current PC says whites must only struggle for power and privilege as deracinated atomized individuals, whereas non-whites, especially Jews and blacks, may invoke their pride of identity and call for tribal solidarity in their competition for wealth, power, and resources. That said, if whites had natural advantages over all other races in every endeavor, it might not be so bad. But as a matter of fact, even though the white race may well be the all-around most capable race, it is not the best in every endeavor. In the specialized fields of athletics, blacks beat whites, and in the specialized fields of finance, media, and brainy fields, Jews beat whites. And all those yellows and dotkins offer stiff competition in test-taking and the rush to enroll in elite colleges. Jews and blacks are especially threatening because they beat whites in the most important areas in American Life either by power of influence or idolatry. To own the media and finance is like controlling all the rivers and channels of a country. And to win in sports(and command attention as bad boy gangstas) means to control idolatry that is so important because, in any given society, most people are faceless and only a handful of 'celebrities' and idols serve as the Face of the People. White race is not only be deracinated but de-faced. Jews in Hollywood and BBC go out of their way to make the Black Man the new archetype of Western Manhood, and white girls grow up looking up to the Negro as the Gangsta Hero. But as if that isn’t bad enough, many whites cannot even hope to have decent white-collar careers because of feminism and mass immigration. Too many women take jobs from men who need jobs more than women because, whereas women without jobs can still get married to men with jobs, men without jobs(or good jobs) will have a difficult time attracting women with jobs(and esp good jobs). There is also the factor of mass immigration. If globalism robbed too many white working class folks of blue-collar jobs, it is now robbing educated white middle class individuals of good jobs that are being taken by hordes from Asia. Globalism ships blue-collar jobs to other nations and ships over white-collar workers from other nations via H1B program. And there is the real danger of the children of immigrants doing better than white kids and taking slots in colleges that could have gone to whites. Thus, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. It should have stuck to race-ist Intra-Meritocracy.
Now, one could argue that Inter-Meritocracy is better at picking the best-of-the best from around the world than Intra-Meritocracy ever could. After all, a society that welcomes the very best(regardless of race or nationality) from around the world will likely have the best of everything. Think of traditional Sweden and then imagine two exact but divergent versions of them. These two Swedens would be exact copies of one another. However, a bold experiment makes Sweden A go with Intra-Meritocracy whereas Sweden B implements Inter-Meritocracy as its iron policy. Being Intra-Meritocratic, Sweden A has a system of fair play and rule of law that allows the most intelligent, ingenious, and inspired Swedes to excel and reach the top. These special Swedes are expected to exert themselves to do remarkable things of great benefit to all Swedes. The great advantage of Sweden A is that it will remain an organic and cohesive community as the best of the Swedes will gain the most wealth and power to rule as Swedes over the Swedes. As Intra-Meritocracy applies only to fellow nationals, Sweden A need not worry about non-Swedes taking over and using their power in nefarious ways to harm Sweden’s survival and security. And yet, the downside of Sweden A is that it cannot be the center of the world’s best talents in many areas of competition. It will not be the land of super-smart Jews nor a world of blacks who win most sports trophies. The best minds of Sweden will generally not be as bright as the best of Jews, and the best athletes of Sweden, though considerable in talent, will be no match for the blacks. Therefore, Sweden A will never be able to think in terms of "Sky’s the Limit". Still, even if it doesn’t have global champions, it will be a world of local heroes. Swedes can rest assured that, at least in their own homeland, they are the kings of the hill. And as a nation of Swedes ruling over Swedes, it is a genuinely organic nation where people are part of a larger family.
In contrast, Sweden B decides to open up to the entire world in the hope that the very best will come to compete in and for Sweden. As Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than Swedes, as blacks are tougher & funkier than Swedes, and as there are many millions of talents who can best the native Swedes, the future of Sweden B is one where the best around the world come to Sweden and out-compete the natives. The result is that Sweden comes to be dominated, ruled, and represented by non-native ‘Swedes’, aka the New Swedes. Obviously, the advantage of this is that Sweden B has attracted many individuals from the world who are better than native Swedes in many endeavors. Thus, Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A. In business, sports, science, and the arts, Sweden B could be said to have the kind of wide-ranging and hyper-talent that Sweden A doesn’t have for the most part. Also, with such talents, Sweden B is better poised than Sweden A to win in the global competition in sports, pop music, science, technology, finance, and etc. One might argue that because Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A, its people, whether native or invasive, are better off than the ones in Sweden A who are limited to and by the native talent pool. From a purely libertarian and anti-historical & anti-cultural viewpoint, this may well be true. But IF one cares about preserving the identity, heritage, culture, history, and territoriality of one’s own people, Sweden B is a total disaster. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the rich & powerful Jews, tough & aggressive blacks, and studious & high-achieving Asians will care much about the native culture, history, or heritage of the Swedes. Indeed, in order to consolidate their claim on Sweden, they may use their power and influence to spread the idea that Old Sweden was a ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘drab’, ‘dull’, and ‘white supremacist’ hell-hole. Also, tougher blacks may come to feel contempt for weak and wussy white Swedes and look upon Swedish women as their harem to sexually colonize, thus leading to ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs; indeed, consider how a single African Simon Mol nearly turned Poland into Moland as jungle fever spreads rapidly among the white ‘thots’). There is always a trade-off. Sweden B gains something by losing something.
Now, if Swedes no longer care about their race, culture, and history, it doesn’t matter. But if they do care, Sweden B is a total tragedy. It’s like Palestinians in Israel. If they don’t care about their identity and culture, they can seek comfort in the notion that they are materially better off under Jewish rule, which is probably true. Who cares if Palestine is now Israel as long as individual Palestinians still remaining in Israel are pretty well off compared to Arabs in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa? But if Palestinians DO care about their own identity, culture, and territoriality, the Zionist transformation of Palestine has been most tragic. Given that man doesn’t live on bread alone, national-humanist neo-fascists such as myself prefer Sweden A to Sweden B. Jews surely understand this. Though they yammer about how Israel is so neat because it’s modern, democratic, and prosperous, what they really care about is the ethno-national integrity of Israel. For example, if it could be demonstrated that Israel has much to gain economically and scientifically by taking in tons of white goyim, Chinese, & Hindus and much to gain in sports by taking in tons of black Africans, would most Jews in Israel agree to mass goy immigration into Israel? Of course not. It’s because Jews prize what has become their homeland for reasons other than materialism or abstract idealism. They regard it as their sacred territory rich in history and heritage(though, to be sure, Palestinians and certain other groups can make similar claims on the land, just like Serbs have a legitimate claim on Kosovo and Greeks have one on Constantinople, which is now Istanbul). For Jews in Israel, Intra-Meritocracy is all that matters.
But then, notice how Jews spiritualize and tribalize their own claim to Israel while materializing and idealizing the national concepts of other peoples. So, while Israel has sacred blood-and-soil(and soul) meaning to the Jews, goy nations are to be judged purely on their adherence to ‘universal ideology’(distorted by the Jewish-controlled Globo-Homo US as the sole superpower) and material gains. So, if massive immigration might boost the economy, goy nations MUST welcome massive immigration EVEN IF there is a chance that the natives will be overrun by the newcomers. What does it matter when 'muh restaurant' trumps all other considerations? Or, the richer goy nations have a moral and political obligation to take in ‘refugees’ and poor migrants from all over the world. Materialism and idealism. But these rules do NOT apply to Israel, the priority of which is to preserve the spiritual-and-historical bond between the Jewish people and their land. Thus, Jews are mono-nationalists who believe that ONLY JEWS have a history, culture, blood, and heritage worth preserving for reasons above and beyond the call of abstract idealism and materialism(for profit or compassion). Just like Jewish monotheists disdained all gods and religions other than their own as ‘idolatry’, Jewish mono-nationalists disregard all goy identities, nations, and cultures as unworthy to defend and preserve. Down with poly-nationalism, say the Jews. Only Jews are magic whereas goyim are just matter. Only Jews have blood worth keeping, whereas goyim have the kind of blood that should be drained like with animals slaughtered in the Kosher Way. Indeed, it’s incredible that Jews have even made themselves the Only Sacred People of America. One might think that title should go to Anglo-Americans who founded and settled the New Nation. Or, it might go to the American Indians who'd lived on the land for tens of thousands of years before they met tragedy at the trampling feet of mass-invasion-immigration from the Old World. But NO, Jews figure that the ONLY truly Sacred People of America are themselves via the prophetess Emma Lazarus who turned the Statue of Liberty from a beacon of freedom to one of mass-immigration of Jews and others(who are to serve as the minions of Jews against the Anglo-Germanic-Celtic Americans). While Jews insist that their support for Immigration is out of compassion and concern for All of Humanity to make their dreams come true in America, the only Immigration Narrative that Jews really care about is their own. Jewish Immigration is seen as the modern Exodus. It was when the ocean was split open so that Jews could flee from the Tsar-Pharaoh to find freedom and happiness in the New World. (In time, white Americans may increasingly realize WHY the Russians and other Eastern Europeans came to hate Jews so much. White Americans thought Jews, finding unprecedented freedom and opportunity in the US, would stop acting like stereotypical Jews and become good decent Americans. How wrong they were. Give Jews an inch and they take a mile. The Old Narrative that Jews turned nasty and vicious mainly because they were forced into poverty and traumatized by ‘antisemitism’ now seems like a pile of manure. In America, Jews had it so good, but look at the nature of Jewish power in the US, and it has only gotten uglier and nastier than ever before.) If Jews really intend for the Holy Immigration Narrative for ALL GROUPS, why do they insist that All Americans, white and non-white alike, all get behind Israel, all support Zionism, all remember the Holocaust as the only great World Tragedy, and all turn a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians? Notice how Jews bitch about Donald Trump as Literally Hitler, but they are utterly silent about one area where Trump is indeed most Hitlerian: His blind and fanatical support of Zionist tyranny and brutality against Palestinians who are now poised to lose even the West Bank. How nasty and clever these vicious Jews are. They are in the process of erasing West Bank as the last remaining Palestinian homeland, BUT they coach their whore-puppet-politicians to mutter platitudes about how they are all for a ‘two-state’ solution. It is incredible what these vile and vicious Jews can get away with.
In a way, the first half of American history is roughly that of Sweden A while the second half has been of Sweden B. Even though the US had a variety of groups from the outset, Anglo-Americans were the most prominent and numerous, and furthermore, the Germanic populations were so racially close to the Anglo-Americans that, sooner than later, they became sufficiently Anglo-Americanized. This was also true of the Celtic Irish despite their Catholicism at odds with the predominant Protestantism among the Anglos and Germanics. This Anglo-and-Northern-European America was about freedom, liberty, and meritocracy BUT for the founding stock that comprised Core America. Thus, it was about Intra-Meritocracy. The Constitution, Rule of Law, Protestant Ethics, Enterprise, and Individualism all favored demonstrable merit over personal privilege by inheritance or connection(though reality didn’t always subscribe to principle). This foundational American had a clear sense of its racial & cultural composition and how America’s destiny was to grow as a Great White Power. Whites understood that Indian savages would have to be swept aside, and blacks must be relegated to physical labor in order for White America to be viable. One could say it was unfair to blacks and downright tragic for the Indians, but there was no other way America could have been created. Had Indians been allowed to hold onto the land, America would have remained a world of wilderness and savagery. And if blacks had been given equality at America’s foundation, they would soon have realized they could beat up whitey and gone on rampages and reverted to their jungle-jive nature. Slavery and white rule prevented blacks from going wild and acting totally destructive(as they now do all over Baltimore and Detroit); the post-Civil-Rights Era has proven that the ‘racist’ whites were more right than wrong. While their suppression of blacks was unjust from a purely sociological point of view, given what we now know about the black nature it now seems that social equality with blacks doesn’t work because whites and blacks are biologically so unequal in so many regards. Whites are better in brain work, and blacks are better in brawn force. So, whites out-earn blacks, and blacks beat up whites and rob white men of manhood and colonize the wombs of white women who’ve lost respect for their men as a bunch of cucky-wucks. In that sense, the suppression of blacks throughout most of American history was both unjust and just. It was understandably unjust to a black man who was told, "Hey nigger, why don’t you pick some cotton and dance like Uncle Remus?" Naturally, he would have wanted to kick the whitey’s ass. But precisely because the black man can so easily whup the white man, whites had sound reasons to deny equal rights to blacks. It would have been like chimps offering equal rights to bigger/stronger gorillas.
Anyway, roughly the first half of American history was like Sweden A. But there was gradual shift toward something like Sweden B, a inter-meritocratic society. It didn’t happen overnight but gradually, especially with the massive influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Unlike Germanics and Irish, these people looked somewhat different, and it was more challenging to turn them into ersatz Anglo-Americans. Even so, they weren’t the real problem as, over time, most of them did become Good Americans. The real problem was the half-white and half-Semitic Jews, a people of immense talent, keen intelligence, monstrous chutzpah, raging hatreds & resentments, and limitless lust for white wealth and white women. It was the Invasion of the Portnoys(and then Portnettes as, once unloosed, the Jewish women were just as ‘crazy’ as the men). Unlike most Southern and Eastern Europeans who struggled but eventually became part of Anglo-Germanic America, Jews remained apart because of their religion, unique sense of historical consciousness, and burning passion to take over as the new elites of America. Jews quickly realized that they could easily rise above the ‘dumb Polacks’, ‘childish Italians’, ‘drunken Irish’, and such ilk(indeed as they'd done so in the Old World, at least economically). Having risen above them, they would have to compete with the Wasps. Then, as the Wasp elites constituted the only real ruling class in America, Jews would have it ALL once they bested the Wasps. That was it. It was a two-step approach and made rather simple & all-too-possible under Wasp principles of meritocracy that gradually but dramatically went from intra- to inter-. In a corrupt and chaotic society, Jews would not have been able to rise so quickly above the white ethnics. As white ethnics came from clannish and tribal parts of the world, they had few qualms about fighting dirty and resorting to all sorts of corruption to ‘get what is ours’. The reason why Jews were able to rise about the ethnics with such ease was because the Wasps, not the ethnics, held the most power and had the final say in the US. So, while Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans pulled a lot of dirty tricks with the mafia or the machine, the ultimate power and say were with the Wasps. While Wasps were no angels and had their own long history of dirty tricks, they(along with other Northern European folks) were nevertheless the most honorable and principled peoples on Earth, relatively speaking of course. (Indeed, compare Anglos and Germanics in modern times with Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, Latin whites, and etc., and it's no contest as to which people were more trustworthy and honorable.) Because Anglos had the ultimate say in matters of power and principles, Jews could appeal to the Rule of Law and get justice from Anglo-Americans that they couldn’t get from the Italian-American mafia, the Irish Machine, ‘dumb Polaks’, the icky Greeks, and etc. So under the protection of Anglo Rule of Law, Jews were able to rise above the ethnic rabble. But did this make Jews appreciative and grateful of what the Wasps had provided for them? To have thought so was to know NOTHING about the Jews. Unlike the Japanese and Germans who were grateful for having been allowed to survive and rebuild their economies following World War II, Jews simply don’t have ‘gratitude’ in their vocabulary. By ways of Jewish culture and genetics(innate personality traits), Jews have less of softer & kinder characteristics, and if anything, when they see goyim being nice to Jews or doing them a favor, Jews think, "What a dummy!" Goy niceness is seen as weakness and vulnerability to exploit than a virtue to admire and reciprocate in kind. Also, fueled by their powerful personality and supremacist concept of ‘Chosen-ness’, Jews believe they should rule and dominate all the world, and that means taking over all societies. Early on, Jews understood that the US would be a great nation, the most powerful in the world, and if Jews just took over the US, they could use it like how the small kid used the big kid in the movie MY BODYGUARD.
But if the kid in the movie finally came to realize the human side of the big guy and learned to fight his own fight, the cunning and conniving Jews will always seek to tame one bunch of goyim to fight other goyim. Jews are king mixers(like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT) as their advantage often relied on the divide-and-rule strategy of making goy fight goy, just like the Romans and Chinese resorted to tactics that encouraged barbarians to fight barbarians. To Jews with their ancient pedigree, all other groups are just barbarians. As Jews see it, there is real culture, there is barbarism, and there is modernity. Real culture is rooted in ancient civilization, and among all the ancient cultures, it’s arguable that the only ones to have survived intact are those of Jews, Chinese, and Hindus. These are peoples who founded and created their own cultures. Among the Europeans, the Greeks were the only real culture-creators, but they lost out to the Roman barbarians whose civilization owed to stealing so much from the Greeks. Thus, whereas Greeks truly civilized themselves by founding a culture, Romans were barbarians who put on cultural pretensions by stealing from others. At any rate, the Romans fell apart, and their culture was lost. Then, Central and Northern Europe began to rise, but as far as Jews are concerned, peoples in those parts are also barbarians who, being unable to form their own high/deep culture, stole from the Greeks and Jews. Thus, unlike Jews, Chinese, and Hindus who created cultures of their own, the Western Europeans, as great as they became in power and wealth, don’t really have cultures of their own as they'd mostly rejected their own indigenous barbarian cultures in favor of high/deep cultures created and shaped by Greeks and Jews. As for modernity, it is essentially anti-cultural as it favors individualism, universalism, materialism, libertinism, consumerism, and hedonism. Modernity has opened up lots of possibilities and created all kinds of opportunities, but its overall effect has been to weaken, degrade, and destroy cultures around the world. Under the onslaught of modernism, Jews, Hindus, and Chinese are poised to weather the negative effects of rapid changes better than Europeans and especially White Americans. Northern and Central Europe did not have ancient high/deep cultures. Rather, they were barbarian folks who became civilized 'too fast' by borrowing the ideas, visions, and inspirations of other peoples. Because their ‘core’ culture is really a borrowed culture that doesn’t really belong to them in terms of origin or creation, it is easier for them to lose it under the assault of modernity. Jews are like a great tree with deep roots. Even if the tree is damaged by wind and storm, the roots remain deep in the soil. Western Civilization is like a huge tree with shallow roots. It grew too-big-too-fast with tons of borrowed fertilizers but hadn’t the time to allow its roots to penetrate deep into the soil over a long period. Thus, it can easily be toppled by external forces, and we are now seeing the impact of modernity on the West. Indeed, it’s amazing how easy it’s been for Jews to persuade white folks that ‘whiteness’ is just a social construct and that Western Civilization isn’t something that white folks can claim. If Jews tried to convince the peoples of China and India that their cultures and histories don’t belong to them, the Chiners and Dotkins would laugh in the Jews’ face, but whites seem totally captivated by the Jewish BS. It’s as if white people aren’t truly civilized but remain essentially as barbarians who only took on the outward appearance of civilization. It’s no wonder that Nassim Nicholas Taleb has such contempt for Northern Europeans who think so highly of themselves. While Taleb is most certainly wrong about I.Q., there is a kernel of justification in his derision of Northern European pride because success up there came too-much-too-fast without the requisite transformations that allowed peoples there to truly form meaningful identities. And this is true enough with the Swedes who were once ruthless Vikings but then became devout Protestants with their heads bowed low. How could a people change so fast from point A to point B? A people with real culture would not be so easily persuaded to take on another culture, but that is what happened to the Swedes in the past and is happening to them now. (If Europeans could so easily be persuaded to abandon their own indigenous cultures, accept 'Jew on a stick' as their main God, and accept Judaic scriptures as their own Narrative, it then makes sense why current Europeans can so easily be persuaded to abandon traditional morality for globo-homo and to exchange European identity for Afro-Globalist one. In a way, what they are doing now is in keeping with what they did in the past. Lacking foundational vision and imagination, they easily fall under the spell of those with bigger visions.)
While it may well be true that Northern Europeans have higher IQ, they don’t have very deep understanding of culture. As their IQ is mainly devoted to materialist search for ‘more stuff’, it hasn’t done much for a sense of culture. Europeans failed to come up with anything like a Covenant, Karma, or Familism. IQ is a tool, not a meaning. One thing for sure, if Jews and Nassim Taleb have anything in common, it is their cultural and even racial disdain for Northern Europeans as childish upstarts, a people with spirit and inspiration but no sense of longevity and direction. Indeed, the main reason for the longevity of European Civilization as a continuing process has been Christianity, a religion that was taken from the Jews. (Some European thinkers see continuity as a bad habit learned from Jews and call for a return to cyclicalism of rises and falls that are supposedly more in tune with nature and the organic way of things. In a way, such thinkers embrace barbarism as a vital element of the European soul. It is the necessary fire that burns away the accumulated dry wood of civilization that extends life way past its expiration date. As tragic as the fall may be, the new can be birthed only from the demise of the old. It's rather ironic that Western Europe that suffered the Fall of Rome experienced the Renaissance whereas the Byzantium that extended the life of the Roman Empire fell into stasis and stagnation. In both ZARDOZ and EXCALIBUR, John Boorman takes the Jungian view that mankind must not separate itself too far from the Way of Nature.) And, with the rediscovered fire of the ancient world during the Renaissance, parts of Northern Europe began to change dramatically and then rapidly, and indeed, the rise of Modernity(as most people understand it) must be credited mostly to France and Northern Europe. And yet, did Northern Europeans have the sufficient sense of roots-and-home not to get lost in their adventurous lunges forward? Could it be that the people who were most instrumental in bringing about modernity are also among the ones most endangered by it? Suppose there are adventurers with the drive, courage, and curiosity to venture into the unknown but without much in the way to redirect themselves homewards(much like the children in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA who, once they become immersed in the fantasy world, forget all about the real one until they are brought back almost by accident). They may be the most pioneering people but also the most lost people, and in a way, America has been a world of lotus-eaters where everyone forgets where they came from and who they are, especially as the meaning of 'American' has become pretty useless as anything but mindless consumer, shallow fashionista, and worshiper of Jews, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three. The only exceptions of late seem to be Jews and Hindus. (Even the Chinese cannot maintain their sense of culture and history in the US and Canada because Chinese-ness is rooted in learning & cultivation than blood and spirit. Only Hindus and Jews have something like a consciousness that emphasizes the unity of blood and spirit. For the Chinese, the highest value is education, learning, & status, and that means their priority in the West is to go to good schools and say/do anything to earn them the right kind of status among the right kind of people. In contrast, even as Jews and Hindus are also obsessed with success and status, they still have a sense of who they are that is more important than worldly success. Thus, their ancient consciousness is more resilient in the West. In contrast, almost all other groups have become hapless lotus-eaters in America that might as well be called ‘Amnesia-rica’.) Jews look upon white people in the way that older people look upon younger people. Young people have more spirit and energy but almost no sense of roots and hardly any sense of direction. They are mainly enamored of the New and Now. Granted, Jews and Hindus of modernity also share in the white obsession with the New — no one can escape from modernity in our world — , but there is MORE to Jewish and Hindu consciousnesses with their deep sense of ‘home’ and roots that are historical, ancestral, and cultural. Their sense of future, ambitious and modern as it is, comes with a map and compass that also remind them of whence they came and what they are with identities that are bigger than any idea, movement, or trend. White consciousness has become like blooming flowers. So fixated on highlights that it overlooks the fact that a flower isn’t just the bloom but the stem, leaves, and roots. And so, HBD community goes on and on about higher white IQ and greater white originality compared to most peoples, but such talk is all about the flowers and overlooks the deeper sense of whiteness that has value regardless of IQ.
At some point in US history, America as big Sweden A gave way to big Sweden B. Jews took over from the Wasps(whose children increasingly came under the intellectual influence of Jews and cultural influence of blacks) and decided to open the flood-gates so that white America could never constitute an effective united force against Jews as the new ruling elites. Thus, America became a World Nation, and as such, it was to absorb all the best talents from all corners of the globe. And in a way, one could argue the US has benefited from this. Because of its large black population, US often produces the best athletes around the world and grabs lots of gold at the Olympics. Also, because of black prowess in funky music, US pop music dominates the world scene. And because of Jewish business smarts and enterprise, US Hollywood dominates global cinema. And US has attracted the best scientists and engineers from the world over, which is one reason why the US leads in high-tech. Not only does the US have a core white population with lots of talent but it has attracted many of the best minds from Asia and Latin America who would rather work in the US and make more money than remain ‘stuck’ in their own nations where they earn less and have to deal with more corruption. US, corrupt as it is, is still not as bad as most major nations around the world.
But what has this done to the white race as a whole? It’s been utterly disastrous. While one could argue that Jews, blacks, and others contributed much to America with their special talents, their success also led to the degradation, humiliation, and ultimately even dehumanization of whites. If Jews had taken elite power and showed gratitude to white goyim as fellow racial brethren, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Instead, Jews used their great power to undermine the white race as much as possible. And what has black music and black sports really led to? Humiliation of the white male, decline in white manhood, and jungle fever among white women. A race cannot survive when the women of the race lose respect for the men. That is a historical truth, and so, while one can admire black achievements in athletics as a form of inter-meritocracy, the effect has been utterly dire for the white race. If whites had kept with intra-meritocracy that excluded blacks, they may not be the best athletes in the world but they could still be the best among their own kind... like the Ancient Greeks were the best in their Olympic events that was open only to Greeks. Isn’t it better to have local heroes for every people/nation than to have one set of global champions for all peoples? According to globo-logic, all nations should have and celebrate blacks since blacks can beat all races. France won the World Cup with mostly black players, but is it really a triumph for France or a symbol of its utter humiliation & defeat? When black Africans are the new face of French manhood and when even white Frenchmen cheer for blacks against whites of other European nations, it is double-cuckery: French bowing down to blacks as their new masters and then cheering on the blacks to beat OTHER whites as well. It's bad enough for French men to resign themselves to defeat and humiliation under black African athletic prowess, but it is downright disgusting when the whites of France hang their 'national' hopes on blacks as New French defeating all the white teams of Europe. Such is the distressing consequence of Inter-Meritocracy that, in favoring the Supreme-Best over Our Team, leads a people to even welcome defeat and humiliation at the hands of the Other as long as the Other has demonstrably superior talents over one's own kind. Now, it's one thing to admire the talents of the Other if indeed they are superior, but it's quite another to replace one's own with the Other simply because the Other is better. While in global competitions, all peoples should acknowledge the top winners, they should protect their own people AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL from the threat posed by the superior other. It's like the US has by far the most powerful military, a fact that must be acknowledged and even admired by all nations. Still, the role of every nation is to protect its own people and military from the Other that could very well be neo-imperialist US. It'd be stupid for all nations to put out and cuck to US power simply because it is the most powerful. Globalism says all the world should put out to US as the lone superpower, all the world should put out to blacks as the sole champions, all the world should put out to Jews as the sole wizard-masters, and all the world should put out to globo-homo as the new faith for all the world; and all of the Middle East and North Africa should put out to Israel as the region's only superpower. I rather admire Syrians and Iranians for saying NO to such hegemonic and supremacist conceits of Jews. Naturally, all people are fascinated by power for power's sake, but the most important question should be, "What is the implication of this power on my people, culture, and land?" It's one thing for coyotes to admire the power of wolves but quite another thing to invite wolves to coyotes' lair.
According to supremacist globo-logic, all nations should serve Jewish finance-capitalism since Jews are most adept and cunning in their mastery of money and trade. It’s like blacks should be champions for all the world, Jews should be money-lenders for all the world, China should be manufacturers for all the world, Hindus should be computer engineers for all the world, and etc. Under inter-meritocratic pressures, the state of the white race has been chipped away from all sides. Smarter Jews took elite institutions away from whites. Stronger blacks took sportsman pride and manhood from whites. East Asians and Hindus are taking college slots and white collar jobs from whites. And even the mediocre browns from south of the border are chipping away at white majority advantage in demographics. And even though America as World Nation is idealized as the place that attracts the best from the world, the current Open Borders madness also attracts many mediocrities and criminal elements. It’s even worse in Sweden where most newcomers, far from being people of skill/talent, are the dregs of society. Current Sweden isn’t even the hypothetical Sweden B that, for all its problems, still benefits from attracting top talent from all over the world. Most people of talent would rather move to the US than to a place like Sweden. Most people who are attracted to Sweden are moronic leeches from Africa and the Muslim World. Thus, Sweden gets the worst of both worlds. The natives lose to newcomers who are utterly without talent or worth as individuals. Meanwhile, the Best of Native Sweden are too brainwashed by PC, corrupted by globalist prizes(handsomely rewarded to cuck-elites who betray their own people and serve the Jews), and earnest in their do-goody national character to smell the coffee and finally wake up and do something about what amounts to White Nakba that will do to native Swedes what Zionist immigration-invasion did to the Palestinians.
Anyway, a healthy nation is about leaders, elites, heroes, and idols who stand up for their own people, and this can be assured ONLY THROUGH Intra-Meritocracy. While it is theoretically possible that the Other, upon gaining the top prizes of society, may commit itself toward serving the good of the native or majority people, it’s usually not the case. Do the white elites of Latin American nations really give a shit about the masses of browns on the bottom? Did Jews who streamed into Palestine one hundred years ago really hope to take control to do nice things for Palestinians? No, they were just laying the groundwork for massive expulsions of the Palestinian peoples. And while one could argue that the British Imperialists did some good for their non-white subjects around the world, their main priority was to make the non-whites serve the British overlords than vice versa. Same goes for the Jewish elites of America. Of course, the many Jewish contributions in science, medicine, technology, finance, media, and etc. have had positive benefits for white Americans. But what is the ultimate ambition of the Jews? To use their power and wealth to do what is good and right for ALL AMERICANS OR to manipulate the system and to mold minds so that ALL AMERICANS will be obedient dogs of Jews. Jewish masters make goy dogs bark at one another but command all goy dogs to roll over before the Jew. This is why this thing called ‘inclusion’ is really invasion. For a nation to maintain its integrity and viability, it must exclude most foreigners and restrict the competitive field to the nationals. Now, there may be a complicated and arduous process whereupon by foreigners can be absorbed into the national mainstream and allowed to become full citizens, but this must never be easy; it mustn't be like the crazy American way of turning foreigners into full-fledged citizens after only five years whereupon they have voting powers equal to that of Americans whose ancestries go back centuries(and stretch back into millennia into Europe, the civilization that discovered the Americas and birthed the American Civilization). When citizenship is made that easy, the nation is amnesiac than historical, and the amnesiac will always lose out to those who cling to the historical. The fact is the Jewish immigrants with their radical will and tribal resilience had no intention of just assimilating into Anglo-Americanism and becoming Good Americans. Just ask yourself. When all those Jews moved to Palestine, were they trying to become New Palestinians or Good Palestinians? No, they went there with the express purpose of taking over and re-defining Palestine into what they envisioned as the Jewish Nation.
Now, Palestinians and Anglos couldn’t have been more different as the former were small in number and weak whereas Anglos had conquered much of the world and were the most advanced/powerful people in the world. But it didn’t matter to Jews for whom both groups were merely goyim to conquer and control. If Jews saw Palestine as the base for Jewish Nationalism, they saw America as the base for Jewish Imperialism. Thus, Zionism was devised to be against assimilation. Jews moving to Palestine would NOT assimilate to Arab-ism, Islam-ism, or Christian-ism(as many Palestinians were Christian). Rather, Jews would go there with a powerful sense of tribalism and eventually expel the native Palestinians and take over as the New Natives(albeit with ancient historical claims of their own). As for Anglo-America, it reeked too much of Gentile-Nationalism to the Jews. Until relatively recently, to become an ‘American’ meant to become Anglo-Americanized. Not only did newcomers learn to speak English but they were instructed, informed, and entertained with images and words that made Anglo-American history at the center of the national narrative. Thus, even though America expanded with imperial ambitions, it had a certain national core in its self-definition, i.e. in order for newcomers to become American, they must essentially become Anglo-Americanized. That Anglo-element had a nationalizing impact on all Americans, Anglo or not. But with Americanism defined in such manner, how could Jews take over as the New Elites and overlords? It would mean Anglo-Americanism has primacy over Jewish-Americanism. In order for the US to go from an Anglo/American super-nation to a Jewish Globalist-Empire, the Anglo-American element had to be demoted, degraded, and disgraced as much as possible. (And of course, by this time, the English language, especially American English, has become the ‘lingua franca’ of the world, and therefore, many peoples everywhere feel that they own it just as much as Anglo people do. It is one of the dangers of cultural imperialism. While your culture may gain hegemony over the Other, the Other can claim your culture as their culture since it has become second-nature to them. The Jewish God sure became a World God fast enough with the rise of Christianity. And all the roads that the Romans built to conquer other lands became useful routes by which others invaded Rome.) Now, how could Jewish power supersede Anglo-American power? Jews, as relative late-comers, don’t have the foundational claim on America that Anglo-Americans(and some Germanic-Americans) have. Besides, Jews are only 2% of the US population, and furthermore, unlike Christian Civilizations, Jews never wanted to share Jewishness with others. Anglos didn't mind others learning English and emulating Anglo ways, but Jews weren't happy with non-Jews mastering Yiddish or Hebrew or doing Jewishy things. Therefore, Jewishness could never serve as the basis of Americanism like Anglo-Americanism could. If Anglo-Americanism allowed non-Anglos and even non-whites to take on Anglo-ish ways and become good Anglo-ized Americans, Jewish-Americanism demands that non-Jewish groups all get on their knees and bow down before Jewishness. Jewish-Americanism, unlike Anglo-Americanism, doesn’t welcome non-Jews into Jewishness. Instead, non-Jews must merely serve and honor Jewishness. Jewishness lacks the genericism of Anglo-ness and Christianity that allows some degree of acceptance. So, even though Wasp country clubs may have excluded non-Anglos, the modes and manners of Waspiness were open to all. Wasps had no problem with others trying to be waspy, and if anything, were flattered by it in places like India and Hong Kong where the Asiatic natives aspired to be like English gentlemen and ladies. In contrast, Jews really don’t like non-Jews to think, feel, and act like Jews. They only want non-Jews to worship at the feet of Jews. For that reason, Jewishness could not become the new template of Americanism. While all Americans were to honor, serve, praise, and worship Jewishness, they were always to be reminded that they are NOT Jewish, therefore inferior. Now, if Jewishness could not supplant Anglo-ness as the basis of Core Americanism, what could? Jews settled on Immigrationism because the Jewish-American experience is more about late-immigration than conquest, founding, settling, and building. By making immigration the centerpiece of Americanism, Jews made themselves(and other immigrant-groups) the people with the MOST claim to call themselves Core Americans. Now, one may wonder how this is good for Jews when MOST immigrants, then and now, are NOT Jewish(and many have been even wary of or hostile toward Jews). It’s because Jews became the kingpins of immigration, the most successful group with the most power. A conquering army may be made up of diverse peoples, but the only thing that really matters is the question of WHO are leading the hordes. Romans, Mongols, Turks, and the British used mercenaries and foreigners. As Alexander the Great conquered more territories, he recruited new warriors among the conquered tribes. But in the end, the power was with the Greco-Macedonians because they were the commanders. Likewise, Jews know that most immigrant groups cannot hold a candle to Jewish intelligence, drive, and radical will. Most will never rise very high and will end up serving the Jewish neo-imperialist elites hellbent on finally transforming the US from an Anglo-American(and Anglo-Americanizing) Nation to a Jewish Globo-Homo Empire.
Despite the imperialist aspects of Anglo-Americanism, there was something like American nationalism when immigrant groups were pressured to become Anglo-Americanized. It instilled them with the sense that the US, as powerful and great as it is, is not the world or a World Nation. Rather, it is a nation in which many people from around the world did their best to fit into a pre-established National Mold. In time, they could add to Americanism with stuff like pizza and taco, but there was a Core Americanism that was decidedly Anglo(and Germanic) in origin. But once Anglo-Americanism is degraded and discarded, America will no longer have a national core to bind it together. Instead, it will become a full-fledged World Empire headed by Jewish overlords who look upon America not as their national home but as their prize imperial possession, their Jewel in the Crown. America is to Jews what India was once to the British. The real spiritual national home of the Jews is Israel. Many Jews prefer to live outside Israel, just like so many Brits chose to live outside humdrum England in one of their imperial possessions. Even so, all Brits felt that Britain was their Mother Country, their true home. Likewise, Jews feel nationalist only about Israel. As for the rest of the world, Jews go into imperialist mode as they seek hegemony and dominance over all the goyim. Notice how Jews in Great Britain insist that all Brits support Israel as the sacred homeland of the Jews BUT also insist that UK must be ‘welcoming’ and become part of the globalist empire that is to be controlled by Jews at the top and filled up with Muslims and Africans from the bottom. With Jews, you lose.
Theoretically, it’d be nice if Jews weren’t like this and if they just regarded themselves as ‘different’ white people with much to gain by becoming part of white society. But this is nearly impossible with Jews because of their nature. Due to problems of ‘antisemitism’, it was thought that Jewish nastiness was just an overreaction to gentile mistreatment of Jews, but if we regard post-WWII West as a grand social experiment in Being-Nice-to-Jews, it’s become rather obvious that Jews act even WORSE when they are indulged and allowed to do as they please. But then, this raises the question of whether the main culprit of Jewish Evil is Philosemitism or Jewish nature. We saw with Hitlerism and Maoism what can happen to a nation when radical elements are allowed to run riot and act on their whims with blind support of the masses. Could it be that Jews went crazy after WWII for the same reason the Nazis went crazy with too much power and adulation? Could Jewish Power have developed more sensibly and responsibly IF it had been criticized like Wasp power once was? But then, the taboo of ‘antisemitism’ made it nearly impossible to honestly criticize Jewish power. Anti-antisemitism led to Philosemitism that led to Jews being allowed to indulge all their perversions, sickness, and dementedness.... like with Roman Polanski who is still protected and lionized by powerful Jews as ‘one of us’.
Or, is the problem much deeper? Philo-Semitism or not, is there something about Jewish nature that is innately vile, venal, ugly, and demented? In some ways, Jews developed many positive traits in their devotion to learning and trade, and yet, their immersion in mind and money also made them develop overly fanatical and cunning personalities. And some Jews are so extreme in their mental makeup that they seem utterly lacking in self-awareness of how ludicrous they can be. Andrea Dworkin was a living caricature of such Jewish mind-set but hardly an exception as too much of media, academia, and deep state are crawling with fanatical Jews with extreme personalities and worldviews. Generally, fanaticism, for all its dangers, at least comes with the virtue of earnestness and sincerity of devotion, but what is truly appalling about Jews is how they can be utterly fanatical and devious at the same time. It's like being totally honest with absolute lies. Jews are atrocious in their utter lack of honesty and honor. Even though they claim to stand for Inter-Meritocracy in the name of fairness and equality for ALL peoples, they don’t want to be equal with humanity but above it. They only pretend to care about blacks and non-whites(aka Diversity) to use them against moral, political, and demographic cudgels against whites. Indeed, especially damaging to whites has been the moral weapon of bleating about ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’ all the time. This isn’t really about justice but merely to silence whites(and other goyim) on the subject of Jewish Power by conflating any anti-Jewish feelings with the Shoah. As for the slavery narrative, why do Jews fixate so much on Anglo-American use of black slaves when slavery had been common all over the world at the time, and besides, Latin America, especially Brazil, imported many more blacks than the US did? And Jews also played a big role in the slave trade, directly or indirectly, as Jews or cryto-Jews. It has nothing to do with Jewish concern for justice. It’s just a power play to instill Anglo-American whites — the most successful and powerful whites around the world — with ‘white guilt’ so that they won’t possess the pride and confidence necessary for independent white interests. Thus enslaved morally, emotionally, and ‘spiritually’ to the dogma of White Guilt, whites will be putty in the hands of Jews, not least because the Holocaust Narrative has elevated Jews to the status of god-men through whom(and only through whom) the rest of humanity can be redeemed.
For Jews, there are two kinds of justice: One for themselves as the Master Race and one for the rest of humanity. There are times when Jews will especially favor one bunch of goyim over others, but it’s all about "Is it good for the Jews?" than for any genuine concern for justice. Granted, there are exceptions among Jews, but they are few and far between. Remember the time when World Jewry were simultaneously allied with Apartheid South Africa and working to undermine white power there? Jews bitch about the bad ole days of Jim Crow but enforce racial policies in Occupied West Bank that are many times more severe than anything in post-slavery American South and South Africa under Apartheid. IDF death squads even mow down women and children in Gaza who want to return to their homeland. According to Jews, Africans and Muslims who have NO ROOTS in the West have the ‘universal human right’ to invade and take over European nations, but Palestinians who’d lived in what is now Israel for 1,000s of years have no Right of Return. When Jews yammer about ‘universal morality’, it applies only to goyim, never to themselves as they live by the Master Morality of Jewish supremacism. If Jews are really about equality in the US, why do they pressure all politicians of both parties to favor Jews and Zionists over Muslims and Palestinians? How come no politician even raises the question of hypocrisy?
Anyway, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. To smarter Jews, whites lost most elite positions. To tougher blacks, whites lost most positions as cultural icons and sports idols that are so rich in symbolism. (Today, white men as cucky ‘white boys’ grow up in the US, Canada, France, UK, and Netherlands to admire black guys in sports and pop culture as their idols, heroes, role models, and representations of Western Manhood. With white males reduced to such embarrassing cucky-wuck status, white women have naturally been infected with jungle fever and welcome ACOWW as it’s part of female nature to go with the ‘winner’, and in our vulgarized and debased culture of thuggery and open sexuality, victory is measured in terms of who can holler loudest, punch hardest, and hump longest.) Having lost elite positions to Jews and manhood symbolism to the blacks, can whites at least look forward to dominating most white-collar jobs that offer job security and decent livelihoods? No, because endless mass-immigration from China and India will mean that whites will have to compete for those white-collar jobs with yellows and dotkins who, though not brighter, are more committed to studying night and day to make the exams.
— Battle Scarred Russian Bot (@AggroRussian) August 9, 2019
And whites even lose out to competition of quantity and economy. As browns keep pouring into the US from the south and as American jobs can be shipped off to nations with cheaper labor, working class whites lose to what might be called Inter-Mediocrity. Naturally, the working class is about mediocrity. It’s about people with average intelligence and limited knowledge. Thus, they cannot win in the game of meritocracy. Still, they can perform many tasks that don’t require advanced skills. True nationalism protects the Mediocrities as part of the national family, and traditionally, the working class of nation-states were favored, protected, and taken care of by the state and its elites. But no longer under globalism. If American mediocrities can be replaced with cheaper mediocrities, globalism says JUST GO AHEAD to boost the profit margins of the elites. So, just like Intra-Meritocratism is preferable to Inter-Meritocratism, Intra-Mediocritism is preferable to Inter-Mediocritism; the former protects the national working class from mediocrities from all over the world who may be willing to work for pennies than for dollars, for beans than for burgers.
