Beware of Holocaust Nihilism — How Ultra-Moralism Paradoxically Leads to Ultra-Nihilism — Righteous Is Mighteous

The Shoah is one of the great horrors of the 20th or any century. It is understandable why it has become central to how Jews define themselves. It is all the more frightening to Jews because so much of the world was ambivalent and even silent about the horrors when they were happening. And if the world did eventually defeat Germany, it had little to do with Saving Jews than with geo-politics. USSR ended up fighting Germany because it was invaded. And the US dragged its heels in the war to spare its own troops while the Germans and Soviets slaughtered one another(and Jews got slaughtered in between). And as the mass bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan showed, the US and UK could be pretty ruthless in wiping out entire parts of cities. Jews feel that if the governments of UK and US had been somewhat more pro-German, the Nazi regime might have prevailed and even become allies of UK and US. Then Jews all over the world could have been in big trouble. After all, the US was allies with many bloody regimes that killed 100,000s or even millions of innocents. There never was much moral consideration in foreign policy. And Jews themselves often looked the other way as they allied the Empire of Judea with regimes ruled by mass-killers. In other words, contrary to the Jewish Moral Narrative of the 20th century, matters were far more complicated than it would have us believe. If the subject of Shoah seems so starkly about Good vs Evil, it’s because the Nazis were so outlandish in their murderous ambition. The scale, scope, and specs of Shoah were such that we believe only a total evil regime could have done something like that. And because Jews were victims of such ghastly evil, there’s been a tendency to see Jews as the most innocent lambs among mankind. After all, why wouldn’t an utterly evil regime target the most wonderful and saintly people? But then, to be sure, Jews have been prone to turning EVERYTHING in their history as a matter of Evil Goyim vs Good Jews. The pogroms, for example, were far less deadly than the Shoah. Indeed, such pogroms had been happening all around the world, people vs people, tribe vs tribe, nationality vs nationality. The pogroms against Jews were vicious and brutal, but the victims were in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And even though many innocent Jews got slaughtered, there were legitimate reasons as to why the Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians were angry with Jews. But Jews overlooked all of that... just like Jews have, until recently, generally overlooked the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Jews would have us believe, Israeli Jews are innocent lambs who want to avert Another Holocaust whereas Palestinians are wolves filled with quasi-nazi ‘hate’. Never mind the 1948 Nakba pogroms that expelled Palestinians from their homes and towns. Likewise, Jews have turned Israel vs Iran conflict into a cartoon. Though Iran has no nukes and has complied with international inspections, it has been accused of harboring an Evil Plan to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, a gross distortion of what the Iranian president actually said. Meanwhile, Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and bans international inspections, but we are told that we must do everything to protect poor little Israel(with enough nukes to blow up Iran many times over) from Iran(that has zero nukes and, unlike Israel, didn’t attack or invade its neighbors). So, Jewish hyperbole isn’t limited to the Shoah. Jews flip out and foam at the mouth about everything. Take the anti-communist crusade of the late 40s and early 50s. Joseph McCarthy overplayed his hand, but it was far from a ‘witch-hunt’ as there were plenty of communist spies and fellow-travelers in the US government and institutions. But because many of them happened to be of the Tribe, the Jews circled the wagons and pushed the Narrative of the ‘Red Scare’, ‘anti-communist hysteria’, and ‘McCarthyism’. In other words, we're supposed to believe communists and their sympathizers were few and far between, and even if there were some, they were just well-meaning people whose civil liberties shouldn’t have been violated. Never mind that those Jewish leftists and communists had been totally supportive of War Hysteria during WWII and the ‘internment’ of over 100,000 Japanese-in-America. Jews have been no less hysterical about denial of membership to their grandfathers in WASP golf clubs. And Jews have also vastly exaggerated the lynchings of blacks. In the 100 yrs from the end of the Civil War to 1965, only a few thousand blacks were lynched(and many of them were rapists and murderers), but the Jew-run media would have believe that totally innocent blacks were hanging from trees like apples in an orchard. You’d think EVERY black family lost someone to lynching. And Jews flip out about the US turning away illegal ‘dreamers’ or the EU saying ‘enough is enough’ to mass invaders from Africa and Muslim World. All such constitute ‘nazism’. One might argue that the Shoah was so traumatic to Jews that they tend to frame everything in terms of ‘nazis’ and ‘holocaust’. But Jewish obnoxiousness has been around long before Shoah. The Jewish Way has always been ‘my way or the highway’. Their long experience with Monotheism and the Covenant conditioned them to believe that their Truth is the one-and-only truth and that they and only they have a special relationship with the Truth.

A closer inspection of the 20th century would have to consider that the great tragedies that befell Jews partly(and crucially) resulted from tragedies that befell other peoples at the hands or puppet-strings of Jews. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around. It’s like we can admit that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible and killed many innocents of all ages — it could have been far worse as the American Plan was to nuke 10 or 12 more cities until Japan surrendered — , but Japan-as-a-nation-and-world-power was hardly innocent in the events that led up to WWII. Because of the especially horrific nature of the nukings, there’s been a tendency among many Japanese(and some on the Western Left, especially in Europe) to see the event in terms of ‘white racist America’ mass-exterminating poor helpless Japanese. But even if one were to believe that the nukings were great war crimes and unnecessary(making them more evil), it still doesn’t exonerate Japan’s own role in WWII and its horrors, some of which were as evil and depraved as humankind could commit. Likewise, the destruction of Germany in WWII was so horrific and cost so many innocent lives that there’s been a tendency among those on the Far Right to make Germans out to be the misunderstood victims of WWII. But despite the fact that many innocent Germans(especially womenfolk and children) were killed or brutalized, there’s no getting around the fact that Germany had played a key role in triggering the biggest war of all time. What goes for Japan and Germany also goes for Jews. Because Jewish control the academia and media, people aren’t fully cognizant of the perfidious Jewish role in modern history. Also, because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own and instead operated through a world-wide network, a lot of bad Jewish behavior came to be associated with non-Jewish nations or empires. For example, Jews were the main sellers of opium in China, but most people just blame it on British Imperialism. Jews financed many slave ships and invested heavily in the Western colonization of the world. But because Jews remained in the shadows as financial puppet-masters, their power remained invisible. The Jewish world-wide-networks presented themselves as ‘British’, ‘French’, ‘German’, ‘American’, ‘Austrian’, ‘Russian’, etc.

Not having a nation of their own was both disadvantageous and advantageous to Jewish power. It was obviously disadvantageous because Jews had to operate as a minority in every nation. Even with all the money and success, Jewish power was precarious because Jews were vastly outnumbered by masses of goyim who might unite top-to-bottom as a force to contend with Jews, even expelling them for the umpteenth time. But the absence of their own nation was advantageous to Jews because they could have an Invisible Empire. Because the British had a nation of their own called Britain, theirs was known as the British Empire. And same logic applied to the French, Russian, Spanish, Ottoman, and other empires. But because Jews didn’t have a nation of their own, their Empire of Judea(or EOJ) latched onto and hid behind the empires of others. The Empire of Judea moved in the shadows of other empires. Unless one knew the details of who’s-who and the inner-workings of worldwide power, one could easily overlook and fail to detect the full extent of the Jewish Empire. It was a global Stealth Empire that evaded many political radars of awareness, all the more so because the EOJ bought up many goy politicians(to serve as fronts) and the (apparently ‘gentile’)media that seriously distorted public consciousness. Jews didn’t publish only distinctly Jewish journals but purchased Christian/pagan-created newspapers & magazines to use as fronts of Jewish Narratives. Anyway, prior to WWII and Shoah, the fact is the Empire of Judea in all its branches had sunk its claws into world affairs that led to unnecessary wars, communist revolution & mass killings, and cultural degeneration(that reached its heights in Weimar Germany) that understandably angered a lot of people. Thus, the idea that anti-Jewish violence was always about Big Nasty Goy beating on helpless innocent Jews is false. Rather, it was the result of Clash of Empires. Jewish Empire happened to be one of them, and for the most part, Jews gave as well as they got. Indeed, considering the number of Christians/pagans who died as the result of Jewish meddling in World Affairs, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say the Jewish Empire killed many more of the Other than was killed by the Other. Even though Jews weren’t the ONLY people responsible for World War I's spiraling out of control, communism, and financial robbery that led to the Great Depression, they were among the key movers and shakers of history. Thus, the victims of the Empire of Judea in the 20th century would have to count in the tens of millions. For one thing, Jews played an instrumental role in getting both UK and US into WWI. And Jews were the main financiers of the Bolshevik Revolution. And after the Cold War, Jews were the main operatives behind US involvement in the Middle East and North Africa that has destroyed millions of Arab and/or Muslim lives.
Of course, due to the rise of Israel as a Jewish state following WWII, it has been more difficult for Jews to maintain an Invisible or Stealth Empire. What with so many US politicians being bribed, blackmailed, and goaded into chanting, "Israel, Israel, Israel", people can’t help wake up to the extent of Jewish Power that is now linked to a particular geography and ethnicity.

But Jews will not settle for a complex reading of history in which they were as much perpetrators and aggressors as preys and victims. There are several reasons for this. Jewish personality tends toward self-righteous obnoxiousness. Jews fear that non-Jews are too childlike and dumb to understand complexity, and so, it’s better to push a children’s tale of history with Good Guys and Bad Guys(where Jews are the ultimate Good Guys and anyone or any people who counter Jewish hostility with hostility-in-kind are the Bad Guys). Jews are in supremacist mode despite their small numbers, and this means they must paralyze non-Jewish majority with a heavy dose of the Guilt Pill lest they wake up and stand up to Jewish Power. Also, the ebbing of anti-Jewish sentiments have made it easier for Jews to assimilate into the larger community, and certain Jewish elites fear the loss of Jewish identity as the result of Gentile Niceness. Since most Jews are secular and irreligious, the Shoah has become like a replacement covenant for Jews with History. For those reasons, Jews now define themselves mainly with the Holocaust. The Shoah Narrative informs Jews that they suffered more than any other people. Or, even if there had been comparable horrors around the world all throughout history, Shoah is still worse because (1) the victims were Jews, a very wise and wonderful people and (2) the perpetrators were Germans, among the most educated and advanced people on Earth at the time. It’s a matter of who/whom. Such is the reasoning why the Jew-run US media find it far more tragic for Jews to get killed by Palestinians than the other way around. Jews are special, Palestinians are not. Jews are a godly race of people, whereas Palestinians are humans-as-animals.

Of course, there’s an outrageous irony here. Jews say the Shoah was a great evil act because a certain people were killed by the bushel on the basis of racial supremacism. But the very notion that the Shoah was especially evil because JEWS were killed is premised on Jewish Supremacism. In other words, if Germans had been nice to Jews and killed millions of other people, it wouldn’t have been as bad because those victims, not being Jewish, weren't as precious. In keeping with such logic, Jewish Media have us believe that a bunch of Jewish Hollywood writers who were blacklisted for a few years suffered greater tragedy than over 100,000 Japanese-in-America who were sent to ‘internment’ camps. But such rationale can only be explained by a Jewish Supremacist worldview that posits that it’s worse to persecute Jews than other peoples. There wasn’t much outrage in the US about the 100,000s of Iraqis killed by US sanctions(under Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright). But imagine if the US had enforced sanctions on Israel that killed 100,000s of Jewish women and kids. Jews would freak out. So, Jews are indeed supremacist. Jews, religious and secular, believe that a single Jewish life is worth a million non-Jewish lives. Jews since the Shoah have acted like each and every one of them is a son-of-god or daughter-of-god. Better than the rest. And since Jews judge worth mainly by wit and intelligence, they were bound to grow contemptuous of other peoples as inferior and deserving to be ruled by Jews. Secular Leftist Jews suppressed such thoughts on the conscious level, but subconsciously they too harbored such feelings because, after all, when we assess Jewish attitudes by their actions than their words, they reek of supremacism and arrogance. In a similar vein, blacks are in supremacist mode because they judge worth according to the Junglometrics of fist, dong, booty, and volume.

Because Jews feel as they do, they’ve grown pathologically self-righteous, sickeningly sanctimonious, pompously holier-than-thou, nastily judgmental, and viciously inquisitional. Granted, Jews are not alone in being corrupted by moral arrogance. Those who are excessively moralistic tend to become blind to their own follies and hypocrisies. So full of themselves with an innate sense of nobility, they feel justified in all their hatreds, hostilities, and aggressions(as God is on their side). Christians and Muslims wre often like that. And of course, communists felt justified in wiping out millions in service to the Cult of Justice. People like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and Pol Pot really thought they were the Avenging Angels on the right side of history. And the US and UK went to excesses too in WWII. Because they were at war with the vile empires of Germany and Japan, they felt justified in carrying out acts of destruction that could also be construed as evil. So, Jewish moral hypocrisy isn’t unique in history. But we need to worry about it more because (1) Jews rule the world through the Empire of Judea (2) Jews have ‘epigenetized’ the Shoah so that all Jews for all eternity shall be regarded as the Holy Holocaust People (3) Jews are carrying out the greatest acts of evil around the world — spread of Homomania, Wars for Israel(that has destroyed millions of lives), insane sanctions on Iran, ‘new cold war’ with Russia, push for Demographic Imperialism against the West, and spread of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Jews are behind all such. Jews are waging war on the white race, all of humanity, and the meaning of civilization itself. George Soros, a most vile and vicious mastermind of Globo-Chaos, isn’t alone. Too many Jews share his views and anti-values.
Worse, unlike Nazis who were at least honest in their supremacism, arrogance, and aggression, Jews would have us believe that their Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacism is about ‘human rights’ and ‘justice’. Yeah right, conflating homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting with Marriage, Morality, and Spirituality is what Justice is all about. Jews push such nonsense on the global scale, yet so many morons around the world have fallen for it.

At some point, Holocaust Moralism turned into Holocaust Nihilism. Perhaps, such could have been avoided IF Jews hadn’t sought globo-supremacist power and/or didn’t have the means to amass so much power and wealth. Following WWII, imagine if most Jews had been content to just lead normal lives and get along with others. They might have stuck with Holocaust Moralism, i.e. they would have led lives guided by moral lessons from Shoah, and they would have, honestly and with good-will, tried to impart those lessons to others. But Jews didn’t seek normality after WWII. They obsessively sought domination in industry, institutions, ideology, and everything. Whether they were capitalists, communists, Zionists, or whatever, they wanted more and more power and control. So, as Jewish Power and Wealth kept on expanding(often through nefarious means and methods), Jews needed to whitewash and launder more of their violations and transgressions through the washing machine of Shoah. As Jewish power got bigger and fouler, there was the likelihood of increasing anti-Jewish criticism. Jews suppressed it by waving the Holocaust Flag over and over and over.
Also, Jews knew that the Holocaust Cult could be effective ONLY IF the world accepted the Jewish Mythology of the Event. On the one hand, Jews wanted the world to never forget and look back again and again and again on what happened to Jews in WWII. Jews feared that the people would forget or not care anymore. So, every generation was placed on the Holocaust Carousel.
At the same time, Jews didn’t want the world to pry too deeply into what really happened and WHY. If people looked too closely, maybe it wasn’t 6 million who died. Maybe it was 5 million, 4 million, or 3 million. Maybe most Jews were killed by gunfire than by gassing, a more sinister-form of extermination. And if we look more closely as to WHY so many people came to hate Jews, maybe Jews weren’t such innocent victims and saints. Also, contrary to the Jewish Narrative that says innocent and saintly Jews had been terrorized & brutalized by irrational ‘anti-Semites’ all through the ages, maybe Jews repeatedly did things to piss off just about every people. So, as horrible and evil as Shoah was, maybe it wasn’t only the culmination of rabid & virulent anti-Jewish hatred that had been passed down over many centuries but also the culmination of rabid & virulent Jewish behavior that finally unleashed the most extreme kind of reaction. Indeed, odds suggest that Jews were more to blame for anti-Jewish attitudes among non-Jews through most of history. After all, just how is it that Jews got kicked out of so many places? Also, if not for the protective shield of Holocaust Cult, ‘antisemitism’ could well return to the West in no time because so much of Jewish behavior is so appalling and disgusting. To better clarify the point, imagine there is a guy named Bob. Suppose Bob comes to be hated and rejected by a 100 people. What are the odds that Bob is a nice guy or an innocent victim while all the people who've come to hate him as the real jerks? Now, if Bob were well-liked by 90 people and hated by 10, one might think the problem may be with the 10 who hate him. After all, if so many people like Bob, the odds are he is a swell guy. Or, suppose 50 people like Bob and 50 people hate Bob. The odds here would be more iffy. Who are right? The 50 who like him or 50 who hate him? But if Bob is disliked by all 100 people, the overwhelming odds are NOT in Bob’s favor. And this logic applies to Jews in relation to goyim. They came to be so universally distrusted, despised, and hated that it seems unlikely that it was never the Jews’ fault but everyone else’s. Imagine there’s someone on Ebay or Amazon who has a rating of 0 Positives and 100 Negatives. Now, there is an infinitesimal chance that the person is really a good guy and it’s the 100 people who gave him negative marks who are at fault. But what are the odds that such would be true? The overwhelming odds are that the guy is rotten seller/buyer and cheated lots of people who gave him a negative mark for good reasons. Then, the same logic applies to Jews. If 100 peoples who dealt with Jews found Jews to be pretty vile and rotten, the chances are the fault was with Jews than with all ONE HUNDRED of the peoples. And this isn’t difficult to understand when we consider many of the prominent Jewish personalities. Some of them were talented and did great work in their fields, but so many of them were A**HOLES: Susan Sontag, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, Woody Allen, David Mamet, Philip Roth, Pauline Kael, John Simon(Jewish in ancestry), Gene Siskel, Harvey Weinstein, Paul Krugman, Stanley Kubrick, Bob Dylan, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Leon Trotsky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Michael Savage, Rob Reiner, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Katha Pollit, Tony Kushner, Martin Peretz, Adam Sandler, Bernie Madoff, Jennifer Rubin, William, Kristol, David Remnick, Sandra Bernhard, Lena Dunham, Barbra Streisand, Darren Aronofsky, and the list goes on and on and on. They are like the passive/aggressive homo-Jew-kid in MIDNIGHT COWBOY who gets a free blowjob, cheats people, but plays the poor victim. Jews have lots of talent, but dealing with them is like working with cactus. In a way, it's understandable why Jews developed social instruments like quills on a porcupine. Vastly outnumbered by non-Jews, they needed to be tough and have strong defensive strategies. But just like a porcupine always has its quills, Jews always got their thorniness even when they aren't in danger. So, even a person who wants to be friendly with a porcupine can be harmed, and even a person who approaches Jews with no ill intent can get pricked badly.

Anyway, when a people become so cocksure of their moral grandeur, they take on godlike attitudes. They think in holier-than-thou terms. They believe they and all their deeds are morally justified because of their holiness. As such, they effectively become nihilists despite or especially because of the moral sanctimony. It’s like Christians in the Middle Ages who tortured and killed a lot of people were blind to their own evil because they were so sure that God was on their side. Since everything they did was in the name of Jesus, how could it be wrong? Thus, there were bouts of Christian Nihilism all throughout Western History. After all, how did the Christian West grow so powerful? By adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ? No, by wars, invasions, greed, slavery, exploitation, and etc. Now, other civilizations and peoples did the same thing as history is one long bloody mess, but in some ways, Christians were more blind to their own evil precisely because they were so morally and spiritually full of themselves. When Vikings and Mongols went around bashing heads, they knew very well morality had nothing to do with it. They were out for plunder and loot. But when Christians also acted out of greed and conquest, they often failed to see the baseness of their interests because they were wrapped in the sanctimony of God and Jesus. Morality can make us aware of our failings, but paradoxically, it can also make us even blinder to our failings. Because morality makes us feel justified and sanctimonious, we can fall into the trap of believing that our acts of wanton greed and domination are in the name of serving God, Jesus, or some higher truth. This is how communism became so utterly blind to the horrors it committed all around the world. The Cult of Justice blinded the True Believers to all the violence and bloodshed. And in time, the new communist elites were mainly in it for the Power and Privilege, but they maintained the myth they were all about serving the scientific laws of history. (Science being amoral, why would a scientific reading of history favor a form of justice based on certain moral precepts?) In our secular time, the New Cult is the Conceit of Intellect. The reason why so many PC-commissars in media and academia are utterly blind to their own deceptions, betrayals, corruption, and evils is because they’ve been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe that they are intellectually and ethically ‘more evolved’; after all, they conflate the image of the rainbow with homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting. It’s a conceit of intellect because PC relies so much more on idolatry-of-celebrities and iconography-of-false-gods(such as MLK) than on true intellect that should be rational, skeptical, and critical of all official truisms funded and pushed by globalist oligarchs and their tribalist overlords.

There are three ways a moral-thought-system can be used. It can be used as a rule-book, a reminder & restraint, or righteous weapon. For the ambitious, morality-as-rule-book is difficult because ambition implies aggression, conquest, and domination. It’s about winning, and that brings out the barbarian in everyone. Especially if the moral-thought-system is something like Christianity, it is difficult to use as rule-book because Jesus’ teachings are so idealistic and impractical. And it’s many times more difficult if a people’s ambition is to gain the world. The Imperial West decided to gain the world through voyages of discovery and wars of conquest. It couldn’t act very Christian.
If a moral-thought-system can’t be used as a rule-book, it can still have value as reminder-and-restraint. Christianity-as-reminder-and-restraint will not prevent wars and conquest. But it can still have value in limiting the levels of destruction and exploitation(and gradually leading to redemption and reform). It’s like Anglos, due to Christian ethos, pulled back from total extermination of the American Indians. And slavery eventually ended under Western Imperialism because of moral reminders of its unpleasantness and cruelty. Also, the US could have wiped Japan off the map in WWII but pulled back from total destruction, the kind Romans brought upon Carthage. There were Christian reminders and restraints that prevented the US from going all the way like Genghis Khan did(and Hitler planned to do, especially in Russia).
Finally, there is the morality-as-righteous-weapon, and this is the most problematic. Those who come under this spell have no use for morality as rule-book. They just feel blessed and anointed by the righteous creed. So, whatever they do is justified because their moral-thought-system makes them feel so self-righteous. Consider the Teutonic Knights who could be ultra-cruel and ruthless. Christianity for them wasn’t a rule-book but a righteous hammer. And because they felt so righteous in their violence, there were few reminders and restraints on their behavior.

And this is what has become of Jewish Power. To be sure, there are some Jews who believe Shoah should serve as a rule-book for the Tribe, i.e. because Jews suffered so horribly during WWII, they should never forget the main lessons of Shoah and act accordingly. People like Norman Finkelstein believe Jews should not oppress other peoples because Shoah taught Jews what it is like to be oppressed and exterminated. Then, there are other Jews who aren’t as idealistic but still believe that Jews should be more cautious and contemplative in their behavior. Maybe, Jews should work for some kind of mutual understanding with other peoples and arrive at some kind of compromise. These Jews believe that Jews cannot rely solely on the goodwill of others for security and survival. Jews need great power, and great power means Jews having to do some unsavory things. Still, these Jews believe there should be some limits to Jewish behavior. Jews must be mindful not to become like the Nazis, the very people who did Jews most harm. And then, you got Jews who are only interested in using Shoah as the righteous moral hammer of greed, power, and vengeance. According to people like Abe Foxman, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, Jennifer Rubin, Paul Krugman, Chuck Schumer, Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and etc., the Holocaust Cult gives Jews the Righteous Moral License to do just about anything. By such logic, Jews are forever Holocaust Victims no matter what they do. And whomever Jews hate and kill are the ‘new nazis’ simply because they happen to be enemies or rivals of Righteous Jews. Since Jews are the Holocaust People, all their ‘enemies’ must be ‘new nazis’ or ‘new hitlers’. This is truly a form of nihilism, but Jews are blind to this truth because they are intoxicated with the moral-spiritual conceit of being Eternal-Holocaust-Children. So, we have a perverse phenomenon of Judeo-Nazi globo-supremacists destroying so much of humanity morally, culturally, demographically, or physically but drunk with the demented conceit that they are forever the Righteous-Avenging-Angels-of-Holocaust. We have Holocaust Nihilism. It's no wonder Jews could love a movie as ugly and demented as Quentin Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.

It is ironic that the profound moralism of Shoah eventually led to the perverse nihilism in its name, but it all makes sense because elevated moralism can lead to god-think, and god-think makes people feel holier-than-thou and above the conventional rules of humble humanity. After all, the Greeks gods aren’t bound by human rules of right/wrong and proper conduct. They cannot be judged like humans are judged. And this was an even bigger moral problem in Judaism. Because the Jewish God is the one and only God, the God of supreme power and of all things, He must be beyond human morality far more than any pagan god is. After all, many pagan gods are recognizably human, and they aren’t said to be all-powerful. In contrast, the Jewish God is said to be the only God and all-powerful. With such total power, He must truly be beyond the realm of man. Human morality must be a joke to Him. He must be the ultimate nihilist, one that may even demand endless human sacrifices. But even as Jews made their God so far beyond and above human dimensionality, they also made Him a most moral God. So, the Jewish God is most removed from humanness yet most committed to issues of human good and evil. This contradiction cropped up especially in the stories of Abraham & Isaac, Job, and Jesus. All three tried to reconcile a God so beyond humanity with a God so closely bound to human fate. One conception of God leads Him to ever greater feats of nihilism. In the Book of Job, God plays with the hapless fellow like a child tearing off wings of a dragonfly. And when Job asks why, God’s answer sounds awesomely nihilistic. He says mankind shall not judge Him by their own petty rules of right-and-wrong. The human heart-and-mind are too feeble to understand the true designs of God. And yet, there is also the other conception of God that makes Him ultimately responsive to Job and provides recompense for all the hardships done to an innocent person.

However one may interpret the Bible, one thing is for sure. Mankind should not play God. Jesus is the only one who got away with it but only because He offered Himself as the sacrifice. If a man were to gain godlike powers, the natural tendency would be to become above-the-law, wallow in nihilism, and feel really high-and-mighty, like Tetsuo in the anime work AKIRA. After all, to be godlike means to be amass huge powers like the character in SPLIT by M. Night Shyamalan. Jesus was tempted by such powers but chose humility and service to mankind.


It was troublesome enough for mankind to try to reconcile God’s higher powers with human morality. After all, what would be the point of being godlike if one has to stick to human standards? It’d be like having wings but still walking on legs. It’d be like being rich but still being thrifty. To have more power means more possibilities, and usually that means more freedom to indulge one’s desires. So, it’s understandable why Zeus acted the way he did. On the one hand, Greeks weren’t too keen on his promiscuity and sometimes unscrupulous use of power. On the other hand, Greeks admired his brazenness and egotism... just like lower-fratboys admiring the Big Man on Campus who gets more girls and gets out of trouble as a 'popular guy' as 'golden god'.
Many feel the same way about famous people, stars, and celebrities. On the one hand, we rebuke their self-indulgence and disdain for common morality. Yet, they are also objects of adulation for their means to fulfill their desires that are shared vicariously by ‘little people’. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson had huge fan-bases to the very end despite or especially because they were above-the-norm in so many respects. With fame and money, they could live the dream life, and even when they did despicable things, there were always fans who either forgave them or loved them even more for breaking all the laws(that restrict the Little People). This is the dark side of the Randall McMurphy character in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. On the one hand, he brings life and spontaneity to the mental ward. But he soon becomes an object of cult worship, and others come to love him simply because he has the devil-may-care audacity to break all the rules. Because McMurphy, like Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE, is hemmed inside an 'oppressive' system, we tend to sympathize and cheer on his antics. But there is a streak of nihilism that grows ever more problematic.

Granted, there are People-of-Power who care about the Little People and prefer to use the considerable means at their disposal to make for a more just society for everyone. Not every person with great power or privilege wants to indulge himself and act like common morality doesn’t apply to him. Some People-of-Power find the antics of rich celebrities and pop stars to be childish and infantile. They want to do something truly noble and grand.
But then, there are many Little People whose only dream is to rise high and gain the means to act like total pigs. After all, most Little People didn’t choose to be ‘little’ out of goodness or meek humility. They were either born ‘little’ or forced to be ‘little’ by circumstances, limitations, or oppression. There is a tendency among some on the Left to consider ‘little people’ as inherently good, noble, and humble. But in fact, many ‘little people’ are just celebrity-wanna-be’s and indeed care more about celebrities than fellow ‘little people’. Look at all those low-income Negro thugs who, instead of working to make for a better community, emulate big-name rap celebrities and only care about bling and will even kill for it. Little People have many pigs among them.

This was one of the problems with Jews. Many Jews arrived in the US as huddled ‘little people’, and some well-meaning progressive Wasp elites took pity on Jews as humble folks who wanted to be Good Americans. Now, many Jews were like that. They were good people looking for a nice decent place to live and make ends meet. But there were also plenty of Jews who started on the bottom but had insatiable ambitions of greed, lust, pride, and arrogance. They arrived ‘little’ by circumstances but wanted to be the gods of America. This kind of Jewish mentality was in plain sight with Jordan Belfort of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET notoriety. To be sure, it’s a universal trait among all peoples, but it’s been more problematic with Jews because they have chutzpah, more obsessive personalities, and greater ability due to higher IQ. So, Jewish ‘little people’ rose to great heights of power with more resentment, chip-on-their-shoulders, and knives hid behind their backs. And when these people with gangster-prophet mentalities wrapped themselves in the shroud of the Holocaust Cult, they became nearly insufferable. They became like the Mafia + Gypsies + Jesuits. Their limitless ambition, manic greed, and insatiable lust became conflated with self-righteousness and self-worship. The Jewish Logic went as follows: "Because we suffered the Holocaust, the greatest tragedy of all time, every single one of us Jews is a neo-jesus-christ, and because we died for the sins of mankind, those damned goy anti-Semites, we are godlike and above the morality of stupid goy little people. We, as the god-race of neo-jesuses, can do anything we want because we are above and beyond the laws and morality of stupid goy little people who lack the ability, depth, comprehension, and tragic souls of us great noble saintly awesome Jews." So, ruthless Jewish ambitions and appetites are all justified by Holocaust Nihilism. The Shoah elevated Jews to godly status. They are holy because NO PEOPLE suffered like Jews, apparently. (Or even if other peoples did suffer comparably or worse, their suffering wasn't as tragic because they weren't as special as Jews. It's like so many people were crucified by the Romans, but they count for less than Jesus because only He was the Son of God.) And this holiness is ‘epigenetically’ passed down from generation to generation for all eternity. And we worthless goy Little People must all get down on our knees and love Jews like Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother. We must never judge Jews just like we are never supposed to judge God. God’s laws are beyond human understanding, and the Jewish Way is beyond us because Jews not only have superhuman intelligence and prophetic vision but because they’ve been elevated to higher planes of spiritual-morality due to their neo-crucifixion in the Holocaust.

So, there you have it. Shoah, which could have been a great moral guide for Jews in their understanding of morality and history, became a cult with which Jews made themselves into a race of holy god-men whose truth, morality, and laws are so high above ours that they don’t need to heed to rules that apply to the rest of us. To be sure, Negroes and Homos also have this megalomaniacal mind-set due to natural and socio-economic reasons. Blacks and Homos are naturally more self-centered and uninhibited in their self-glorification. But this natural tendency has been amplified by Jewish Power’s favoring them over other groups. So, blacks now believe it is their right to attend good schools even when they fail. They believe they shouldn’t be suspended even when the act rotten in school. They believe they shouldn’t be arrested for criminal acts. Even when blacks act bad, they get angry with people noticing bad black behavior. We are supposed to avert our gaze from black badness. Or, we are supposed to pretend black badness is really goodness. Or we are supposed to blame whites or other non-blacks for black badness on grounds that black badness is just the product of historical trauma because NO ONE suffered as much as blacks(with the exception of Jews). And it is truly amazing that Homos never got the blame they deserved for the HIV epidemic, just like Jewish radicals never got the blame they deserved for spying for the Soviet Union and doing other subversive things in the Cold War. We are not supposed to notice reality when it comes to Jews, blacks, and homos. We are just supposed to believe in the miracles of Jewishness, blackness, and Homo-ness. It’s like fraudulent Christian charlatans don’t want you to see the fakery behind their bogus miracles. Don’t look behind the curtain. Just look at the ‘miracle’ and believe. Believe in the myth of the Eternally saintly and innocent Jew who’d been wronged through the ages. Believe in the myth of the Noble Negro who only sought freedom and dignity and wanted a pet a little white mouse. And lives in Wakanda. Believe that homo fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting are all about the homo-rainbow that now drapes every other church in the US and nearly all the churches in EU.

Shoah was a great tragic event, and it needs to be remembered properly. But Holocaust Nihilism is one of the great soul-sicknesses of our age. Indeed, it is on par with Nazism itself. Because Holocaust Nihilism makes Jews feel so sanctimonious and morally holier-than-thou, it blinds them to the ugliness of their greed, lust, hatred, and contempt. They act like vile pigs but only see themselves as poor helpless Jews because epigenetics tell them the Holy Holocaust trauma-DNA will forever inform Jewish consciousness. Also, we are to believe that because Shoah was so unbelievably evil(the work of Satan himself), its victims didn't merely survive but came to radiate with the aura of messianic holiness. They became superhuman and immune to the norms of humanity.

So, it doesn’t matter what Jews do. They can spread the ugliest hatreds toward Palestinians, Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Christians, and white goyim. Jews believe that even their most immoral, vile, and disgusting emotions and actions are holy and justified because they are the Holy Holocaust People. Just as God felt justified in killing countless people in His name in the Bible, Jews(in their self-worship) feel they are justified in playing ruthless games with humanity and history because everything about them is holy schmoly.
Concerning God’s terrifying actions, we can at least theorize and rationalize because, after all, He is the all-knowing and all-seeing Master of All. So, maybe there is a mysterious rhyme and reason to the things He does that we sinners and Little People just can’t understand... in the way that a fish cannot understand the way of humans.
But such mindset, when applied to Jews-as-gods, is pure nihilism. No matter how smart & capable Jews are, no matter how bold & ambitious Jews are, and no matter how tragic & traumatic Jewish history has been, the fact remains that Jews are people like the rest of us. Even if they are smarter people, they are not a godlike people. When Jews indulge in Holocaust Nihilism, it goes far beyond pulling rank. An officer in the military may demand respect from a person of lower-rank, but he too is bound by strict codes, and the rules apply only in the military. In contrast, Jews aren’t merely pulling rank but pulling realm. They are saying their souls exist in a realm of higher dimensionality above and beyond the souls of us inferior goyim. They are saying that the Shoah revealed every member of the Jewish Race to be a messiah over and above the rest of us. Jews no longer need to await the Messiah. Every Jew is the messiah. Around the time Jews experienced Shoah, they also built the atomic bomb. Just like Jesus suffered greatly and died but then rose to Heaven and returned as the Son of God, the Jews who suffered so horribly in WWII arose from the war’s end with the most powerful technology mankind had ever seen. It's like the atomic explosion was the resurrection of the Jew. With it, Jews demonstrated their godly genius and capabilities.


Usually, a people with great power need to be self-critical and criticized by others. In the 20th century, Jews demonstrated that they have the means to gain more power than any other people. In pound-for-pound terms, no people come remotely close to Jews in their ability to make money, gain influence, and advance science & technology. So, Jews are a great people but also a potentially terrifying people who can use their power for great evil as well as for good. If the Jewish lesson from Shoah wasn’t simply, "We’d been greatly wronged" but also "We too could act like Nazis IF we lose our way", Jews could have been a great force for good. Instead, so many holders of Jewish Power became essentially Judeo-Nazis who are all the more dangerous because they believe that Shoah both absolves them of all guilt and justifies whatever they do as the Holy Holocaust People. Humanity must wake up and work together to counter Holocaust Nihilism. The world will be destroyed if it continues to be dictated by Neocons, Wall Street sharks, Hollywood degenerates, Homomaniacs, Mass-Invasion peddlers, Big Pharma, and pushers of Afro-Pornification of Culture(even down to young children).

Response to "Against David Irving’s View of Hitler" by Eric Zuesse

http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/

Zuesse:

Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view… tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen.

No... The real problem of Goldhagen in relation to Palestinians isn’t tribalism or nationalism. It is IMPERIALISM. If Zionists compromised and allowed a nation-state for Palestinians, Jewish tribalism could co-exist with Palestinian tribalism. Unfortunately, Zionists are in imperialist mode and denying the right of tribalism to the Palestinians. Jewish Globalists are tribal-imperialists. Their attitude is ‘tribalism for me but not for thee’. THAT is the problem. If Jews accepted universal tribalism/nationalism, they would get along better with other nations. But even as they promote their own tribalism, they attack the tribalism of others. Jews use their influence to destroy Arab nations or sanction Iran. These Wars for Israel have led to the swamping of Europe with ‘refugees’.

Tribal-nationalism has always been defensive against imperialism. It was tribal-nationalist passions that led to wars of resistance against European and American imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria. Long live tribalism.

EU is now neo-imperialist and seeks to undermine national sovereignty and security of European nations. Resurgent nationalism says NO to this. Tribalism is anti-imperialist. Italian tribal-populists have no designs on OTHER nations. They are nationalist and, as such, opposed to demographic imperialism of those black Africans who arrive in Italy to beat up Italian men and hump Italian women.

The problem with Nazis wasn’t tribalism or nationalism. They invaded and trampled on the tribal-nationalism of other nations. Resistance against Nazi imperialism was tribal-nationalist. And resistance against Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe was also tribal-nationalist. If Nazi Germany had remained tribal-nationalist and not turned imperialist, there would have been no WWII.

What is happening in Yemen is the result of imperialism, not tribalism. It is US-Saudi-Zionist imperialism that is waging war on Yemenese struggle for deciding their own affairs and future.

Tribalist-nationalism never hurt anyone outside its borders. Tibetans and Palestinians are tribal-nationalist. They want freedom and independence for their people in their own territories. Their hopes were crushed by Han Chinese and Zionist IMPERIALISM.

Jewish Tribalism per se isn’t the problem. If Jews want to preserve their tribal culture and memory, that's all well and good. If Jews want a nation of their own, no problem.

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Jews. They must occupy even the few remaining Palestinian territory. And they use the hammer of US globo-homo-imperialism to wage Wars for Israel and pressure EU to put out to demographic imperialism that is totally altering the racial and cultural character of Europe.

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

Nationalism is the best defense against imperialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, the overall arc of history.

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

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

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

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

The Dirty Canard of Conflating Blood-and-Soil with Nazism

One of the biggest canards in the current discourse(approaching hysteria, or hyscourse) is that Blood and Soil is about Nazism.

If Nazism was really about Blood and Soil, there wouldn't have been WWII. Germans would have been proud and content to be German in their own beloved nation-state. And there would have been peace with other nations. The very notion of Blood and Soil didn't begin with Nazis. It goes back to the 19th century when Modern Germany was coming into being under the leadership of Bismarck. And blood-and-soil was a sound formula for creating a nation. The idea was that Modern Germany should incorporate territories populated by German peoples. It meant Germany should lay claim to German territories, no more and no less. Granted, it didn't work out perfectly as some Germans remained in non-German lands and Germany had some non-Germans, but the core vision was valid on moral, political, and pragmatic grounds. It was nationalist, not imperialist. Blood and Soil meant Germans of shared blood should unite German territories. It didn't make claims on Spain, Italy, Balkans, Greece, Russia, and etc.

If anything, the troubles that set off WWI, the Great War, began in Austro-Hungarian Empire that dismissed the blood-and-soil guidelines. In the end, the troublesome Diversity made it more like bloods-and-the-crips.
As Austro-Germans ruled over different peoples, there was a lot of resentment and hostility(that went both ways). It was hardly surprising that Hitler was the product of Austria than Prussia.

Blood-and-Soil is a great idea. When practiced by the Japanese, there was peace with Asian neighbors. But as a new imperialist power, Japan invaded China. In other words, Japanese imperialists violated the principle of blood-and-soil by invading and colonizing other nations. Chinese anger boiled over, and Asia blew up. And what were the Chinese fighting for? Why did the KMT and CCP, though bitter political foes, come together? Because despite their ideological differences, they were united in the blood-and-soil patriotism of China for Chinese.
And the great postwar anti-imperialist struggles were all about blood-and-soil. Kenyans and Indians told the British to go home. Algerians and Vietnamese told the French to do likewise. Indonesians told the Dutch to get lost. Granted, some of these new nations were the inorganic geographic creations of European imperialism beset with problems of diversity, but they all wanted the European imperialists to go home. And both the US and USSR, as supporters of national liberation and anti-imperialism, appealed to the Third World. Indeed, the US accused the USSR of crushing the nationalist dreams of Hungarians. And the USSR accused the US of imperialism against the Vietnamese patriots.

So, the universal consensus was that the Third World peoples have a right to organize their own nations on the basis of blood-and-soil. And as the European imperialists returned home, they were also back into the blood-and-soil mode. And this was great template for world stability and peace.

The idea of fatherland and folk is nationalist. Even though Nazis invoked those concepts, Germany was not not destroyed by them nor were other nations invaded & destroyed in their name. Those concepts were not the basis for the wars, invasions, and genocide.
When Hitler was taking back Rhineland, it only seemed right. It was Germans reclaiming a part of Germany. When Austro-Germans wanted to unite with Germany, it was Germans unifying with ethnic Germans, and the vast majority of Austrians supported it. When Germans gained control of German-heavy Sudetenland, the world could see justice in that. The problem began when Hitler got crazy with ambitions beyond the fatherland and was no longer content with being fuhrer of his folk. He wanted the fatherland to rape the motherlands of other nations. And his empire would rule over other folks who were not German and had their own identities and heritages.

The association of WWII with nationalism and blood-and-soil is a canard that must end. If anything, Nazis were defeated by the true nationalism of other nations. All resistances to Nazism were essentially nationalist. Czechs wanted to be free again. Poles hated German rule. Russians feared being wiped out and losing motherland forever. This was a time when even the left was fiercely nationalist.

In Poland, the resistance was mostly right-wing because the rightist government refused to collaborate with Germans. Germany invaded Poland, and then leftist Soviets invaded too. So, the Polish Right became the main patriotic fighters. But in other nations, the right-wing regimes collaborated with Germany, and so, the resistance was bound to come from the Left. But even this Left that gained power after WWII was essentially nationalist, especially after suspected Internationalist-Zionists were purged in the late 40s and 50s.

This attack on blood-and-soil is ironic because the detractors, mainly Jewish, are totally for blood and soil in Israel. Zionism is about blood-and-soil. To emigrate to Israel, one has to be of Jewish blood. And Israel has pro-Jewish natal policies. And Jews wanted to reclaim that piece of territory because it's holy to them on grounds of history and religion.

So, why do Jews, who zealously support blood-and-soil in Israel, oppose it so rabidly and virulently when it comes to gentile nations? Consider the sheer hatred and hostility directed at Poland and Hungary for their simple insistence that Poland belongs to Poles and Hungary belongs to Hungarians. Now, who, in his right mind, thinks that such blood-and-soil sentiments are going to lead to WWIII and massive genocides? I mean seriously.
 It was imperialism and universalism that led to wars and conquests. Imperialists wanted to rule over other peoples to exploit resources and expand their own power. Universalists like communists wanted to spread the radical fire all over the world. Soviet Union was an empire based on a universal idea. Who grieves its passing from history?
The breakup of the Soviet Empire was all about blood-and-soil. Non-Russians got weary of living under the Great Russian yoke. And didn't the US praise the fall of the Soviet empire and the rise of new national republics?

So, why this hostility to blood-and-soil when Jews love it for Israel. Not only do they support it themselves but demand that all goyim in US, EU, Canada, and Australia also support the Right of Israel to survive as a Jewish State.

Of course, we know why. It's not because Jews fear another Shoah or WWIII. It's because they are now the great imperialist power in the world via networks of finance, media, academia, entertainment, and deep state and their control of US as superpower. So, even as Jews love blood-and-soil for Israel, they see such as a barrier and obstacle for Jewish-globalist penetration and takeover in other nations. Deep in their hearts, Jews feel that they, as the smarter and prouder people, should have elite control of other nations, especially in the White World.

WWII turned uglier and uglier because of Hitler's imperialist and ultimately genocidal Lebensraum idea. German ambition to rule over non-Germans set Europe on fire and led to the massive conflagration.
Today, if any power is acting Nazi-like, it's Jewish globalism. Why can't Jews see this? Are they so morally full of themselves as Eternal Victims of the Holocaust that they've become blind to their own evil? Are they so power-hungry that they've become nihilistic and amoral?

Let's look at recent history. Was blood-and-soil the basis of the terrible economic Rape of Russia in the 90s? Was blood-and-soil the basis of wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? (As I recall, 'no blood for oil' was closer to the truth.)

No, if those nations had maintained their sovereignty, the ensuing tragedies could have been avoided. It was globalist imperialism, disproportionately controlled by Jewish elements, that led to one disaster after another. Disasters that destroyed millions of lives.

Now, it's somewhat understandable why Jews want America to be a world power than a mere nation. The Jewish Narrative says Jews were helpless under the Nazis because the world wouldn't do anything to defeat the evil Nazis. So, 'isolationist' America First meant Americans minding their own business while the Nazi empire expanded over Europe and hunted down Jews. (But then, Jews never insisted that the US must do something to save Ukrainians from Stalin or Armenians from the Turks. And I can't imagine Jewish parents sacrificing their sons to fight in wars to save OTHER peoples. Indeed, isn't it telling that so many American Jews would rather serve in the IDF than in the US military? If they must kill or die, it's for Israel.) So, the Nazi Empire could only be defeated by other empires. If US remained in nationalist mode, it might not meddle in world affairs and do something about the evil Nazis. Only in empire-mode would the US act as a hegemon and take on other empires, such as that of Nazi Germany. And indeed, it was the rise of US as a military-industrial empire that allied with the USSR to defeat Nazi Germany.
But Jews are overlooking one crucial point. Germany became dangerous not because of its blood-and-soil or fatherland/folk mentality. It was the shift to imperialist mode that turned Germany from a nation to an empire. So, even if it's true that Imperial US defeated Nazi Germany, it was not a war on German nationalism but on German imperialism. In other words, if Germans had remained in nationalist mode, there never would have been a need for the the clash of empires to set things straight. Furthermore, the US had to revive German nationalism to some degree in the postwar era to push back against Soviet imperial power.
Also, what got Americans into the war? It was nationalist passion, not imperial ambition. Americans got riled up with patriotic fervor only when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
After the war, if not for the Cold War, most Americans would have preferred return to nationalist America where 'business of America is business'. It was the Cold War that transformed the US into an Empire, so much so that even after the Cold War, the US kept cooking up new rationales to keep Empire Inc. going. And what has this led to? Disasters in Korea and Vietnam. Bad blood with Iran and Central America. Big headaches in Latin America. And total disaster in the Middle East. A crazy 'new cold war' with Russia that would make no sense but for the egotism of a certain ethnic group and gluttony of the War State.
Sometimes, "you are what you defeat".
The great irony is the America that moved into empire mode to defeat the Three Evil Empires of Japanese Militarism, Nazism, and Soviet Communism ended up becoming intoxicated with its own power. And especially when Jews became the new ruling elites and couldn't resist riding the Iron Horse of America to run roughshod over the world, America in the 21st century became, sad to say, an Evil Nation, or worse, an Evil Empire. When the Cold War ended under the tutelage of two great men, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, it could have been the dawning of a great era. But America, which had reluctantly moved into imperial mode to defeat or contain the Evil Empires, gloated in its triumph and began to see the entire world as its backyard. It went from seeing empire as a necessary evil to an essential feature of Americanism. America became what it defeated. And people like John Kerry and Hillary? Counterculture became The Man.

Anyway, while we can understand why Jews see the American Empire as the essential savior of Jews from both Nazis and ultimately the Soviets(who turned against Zionism) -- a more complicated matter because so many Jews had been initially pro-Soviet and against the Anglo-Right-wing 'paranoia' that set off the Cold War against the USSR, the great power that defeated the Nazis, until they realized that mediocritist communism doesn't do much for Jews -- , it's foolish to analyze the present and future based on past realities. Jews no longer need America to save Jews from horrors around the world. Despite Neocon scare-mongering, the world is not full of 'new hitlers' and 'new stalins', and even if such exist, Jews are not in their harm's way.

Jews are now addicted to America-as-empire to gain dominance over other peoples. And if so many gentiles, especially Muslims, get mangled and slaughtered due to American aggression, Jews don't care. And if many Russians are harmed by sanctions, again, no concern among Jews. 'Save Soviet Jews' was somewhat understandable due to blatant discrimination against Jews and also because there wasn't much freedom for anyone in the communist system. But Jews have it so nice in the Current Russia where Putin goes out of his way to ensure the well-being of the Jewish community. So, why is there more hostility against Russia today than in the past? Because Jews are no longer worried about survival. They are addicted to power like crack or cocaine. They want the American Empire not as a stretcher to save Jews but as a hammer to threaten or crush any nation or people standing in the way of Jewish hegemony.

Trumpism, if not so much Trump(who keeps shape-shifting), is about America as a nation than empire. Considering that both Germany and Japan become most dangerous as empires than as nations, it would seem that the lesson of WWII is that a nation should take care of itself, mind its own business, and meddle less in other nations.

Also, if it's wrong to invade and colonize other nations, it's worse to allow the invasion of one's own nation. This massive immigration-invasion wasn't wanted by the American people. It was imposed from above as decree. When people rejected the invasion by votes, the elites used the power of courts run by whores of globalism and commissars of PC.
SOME non-white immigrants add to the color of a nation. But TOO MANY is a full-blown invasion. It's like SOME Jewish settlers in Palestine made the place more interesting. But TOO MANY Jews turned Palestinians into People 1.0 to be replaced by People 2.0. If it was tragic for Palestine, why wouldn't it be for Europe and America? And I don't want to hear this stuff about America being different because it was founded as a proposition. If so, why are the globalists pushing the SAME PLAN on Europe and even Japan? But not on Israel?

The lesson of WWII is that Germans failed morally & politically and committed great horrors because they betrayed the ideal of blood-and-soil, of fatherland and folk. They should have minded their own business in their own blood-and-soil nation. Instead, they stole the soils of other people and bloodied them all over.

Gee, I wonder which nation acts like that today? Poland? Hungary? Iran? Which nation could that be? And who are the ruling elites of that nation?

Know Your Enemy... or Duh! Why White American Conservatives Keep Losing.

The famous Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in the classic ART OF WAR--reputedly the first book on military strategy--, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Now, I'm of the opinion that the ART OF WAR hasn't been of much value in imparting practical military advice. Why else would China have fared so badly against so many enemies in wars throuhout the ages? China lasted as long as it did because its larger population tended to absorb the invaders--who were usually Asiatic themselves--, its culture was more advanced than those of invaders--thus encouraging invaders to adopt Chinese culture--, and its geographical isolation from rest of the world due to oceans, vast deserts, extensive mountain ranges, and freezing tundras. Of course, there were periods in Chinese history when the Chinese were very powerful and adventurous, and so, in that light, one could argue that geographical factors protected the world from Chinese power as well.

Paradoxically, the vastness of China may have been a factor in ensuring that its failure or unwillingness to be a world power. It also owed to the political culture of China. Chinese politics idealized the centralized state ruled by a single emperor and micro-managed by a vast bureaucracy. And the members of the bureaucracy were chosen from the literati, the highly educated men of letters. Thus, the Chinese Imperial domain was both politically and culturally centralized. It wasn't enough for bureaucrats to be competent at management, governance, or leadership. They had to be steeped in Chinese language, manners, and culture. They had to be perfect gentlemen. China was like one giant family empire, and some academics have even characterized the essence of Chinese history, culture, and politics as 'familism'.  Such emphasis on familism made the Chinese prefer not only being ruled by their own kind but ruling over their own kind. Chinese believed in a social order where everyone from the mighty emperor--with the Mandate of Heaven--to the lowest peasant was part of a unified and holistic order of Chinese-ness.
If the Chinese state had been sufficiently small, ambition might have gotten the better of the Chinese, and the Chinese might have ventured abroad to forge an empire in which Chinese might rule over non-Chinese. But as it happened, China itself was 'too big', and so the Imperial Power in China for the most part had its hands full just maintaining the integrity and unity of China. Chinese got so used to ruling over other Chinese in an empire that was overwhelmingly of Chinese ethnicity and culture that they never developed much of an appetite for expanding beyond China.

Had all of Europe fallen under a single centralized power, a similar kind of stasis might have developed--and it did in the vast Byzantine Empire; ironically Western Europe, which suffered the total demise and the fracturing of the Roman Empire, would become fertile grounds for the rise of political and economic power unprecedented in human history; in contrast, the vast Byzantine Empire died a long slow death that lasted a 1000 yrs.

As it happened, Western Europe remained divided among various kingdoms long after the fall of Rome,  and all attempts to create a single political and cultural order were eventually abandoned--and in more recent history, both Napoleon and Hitler failed to create a united Europe, their empires going the way of Charlemagne's. As a result, Europeans became very competitive with one another, and this spirit of rivalry eventually leaped across oceans. Since the major European powers were, more or less, equally matched--and this also was the case with the Protestant and Catholic divide--, Europeans gave up the dream of single united Europe--even today, the EU project isn't working out so smoothly--and channeled their aggressive energies for domination onto the non-Western world. (Austrians and Russians could always expand to the the east and south, which is why their empires remained on the continent of Europe and Eurasia. In contrast, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, and the British had no more land to conquer in Europe, and so their empires had to spread out across the seas.)

Also, the sense of security among small European nations enabled them to focus their energies outward. If the centralized government in China had to muster all its energies just to maintain unity across the vast empire of China, such anxiety was less likely to restrain the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Britain, and France. To be sure, those nations had problems of ethnic strife and separatist elements--and periodic wars with neighboring states erupted--, but it was easier to maintain order across relatively small entities like Great Britain and Spain.
Also, the Europeans happened to be more tolerant and more pragmatic. Though the ruling elites of Europe were certainly far better educated than the unwashed masses, Europe was ruled by noblemen, aka the military class, and in that sense, its political order was more like that of Japan.
Though China was not without a military, its governing principles were Confucian in nature, and there was nothing Confucius despised more than soldiers. According to Confucius, a good society was ruled by wise men of superior knowledge and finer manners. Brute force should only be the last resort. Persuasion, education, proper manners, and the primacy of rules were the key to maintaining a just social order.
Since the cultural standards of the governing class in China were far more stringent and demanding than in Europe, the Chinese political system became highly dogmatic, intolerant, and 'paranoid'. Yet, such emphasis on moral and literary standards also made China more 'democratic' in some regards. This paradox accounts for the system of examination that determined the ruling class of China at both the central and local level. Given the sheer difficulty of mastering the correct knowledge, manners, and forms to pass these exams, the Chinese political system became highly exclusive and elitist. Yet, at the same time, at least in theory, the exam system was open to all, which meant even the son of the lowliest farmer could, through study and cultivation, rise up the social order. Idealistically at least, the elites of China were to be chosen according to merit and manners, not simply by blood and lineage.
And yet, the Chinese needed not obsess about blood and lineage since most people in the Chinese empire were Chinese. It was theoretical universalism but within a specific national family.
Anyway, given the difficulty of studying and passing the exams even for the Chinese steeped in Chinese culture, imagine how such a system might have fared in an empire where Chinese had to rule over vast numbers of non-Chinese. It was simply inconceivable. How would the Chinese ruling class impart the difficult and complex values and lessons of Chinese culture on the non-Chinese? What hope was there in their becoming like Chinese? So, it didn't make sense for Chinese to dream of creating and ruling over a vast empire populated by non-Chinese. (Another factor that restrained East Asia from venturing overseas to build new empires was the culture of conformism. The East Asian order insisted on cultural, political, and moral conformism among their own kind, and so the general mode of social and political behavior was to bow down to the higher authority. East Asians preferred sameness across both time and place and felt threatened by anything that disrupted the continuity of sameness. Thus, if an East Asian had been abroad and returned with the scent of 'different' cultures and values, he would be seen as contaminated, a threat to the entire system. A system that cannot tolerate differences among its own members is certainly not going to be open to the differences of entirely alien systems. Though Europeans weren't without such fears--as all cultures are to some extent--, Europeans were far more accepting of differences and indeed were fascinated by them. Perhaps, the supra-cultural universalist tendencies in Hellenism and Christianity made Europeans more open to different peoples and places. Indeed, such attitudes had to take root in Europe itself before serving as an impetus for Europeans to explore, discover, and even conquer the rest of the world. Even though the history of Western imperialism is one of Europeans imposing their order and values on non-Europeans, it was possible because the European elites didn't see their countrymen who traveled across the seas as 'contaminated' by foreign cultures. Hinduism, with its emphasis on purity--rather odd considering how dirty much of India is--also prevented much in the way of expansionism. According to the traditional Hindu caste system, there were all sorts of rules and taboos as to who could socialize with whom,  and such rules were not to be messed with. If Hindus had such stringent rules for themselves, imagine how they felt about non-Hindus of foreign lands. Even touching them or eating their food could be lead to permanent contamination. It's rather difficult to run an imperialist enterprise if you see most of humanity outside your tribe as 'filthy' and 'contaminated' and don't even want to come in contact with them.)

Though Europe was known for its high culture, the main elites were of the aristocracy, or the warrior caste. The warrior class of any nation tends to be less obsessed with intellectual or theoretical matters. It cares more for ways and means of practical value. It is no wonder then, paradoxically enough, that many right-wing generals in the 20th century presided over more political, cultural, and economic progress than intellectual left-wing rulers dids. Compare the relative economic and political freedom of Franco's Spain with communist systems in the East. Intellectuals like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were far more intolerant in their purist commitment to communism. And in Asia, intellectuals like Mao and Pol Pot were far more tyrannical than right-wing leaders like Chiang Kai-Shek and Lee Kwan Yew. And in Latin America, the much reviled Pinochet actually proved to be an enlightened despot compared to radical intellectual Fidel Castro whose regime still rules Cuba with an iron fist.

Similarly, the aristocratic rulers of Europe were less obsessed with the correct cultural theory of proper governance than on what worked and what didn't. And such a pragmatic approach made them more tolerant of the idea of ruling over other peoples. If Chinese couldn't conceive of ruling over barbarians who would never be worthy of absorbing and practicing Chinese manners and values, European elites didn't care as long as they could sustain a workable system of governance. The British especially became adept at this. British 'respected' and tolerated the cultures of the non-British, arriving at a compromise of political, military, and economic nature. While the British insisted on Britishness at home and in their enclosed colonial outposts around the world, they didn't mind tolerating and mingling with the non-British for pragmatic reasons of political and economic power. (In the movie BOUNTY, Captain Bligh--played by Anthony Hopkins--has no respect for the culture of the Polynesian natives, but he gets along well with them as a diplomat and trader. Of course, there was always the danger that the lower elements of British society might succumb to primitive instincts and 'go native' since they lacked the fine breeding and cultivation of their social betters. Thus, it was necessary for the British elites to use harsh means to maintain order and discipline over the lower elements. It was easier for a ruffian sailor to become a savage than a gentleman, and so the gentlemen elite had to use the whip to keep the ruffians in line and respectful of authority and fine breeding. Today however, it seems as though masses of British youths are turning feral and 'going native' in their very own nation. With the global spreading of Judeo-Afro-American pop culture, the arrival of millions of black immigrants in the UK, and the loss of confidence among the British ruling elites in their own history and heritage, it appears that every vestige of proud and confident authority is gone from British life, thereby leaving the unwashed masses to run wild and 'go native' by imitating black rappers. Ironically, UK now sees nativism as the greatest 'racist' evil, but it encourages young people to 'go native' by taking on the characteristics of Afro-savagery. So, it's wrong for Europeans to care about their native race, land, and culture, but it's wonderful for them to emulate the native savages of Africa. If a Swede defends the Swedish race, Swedish territory, and Swedish culture, he is an 'evil racist'. But if he or she dressed like an African savage, beats on bongo drums, and gives the middle finger to his or her own people and culture, she is wonderful. Modern Europe, a world where 'going native-ism'  trumps 'nativism'.)

Despite Britain's great achievements in literature and philosophy, the main elites of Britain were composed of aristocrats/warrior caste and merchants/businessmen, two groups most reviled by Confucianism. The French, more conscious of the 'superiority' of their culture, were more invested in instilling Frenchness on their colonial subjects, but French culture didn't have the familist tinge of the Chinese that made it much more difficult for the Chinese to work creatively with non-Chinese. The French thought in terms of 'French culture' than 'French family'.
Chinese intellectual/scholar-rulers were so steeped in cultural Chinese-ness among the Chinese people that they had a difficult time thinking about and around foreign cultures.
Consider that the notable overseas Chinese were made up of merchants than thinkers. In a way, the victory of communism was a continuation of the Confucian tradition--despite Mao's hatred of Confucius and violence toward intellectuals--for communism was about correct theory controlling all aspects of society. If America were Confucian in political structure, most of the power would be held by its elite intellectuals and scholars of Harvard and Yale. While the elites of France and Britain were educated and trained by elite intellectuals, the intellectual class itself didn't rule as it did in China. In the West, educators educated the would-be rulers. Generally, the scholars were not the rulers themselves--though with the rise of the massive modern state, one could argue that the intellectual class made up of men like Cass Sunstein will gain ever greater power over us.

Anyway, the original point of mentioning Sun Tzu's quote was to point out the problem of American Conservatism's failure to identify its enemies. A person or a people are defined not only by how they see themselves and others but by how they are seen by others. Sometimes, people you see as your enemy may actually be your friend while people you see as your friend may actually be your enemy. It's like you may like person A and not like person B, but person A may hate you while person B may like you(or at least not hate you). You are not only what you want to be or how you would like to see yourself but how others see and think of you. And knowing how your enemy thinks of you is more important than knowing what your friends think of you. After all, your friends are not out to destroy you while your enemies are. Though Stalin didn't trust Hitler, he trusted his own instincts that Hitler was sensible enough not to invade the USSR. Stalin thought he understood Hitler, but in fact, Stalin didn't know his enemy very well. As a result, Stalin was in a state of shock when Nazis suddenly attacked the USSR, and had it not been for the vastness of Russia and the rain/snow slowing down the Wehrmacht, the Soviet Union could very well have lost the war.

Knowing your enemy is a necessary wake-up call to knowing yourself--your strengths and weaknesses. Nothing and no one exists in a vacuum. Everything and everyone exists in relation to other things and other people. Also, one must know that his or her enemy is not always of one's own choosing. You may choose to make person A your enemy, but person A may not want to be your enemy. You may choose to make person B your friend, but person B could be full of enmity toward you despite your goodwill.

Sometimes, enemies result from the dynamic of fear and/or contempt. Feelings of animosity and hatred are natural against people who are more powerful than you and toward people who are weaker than you. When looking up at the powerful and superior, one is likely to feel envy and fear. When looking down at the weak and wimpy, one is likely to feel contempt and derision.  Kids fear bullies and thugs and despise wimps and wussies. (Of course, one can find reasons to admire the powerful and adore the weak. The powerful may be fearsome but also awesome. Blacks may beat up whites, but many whites worship black muscle, especially in sports. And all the 'dick jokes' are veiled worship of the Negro, i.e. the Negro is superior to the white man because black penis is bigger than the white penis. And the weak may be wussy but also harmless and gentle. American businessmen surely prefer short docile Mexicans to loud and tough Negroes.)
But hatred could also result from a combination of fear/envy and contempt/derision. This is especially true with Jews when it comes to white gentiles.  'Geeky' Jews fear and resent the bigger 'Aryan' build of white men, especially the Germanic and Slavic types. Also, Jews are outnumbered by white goyim in the West, and that meas even smart and rich Jews could be vulnerable to white rage if white folks were to wake up and challenge Jewish power.
But Jews have also long felt contempt for the lower intelligence of the white goyim, coming up with whole bunch of 'dumb Polack' and 'dumb blonde' jokes.  Jewish hatred of whites is especially twisted and ugly because it's a combination of intense fear and intense contempt. The Jew feels that he, with superior intellect and wisdom, should rule over the less intelligent white goyim, but throughout Western history, white power stood in the way of Jewish rule. It even culminated in the Holocaust. And in the USSR, despite the significant role played by Jews in creating the New Order, Jews were eventually 'put in their place' by the less intelligent white goyim who took control of the Communist Party.

Jewish hatred against white goyim also derives from the duality of Jewish identity. On the one hand, Jews are the biggest tribalists the world has ever seen. Though a nomadic people for thousands of years, most Jews chose to maintain their separateness than to assimilate into the majority pagan, Christian, or Islamic order. Even non-religious Jews are very proud and mindful of their Jewish heritage and identity. Thus, the Jew hates the white majority for promoting the ideal of assimilation and the 'melting pot'. As Napoleon told French Jews: "Everything as Frenchmen, nothing as Jews." In other words, if Jews were to obtain full rights as French citizens, they had to stop being Jews and become full-fledged Frenchmen. And long before that, Christians have long prayed for the conversion of the Jews. And in America, the melting pot ideal encouraged all groups--especially white ethnics of whom Jews were a part--to assimilate into the socio-cultural order created by Anglo-Americans.
Many Jews saw this as a threat to their identity and culture.

But there was another side of Jewishness that was radically universalist and anti-identitarian. This owed to intellectual arrogance, political opportunism, or both.  Intellectuals like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, so sure of their superior knowledge and rightness in all things, wanted to be the new god of history and humanity. Though they rejected Jewishness as an identity, their attitude and arrogance were very much of the Jewish Prophet tradition. This could be said for Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman as well. Such Jews, so sure of their 'totally true' universalist principles, tended to disdain and even hate the particularist or nationalist tendencies of the white goyim who preferred the preservation of their own borders and values against universalist ideas birthed by radical Jewish intellect.

But not all Jews were sincere in their commitment to universalism. More often than, Jews paradoxically tended to push universalism onto the world to safeguard their own tribalism. The worst enemy of one tribalism is another tribalism. If you belong to Tribe A and fight for Tribal A interests, you naturally fear coming up against Tribe B fighting for Tribal B interests and Tribe C fighting for Tribal C interests. But if you belong to Tribe A and come up against universalists, the latter will not fight for their own tribal interests since they have no tribal identity. Jewish oligarchs lost substantial power under Putin because Russian 'tribalism' still exists. In contrast, Jews have totally come to own America because white Americans have been successfully brainwashed into abandoning their own white interests and power.
Even so, universalism could be dangerous to Jews if universalists were to demand of Jews what they demand of themselves. If white goyim fully embrace universalism and abandon white interests, why shouldn't the same be demanded of Jews? And indeed, this was the reason why Jewish communists lost power in the USSR. After WWII, Stalin became wary of Zionist tendencies among supposedly universalist communist Jews. Instead of feeling solidarity with the rest of Soviet citizenry, there was a Jewish network of sorts within the elite institutions of the USSR. And though Zionists were ideologically closer to socialism than to capitalism, the founders of Israel forged an alliance with Soviet Union's arch-enemy the USA. It was then that Stalin suspected that a Soviet Jew is a Jew first and a Soviet second. Many Jews adopted universalism not so much as an ideal but as a tool. It was to pacify the goyim by neutering their tribal virility. But given the brutal totalitarian nature of radical universalism in the USSR, Jews eventually fell victim to the forces that destroyed so many goy cultures and communities.

And so, Jews have forged a new ideology called 'multi-culturalism' that requires white goyim to fully dispense with white tribalism and embrace universalism while allowing/encouraging non-whites and Jews to maintain their own tribal identities/interests against whites. Multi-culturalism essentially boils down to 'universalism for you whites' and 'tribalism for us Jews'. While whites, as members of a ever-so-nice and docile 'model majority' must reach out to non-whites and Jews(even when non-whites and Jews violate principles and act corrupt), non-whites and Jews can spew venom and hatred against white America and scapegoat the 'evil white man' for all the problems in the world.

Now, many people in the so-called 'alternative right' community know all about this. But most mainstream white American conservatives seem to have absolutely no clue as to what is going on. This is because they have no clue as to who their real enemies are.

Imagine the following scenarios:

1. It is 1941, and the Japanese navy just attacked Pearl Harbor. Instead of focusing on the fact that Japan attacked the US, suppose Americans believe that they are at war with 'Asia'. So, Americans retaliate by looking for enemies in China, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, and etc, but they overlook the fact that Japan attacked the US and refuse to engage the Japanese directly. Thus spared, the Japanese military keeps attacking the American forces while the latter only goes looking for 'Asian enemies' while blissfully ignoring Japanese aggression.

2. It is 1941, and the German Wehrmacht just attacked the USSR. Suppose Stalin decides that Germany didn't invade the Soviet Union but 'Western Europe' did. Instead of focusing his attention and commandeering his forces against Germany, the USSR wages war on Western Europe in general while ignoring Germany's direct role in the invasion.

Now, how can any nation win a war if they thought and fought like this. To win wars or at least to defend your own people, you have to know who attacked you and why. Without such sense and knowledge, you're like a blindfolded man in the boxing ring. You'll waste your energy swinging at imaginary opponents all around you while remaining utterly blind to the boxer who is actually pummeling you. There is no lack of patriotic and aggressive rhetoric on the American Right, but it's never directed at white America's real enemy since American conservatives are blind to who their main enemies are.

Of course, the main enemies of white Americans are the Jews. This may surprise some white conservatives since Jews are 'white', but this is another thing about enemy that white Americans don't seem to understand. As Sun Tzu said, KNOW YOUR ENEMY. That means not only who he is but how he thinks and sees the world, which then might explain why he does what he does. Jews are a two-faced people who employ a perverse kind of dualism. They are white and they are not white. They are western and they are not western. They are American and they are not American. They are this and they are that. Thus, when it serves their interests, Jews insist on being white. This is a big advantage to Jews when it comes to Israel and 'affirmative action'. By portraying Israel as an 'outpost of Western or white values', they win much support from white Americans, especially as the Jewish-controlled media allow and even encourage anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred.
Now, if Afrikaners in South Africa had argued that the West should support Apartheid because South Africa is the final outpost of Western Civilization in Africa fending off a tidal wave of black savagery, that would have been deemed 'racist'. Jewish-controlled media have brainwashed us to reject any kind of anti-black 'racism'. But it's permissible to spew all sorts of animosity toward Arabs and Muslims. Jewish Hollywood even makes movies like TAKEN where white men are encouraged to save 'pure white women' from the clutches of Muslim sex-slavers. You see, such emotions pertaining to saving white women from blacks(in BIRTH OF A NATION) or from American Indians(in THE SEARCHERS) would be 'racist', but Jewish Hollywood fans white male hatred toward swarthy Muslims who dare put their filthy hands on 'pure white women'. And even though Jews have been bitching and whining about how Nazis made films about horny hairy Jews lusting after blonde 'Aryan' women, Jews in Hollywood makes movies like RISING SUN which has a yellow conqueror humping a blonde woman. So, Jews sometimes play on the side of whiteness, and sometimes play against whites on the side of 'people of color'.

And when it comes to 'affirmative action', Jews naturally wanna count as white to protect Jewish privilege. If Jews counted as a non-white category--as all white Hispanics do--, it would be quite obvious that Jews are vastly over-represented in many elite fields and could therefore be targeted for 'affirmative action' as Asian-Americans are. So, when Jews wanna protect their immense power and privilege, they just melt into 'white people'. Thus, there is 'white privilege' but no 'Jewish privilege'. So, Jews are deemed to be privileged not as Jews but as whites, and in order to address this problem, Jews work to reduce the number of gentile whites and boost the number of non-whites. This way, Jews win and non-whites win while white gentiles--especially conservatives, middle class, working class, and poor--lose.

It should be obvious to anyone with sense and honesty that Jews control much of the media, law firms, courts, upper echelons of government, Wall Street, Hollywood and entertainment, elite academia(the agenda of which trickles down to lower academia and eventually all the way down to kindergarten, which is why there's gay propaganda being taught to little children in many states). It should also be obvious that most so-called liberal Jews have a rabid and virulent animus against whites based on both fear/envy(due to larger white numbers and better white looks) and contempt/derision(due to lower IQ among whites and the craven cowardice of white gentile politicians and leaders).
Indeed, the sorriest spectacle in American politics is white conservative politicians sucking up to Jews when Jews piss on them. The likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney act tough, as if they're sheriffs in a Western town or military generals about to take on the Nazis to save poor helpless Jews. Perhaps, Gingrich and Romney in 2012 thought that Jews would appreciate their macho pro-Zionist stance.
But, Jews were not fooled; Jews were not impressed. Jews are not dumb. Deep inside, they knew that both Gingrich and Romney are scared white guys. Scared of what? Of Jewish power.
And Gingrich and Romney are not ignoramuses. They must know that Jews are indeed the new elites of America. They must know that politicians cannot win without Jewish money, Jewish brain trust, and Jewish permission. The Jewish-controlled media can make or break any politician, especially when ALL mainstream news are controlled by Jews--and even most alternative outlets like Slate and Salon are essentially controlled by Jews.
GOP understands that MSM favors the Democratic Party. That much is a given. The most the GOP can hope for is the MSM being not overly hostile to the GOP, thereby giving the party some chance of winning. In other words, the media winds always blow against the GOP and favor the Democratic Party, but as long as the winds are not too powerful, the GOP might muster just enough energy and momentum to win. And to lower the wind level, the GOP goes out of its way to suck up to Jews and Israel.
White American conservatives act like this mostly out of fear and cowardice, but no big time politician wants to see himself as a craven running dog. And so, the GOP, especially with the help of Neocons, talks bit and tough and puts forth the hysterical notion that the Democratic Party is run by 'anti-Semites', is about to 'throw Israel under the bus', and is controlled by Obama the 'secret Muslim'.
Of course, no Jew--not even Neocons--believe any of this nonsense. Anyone with sense know that the Democratic Party is totally controlled by Jews and is as pro-Zionist as the GOP. And regardless of Obama's personal feelings, he's going to be pro-Zionist at every turn since his entire career owes to Jews. And Obama dares not do anything without the 'advice' from his Jewish handlers and bosses. Given the fact that Jews control the Democratic Party, created Obama and foisted him on this country, and work nonstop to further dispossess white Americans, one would think that the GOP would essentially be a counter-Jewish-power party. In a sane world, that would be the case. But we are not living in sane world.

Because Jews control nearly the full spectrum of power,yo u cannot rise up the social, political, or economic ranks if you dare address, let alone challenge, the true nature of Jewish power. If even an innocuous comment like Rick Sanchez can get him blacklisted--with absolutely no support from fellow liberals, not even from fellow Hispanics--, just think of what will happen to anyone who is more candid in his or her criticism of Jews.

Also, Jews, with their control of the media, have created and disseminated the new religion of Holocaustianity that has elevated Jews to a holy race. Holocaust is a tragic event that happened during WWII to many European Jews. It is specific to a certain place and time. Holocaustianity, in contrast, has 'eternalized' the Holocaust to all Jews for all time. So, all of past Jewish history is seen as a series of persecutions that finally culminated in the Holocaust. So, the Holocaust isn't specific to what happened in WWII but connected to what happened to Jews all throughout the ages. Thus, even the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and just about everyone else are guilty of paving the way toward the Holocaust. And the Holocaust didn't end in WWII according to Holocaustianity. No, all future Jews are  holy Holocaust victims by the simple virtue of being born Jewish. Since the Holocaust is the main focus of Jewish identity, to be Jewish means means to be the 'children of the Holocaust'. So, even if you're a craven, deceitful, manipulative, low-down, and hideous son or daughter of a billionaire Jew, you too are the saintly child of the Holocaust. Jews can oppress and kill Palestinians with their tanks and missiles, but Zionists are seen as saintly victims fighting desperately to prevent another Holocaust while Palestinians whose houses are demolished and whose children are killed are seen as the 'new Nazis'.

If Holocaustianity instantly ennobles and cleanses all Jews of guilt no matter what they do, it ceaselessly accuses and condemns all gentiles--especially whites--of evil and wickedness no matter what good they do. Whites can grovel before Jews all they want and apologize endlessly for past sins of 'antisemitism'. According to Holocaustianity, whites are forever infected with the 'antisemitic' virus. The virus may go into hiding, but it remains in the (white)gentile soul, waiting to strike up another fever and set the gentile loose on another violent rampage against innocent, angelic, and helpless Jews. Thus, while even a heinous Jew is allowed to get away with murder or child rape(like Roman Polanski), even the nicest white gentile must constantly sear his own soul to be purged of the virus of 'antisemitism'. Holocaustianity says all Jews, even nasty and vile ones, are holy and innocent forever no matter what they do, and it says all gentiles(especially whites), even the nicest ones, are evil and sick forever no matter what they do since they are infected with the ineradicable virus of 'antisemitism'. Thus, even the nicest white liberal is not to be trusted and must bow down to Jews. It is no wonder that there is no criticism of Jewish power not only from the American Right but also from the American Left.
Though secular Jews claim to be 'rational', they've pretty much formulated and spread a new idea of 'Original Sin' that supposedly stains the white gentile soul forever. Of course, Jewish historiography is totally selective. It only focuses on violence against Jews while wholly ignoring Jewish violence and hatred of gentiles. It only focuses on gentile use of power against Jews while overlooking Jewish power over goyim. And on the occasion when Jewish power is admitted by Jewish historians, it's always portrayed in a positive light, as the force that changed the world for the good.

The great advantage that Jews have over white conservatives is that Jews know who their enemies are. Even if white conservatives don't wanna see Jews as their enemies and wanna work together with Jews, Jews continue to see White America as their main enemy. Jews insist on this because they want to be the permanent supremacist elites of America. As long as there's a white majority, Jews fear that whites will eventually awaken to the nature of Jewish power and challenge/counter it. Only by reducing whites to a minority will the Jews feel safe and secure in knowing that EVEN IF whites did wake up to the true nature of Jewish power, whites wouldn't be able to do anything about it. If whites were only 1/3 of the American population, what could they do even if all whites were 'antisemitic'? Not much. This is also why Jews push not only for massive migration across national borders but within national borders. This is why Jews push Section 8. If the population is made diverse all over America, it is more difficult for different regions to push for secession or separatism. Yugoslavia broke apart because Slovenians were mostly in Slovenia, Croatians were mostly in Croatia, Serbians were mostly in Serbia, and Albanians were mostly in Kosovo. Bosnia was a much more difficult case since it happened to be a lot more diverse. The more diverse a nation, the more difficult it is to break apart, and Jews know this. If America were regionally diverse, then one can imagine it breaking apart into white, black, and brown parts. That would not be good for Jews since Jews would be faced with solid gentile majorities in each of the new nations, which is exactly what happened following the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. So, Jews wanna spread 'diversity' far and wide all across America to ensure that American can never break up and shall forever remain as a diverse state in which the Jewish elites could play 'divide and rule' among the various goy groups.

So, it doesn't matter how white conservatives see the Jews. They can love Jews all they want. The fact is Jews willfully choose to see white Americans as their main enemy. If the goal of Jews was simply to assimilate into America, they would be less likely to harbor hateful feelings toward whites. But equality with rest of white America is not the goal of Jews. Jews, knowing that they are smarter and ever so proud of their identity and heritage, are aiming for permanent supremacism. And in order to secure this, Jews feel it is necessary to destroy white American and reduce white Americans into just another minority group.

Similarly, it didn't matter that Stalin hoped to maintain the alliance with Hitler. As long as Hitler's dream was to build a vast Germanic empire in the East, it didn't matter how Stalin and Soviets felt about Nazi Germany. Hitler pretended to be an ally but was really planning to destroy not only the USSR but the Russian people for the purpose of Germanic supremacism.
Similarly, it didn't matter what certain American Indian tribes felt about whites. While some Indian tribes were hostile, some Indian tribes wished to live in peace with white Americans and become good neighbors. And they signed treaties and trusted the white man. But the white man looked upon the Indians as a bunch of ridiculous savages and wanted Indian lands for themselves. Even Indians who wanted to be friends with whites were seen and targeted as enemies by whites. And we all know from history what happened to such people. You can't always choose your friends. The person you want to be friends with could very well despise and hate you. Same thing with love. You can't always choose your lover. The person you want to be lovers with may look at you as a pile of turd. Most white women in porn seem to think they are appreciated by their Jewish bosses when, in fact, Jewish porn kings see white women as nothing but meat to market and sell.

Sometimes, you make enemies by being hostile or nasty toward others. But even if you're the nicest person in the world, there are some people who will target you for destruction. Even if you don't see them as the enemy, they see you as the enemy, as the sitting duck to fire at.
Disingenuously, liberal Jews say that 'racist' white America must stop vilifying other groups as enemies, but that is not the problem today. Most White Americans, liberal or conservative, feel little animus against non-whites. Many whites may fear black crime, but most whites don't hate blacks simply for their color of skin. Many whites are upset with illegal immigration, but they don't hate Mexicans.

The real problem today is not white hate toward non-whites but Jewish, black, brown, and gay hatred of whites and straights.  Notice that even when a nice white conservative is willing to accept total equality with non-whites, HE is attacked as the 'hater' by the Jewish-controlled media. For Jews, it's not enough that whites are willing to uphold the principle of equality. It's not enough that whites take so much abuse from black rappers, groups like La Raza, and vile Jewish comedians. No, whites must support anti-white policies that favor less qualified non-whites over whites and favor illegal aliens over legal citizens. So, the only way for a white to be a good white is to be anti-white.

Of course, many privileged and high IQ whites aren't bothered by such demands since the main sacrificial lamb for more 'diversity' is the white middle class, working class, and the poor. If you're a liberal white in some fancy urban area, your anti-white-ism can be worn like a hip 'progressive' badge of honor(thereby winning you more privilege in elite circles) while the brunt of 'affirmative action' and Section 8 policies continue to fall on less privileged and less fortunate whites.
Jews were very clever to engineer things this way for if 'affirmative action' primarily targeted the privileged white class, the white gentile elite might identify with other whites and unite with them. But as long as the 'diversity' racket rewards elite whites for their 'progressive' anti-white-ism while targeting the lower classes of whites in the 'affirmative action' sweepstakes, the white community remains politically divided between leaders and the led. Thus, Jews prevent the unity of upper class whites, middle class whites, and lower class whites.

American conservatism needs to understand that nothing can be done unless it honestly and courageously identifies its main enemy. Pathetically, American conservatism is under the delusion--borne of both stupidity and cowardice--that Jews are the most wonderful people and the best friends of conservatives. When American conservatives are confronted with the fact that most Jews voted for Obama and are rabidly anti-white and anti-conservative, they rationalize it as a case of poor innocent darling Jews simply not being enlightened to the truth that the Democratic Party is run by 'anti-Semites'. Indeed, many American conservatives seem to believe that the Jews don't control the Democratic Party. Instead, it's controlled by the 'secret Muslim' Obama and the likes of Biden, and they are plotting to destroy Israel!! Meanwhile, all those innocent and hapless Jews foolishly remain in the Democratic Party out of the goodness of their darling little hearts filled with compassion for people who really hate Jews.

With conservatives this pathetic, perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh on Jews who despise white dummies. Such stupidity--so prevalent in American conservatism--IS contemptible.  In THE GODFATHER movies, the Corleones finally win because they correctly identify and target their REAL enemies. In part one, Vito Corleone correctly surmised that it had been Barzini after all. And in part II, Michael realizes Hyman Roth is the big potato who's pulling the strings against him. When will American conservatism realize that its main enemy is the Jews. People like Ann Coulter bitch about Muslims and Hispanics, but Hispanics are followers, not leaders. They are puppets, not the puppet-masters. If demography is always destiny, the elites of Mexico would not be white. White Mexicans hold the power because they control the elite institutions, and through the control of such institutions, they maintain power over the vast numbers of mestizos and Indios.
Similarly, if demography is indeed always destiny, Jews, who make up only 2% of the population(and gays who make up another 2% of the population) wouldn't be so powerful. But in fact, Jews are the most powerful people in America. It was Jewish leaders who led blacks against whites. It was the Zionist leadership that ignited the war between Christian America and the Muslim Middle East. (And by using their 'progressive' puppet Obama, Jews were even able to expand the war into Libya since the so-called International Left dares not protest the actions of a black guy. The 'progressive' West is so invested in having the black guy succeed that Obama can do just about anything, and, of course, most of what he does is at the behest of Jewish-Zionist elites. It is no wonder that an overwhelming number of Jews supported Obama again in 2012. Romney groveled before the Jewish community and even got down to give Sheldon Adelson a rimjob and flew to Israel to shake his fists at the Palestinians, but Jews didn't go for the bait. Why should they when they can get far more with Obama? If Romney the Privileged White Man were to employ violence at the behest of Zionists in the Middle East, the anti-war Left might take to the streets once again and make a big fuss. As long as it's Obama at the helm, the Zionists know that the Left will be muted in its criticism EVEN IF Obama decides to bomb Iran back to the stone age.)
It was Jewish leaders who encouraged and stirred up brown hatred against the 'gringo'. While Mexico has always been full of anti-gringo hatred, most Mexicans in America wouldn't be so full of invective and rage if they weren't led, funded, protected, and encouraged by Jewish elites. (Glenn Beck did try to pull a fast one on the Jews. Though he resorted to all manner of  'antisemitic' tropes, he covered up his tracks by weeping on TV about his love for Jews and Israel. He tried to out-Jew the Jew, posing as their friends while exposing the nature of Jewish power. But Jews got a whiff of what he was up to and pressured Fox to have him fired.)

Anyway, White America needs to wake up and finally set its targets on the real enemy, and that enemy is Jewish Powera. Unless American conservatism realizes this, it is like a surgeon treating a cancer by doing everything but addressing the tumor that is growing ever larger. That is no way to fight disease, no way to fight a war. And certainly no way to win. Indeed, even suicide is preferable to the current idiocy of American conservatism that praises and embraces the very people who are most committed to the destruction of white people and white power.

Now, this doesn't mean that we should hate all Jews or see all Jews as our enemy. If decent Jews wanna joint our side, they should be welcome. Decent Jews need to admit that most American Jews are now in supremacist mode and hellbent on destroying the white race and white people. They should join up with whites for the common good of both whites and Jews. They must not seek to manipulate whites  to gain advantage for the interests of Jewish supremacism as liberal Jews and Neocon Jews have repeatedly done.
Decent Jews should realize and admit that the problems between white gentiles and Jews have been caused almost entirely by Jews in the last several decades. Just when America was becoming the most welcome place to Jews--especially due to white decency as non-whites don't give a shit about Jews--, Jews have turned most hostile toward white Americans, indeed as if white Americans are worse than Nazis.

When Japan attacked America, most Japanese-Americans remained loyal to America--despite the shabby treatment by the FDR administration. And German-Americans fought for America against Nazi Germany. America fought Japan and Germany because they declared war on America. And decent Japanese-Americans and German-Americans(and Italian-Americans)sided with America against the Axis powers. Today, Jews have declared a secret war on White America--though in the aftermath of the Obama re-election, Jews seem to be openly celebrating as if White America has been dealt a blow on the order of Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad. It ain't a secret war no more.
(Though many conservatives are put off by such Jewish obnoxiousness, I welcome it for we finally get to see the Real Jew.) Needless to say, not all Jews are so vile and vicious. Not all Jews harbor such hostile feelings toward whites. These Jews should understand why white conservatives--at least sane ones--now regard Jews as their enemy. And just as decent German-Americans fought alongside other Americans against Nazi Germany, decent Jews should be willing to work alongside white Americans against the heinous Jews who are filled with hatred and contempt for white Americans(and of course white Europeans as well).