A Response to Eric Margolis’ Denunciation of Ken Burns’ THE VIETNAM WAR Documentary

For Eric Margolis’ article, click: THE VIETNAM NIGHTMARE – AGAIN

I don’t think Ken Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who were involved in the conflict. Sure, there were warmongers, profiteers, and egomaniacs. And paranoids.

But Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Now, Eisenhower could be aloof or angry. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But they were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for the military brass, well, what would one expect? They were educated, trained, and prepared all their lives to think of the world in terms of team sports. They were trained to fight and win, not to think of higher matters or deeper truths. Sure, West Point and Annapolis educated bright students who learned history and ideas, but it all came down to one thing: Fighting and Winning. As for the CIA, it is a sinister organization by design — an agency of necessary evil — , but then, let’s keep in mind that Soviets had a worthy counterpart in the KGB. Let’s remember Soviets infiltrated FDR’s government and stole a lot of secrets and planted a lot of subversives. Soviets even got the Bomb during the Truman era. Also, Soviets ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted dissent in their own empire. And EVERY nation has its own version of the CIA. If CIA did more damage, it was because powerful nations just have more means to do so.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if it was on the verge of being united under a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. After all, the US didn’t intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved in Vietnam was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino Theory is thought to have been ‘debunked’, it certainly made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed it. So did Mao, which is why China, though poor and backward, sent aid to rebel groups all over the world. Soviets believed that a sign of US weakness could spark revolutions all over the Third World that equated capitalism with imperialism. Che Guevara certainly believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would start a wildfire of anti-Yanqui revolutions all over Latin America and then eventually spread to the US as well. Che really believed this, which is why he spent some time in the Congo and later died in a failed insurgency in Bolivia.

Also, at least in part, the Domino Theory did come true. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind that the communist victory in Malaysia was prevented only by ruthless British strategy of hurling huge numbers of people into concentration camps and hamlets.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be on the wane, not least because of social conflicts and cultural decay that defined much of the 60s and early 70s. Americans threw in the towel after losing ‘only’ 58,000 men. The outside world got the impression that Americans no longer had the resolve to impose their hegemony on the world. If a ragtag army in Cuba could defy Uncle Sam in the early 60s and if guerrilla troops in Vietnam could defeat the greatest technological power, maybe America lost its warrior soul as the result of excessive freedom, pleasure, and individualism. It seemed like dejavu of Pax Romana's decline, what with a populace that was no longer respectful of authority and no longer willing to make sacrifices.

Not only communists were emboldened by American troubles(and ultimate 'defeat') in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was inspired in part by Vietnam(though it ignited as a silly scuffle about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was a World Power. French troubles in Algeria weren't all that surprising as France was an empire in decline. French defeat was a setback for a European power, not a World Power.

So, after the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat Goliath anywhere in the world. The Shah regime in Iran fell, and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened to roll in the tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador and Guatemala. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Salvador Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by CIA-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It certainly blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn’t all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics… at least in perception. Ironically, the Vietnam example inspired the US and the Mujahadeen to pull off something similar in Afghanistan against the Soviet Empire.

In the end, communism wasn’t defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn’t sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa was a constant drain, like flushing money down a toilet. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. As Eastern European nations were limited in natural resources, their economies had to rely on manufacturing, which meant Soviet industry had to be suppressed. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster in economic terms. Maoism was hell on earth.
Some might argue communism failed because Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of neutral nations willing to do business with communist nations — India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets — , the real reason for the failure of communism was it just doesn’t work.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina — brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia — and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam eventually made the switch to market economics, it’s clear that US was on the right side of history at least on basic economic theory.

Also, the Vietnam conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, occupying the southern half, dropping bombs, and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they sought to impose Stalinism on the entire nation when, in fact, many people didn’t want it. After all, more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? Because there’s something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone, and there are so many things you aren’t allowed to do. It’s a system where you can’t do so many things and are told to do lots of things that make little sense.

Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory… just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way in the Pacific War instead of calling it quits to save lives. Also, many atrocities were carried out by the communists as well. The massacre in Hue, for instance. In war, all sides do horrible things.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn’t have intervened in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided. There is no getting around the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot who devoted his life to gaining independence for his people. Even though communism was an unfortunate choice, his formative years were defined by a world in which the great empires were capitalist while the Soviet Union lent a hand, symbolic or material, to Third World peoples yearning to gain independence.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for a b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, perhaps his rather sympathetic take on Cold Warriors reflects the neo-hegemonic worldview of globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the dissemination of agendas favored by people like CucKen Burns: Homomania, Afromania, feminism, Diversity, and EOJ(or Empire of Judea). Today’s progs want the world to become neo-Americanized because America itself has been remade into a giant globo-experiment. We now live in a Metropolar World.
Indeed, in today’s Vietnam, as journalist Linh Dinh had duly noted, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet communists had fought for patriotism and national sovereignty, it could be that the new Western ‘progressives’ now almost feel as though the US was on the right side of history all along.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make Joe McCarthy blush? They all seem to have learned to love the empire. Their ilk are now in the commanding heights of all institutions and industries. So, US imperialism now means the spread of more proggery all over the world.

Democrats vs Republicans? Well, How about the Imperial Party vs the National Party?

Maybe, it’d be more honest and useful if we could scrap the current two-party system of Democrats & Republicans and reorganized & restructured the American Political System with two new parties:

The Imperial Party and the National Party. Even though Democrats and Republicans are divided on a host of issues — many of them overblown trivialities or manufactured distractions — , the current political fault-line fails to address the most fundamental issue of American Power, namely the question of "Is America a republic or an empire?" and "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" Though the answers are not so cut-and-dry or black or white, the growing political gulf is about the big question of America’s role in the world. The reason why the issue is complicated is that America is a superpower and had a very important role to play vis-a-vis other nations. So, an ‘isolationist’ kind of republicanism is not possible at the present or the future. America must play a big role in the world. But where and when does importance turn into imperialism? Nationalists believe America should focus mainly on American affairs. They believe it’s good for America(especially in not getting involved in foreign wars, usually at the behest of Zionist interests) and also for the world since US intervention has led to such dire results all across the globe. America’s record in Guatemala, El Salvador, Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. have deeply traumatized those nations. Even the ‘success’ of South Korea overlooks the fact that the war killed millions of people and left the peninsula divided to this day.
Therefore, even if the US has a key role to play in the world, why must it so intrusive and destabilizing? And why have so many military bases in every corner of the world? Isn’t that imperial overreach? Would American security and well-being be threatened if all those bases were not maintained? Does anyone really believe that trade routes will be endangered if US military moves out of Europe and the Pacific? Are pirates going to take over the seas and plunder everything?

Globalists obviously want the US to be on imperial footing. They aren't content with America as a limited power even with a superpower military and giant economy. They want America to be the policeman, judge, and jury of the world. Some admit that it is a kind of empire but a beneficent one based on justice and human rights than plunder and exploitation. They point to the generosity of US aid, trade deals, and protective alliances. If only it were so. If indeed the US were ruled by wise elites with nobility of mind and soul who really care about the humanity and want to use its power to prevent horrors like the one that happened in Rwanda, maybe the US as a Tough Love Empire wouldn’t be so bad. But as things stand, the US is ruled by an ethno-oligarchy(of Zionists) that is utterly corrupt and near-psychopathic in their power-lust and contempt for dumb filthy goyim. Jewish Globalists, as the new elites, don’t care about anything but maximizing and securing their own tribal-supremacist power. So, US-as-an-empire in its current position only means a world bullied and bloodied by a superpower whose muscles are directed by the sick minds of Jewish Supremacists.

And then, there is the other question of, "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" This too cannot be answered simply. After all, America is a vast young nation, and most Americans are composed of conquerors, settlers, immigrants, and those who arrived as slaves. And even a good number of people who entered illegally were granted Amnesty, and some of them became Good Americans. So, there is no such thing as an American with ancient roots in or claim to America. Even American Indians don’t qualify because the nation-state and modern civilization of America came into being only with the vision and expansion of white Europeans, especially from Great Britain and other parts of Northern Europe.
Even so, there is a definite history of America. Even if theoretically anyone can become ‘American’, America became what it is because a certain kind of people conquered it, settled it, envisioned it, and founded it. If Chinese, Hindus, or Arabs, instead of Anglos and Germanics, had first arrived in the Northern Hemisphere of the New World and settled and expanded, the resulting civilization and its culture/laws/values would have been wholly different. If Muslims had the chance to found and develop their version of ‘America’, there would be a mosque in every town. Good or bad, it’d be a very different kind of civilization.
Also, even though different kinds of people arrived and became ‘Americans’, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was absolutely crucial. The ones who arrived first got to establish the political and economic methodology, spiritual and ethical norms, and the mores, culture, & language. If Russians had arrived, settled, and defined ‘America’ first and if Anglos had come afterward, the Anglos might have been compelled to assimilate to Russian language, culture, and political norms. After all, if an Anglo were to decide to move to Russia permanently, he will have to assimilate to Russian-ness since Russia is the land of Russian people and culture. So, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was key to the meaning of Americanism. Indeed, if Germans than Anglos had founded and settled ‘America’ first, then Anglo arrivals would likely have assimilated to what would have been an essentially German-America. Even though Jews came to dominate America, why did they master English and adopt many Anglo-American norms? Because they arrived later and had to respect and assimilate to the template established and defined by another people. If proto-Zionists had founded America, they may have established Hebrew as the dominant language and defined America as a Great Jewish State. And if non-Jews had been allowed to immigrate to work on farms and fill up the factories, they might have been regarded and treated like Arabs in Israel/West-Bank.

There’s a saying, "Finders keepers, losers weepers." In the case of America, it used to be "Founders decide, Followers abide." So, even as new people arrived and became Americans too, there was respect & appreciation for the pioneer stock and the mostly European(and African) folks who laid down, through mind and/or body, the core foundation of Americanism. Not only was there a historical, cultural, and racial acknowledgment of the main thread of America but a profound respect for the Constitution, Rule of Law, Due Process, and Property Rights that made American Democracy and its reforms possible, along with economic opportunity and growth unprecedented in human history. So, even if there was room for yet newer Americans, the understanding was that they would come with admiration and respect for those who’d been in America first or before.

Also, because Americanism was founded on the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights, the process of immigration and naturalization must adhere to clear legal standards. After all, one thing that set the US(and Northern European nations) apart from the rest of the world, especially the Third World, is that Americans have traditionally been far more mindful of laws, rules, and standards than in nations like Mexico and other Latin American nations where everyone, from elite to peon, has tended to play fast and loose with the rules for petty interests or personal gain. Even among Europeans, there is far more Rule of Law up north than in Southern nations like Italy or Greece. Indeed, there are huge differences even among whites. If Anglos had settled South America and if Latinos had settled North America, the Anglo-South would likely be far richer than the Latin-North.

For a time, immigrants came with admiration and respect for the great founders of America and the earlier Europeans who did the heavy lifting on farms and factories. But with the Jewish takeover of elite institutions, the Narrative was altered so that the Founders got stained with the ‘original sin’ of slavery(which is rather odd since white people conquered Indians before they brought blacks, and that would mean ‘genocide’ is the original sin of America, but I guess blacks are just ‘cooler’ than Indians). Because the founding of America was fraught with ethnic cleansing of Indians and slavery of blacks, the New Narrative said it was tainted for all time. Also, because immigration policy had favored Anglos and Northern Europeans over other kinds of people, it was condemned as ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’. So, the New Narrative said that America can only be redeemed by newer waves of immigrants — preferably non-Northern European and even non-white — who would arrive and start anew without the stain of ‘genocide’, slavery, and ‘white supremacy’. So, instead of new immigrants coming with respect for America’s past and its founders & builders, they would come with sneering contempt and sniveling disdain. They would come to accuse and judge than appreciate and thank. Instead of immigrants respecting America’s past, existing Americans(especially whites with deep roots in America) should wax romantic about the future. Since the past is so tainted by ‘white supremacy’, America can only be saved by its future of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’.
But argument fails here under the scrutiny of moral logic. After all, if Early America was tainted by slavery and ‘genocide’, how are the later immigrants any less tainted? After all, they are participating in and partaking of something that was created by ‘historical sins’. Those who share in stolen loot are just as guilty. If indeed all those noble Jews and non-whites were so shocked by how America was founded and built, why didn’t they stay away? If Jews abhorred the pogroms in Europe, why did they come to land where Indians were ‘pogromed’ off the land? Also, if indeed whites are guilty for the tragedies suffered by Indians and blacks, how does it follow that whites owe something to all the peoples of the world who were not done wrong by the white founders and builders of America? Just think. Since Jews took Palestine from indigenous Arabs, they owe something to those people. Most decent people would agree. But who in his right mind would argue that because Jews took land from the Palestinians, they are obligated to let in a million Chinese and Hindus? And how would that help the Palestinians? They would just be losing their lands to Chinese and Hindus as well as to Jews. It’d be even worse.
Also, all these immigrants are coming from blood-lands of their own. As every history has been soaked in bloodbaths, wars, famines, slavery, rapes, conquests, and even genocides, they all have their own ‘original sins’ and all other kinds of 'sins'. ‘Genocide’ and slavery didn’t begin in America. Both have long pedigrees. Furthermore, even if we acknowledge the historical tragedies of America, when we compare the rise and development of America with other civilizations in the same time frame, there is no denying that something great and magnificent was created in America, and this owed to the founding by Anglos. At the time of America’s founding, European Imperialism had yet to conquer all the world. If China, (what is now)India, Persia, and Russia had played their cards right, they too could have done great things. But they lacked the bigness of vision and the spirit of freedom. At one time, Russia even claimed Alaska but failed to do much with it and stupidly sold it to America at fire-sale price. China, with its vast pool of talented people, could have made great advances, but it was filled with arrogance, complacency, and tyranny. And the bloodbaths in other parts of the world equaled or exceeded anything that happened in America. Also, as Hispanics got a head start in what came to be Latin America, they too could have done great things. But like the Spanish kingdom, Latin America just got saddled with corruption, confusion, and stagnation.

But just because Jews resented the fact that Wasps weren’t so eager to invite them to play golf or bonk their daughters, their vengeful viciousness came to dominate the immigration debate into a case of "Let’s bury whitey."

Anyway, due to the change in the Narrative, the question of "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" has become greatly complicated. There are few Iron Nativists left in America. Most Americans don’t mind new people coming to become Americans. But their Americanism still maintains that America belongs to Americans: the people with deep roots in America and people who arrived legally with due process with respect for American history, culture, and laws. The idea that America belongs to the World is anathema to them. They believe the world has people who might become good Americans, and therefore, the American system should select those well-intentioned people of good character and hopefully some skills because 21st century America is not a world where any bunch of illiterates can find ready work on farms or factories. So, a broader meaning of ‘America is for Americans’ doesn’t mean that only existing Americans can be Americans and no one else. It says America is something good because of its history of culture, laws, and achievements, and from all this, a certain American civic identity and character have formed. So, to keep this fire going, America must be careful and mindful of what kind of people are allowed and in what numbers. Numbers matter. After all, assimilation becomes ever more difficult with massive arrivals of people. If Jews had trickled into Palestine, they might have assimilated into the Palestinian nation. But TOO MANY Jews came to replace Palestinians, just like TOO MANY Mexicans and Asians have come to replace whites and even blacks in parts of California. If massive arrival of ‘gringos’ changed the character of SW territories from Mexican to Anglo in the 19th century, why wouldn’t the reverse process also drastically change the character of those areas? And if Mexicans are moving to the US, it must because Anglos did a much better job in America than Mexicans did in Mexico. So, if all those Mexicans move up north and take over, won't they be spreading their own problems to America? This also goes for Haiti and Dominican Republic. Race and culture matter. If Haitians move to DR in great numbers, they will Haitianize DR into a 'shithole'.

Unfortunately, the pro-immigration people have gone utterly loco with what could only be described as suicidal will among ‘progressive’ whites and homicidal urge among non-whites who are now into parasitic colonizer mode than immigrant mode. They no longer come with any respect and admiration, especially as anti-white PC has been globalized. So, new arrivals from India, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, and etc. all come with the attitude of "racist white supremacist whitey, fuc* you, and you owe me." And they, even Muslims, ally with homos(mostly white decadents with tenuous connection to reality) who are now adored as angels and saints of America. Gee whiz, with Diversity blessing the homos and vice versa, how can any decent person object to the Color-Colonization of the West? After all, PC tells us that nothing is holier than homos and nothing is more wondrous than Diversity? The most fervent advocate for this future is, of course, Justin Trudeau, a ‘natural liberal’ who has no sense of roots or attachment and is so addicted to the fanfare of the ‘new’ that he’s willing to piss away the entire history and culture of Canada to feel thrills up his legs. But then, the majority of Canadians voted for that fool, so what does that say about the white race? It means, what with Jews controlling most of the media, academia, and entertainment, even masses of whites have been turned into mental mice following an idiot pied piper like Trudeau.

Anyway, given that the main divide in politics is about Americans who mainly see America as a nation for Americans in a world of many nations VERSUS Americans who mainly see America as an empire that should swallow and be swallowed by the world, the conventional divide between Democrats and Republicans isn’t very useful, not least because there are plenty of globalist-imperialists and patriot-nationalists in both parties.

The Imperials see America as the only nation that matters. Even as they claim to care about Diversity, they believe the world should come to America as the only nation of importance, the exceptional nation. If they really respected true diversity and wanted other peoples and nations to thrive, would they be telling the world to, "drop everything in your nation, leave your people, forget your identity, come to America, and become Americans." But then, what is so great about being an ‘American’ when these ‘progressive’ globalist-imperialists say American history has mostly been about ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’? If their argument is ‘racist’ America must be saved from itself by wonderful Diversity, then why call on Diversity to leave their own lands? If indeed Diversity is so wonderful, aren’t non-white living in paradise in their non-white ‘diverse’ lands? Why try to uproot them and bring them to America just to save the souls of whites? There are too many contradictions and absurdities in the Global-Imperial position, but then, empires have always been unstable because their combination of inequality(between the dominant power and weaker peoples) and diversity(divisions held together only by bread & circuses or porny displays of power) is difficult to sustain across vast distances over long periods.

Nationalism may be less exciting and adventurous, but it is more sound and stable over the long haul. How nice if National Socialist Germany had stuck to ‘boring’ nationalism than embarking on adventurous and exciting imperialism. Same was true of Napoleon and France. They should just minded the business of France.
In a way, the Imperial Game of America is both unnecessary and almost inevitable. It’s unnecessary because America is an empire unto itself. Few nations can claim to be both a nation and an empire(within its own borders). America, with its vast territory plus Alaska and Hawaii, has a lot to play with without meddling in or melding with the rest of the world. But then, because the US is so populous, vast with farmlands, endowed with almost limitless natural resources, and so wealthy, its ambitions and energies were itching to spread out over the bigger world. American business, military, media, academia, churches, and etc. want to play global roles to gain more markets, convert more hearts, persuade more minds, build more military bases, and etc. It’s just the nature of power. Too much power wants to break out and grab more power.

Anyway, if we were to designate two hypothetical parties as the Imperial Party and the National Party, how would their platforms differ in the most fundamental sense?

1. The Imperial Party would be bored with little old America. It would want global hegemony and to rule the whole world. Its core strategy would be Fuc*-and-Suck, that is Fuc* other nations with military power and financial muscle, and then Suck in their people as immigrants and ‘refugees’(often from war zones created by American imperialist aggression, as was the case of Libya and Syria). Also, suck in the talents(aka brain drain) for the American high-tech industry and suck in the helots for picking tomatoes and as demographic pawns to push black criminal elements out of cities. Because Imperial Party would really be about world hegemony, it’d have no qualms about interfering in other nations, messing with their political processes, and rigging their elections(but then, it might bitch about how Russians are messing up American sovereignty and democracy, an example of rank hypocrisy that betrays American arrogance as the ‘exceptional nation’ that is above the law and has the right to meddle in the affairs of all other nations, but other nations, especially if hated by Jews, better not try to meddle in American affairs. And even if they didn’t meddle, they could be accused of meddling just the same because Jews need scapegoats for whatever goes wrong with their agenda). Like imperialist forces anywhere and all throughout history, the Imperial Party would be addicted to more money, more control, more power, and more hegemony. And also to more More-Americans(endless mass immigration) as the Imperial Party's over-arching ambition and appetite would be bored and unsatisfied with existing Americans like a vain woman is bored with her existing collection of hats and shoes.

(2) The National Party would be for securing borders than complaining of boredom. It wouldn’t be bored with American history and American people. It’d want to preserve Core America that developed as essentially an extension of Western Civilization and European folks. Its main moral narrative would be about owing something to Indians and blacks(of slave ancestry) on grounds of America’s particular history. After all, American history was about particular peoples clashing with other particular peoples on a particular territory that led to particular triumphs and tragedies. When whites conquered the land of Indians, it was a particular, not a universal historical event. When whites brought blacks to work as slaves, that also was a particular story of one particular people doing something to another particular people on a particular territory, mostly the American South. Since American history was about particularities, the National Party would see no reason for America to feel that it must atone universally for wrongs that were done particularly, i.e. if a particular set of whites took a particular territory from a particular set of Indians, the moral issue has to be between whites and Indians, not between whites and Asian-Indians or Chinese.
The National Party would reject the ‘moral’ conviction that the US must serve as a dairy cow to provide milk of human kindness to all of humanity. A nation should only owe something to the peoples it has wronged. Indians and blacks have legit historical grievances. In contrast, seven billion people who want to move to America for material improvement(largely because they messed up their own nations with stupidity and corruption) have no moral justification to demand entry. They are not ‘dreamers’ but creamers who just want to slurp on the cream of others.

The National Party’s vision of the present and future flows from the remembrance of the past. It would regard the immigration waves of the late 19th century as a chapter in US history, not its template for propositional holy writ that America belongs more to outsiders than insiders.
The National Party would also object to any group trying to exploit American power to serve its narrow tribal interests. It would seriously abhor what Jews have done with their near-monopoly control of American power.

Now, there are elements of the Imperial Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are joined at the hip. Paul Ryan also belongs in the Imperial Party.

There are elements of the National Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Plenty of Democrats used to be for the American workers and immigration restriction before super-rich globalists took over the upper echelons of the Democratic party, as also happened in the Republican Party.

Anyway, even if America continues with the current two party system, things might come into clearer focus if we spoke not so much of Democrats and Republicans but of Imperials and Nationals.

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?

National or Imperial Greatness is Overrated

GREATNESS is overrated in World Affairs. What’s essential is goodness. There is no need for a people to be GREAT in order to maintain a nice nation and find meaning and happiness. They only need to be free and good.

Consider the breakup of the Soviet Union in which the various peoples were supposed to share in the great glory of Soviet-Russian Power. So what if the Baltic States(among many others) were no longer part of a ‘great empire’? They gained national independence and reclaimed national sovereignty.

Today, the real threat to the Baltics comes from EU as another Imperial Power, albeit a puppet empire of the even more powerful Zionist-American Empire. Also, Western Culture and Values aren’t what they used to be. In the past, it was beneficial for Eastern Europeans to look westward and learn from the great Brits, French, Italians, and Germans who were ahead of the game in everything.
But what are the current Western Values under globalism dominated by Jews and their proxy homos? Homomania, Rap music, Jungle Fever, ugly feminism, slut pride, skankery, adultery, Diversity, and infantilism.

That is why Baltic States are vulnerable as member states of EU. It was wonderful for them to break free of the great but repressive Soviet Empire. But they are now falling under control of demented globalist empire. Baltic nations need to be free of all empires despite their promise of 'greatness'.
Better to be free and good than be puppets sharing in Russian Greatness. Better to be free and good than be puppets sharing in EU greatness(that amounts to homo decadence and Africanization).

Empires come with a host of problems. Sure, Soviet Union was very powerful and EU is very rich(and being part of their imperial order comes with a certain prestige), but, all said and done, Soviets stood for communist repression & Russian bullying, and globalism is ultimately about the megalomania of Zionist-Homo supremacist lunacy.

What Baltic States need is national sovereignty and security. They don’t have to be GREAT. They just need to be free and good.
Indeed, most people are not great. They are not great scientists, great artists, great thinkers, great tycoons, or great athletes. But do they not have value? They have value if they are good and decent, and most nations should aspire to be good, free, and independent.

Better to be free as a good man than be a slave of a great empire. The latter may be part of something great but he is still a slave. As part of the Soviet Union, those Baltic States were puppet-states. They gained freedom with the fall of Soviet Empire and reclaimed their right to be free and good.
But now, they face the danger of becoming puppet-slaves of globalism, an ideology even worse than Soviet Communism.

It's better to be free as a good modest person than a slave of a great lord? As a slave, you may share in the glory of your master, but you’re still just a slave, a dog than a man.