Many people say the Iraq War was America’s biggest foreign policy failure, but there was something far worse. It was the Anglo-American elite’s decision to support Zionism at the expense of the Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims in the larger region. (One could argue that America’s biggest foreign policy disaster was the decision to import all those aggressive and muscled black Africans, but it happened BEFORE the colonials gained national independence to forge their own destiny.) In more ways than one, America’s decision to support Zionism was its worst moral failure as well, one that would have grave consequences and implications, especially as Jews gained the dominant position in American media, academia, finance, politics, and culture.
Now, why the argument that America’s Pro-Zionist and Anti-Palestinian policy was its most soul-destroying decision? After all, there are plenty of critics and arch-moralists who find ‘sin’ after ‘sin’ in America’s history of ‘genocide’ of the native Indians, the exploitation of black slaves, the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers & the ‘internment’ of Japanese in America, territorial expansionism(especially against Mexico), and involvement in destructive wars in the Age of Empire, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War(especially in Korea and Vietnam). Compared to all such events where literally countless peoples suffered or died, why should we concern ourselves with what happened to the Palestinians? One might say, "Sure, Palestinians got it in the neck, but it didn’t involve mass killings, and it all happened on a tiny piece of territory." If we judge history merely in terms of scale or sheer bulk, one might indeed say that the fulfillment of the Zionist project was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. And yet, history isn’t just about WHAT happened but WHY. Furthermore, it matters WHO were involved and what was implied by the event in the development of future events. After all, Jews didn’t merely take over Palestine but the US itself. If Jews had prevailed in Palestine/Israel but not in the US, they would have been like the Albanians who came out on top in Kosovo but have virtually no influence over the US, let alone the world. But because of what Jews managed to pull off in the US — topple and replace the Anglo-American elites who’d founded and ruled the nation since its inception — , what they did in Palestine came to direct and define their grand design for White America itself.
Though there were plenty of world events in which the US committed greater horrors and atrocities than what transpired in Palestine(as result of Anglo-American backing of Zionism), the motivations involved in the latter make the American decision all the more inexcusable. Consider the Cold War that began around the time of the destruction of Palestine and creation of Israel. Even though the US, along with the USSR, made series of morally dubious policy decisions and committed many unspeakable horrors(and supported militarist regimes, especially in South America, that used ‘death squads’ to terrorize and even exterminate local populations), they were part of a grand struggle between the totalitarian communist East and democratic capitalist West. Given the dire fate of the world were it to fall under communist rule, America’s heavy-handed role as the policeman of the ‘Free World’ seemed a ‘necessary evil’ at the time. Though the US often stained its reputation with its actions around the globe, its sphere seemed preferable to the Soviet sphere mired in communist stagnation, political repression, culture of fear, and even mass domestic violence(that dwarfed anything within the democratic capitalist West). A great power is like an elephant. Its sheer size and power make collateral damage(a lot of it) unavoidable. If a good or ‘gooder’ elephants fights a bad or ‘badder’ elephant, even the good or ‘gooder’ one will end up doing lots of damage to those animals and plants in the vicinity. It’s like the movie KING KONG VS GODZILLA where the clash of monsters leads to much human calamity regardless of which fella wins.
Given the nature of the Cold War, both the US and USSR often found themselves making Big decisions with grave consequences, especially for weak and small nations that were caught in between. It was the nature of the game, tragic and unfortunate but unavoidable given the scale and stakes involved. And it really was a global conflict where win-or-lose between the two superpowers would impact every corner of the world. Given the ideological, cultural, political, economic, and military antagonism between the US and the USSR, this really was History on the grandest of scales.
Much the same could be said for other big events, movements, commitments, and/or conflicts the US has been involved with. Though the European conquest of North America was tragic for the native Indian tribes, many of whom died by disease or bullets and all of whom permanently lost their sacred hunting and burial grounds to the White Man(and immigrant-invaders), it was inevitable when the high civilization of the West embarked upon what were vast sparsely inhabited territories with boundless soil and resources, most of which couldn’t be exploited by the Indians who were primitive savages. There was too much good land with too few people, and it was only natural that a more advanced people with greater numbers and technology would take over the land were they to 'discover' it. Just like Russians expanded into the vast territories of Siberia and the Han peoples moved into Tibet and Muslim territories of Central Asia, white people were going to take the New World as the natives were either lacking in resistance to Old World diseases and/or too few in number(especially in North America) to stem the tide of a people far more numerous, adventurous, technologically developed, and spiritually inspired. If white people hadn’t done it, any people from the Old World with the numbers, adequate technology, and navigational risk-taking would have done much the same. So, even as we acknowledge the tragic dimensions of the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians, it was one of those 'natural' events in history given the circumstances and factors that came into play, especially at a time when empire-building was universally recognized as the name of the game. Also, as John Wayne said, the American Indians were too few sitting on too much land and doing little with it when so much could be done, and it just so happened that it was whites, especially Anglos and Germanics, who had the spirit, will, and know-how to make it all work in the creation of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth.
And something similar can be said about America’s taking of the SW territories from Mexico. In some ways, it was a ‘shit move’, but then, both US and Mexico had come into existence through imperialism and expansion. So, the real ownership of the SW territories really depended on which side had greater vision, enterprise, resourcefulness, and fighting spirit. And it sure wasn’t the Mexicans, not least because the White Hispanic elites were in a state of stagnation & dissipation(at least compared to their Northern European counterparts) and, besides, urged their brown subjects to be timid, obedient, and humble than bold, energetic, and individualistic(because an excitable populace might just decide to overthrow the ruling elites, as the energized Jews took power from the enervating Wasps in the US). Of course, there was also the matter of genetics as the native Indios of ‘Latin America’ were an Asiatic people by origin and shared some of the submissive traits of their racial cousins across the Pacific Ocean. Anyway, given the nature of how both US and Mexico came into being, the tug-of-war for the SW territories was a kind of ‘great game’ where the bigger power simply swallowed a massive chunk of the weaker power. Mexicans have reasons to gripe about what happened, but they were also in the imperialist game and simply lost. After all, much of SW territories were inhabited by American Indians who fiercely resisted both Anglo-American settlers and Mexican troops. Americans took from Mexico what Mexico had taken from the American Indians.
As for slavery, it was an institution that the US inherited from colonial times when its territories had been part of the British Empire. By the principles by which the new nation was established, there should have been no place for slavery. And yet, even slavery could be explained in terms of economic necessity. While one may argue that it was motivated by greed, the fact is blacks were uniquely equipped to work better and survive in the hot malarial conditions of the American South. While morally indefensible, one could see how white people simply couldn’t resist the economic benefits that could be had from use of black slaves. In material terms, it was a ruthlessly rational decision. While we can condemn those reasons, they made economic sense that made political sense as political power grows out of economic power. White people were not trying to be gratuitously cruel with slavery. Rather, they were motivated by rational economic calculations even if they had to turn off a part of their heart.
As for America’s participation in the overseas Imperial Game beginning in the late 19th century, it was very much in vogue in world affairs. It was the belief among the major powers that they either expand or wither. As the West had advanced so far ahead of the Rest, it possessed the means to smash down barriers — even in the once forbidding China — , and so, global power came down to a matter of which white power(though joined by the Japanese as a kind of honorary white power) grabbed more than the other. In the Age of Empire, power was fluid in the sense that an expanding empire, even if small, would grow ever larger whereas a shrinking empire, even if huge, would grow ever smaller. Spanish Empire had once been many times bigger than the British Empire, but Spanish power diminished with its inability to keep expanding, whereas the British Empire grew ever larger. The thinking back then was that an imperial equilibrium was impossible, i.e. if an empire was merely content to keep what it already had, it would lose out to the more aggressive empire that kept looking to expand its range and possessions. Thus, enough was never enough for the British, French, Russians, and etc. In their eyes, the Spanish and the Ottoman empires were doomed because both had lost the will, means, and the drive to keep expanding. For a time, Japan and Germany also caught the imperial bug, seeking their ‘day in the sun’. Given the nature of the global power game, the US also joined in once continental America had been fully conquered, on its way to developing into a rich and powerful modern nation. So, even though some of the things the US did in the Philippines were terrible, it was the sign of the times where the game of empire was on the minds of all those aspiring to have their ‘day in the sun’. Revisionists might point to the conduct of America in World War I and World War II as deeply problematic, even evil and hardly better than the war crimes carried out by its enemies. But, however one may feel about the America's roles in those wars, the fact is all sides did horrible things, and we can well understand how nations and entire peoples could easily lose their basic sense of humanity and morality in wartime.
Poland in World War II
In contrast, it’s difficult to excuse what the US did to the Palestinians. Whatever one may say of America’s involvement with the American Indians, slavery, SW territories, or the game of empire(especially prior to World War I), a tremendous deal was at stake. The vanquishing of the American Indians was necessary for there to be America. Black slaves were economically valuable in Southern Plantations. The US could do so much with the SW territories than Mexico ever could. And when the major powers were all looking to expand as much as possible and dominate the sea routes, the US believed it had to play the game or live in a world where control of the oceans would fall to rivals, not just the Great Britain(who were at least fellow Anglos) but other rising powers as well. As US was destined to be a great power, it feared being relegated to irrelevance in what was still the Age of Empire.
But Palestine? What happened there had zero economic or military impact on the US. It had nothing to do with American survival, security, status, or prosperity. If whites hadn’t taken the land from the American Indians, the US would never have existed. If the US hadn’t taken the SW territories from Mexico, it would have been considerable smaller and Mexico considerably larger. So, on such matters, regardless of whether they were good or bad, we can at least understand why the US did what it did for rational, material, political, and/or military reasons.
In contrast, exactly what did the US gain by having Palestine destroyed? The principle here is the difference between necessary evil and gratuitous evil. All forms of ‘evil’ are deeply unpleasant, but at least a 'necessary evil' serves an essential purpose. Eating human flesh is hideous, but if one must do so in order to survive, we can at least understand why it was done as a ‘necessary evil’(as lost and stranded explorers have done). But imagine someone who practices cannibalism for reasons that have nothing to do with survival. Now, imagine someone who steals a loaf of bread because he is starving. Stealing is wrong, but we can understand his motivation to relieve his hunger. But if someone steals just to steal, it is much worse.
On the matter of the destruction of Palestine, the US has no good excuse(and of course, most of the convoluted excuses were made by vile Jews like Alan Dershowitz). Now, Jews themselves did have powerful and impassioned reasons for wanting the land and turning it into a Jewish Homeland, Israel. Jews do have ancient roots in the land that's always been holy(or deeply significant) in their eyes. Then, if Zionism was a matter of contention between Palestinians and Jews, it would more understandable as both peoples had deep connection to the territory. But, when the US backed the destruction of Palestine to make way for Israel, the US was not only overwhelmingly gentile(as it still is today) but was ruled by Anglo-Americans, not Jews. If the US back then had been as thoroughly Jewish-controlled as it is today, we could better understand the motivations of the US-Jewish elites in their brazen support of Israel. But back then, Jews had yet to gain ruling status. Now, one might argue that the US, being a Christian nation, wanted to reclaim the Holy Land from the Arabs/Muslims, but such reasoning doesn’t wash because the Holy Land was handed over to Jews than came into possession by the Christian West. At least when the Crusades happened centuries ago, it was about Christians taking the turf from the Muslims(and Jews as collaborators of Muslims), but in 1948, Christian America for some reason decided to go out on a limb to alter the destiny of a people, the Palestinians, who had never done any wrong to Americans in order to indulge the Jews who were already exhibiting all kinds of problematic tendencies.
History is filled with countless tragedies and ‘crimes’, but it is more justified or at least understandable IF supported by passion(especially vengeful), justice, or ambition(or even greed). While greed is hardly a noble quality, it is still nevertheless human. Someone who causes harm to enrich himself is still more recognizably human than someone who causes harm for no material benefit whatsoever. It’s like eating dogs is awful, but someone who kills a dog for food is still more human than someone who kills a dog for no discernible benefit to himself. Though many have observed that US levels of violence in World War II and Cold War conflicts were clearly overkill, one could still understand the passion or ‘justice’ behind them. In retrospect, the US bombings of Germany and Japan seem like overkill and the use of nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki seem downright psychotic, and yet, war drives all sides crazy, and many Americans were livid against Japan that had pulled off a sneak attack. And given Germany’s many war crimes, the Allies wanted to make Germans get a taste of their own medicine. As for US conflicts during the Cold War, there was a sense of ‘justice’(though also among the communist side) that seemed to justify extraordinary means to contain the ‘evil empire’ of Marxism-Leninism. At the very least, we can understand why Americans hated the ‘Japs’ or felt justified in using any means necessary to push back against the ‘commies’.
But such cannot be said of what the US did to the people of Palestine. Palestinians didn’t attack the US navy at Pearl Harbor or anywhere for that matter. (If any attack resembles Pearl Harbor, it was the Israeli assault on USS Liberty in 1967 with the full knowledge of it being an American ship.) There was no reason for the US to feel any kind of animus toward Palestinians who’d only been minding their own business on their own turf for as far as anyone could remember. There was no ideological reason to destroy Palestine as it was not some radical ally of the USSR. (If anything, many more Zionists had socialist-communist sympathies, which is why Josef Stalin initially courted the Zionists as potential allies and agents.) Then, for no rhyme or reason, moral or material, the US decided to have an entire people destroyed.
There’s a saying in the Bible, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul?" To that, one may respond, "Well, gaining the world at the expense of one’s soul is still some kind of valid reason." While, from the spiritual viewpoint, the soul is more important than worldly power, the latter is nevertheless nothing to sneer at. In a way, one might say that the history of the US has been about gaining the world by losing one’s soul... which may be the reason why Americans have gone out of their way to moralize their history in order to justify what has essentially been the inexorable triumph of materialism. Anyway, the point is that gaining-the-world would still be worthy as a political goal. (All throughout history, states chose 'the world' over 'the soul' when push came to shove. Buddhism didn't make the Japanese lay down the arms at any time in their history.) Both keeping one’s soul by sacrificing worldly ambition and losing one's soul to gain the world could be recognized as worthy objectives, and the modern West admires both the spiritual leader and the material go-getter. The real quandary could be posed as follows: "What does it profit a man to lose his soul to gain nothing?" When America ‘lost its soul’ time and time again to ‘gain the world’, it made some sense. But when America decided to lose its soul by destroying Palestine, what was that about? By losing its soul, what did it gain in return or recompense? Losing one’s soul to get nothing is infinitely worse than losing one’s soul to get something. When the US ‘lost its soul’ by ‘stealing’ the SW territories from Mexico, it got something, indeed a lot. Furthermore, it was good for Many Americans as those vast lands provided opportunities for countless Americans to try their luck at better life and more wealth. Even if something is morally dubious, it is partly validated by the good it provides to many people. If it is illegal to hunt moose but if I kill one anyway to feed a large clan, I’ve broken the law but nevertheless done something that’s good for my kinfolks. I would have acted as a river-to-my-people. But suppose I break the law and hunt a rare precious bird to serve the vanity of someone who not only isn’t a member of the clan but tends to be rather(and even radically) hostile to my folks. What would have been the purpose of such lawbreaking that cannot even be justified on the basis of utilitarian principles? If my family is starving and I illegally hunt an animal to feed them, that makes some sense, but suppose I decide instead to steal money to purchase expensive cognac for someone who isn’t part of the family and, if anything, feels contempt toward me and seeks to reduce my family to pieces of commodity to be controlled by his ilk. Would that make any sense? What the white race did for the Jews wasn’t merely a case of losing one’s soul but one's sanity as well.
Of course, one could argue that the American decision had something to do with the Shoah(aka the Holocaust), but that’s bogus as (1) the Zionist project had begun before Adolf Hitler was even born and (2) Israel was founded AFTER the Germans lost WWII and Europe was safe from the Nazis. A more likely rationale was the hope among the Anglo-American elites that the highly talented and fast-rising Jews would become Good Grateful Americans and valuable allies of Wasps IF Jewish demands for US support for Zionism was placated. Especially as World Jewry played(Yojimbo-like) the US against the USSR, there might have been a fear among Wasps that if they didn’t support Israel, all those talented Jews would sympathize with the USSR and/or grow more radical & subversive and create troubles for the West. If such apprehensions did tip the balance to support Zionism among the Anglo-American elites, one might argue that there was an element of rational calculation and self-interest among the whites. But such thinking on their part indicates a lack of confidence, awareness, and what might be called ‘historical providence’.
Even back then, did the Wasp elites surmise that Jews would surpass them in power and privilege, and therefore, they had to get a head start in being nice to Jews who would eventually be their masters? Or, did the Wasp elites regard Jews as a pesky bunch of agitators(for tribal or radical interests) who could be assuaged with some concessions? Let Jews have Palestine with the backing of the US, and maybe they’ll finally shut up and stop being so pushy. At any rate, it seems the Wasps seriously lacked foresight as to how trends and events would eventually play out. Surely, some Wasps did understand the threat posed by rising Jewish power(especially in media, academia, and finance), but they were disregarded and eventually denounced by fellow Liberal Wasps(soon followed by 'mainstream' Conservative Wasps) as alarmist, irrational, and 'fear-mongering'. Besides, an open and welcoming attitude is usually more pleasant than a closed and wary one. At most times, all of us want to be kindly, trusting, and friendly with everyone. But if one wastes one’s hospitality/generosity with the wrong kind of people, it will spell doom sooner than later. After all, anyone with sense decides whom to invite or not to his abode. An open house is destined to be a dilapidated house. Now, things might have worked out well for whites and Jews IF INDEED the Liberal Wasps had been correct about the good, decent, and honorable nature of Jews. They were dead wrong. And of course, due to the horrors of World War II — in which the radical European right disgraced itself with wars, acts of genocide, and alliance with Japan that attacked the US — , the Right all over the world was on the moral defensive.
Still, given the threat of communism(and its many crimes carried out by Jewish Bolsheviks) and the Cold War, there were many opportunities for the White Right in US and Europe to marshal their forces against the Radical Left, the Jews, and sappy White Liberals with a soft spot for communism and Jewish Power. But unfortunately, people on the Right were considerably less likely to become involved with arts & letters, academia, and media. For every National Review, there were many more Liberal Journals. And to give the Liberals their due, they were often more interesting thinkers because of their greater curiosity and finer sensibility, at least prior to the rise of Youth Consumer Culture & the booming of vanity-idolatry(that turned ideology into 'idology') that turned Liberalism into mostly cultural trash and intellectual juvenilia.
In the long run, what proved to be especially fatal was the Right(and the Left)’s abandonment of the Jewish Question. Given what happened in World War II and the Shoah, it was understandable why people felt that Jews needed a grace period. But given the dramatic rise of Jewish Power and its closeted supremacist ends, there was a necessity for strong criticism of Jewish Power, if only as checks and balances against what could well turn out to be the New Ruling Elite. This could have been done responsibly, AT ONCE denouncing the horrid excesses of Nazism & fully recognizing Adolf Hitler as a pathological demagogue AND addressing Jewish attitudes, behaviors, & historical ‘crimes’ that had led to much animus against them in so many peoples and nations. It’s like one can feel sympathy for the Soviets/Russians who were ravaged by the Nazi invasion while, at the same time, condemning the historical ‘crimes’ of Soviet Communism(especially Stalinism) and the aggressive reach of Russian Imperialism. Similarly, one can harshly criticize the American use of atomic bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while being fully aware of the fact that Japan played an aggressive imperialist game and triggered off ever-bigger wars that brought it to ruin(and led to the deaths of millions of Chinese and other Asian peoples). Historical Morality is not a game of either/or because all humans are more animals than angels, and this is no different with the Jews. But for some reason, the Western world has been spellbound to regard Jews as eternally blameless on account of the Shoah. So, never mind what Jews are doing in the present. If you call out on bad Jewish behavior, you are an ‘Anti-Semite’ or ‘Nazi’. And this logic seems to apply to all future Jewish behavior and even retroactively revise all of Jewish History whereby, in any given conflict between Jews and non-Jews, we must remind ourselves that Jews were the innocent party who’d been wronged by the Evil Goyim who, for some godforsaken reason, entirely lost their sanity & decency and descended like a pack of rabid wolves upon the wonderful, innocent, and helpless Jews. Such mind-set would be amusing if Jews were a powerless people like drunken Eskimos or fat Hawaiians, but it’s downright deadly(for all of humanity) in a world in which World Jewry constitute the greatest power.
Even though the West is said to be a ‘liberal democracy’, the political psychology is closer to that in North Korea. In a true liberal democracy, there shouldn’t be taboos about power. After all, unlike a monarchy or dictatorship, a democracy is a system where you, I, or anyone should be able to freely discuss the problems of power and who has more of it and where and how. We should be able to say the Emperor wears no clothes. But if there are powerful taboos governing the discussion and critique of power, the system would be liberal democratic in form but theocratic and/or cultist in function. In North Korea, which is certainly not a liberal democracy, it is taboo to have negative thoughts about the leader and the Party. Indeed, it’s not even permissible to be neutral about the Power. One has to be sincerely enthusiastic to the point of hysterics in support of Fat Ugly Kim as the greatest thing since kimchi and dog-soup.
When we survey Western Political Culture, it is liberal democratic in the sense that there are elections, a press independent of the state(though all of media are owned by a handful of oligarchs to be sure), rights of free speech, and the culture of speaking truth to power. But all such guarantees and considerations are emotionally and psychologically(and even ‘spiritually’) overridden by the pull of PC or ‘woke’ sanctimony about Jews, blacks, and homos. We are not supposed to think factually, rationally, or critically about those three groups who are so prominent in media, academia, finance, law firms, sports, pop music, comedy, fashion, arts, politics, and/or crime. So many people have been led to revere Jews as the Holy Holocaust people who are above criticism. And blacks have been ‘sacralized’ via MLK & Mandela cult, To Kill a Mocking Bird, & Slavery Narrative(as if they are the only people to have known slavery) AND sensationalized via sports, music, and sex culture; the combination of ‘sacralization’ and sensationalization has turned blacks into objects of worship among so many whites who are now stricken with the Mandela/Mandingo Complex. And then, there is the term ‘homophobia’ that would have us believe that any negative aspersion about homos and their behavior is a kind of mental malady that has no basis in fact and no backing in morality(or even spirituality). So, if you find sodomy or homo-fecal-penetration, not to mention tranny penis-cutting, to be gross and putrid, the problem is with YOU. According to the PC ‘idology’ of Wokery, a penis up a bunghole or knife slicing a penis(to make way for a fake ‘vagina’) is what the rainbow is all about, and this homo-sanctified ‘rainbow’ now drapes every other church with the full urging of Jews.
For so many people in the so-called Liberal Democratic West, certain topics cannot be broached honestly, freely, and/or empirically because such might ‘trigger’ those who hold certain idols and ideals to be sacrosanct and beyond criticism or reproach. And certain terms have ‘mantric’ powers to induce hallucinations, rapture, or hysteria(such as KKK sightings even at Oberlin college). And so many people respond to certain idols and images in the way that the Catholic faithful used to with sightings of miracles or demons. Jewish-run Hollywood has essentially become the New Cathedral for secular America. From movies and TV shows so many people in the West pick up their notions of who/what are holy and unholy. Due to all those KKK tropes, so many idiots think the Klan is still a force in American politics. KKK has become something everyone loves-to-hate. One's righteous animus against it makes for neo-spiritual vibes in a world without God. Such mass mentality has created a political culture in which Jews, blacks, and homos cannot be discussed critically — notice how even as Jews, blacks, and homos beat up on Donald Trump and GOP, most of what we hear from The Donald and his followers is "We love Israel, we love blacks, and Trump has done more for ‘gays’ around the world" — and where all the blame irrationally falls on ‘white supremacy’ and its legacy. (Btw, if the US is such a great nation, one where billions of people dream of moving to, shouldn’t ‘white supremacy’ be credited with its creation and development since America would have been inconceivable without white people, especially of Anglo, Celtic, and Germanic stock, constituting the vast majority and dominating the helm of leadership, management, and planning? If America had instituted ‘open borders’ policy from the very outset and let in all the world, the nation that we know as America would never have come to fruition. It was white success that attracted the world, and that success wouldn't have been possible without 'white supremacy': White Successupremacy. If white adventurousness, white conquest, white settlement, and white solidarity all constituted ‘white supremacy’ and given that this formula led to the rise of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, isn’t it about time we gave ‘white supremacy’ its due as the most essential formula in the making of America as a great nation?) Given the taboos that govern speech and politics in the West — furthermore, there are now laws in EU and deep state antics in the US that effectively ban free speech and honest criticism — , the current West is a liberal democracy in body only. In heart and mind, it functions much like North Korea, what with its cultist idolization of certain groups & figures and witch-hunting demonization of certain views & ideas as ‘hate speech’ and certain groups(especially whites) as more guilty than others. By the way, if whites must answer for their ‘collective guilt’ for all the bad things they’ve done, why shouldn’t they feel ‘collective pride’ for all the great things(science, philosophy, literature, arts, technology, medicine, etc.) that came from the West?
Of course, none of this makes sense, but then, it’s impossible to speak sensibly and rationally with people with cultist mentalities that not only foster dogmatism and stupidity but total lack of self-awareness, as with all those Liberals who decry the ‘McCarthy Era’ while foaming at the mouth about Russian Collusion and how Putin is under every bed cover in the US. Among both Conservatives and Liberals, most Americans are now pathetically stupid and idiotic. Their political mentality is akin to dogs seeking approval from the master. Just like a dog will fetch any stick or hunt any animal to win approval from its master, your average PC libby-dib or cuckservative chases after prey(real or imaginary) to win plaudits(and hopefully prizes) from the Master Class made up of Bugs(Busy Urban Globalist Semites, aka Jews) and comprador Wasps. They are driven by emotions hardly different from those of dogs. Just like dogs are incapable of figuring out anything on their own and depend on their masters to tell them what to love and what to hate, these PC morons act accordingly to be rewarded with the most pets on the head. Just like the Catholic Church for so long determined what the mindless Faithful should revere or revile, it is Jewish Power(especially of media, academia, and Hollywood) that fills the minds of countless minions in the West as to what must be consecrated(especially Anno Sodomini) or desecrated(such as Confederate monuments and anything with too many 'white males').
Spend some time going deep down the rabbit hole of the comments on this former Harvard med school dean's tweet. These are medical elites. This is their obsessive ideology. We live in an age of disintegration... https://t.co/6UusCw1U5f
Most people are stupid and shallow. Consider how easy it was for Mao Zedong to inflame all those Red Guards to rampage around China and destroy Old Culture. Though Mao urged the young to rebel, they had to be told what to rebel against. Of course, they couldn’t rebel against the most powerful man in China who was none other than Mao himself. So, their ‘rebellion’ was really an act of blind obedience in service to Emperor Mao who was merely using the Red Guard thugs to destroy his rivals, real or perceived. In the current West, most of what is called 'the resistance', 'the left', 'progressives', 'antifa', and 'radicals' are the tools of the Power, which is Jewish-Zionist, globalist, capitalist, and imperialist. Just like Red Guards were duped into thinking they were 'rebels', most of today's 'rebellious' voices are the favored pets of Global Capitalism that concocted the bogeyman of 'white supremacism' in order to channel youthful rage against anything but themselves. (In some ways, the proglodytes are worse than the Red Guards who were, at the very least, Chinese nationalists. Today cucky-wuck 'left' is about whites being led by Jews to hate other whites to get their virtue-highs.)
In a way, paradoxically enough, the prideful notion of ‘liberal democracy’ has blinded people in the West to how illiberal and undemocratic they’ve become, especially under the rule of Jewish supremacist globalists. Because it’s been drummed into them that they’re living in ‘democracy’(as opposed to autocracies like, say, Russia or China), they don’t think to really examine the freedoms and rights that have been compromised under the power of Jews who use monopolistic corporate leverage to suppress certain viewpoints(mainly by professionally deplatforming ‘white nationalists’ & denying them livelihoods) AND use state power to suppress certain activities(such as BDS movement that calls for justice for Palestinians who are slated to be replaced in the remaining West Bank territories). But seriously, how free is the West when individuals can be imprisoned for tweets in the UK or when patriots who oppose mass-invasion are routinely targeted by the courts & police in France? And if democracy still works in the West, how come UK still hasn’t made Brexit work? And what kind of ‘free press’ does the US have when 95% of the outlets are owned by a handful of Jewish oligarchs? Or when virtually every politician is a whore of oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson or the Pritzkers? And what kind of liberal democracy uses extensive PC speech codes(and even encourages Antifa thugs) to silence genuinely dissenting views, especially against white people who seek liberation from Jewish supremacist hegemony? How odd that the PC idiots of the West scream ever louder about their pride in liberal democracy while using the most illiberal and undemocratic means to get what they want or, more precisely, what the Jewish oligarchic class wants. As it turns out, most PC folks have no power and only bark like dogs to feel ‘good’ about themselves as morally superior to those demonized by Jews as evil. Just like dogs have no understanding of the real agenda and are anxious to win approval from their masters, most PC whites are utterly clueless about how they’ve been mentally colonized and manipulated by Jewish globalist supremacists who control the institutions and industries of media, academia, courts, entertainment, and the deep state. Virtually every one of these PC minion clowns, having no mind of his or her own, has been instilled as what to think and how to feel by TV, movies, advertising, publishing, and etc., the monopolized sources of Jewish Power. Just like the world was in the dark as to the source of the Nile River until English explorers finally found it, most people have no clue as to the source of the snake-oil they’ve drunken to their gills. But then, did the Chinese who were addicted to opium really think hard about where it came from and whom it was enriching?
Anyway, we now see the full ramifications of the Anglo-American support of Zionism: Jewish supremacism that is totally out-of-control and eyes the white population as the New Palestinians to be replaced all around the West. To Jews, the West is just a bigger West Bank, and in some ways, white people are more helpless than the Palestinians. At the very least, Palestinians are empowered with the full knowledge that Jews are their oppressors and speak honestly among themselves as to what must be done to stop the total Zionist destruction of remaining Palestine. Palestinians are poor and powerless in numbers and materials, but they have the power of truth when it comes to Jewish tyranny. In contrast, white people in America, Canada, Australia, and Europe have the ample numbers and means to confront and push back against Jewish Power, but they are utterly helpless because (1) their cuck elites have been bought and/or blackmailed by the Jewish oligarchs — much like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART II — and (2) so many whites have been mentally colonized by Jews, indeed to the extent that both the white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ regard Jews as people possessed of timeless wisdom and noble goodwill. A Jew can show up in any elite realm of the West and expect to have the red carpet rolled out to him or her as a heaven-sent creature, almost as if he or she is second coming of christ. A JEW is speaking to us. Get on your knees and listen to every word with utmost concentration, reverence, and rapture.
To free and sane minds, the bogus nonsense peddled by the likes of Barbara Specter(who says Europe can only survive by being mass-replaced by foreigners as ‘New Europeans’) and hideous Donna Zuckerberg(the sister of the Mark the Zionist gangster) is obvious disingenuous and demented. But hey, they are Holy Jews, one of the Holy Three who have the power to make white people teary-eyed and eager for benediction from their approval and forgiveness! As such, they not only have the financial backing of the Power but are automatically thought of as possessing special knowledge and wonderful advice for all mankind. And so, all those with colonized-than-free-minds lend their ears to those hideous Jews. What happens to people who trust Jews? Well, what happened to the Palestinians who trusted the Zionist immigrants who assured them that there was NO agenda to turn Palestine into a Jewish-majority state? If Jews pulled a fast one on Palestinians(and feel zero remorse about it), what makes white people think Jews will treat them any better? Paradoxically, the more white folks support the Zionist destruction of Palestine, the more Jews will do the same to white people. It's like the opening scene of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID when what Garrett did to the Kid comes full circle to finish him off as well. There are, of course, wise Jews and decent Jews, but most Jews will seek tribal power above universal justice, something they don’t believe in except to dupe and disarm goyim who stand in the way of Jewish supremacism. It’s like people use a sword against the other, not against oneself. To Jews, universalism is a weapon to demean goyim as ‘racists’ and ‘xenophobes’, thereby weakening their defenses, all the while they themselves stick with their zealous tribalism that is so insistent on identity, history, and territoriality, even special privilege and supremacy.
America’s moral favoritism of Jews makes no historical sense because Jewish Tragedy was NOT a part of American History(which is precisely why Jews have drawn comparisons between Anglo-American 'crimes' and Nazi German horrors to create a kind of Parallel Guilt, a ploy that has worked effectively among so many childlike whites devoid of sense and wits; so even though white Americans didn't wrong Jews, they did things to non-Jews that were supposedly similar to the Holocaust, especially as both Anglo-Americans and Germans were inspired by the worst of sins, 'racism'). However one may feel about American Indians, blacks, or Mexicans, there is no denying that the continent was taken from American Indians(whose demise is considered by some as ‘genocide’), that blacks were exploited as slaves & racially discriminated against, and that SW territories were forcibly wrested from Mexico(with much lingering violence between the two communities). Also, the US committed horrible deeds in overseas wars. So, if the US were to feel a degree of ‘collective guilt’ about something and attempt to make amends, it would at least be understandable within the context of US history. But what does the US owe to Jews who were never victims in the New World(and if anything, worked with whites to plunder the land and destroy the natives)? America wasn’t taken from Jews(like Palestine was taken from Palestinians). If anything, Jewish merchants sold guns and ammo to whites to kill Indians with. Jews were no less 'racist' than the whites. America didn’t enslave the Jews. If anything, Jews in the South owned slaves and ran the finances of the slave economy. The US didn’t create the Nazi Party, nor did it start the acts of aggression that led to World War II. If anything, Jews attracted much hatred, hostility, and distrust in Europe for their radical will, prophetic zealotry, or subversive obsessions either as capitalists or communists. Whether Ayn Rand or Karl Marx, Jewish personality had an arrogant way of pushing things to the limit. Just like so many big dumb goy characters eventually end up wanting to break every bone of Chico, Harpo, and Groucho in Marx Brothers — patience has its limits — , it’s understandable why so many Europeans became ‘antisemitic’ as the crazy Jews were tireless in driving everyone up the wall, using either finance capitalism, radical communism, and/or cultural subversion to turn everything upside down. (Consider how Globo-Homo-Mania came to supplant Christianity in the US thanks to Jewish power and influence. Consider how Jews have utterly pornified American culture, even turning Disney into what might be called ‘Jizzney’. And Jews now peddle gambling like they once peddled opium to the Chinese. Jews get richer, goyim get poorer.)
If the US must make up for its historical ‘sins’, why has there been all this stuff about Jews, ‘antisemitism’, and the Holocaust? (And if America's 'original sin' is 'racism' against blacks, then how does it improve matters for the US to support Jewish supremacist policies in the West Bank and Gaza where the discrimination and terror go far beyond anything in Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa? According to Desmond Tutu, South Africa during Apartheid was nothing like what is being done to the Palestinians with the full backing of the deranged US.) Amusingly enough, it seems the biggest rap that Jews have against White America is that some of their great grandparents weren’t admitted into elite Wasp golf clubs, that Ivy League universities once enforced quotas against Jewish applicants(who were still vastly over-represented in enrollment btw), and that not enough whites were sufficiently enthused about entering yet another World War — keep in mind that Americans lost more than 100,000 men in the last year of fighting in World War I — to save the Jews(but then, never mind Hitler would never have come to power if Jews hadn’t pushed communism & participated in the killing of millions, abused finance-capitalism to fleece so many Germans during the Great Depression, and promoted Weimar cultural degeneracy that alienated so many Germans and other Europeans). There were, to be sure, cases of anti-Jewish bullying in American schools, but more often than not, the thugs were either black or ethnic-whites(fellow immigrants who arrived alongside Jews), and if anything, it was the Anglo-American order that made it possible for Jews to appeal to some semblance of Rule of Law to get some justice.
Jews are utterly shameless. Even though they have NO history of tragedy & victim-hood in American History(and, if anything, worked alongside whites to destroy the native Americans and enslave blacks), they had the chutzpastic temerity to occupy the throne of Noble Victimhood in American Life, indeed to insist that Americans must atone for what happened to Jews in Germany during WWII. Therefore, we must praise all things Jewish and support the Zionist destruction of Palestine. Just like a cuckoo bird's hatchling pushes out the real offsprings from the nest, the bogus victim-hood of Jews have suppressed or marginalized the genuine victim-narratives of other groups who are infinitely more deserving of American Sympathy.
All in all, when we consider all the violence and brutality perpetrated by America in its short history, Jews CANNOT be considered one of its great victim groups or even a victim group of any kind. Sure, Jews got it in the neck under the Nazis, but Nazi Germany was NOT the US, and what other nations did or didn't do should not shape the moral narrative of Americans. (Should Americans suck up to Chinese-Americans because so many of their kind suffered horribly in the 20th century at the hands of the imperialists, especially the Japanese? As horrible as it was, what the Japanese did to the Chinese should NOT be part of the American Victim Mythology.) And this is why the US support of Zionism has always been morally shoddy, indeed downright fraudulent(and 'racist' considering that the US support of Israel as part of 'Western Civilization' connotes that WHITE Christians should support WHITE European-Jews over them brown Ay-rabs). Americans didn't owe Jews anything, and furthermore, it was the Palestinians who were being wronged by the Jewish immigrant-invaders who were poised to take over and replace the existing population. It’s as if the US made amends for a people to whom it owed nothing. (If anything, Jews owed a tremendous deal to Anglo-America that made Jewish success possible.) Now, given what Germans did to the Jews, it might have made some sense to hand over a chunk of Germany for a Jewish State. After all, Poles got a huge chunk of Germany(as compensation and to make up for losses of territory in the East to the USSR). It was the Germans who did it, not the US. Also, Palestinians had nothing to do with World War II, let alone the Shoah. It had nothing to do with World War I and the rise of communism and Fascism that laid the grounds for another world war. And yet, not only did the US behave as if it owed something to Jews but carried out its 'obligation' by helping the Jews take land from Palestinians, a truly innocent people who had never done any wrong to Americans, none whatsoever. The sheer perversity & absurdity of American moralism when it comes to Jews is truly amazing.
Granted, Jews are expert hustlers and knew how to con the Wasps into granting special favors to Jews. Jews flattered Wasps that their Anglo creation, America, was so different from Old Europe that was all about tyranny and bigotry. Also, America, as a young country, hoped to gain instant pedigree of deep culture by embracing Jews, the most ancient of peoples. The youngest nation welcoming and being blessed by the oldest people. Surely, if a people as wise and spiritual as the Jews lent their blessing to Anglo-American, then the US must be something more than a nation of money and ideas; it must be a nation of roots, even if those roots came from elsewhere. (In a way, the whole appeal of Mormonism was to imagine ancient-ness in America that had none[unless we’re dealing with American Indians, but then they hardly had a civilization worthy of the title of deep history and ancient-ness; they were a bunch of half-naked savages romping around chasing after bisons]). Anglo-Americans knew it had been morally questionable to take the land from the natives and practice slavery on a massive scale. Then, it’s understandable why Wasps craved benediction from the Jews, a great people with deep roots. If Jews blessed the white man’s creation, wouldn’t it wash away a lot of sins? And then, following the Shoah when Jews were soon promoted as the most tragic of all peoples(and when ‘antisemitism’ became the most unpardonable ‘sin’), the Jewish Question turned into the Jewish Answer of both Liberal Wasps and Conservative Wasps doing a tug-of-war to win over the Holy Jews to their side. Such psycho-politico-morality complicated matters a great deal when it came to American righteousness. For example, are Americans supposed to feel ‘guilty’ about what happened to the Indians? If so, they should have been most sensitive toward the Palestinians who faced the similar threat of being robbed of their homeland by waves of immigrant-invaders. In some ways, Jews and Liberal Wasps pushed this line of reasoning, some even going so far as to compare the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians with the Shoah. And yet, there was also the idea that the US should admire and support Israel because Americans naturally identify with Jews as the cowboys who proved triumphant over the natives and built a rich modern nation from the little that had been there.
One thing for sure, American Indians were indeed a real ‘victim group’ at the hands of whites. Jews were never a victim group in the US, and if anything, they often worked with whites in the Westward expansion and Southern Slavery. And, there was no reason whatsoever for the US to punish the Palestinians, a people who had never committed any wrong against the US or the West. But what’s truly perverse is that the US not only got sucked into the Jewish agenda & Zionist plot to wrong the Palestinians but willfully swallowed the moral crackpot cooked up by Jews that would have us believe that the creation of Israel was one of the greatest moral triumphs of world history. But why?
While I can understand Jewish sentimentality and myths about the Holy Land and how its recovery as the Jewish Homeland meant the world to them, what was so moral about it? Jews-as-dominant-majority hadn’t occupied that particular territory for thousands of years, and even when they held it in ancient times, it had almost as many non-Jews among the population who also had claims on the land. If every group dredged up ancient land claims and fought to retake what had been lost centuries or even millenniums ago, the world would blow up in World War III, IV, V, and etc. Whatever ancient claims Jews may have had, they had no clear moral claim on the land in modern times. Also, contrary to the bogus narrative, Jews could have obtained territory in some other part of the world to have a homeland. And if Americans(and Canadians) were so sympathetic to Jews and concerned about their well-being, especially after the horrors of World War II, they could have offered some empty piece of land(plenty in both US and Canada) to the Jews, especially because Israel was bound to be surrounded by none-too-friendly Arab/Muslim nations. And yet, this most amoral or even immoral of historical events came to be so maniacally moralized in US politics, media, culture, and spiritual life. It has so much to do with who/whom. Once Jews were elevated to holy status(and had so much money to throw around), they were like ‘made men’ with the Midas touch that turned even their worst crimes into something noble and worthy. Who else and why else could the Jews have gotten away with something as brazen as the USS Liberty Attack?
Agreat lie is like a cancer, especially if it involves a people with great power. Jews have great power, and its legitimacy in America(that rules the world) is based on a vile and perverse lie. Now, Zionism per se isn’t absurd or particularly perverse. The Jewish nationalist desire for a homeland of their own was perfectly understandable, and the Jewish attachment to the Holy Land involved real historical and cultural roots. What is perverse is why Jewish identity, Jewish matters, Jewish themes, and Zionism became so central to America, a nation that is only 2% Jewish and one that never committed a grave wrong against the Jewish people(whereas one can argue that the US has much to answer for in relation to many other peoples; consider the tragedies caused by US meddling in Latin America, Asia, and the Arab World). If the US had done something to remove Jews who had already been living in the Holy Land and replaced them with Arabs, one could see why US support of Zionism could have been a moral imperative, one that would right the wrong done to Jews. But Jewish-European immigration to Palestine only began in the late 19th century and gathered pace in the 20th century. US did nothing to take the Holy Land away from Jews, and Palestinians had been on the land for as far as they could remember. So, there was no moral reason for the US to intervene in that region for the sake of Jews at the expense of another people. It fails as Moralpolitik or Idealpolitik.
But, what is truly perverse is it even fails as Realpolitik as the US gained no geopolitical advantage by favoring the Zionists and alienating so much of the Arab-Muslim World that would likely have been friendly to the US if not for the issue of Zionism, Nakba, and Israel. If anything, Israel has been a thorn on the side of US foreign policy. So, what was it all for? US had no moral reasons to destroy Palestine and favor the Jews. And it gained no political advantage in the region by pissing off all those Arabs. Even for those who insist that the Iraq War was the biggest foreign policy blunder/disaster for the US, would it have happened if not for the creation of Israel and Jewish takeover of the US? Would Jews(who came to be so powerful in the US) have pushed for aggressive policies in the Middle East if not for the existence of Israel? The ONLY reason why Jews have been adamant about America’s aggressive role in the Middle East and North Africa has been over "Is it good for Israel?" Then, if no Israel, almost certainly no Gulf War, no 9/11, and no Iraq War, not to mention Libyan War, Syrian War, and etc. Even much of the rise of modern terrorism can be traced back to Zionism. Not only were Jewish terrorists pioneers in the field of modern violence but the trauma of Zionist victory over Arabs led so many Muslims to a life of radicalism and terrorism, albeit often manipulated and steered by the US, Israel, and Saudis against secular modernizing Arab/Muslim nations.
Even the one Realpolitik rationale that would justify US support of Zionism has turned out to be a total failure. It goes as follows: As Jews are naturally smarter and destined to rise to the top in the Liberal Democratic West following World War II, white people must be extra-nice to the Jewish community so that, one day, when Jewish power rules the world, the Jews will remember the kindness of whites and treat them accordingly. Then, even if the US support of Zionist destruction of Palestine was a geopolitical disaster and a great moral failure, at the very least whites would have powerful and grateful Jews on their side. Well, it sure didn’t turn out that way. It was all wishful thinking based on misconception of Jewish attitudes and underestimation of Jewish hatred & resentments. What whites might have regarded as generosity and magnanimity on their part, Jews saw only weakness, stupidity, naivete, and delusion. Jews don’t respect dummies, and white people acted really dumb. And now, Jews are pushing for White Nakba in targeting all of the West as one big West Bank. If Jews themselves took over Palestine and West Bank, Jews intend to use countless hordes of Asians, Africans, Hindus, and browns as their proxy demographic armies to inundate Europe, Australia, Canada, and the US.
Why would Jews do something so awful when they have it so good in the White West and when white people have come to treat them with such kindness? It's because Jewish revenge knows no bounds. Also, Jewish supremacist paranoia feels that Jewish bad behavior — deep down inside, Jews know they act badly and madly toward goyim — will eventually piss off whites once again, and this will lead to the great white backlash. Therefore, Jews must diversify the West as possible so that they can exploit Diversity to set one group of goyim against others in the cunning game of ‘divide and rule’. (If Jews were to better police and purge the bad apples in their tribal barrel, they could avoid future 'antisemitism', but Jews mostly do not for three reasons. Bad Jews often make the most fortunes for the Jewish community as lack of scruples + high intelligence is formula for fast riches. Jewish self-criticism might be seen as a vulnerability and inspire 'Anti-Semites' to go on the offensive; Jews hate playing defense and see offense as the best defense, and that means never airing dirty laundry unless they really have to, as with the cases of Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein. Jews have a dual morality when it comes to goyim. What isn't permissible among their own kind is perfectly permissible when dealing with filthy goyim.) Also, via race-mixing, especially between white women and black men, Jews seek to castrate white manhood into cuckery and set the white race against one another. Notice how Jews use feminism, youth culture, and ideology to set whites against whites: Women against men, youth against elders, ‘progressives’ against ‘conservatives’, North against South, and etc.
As what the Jews are doing is so obvious, why can’t we speak the truth? Why is our political and media culture so warped and downright surreal in its inability to look truth straight in the eye and say it like it is? 'Truthophobia' has something to do with the bargain that America struck with Jews, a most devious and dishonest people who have nevertheless put themselves forth as the conscience of America, the West, the World, the cosmos, and even god himself. Long long ago in ancient times, the powerful Jewish personality projected itself onto the universe and created a deity. It was a brazen act of chutzpah, but the saving grace was that in bowing down before this cosmic force, Jews believed there was something greater than any single Jew. But ever since Jews dumped God, each big-shot Jew thinks that he knows everything about everything. Like the Jewish porn-meister Ron Jeremy, he sucks his own dick.
America has never been a stranger to lies(like any civilization), but the lies surrounding Jews and Zionism defy all logic and sense of limits. The degree to which America has come to debase itself before Jews is on the DUCK SOUP level of what happens in Freedonia under the zany-tyranny of the Marx Brothers. Extraterrestrial creatures observing America from another planet might see it as one big comedy — like the ridiculous inner-workings of foreign tyrannies seem amusing to us — , but those who live in America/West must carry on with the conceit that Jews know best and what is best for all of us. They are gods, we are mortals; or they are adults, we are children; or they are shepherds and we are the sheep, or at best, dogs.
America has truly lost its mind and soul in sucking up to Jews. Bending to the Jewish Radical Will on the Zionist agenda set the template for all the appeasements to come, all in the increasingly ridiculous and pathetic hope/delusion that if the Wasps do one more favor for the Jews, the latter will come around to being nice and appreciative. A nation that becomes accustomed to one grand lunacy will weakly accommodate itself to more and more. If Jews could convince America to support the Zionist destruction of Palestine, it was only a matter of time before Jews could also persuade Americans to replace Christianity with Queertianity and replace White Americans with masses of non-white foreigners. Connect the dots of the cancer of lunacy, and the American acceptance of Nakba led eventually to American embrace of White Nakba.
When it comes to kindliness, one must always keep in mind the matter of who/whom. You must know whom you’re being kind to. If you are kind to a decent person, he is appreciative and reciprocates in kind. If you are kind to a vain egotist(so common among Jews, homos, and Negroes), he or she demands more and more as he or she regards you as a weakling, sucker, toady, cucky-wuck, peon, or servant. Wasps who sucked up to Jews were like all those ‘beta-male orbiters’ who think that some internet ‘thot’ will appreciate their affections(and money) when, in fact, the self-absorbed diva-minded ‘bitchass ho’ only cares about her self-aggrandizement.
At this point, it’s possible that many Wasps have realized the true nature of the Jew, but it’s now too late to change course. As Jews have so much power and can destroy anyone AND as the wasp cucks have invested so much into sucking-up-to-Jews-as-the-highest-virtue, the culture of servility is now inescapable and a protective shield from admitting shamefacedly that Liberal Wasps been wrong all along(and that the so-called ‘Anti-Semites’ had been more right than wrong on the subject of Jews).
A demented lie is like a cancer, and it grows and grows. Then, it’s possible that so much of craziness in politics and culture that we see all around has at least some origin or inspiration in the great lie behind America’s support of Zionism. The US did something so unnecessary and immoral but then decided to convince itself that there has never been anything so compelling, obligatory, ennobling, and important than going out of its way to support Jewish nationalism that soon turned into Jewish imperialism that now festers as out-of-control Jewish supremacy that has the gall to accuse whites who want OUT of the Jewish Empire as ‘white supremacist’. Lies do harm, and great lies do great harm.
And because the US decided on the Great Lie, it is now being punished. America, which persuaded itself that the Great Replacement via Nakba Pogroms(that wiped Palestine off the map) were most necessary and justifiable, now face the same fate as the West is being inundated with masses of non-white invaders(orchestrated mainly by Jewish globalist power). It is a kind of 'historical justice' because whites in America and Europe aided and abetted Jewish Imperialists in the destruction of the Palestinians who had done absolutely NO WRONG to the white race around the world.
Are whites being punished by the moral force of history? No, history is actually most amoral and doesn’t punish people according to right and wrong. So many bad people have triumphed and so many good people met horrible ends all throughout history. History is a concept in our head and lacks autonomous will. People make history and create events that either reward or punish other peoples. As Jews have the power, they've decided to reward themselves while punishing the whites. That’s how ‘justice’ works in history. The Power decides. It's like the Jewish doctor in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS gets away with murder and remains a respected member of the community because he was cold enough to see it through and cunning enough to cover his tracks. If there is a God, the man will be punished, but absent such a Power, justice on Earth is a matter of who gets to play gangster or judge.
If history itself had the power of judgment, both whites and Jews would be punished for what they did to the Palestinians. But only whites are punished while Jews are hailed to high heaven for all the vile things they continue to do to Palestinians. In a way, a greater crime(by whites) than enabling the Zionist destruction of Palestine was the willful blinding of themselves to the danger posed by Jews. The Wasp elites that caved to Jewish demands in the years following World War II sowed the demon seeds that would sprout and poison the air & soil. Wasp elites have much to answer for. Before they became the cuck-collaborators of Jews and pushed for the Great Replacement of white people by non-whites, they shamefully subjected themselves to the Great Elite Replacement whereby they relinquished their power and authority to the Jews. And having no pride, will, and drive left, these deracinated and pathetic Wasp elites just became intellectual and ideological putty in the hands of Jews. So, if Jews say ‘gay is good’, all these Episcopalians are so sure that nothing is as urgent as festooning churches with ‘gay’ colors. Wasps are now closer to dogs than humans. Not only did Wasps wrong a most innocent people in the Palestinians(and feel no remorse over it) but they empowered a most vile and venal people in the Jews. Imagine a man who aids an venomous snake to eat a harmless rabbit as the moral peak of his life. He would be crazy, and likewise, the US has gone crazy in supporting vile Jewish power against Palestinians, a people of no power and no bad deeds done to whites in America or Europe. And yet, all we hear from American Politicians is "Israel is our closest ally", "Israel is our best friend", and etc.
Now, given Jewish talent in more-or-less meritocratic America, it would have been difficult for Wasps to permanently forestall the rise of Jews. Still, Wasps could have created responsible methods and sensible organs to critique the emerging Jewish Power. Even if another people are destined to supplant you, you can find ways to criticize and check their power. Wasps could have created means to do to Jewish Elite Power what the Jews had done to Wasp Elite Power when Anglo-Americans were supreme in the halls of power. But in the end, both Wasp Liberals and Wasp Conservatives fell all over each other to suck up to Jews and win their favors. Thus, Jewish Power kept growing without any push-back or counter-balance. As the educated Wasps utterly failed on checking Jewish power, most white hoi polloi(who looked up to white elites for answers) never understood what really happened in America resulting from the power transference from Wasps to Jews. With respectable Wasps refusing to scrutinize the Jews, the task fell to white radicals, sometimes of neo-nazi bent that only created the impression that one had to be a hateful Hitler-loving nutcase to find any fault with the Jews.
Power can be understood in terms of quality vs quantity. If you don’t have quality-power, you must rely on quantity-power. In World War II, the average German soldier was better than an average Soviet soldier, but the Soviets made up for deficiency in quality by sheer quantity. In the Korean War, the US military was far superior to the Chinese military that had nothing approaching modern logistics and air power. But Chinese were able to hold their own with sheer numbers. Quality-power is preferable, but your people at least have quantity-power, they may survive or even prevail in a conflict with quality-power. After all, even a tiger or grizzly bear will fall to sheer quantity. In India, there’s a wild dog known as the dhole. While a tiger is immeasurably bigger and stronger than any single dhole, a huge pack of dholes have been known to bring down a tiger. And while a single wolf is no match for a grizzly bear, a wolf pack can bring down the biggest bear. Some peoples mainly rely on quantity-power. Mexicans in American don’t expect to take over elite institutions and industries. They know they don’t have the skills to do so, but they do have the numbers to take over entire SW territories and form voting blocs. If the mantra of the Civil Rights Movement was "We Shall Overcome", Mexicans figure, "We Shall Overwhelm"(though, to be sure, Mexican birthrates have declined and, if anything, Mexico has the danger of being inundated by poorer folks from Central America. (Mexicans don’t care for them and do their best to shoe them across Mexico to reach the US, just like Greeks have been known to urge their non-white migrant population to move to greener pastures of Northern Europe.)
Jews, as we know, are all about quality-power as they are a tiny minority in all nations except Israel. As Jews can’t rely on numbers, they rely on number-crunching. Over time, their wits and smarts have made them the richest people in the US by far in per capita terms. (Though only 2% of the population, Jews are well-poised to owning more than 50% of all wealth in the US.) With their control of media, academia, entertainment, and deep state, Jews have turned huge numbers of goyim into calculus of Jewish Power. Jewish Influence has colonized the hearts and minds of so many people via power of tele-communications, search-engine monopoly, and social-network-domination. So, even though most Americans are not Jewish, their ‘souls’ have been Jew-infected and, unbeknownst to themselves, they think, feel, talk, and act in ways that ultimately serve Jewish Power. This goes to show that a clever use of quality-power can lead to a kind of proxy control over quantity-power. As most goyim in the US rely heavily on Jewish-controlled media for news and ideas, their minds are essentially molded by the Jewish Hand. Of course, there is always the possibility that goyim may shake free of these controls — become ‘red-pilled’ — , and this is why Jews are paranoid all the time and so eager to set one bunch of goyim against the other. One thing for sure, if the white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ really hate each other, Jewish ‘left’ and Jewish ‘right’ are Jews First and Ideologues Second. If anything, both ‘rightist’ Jews and ‘leftist’ Jews manipulate ideology mainly to increase and secure Jewish supremacist power.
Oppenheimer in the movie FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY
Jews have both a modern ideological mind and ancient tribal mentality. Throughout history, ideologies tend to come and go, whereas identities tend to be more resilient. People who put ideology above identity will eventually lose out to those who put identity above ideology. Because whites now care more about ideology, white ‘right’ and white ‘left’ hate each other, thus the white race is a house divided unto itself. But because Jews put identity above ideology, the Jewish ‘right’ and Jewish ‘left’ are brothers and sisters behind the mask. Also crucial is the general truth that a people whose identity encompasses the unity of the elite and the people will outlast a people whose identity is owned mainly by the elites. Among the many great ancient tribes, why are Jews among the very few who survived intact as a people and culture? Because the Covenant made every Jew, even a poor wretch, feel that he was the favored of God. Thus, Jewishness belonged equally to every Jew, and the Jewish Prophets(who spoke for the entire community, rich and poor) had more prestige than Jewish kings, merchants, and diplomats. Even though rich Jews surely exploited poorer Jews, there was the sense that all Jews, rich or poor, are one people: All Jews are the subjects of God, not of other Jews.
In contrast, the goy civilizations were mostly elite-centric and regarded their peoples mostly as subjects, fodder for work and war. Because they were more militaristic than mindful, they needed lots of expendable soldiers. And as they ruled over vast territories, they came to regard ordinary folks as mere subjects and tax-payers than as Our Folks. In contrast, the smaller and more close-knit Jewish tribe/civilization could focus on preserving the worthiness of Jews. As the result, Jews weren’t the best warriors or great conquerors, but Jewish culture came to value Jewish lives more than goy civilizations came to value the lives of goy subjects. Of course, Jewish concern for their own kind didn’t mean they gave a damn about the lives of goyim, whom the Jews mostly despised. (Still, the fact that Jews regarded fellow Jews as blessed in the eyes of God provided the moral foundation that eventually led to the arrival of Jesus and Apostles who preached that Jews should regard goyim in the way they do fellow Jews: Brothers and sisters equally beloved by God through Jesus as the great mediator. As for goyim, they should see themselves primarily as worthy children of the just and loving God than as chattel-subjects of their lords.) Because goy civilizations were so elite-centric, when the elites fell to ruin, the people were scattered to the winds without much in the way of identity or culture. Among Jews, it was as if every Jew had a mind/soul that made him equal in the eyes of God, whereas the mind/soul thing among the goyim was hogged by the elites. Thus, even if Jewish elites were toppled, Jewish people survived because every Jew still had the mind & agency to be Jewish; in contrast, when goy elites fell, the goy masses were lost and confused as to what they were about and what they should do. The meaning and direction of their lives had been wholly controlled and defined by the elites. Every lowly goy looked to the ruling elites to define what his culture and civilization were about. This is why Japan is now falling. Japanese-ness was always defined by the elites, and in the past, Japan was ruled by the proud samurai caste who upheld the mythological underpinnings of Japan. But after the defeat to the US, Japan has essentially been ruled by the soulless merchant-class that will do just about anything for money. As the elites have failed Japan culturally(especially since the 80s), Japanese today are deracinated idiots whose idea of culture is anime, video-games, and pornography.
In contrast, despite the great power of Jewish elites, Jewish identity is not solely invested with elite power. Even if the Jewish elites were to fall or be rounded up & shipped to Gulag, ordinary Jews would still retain a powerful sense of Jewishness that is defined mainly by spirituality, history, and blood than the matter of who-rules-over-us. Of course, it’s possible that Jewish culture came to value the average person more than other cultures because Jews-as-individuals have been more troublesome, demanding, and argumentative. Consider the hard time Edward G. Robinson’s character gives to Charlton Heston’s Moses in TEN COMMANDMENTS. He's an incessant pain in the ass. If most peoples were either dumb or timid and left it up to the elites to figure everything out, your average Jew was more likely to question their elites as to what was up. Such an argumentative culture would have had to settle things either by constant internecine warfare or by the development of the Law where issues are to be settled by the power of the word that applies to everyone, including the king.
Many white people(especially on the ‘right’) are increasingly frustrated with meritocracy, mostly for fallacious reasons. It’s the same reason why they blame ‘democracy’ for all their problems. They figure, "Since the liberal democratic West is dying, the fault must be with democracy itself." (But then, if aristocracy is so superior, why did it so easily lose out to democracy?) But there are plenty of kingdoms and aristocracies that declined and faded away just the same. In the end, it depends on WHAT KIND of democracy(or any kind of polity). After all, democracy in Israel and Turkey turned those nations more rightist. And apparently, the right-wing Franco regime in Spain failed to mold Spaniards into dutiful rightists. Soon after Franco died and a republic was established, the vast majority of Spaniards decided to support some of the most decadent and globalist elites one could imagine. And it was under rule by reactionary monarchies or autocracies that powerful leftist movements developed in Russia and Latin America. And, it was often the reactionary forces that were either imperialist or collaborationist-with-imperialism, whereas the leftists stood for defiant national independence and sovereignty. The Russian Tsar was too involved with matters outside Russia to focus on the needs of his people, and the ‘right-wing’ Latin American juntas maintained their grip under the umbrellas of US neo-imperialism. In the 60s, it was the leftist Cubans, North Vietnamese, and Algerians who symbolized the nationalist struggle against American or European Imperialism. So, just like there is no one kind of reaction or autocracy, there is no single kind of democracy. Democracy is not doomed to become ‘decadent’ and ‘degenerate’. Democracy can be friend or foe to nationalism. It all depends on who controls the hearts and minds, the themes and narratives, the icons and idols, of a nation.
Same goes for meritocracy. To revile meritocracy as the reason for the White Demise would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Granted, there are some who argue that, in fair competition, whites would beat all comers. According to this view, Jews are not all that smart and gained great wealth and influence mainly through nepotism, tribalism, and other nefarious means. Asians are just grinds who mainly focus on acing entrance examinations. There was a ridiculous site called Caste Football that argued that sports are rigged against whites, and THAT is why blacks dominate boxing, football, basketball, running, and etc.
Oddly enough, even though the Glob and Progs denounce ‘white supremacism’ as the worst thing, they should credit it as one of the main reasons for the White Demise. Granted, not all expressions of white supremacism were the same. Some were overtly hostile and aggressive. But other forms were enlightened, magnanimous, and generous. Indeed, the reason why white elite power loosened its grip and turned to fair play was because it assumed that, all things being equal, whites would beat all the other races in just about everything. It was this gentle kind of white supremacism that made the white race(especially the elites) feel so confident in their dominance, rest on their laurels, and not take the competition too seriously. All over the world, whites gained such power and renown via science, technology, trade, war, and know-how that they thought they were destined to rule the world for all eternity no matter what. So, what did it matter if the Rule of Law was extended to include all groups? Whites would win anyway. It’s like men would not worry about letting women into men’s sports because they know women are No Match against men. White Success and Power were such that, at some point, white people took their supremacism for granted and decided to be Nice Supremacists. Let non-whites compete against whites and in the white world. What did it matter? How could non-whites possibly win the competition against the great white race?
If white inferioritism had shaped white thinking, whites would have been far less likely to loosen their grip and go for fair play and competition with other races. This is why so many female athletes are upset over tranny-men playing as ‘women’. Women know that they are inferior to men athletically, and entry of wigged men into women’s sports will lead to women losing out. Indeed, imagine if whites had thought in white inferioritist terms vis-a-via the other races or peoples. Actually, it would have made them even more race-ist, and their descendants today would be in a much better situation. Suppose a hundred years ago, a white guy said to another white guy, "You know, those blacks are tougher and more aggressive than us. They are superior as athletes and more powerful in masculinity. They got more muscle and bigger dongs, and that means they will kick our white butts, rob us of our manhood, and then our womenfolk will lose respect for us as a bunch of cuck-losers. And then, blacks will take over as the new symbols of American Manhood, and our daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters will become a bunch of jungle-feverish mudshark skanks." Such white inferioritism would have sobered up the white race, and white folks would have done everything possible to allow blacks to carve their own nation and remain separate from the weaker white race(that is inferior in thuggery). But too many whites, full of supremacism, were either too arrogant or generous. The arrogant ones were too busying shouting, "We can beat up any nigger" to wake up to reality. And the generous ones were sure that whites would not lose out in fair competition to the blacks and called for equal rights for the Negroes.
Enlightened White Supremacism was also the reason for whites losing out to Jews. Anglo-Americans were too full of themselves to see the danger posed by Jews. As the great conquerors and masters of America(and with the mighty Imperial Brits as their racial brethren), Anglo-Americans thought they were the kings of the world forever. Instead of soberly assessing the threat posed by Jews, too many Wasps rested on their laurels and saw no great danger in letting in lots of Jews and trusting them. Sure, there were Anglo-Americans like Henry Ford who were all-too-aware of the Jewish Question, but too many Anglo-American elites regarded Jews as hard-working immigrants with dreams of becoming Good Americans. And besides, even if Jews found some success, how could such a people compete with the great Anglos? It was such supremacist assumptions that made Anglo-Americans blind to what the Jews really represented. White supremacism could breed complacency of security and power. It's like a lion, as king of the jungle, not worrying about threats posed by other animals. Now, imagine if Anglo-Americans were mostly in inferiorist mode vis-a-vis Jews and said among themselves, "You know, those Jews are pretty intense. And intelligent too. They are pushy, driven, and have radical wills. Not only are they smarter than us, they have stronger personalities, greater will, deeper hatreds & resentments, and bigger ideas, the kind with prophetic power to cast a spell on our young ones. If we let them in and offer them equal opportunity, they will not only take over elite institutions but use them to destroy us because they are driven by arrogance, hatred, and hostility." White inferioritism would have seen the dangers posed by Jews, but too many Anglo-American elites, being so full of wealth, pride, and privilege, took it for granted that their kind would be on top forever. Enlightened White Supremacists thought, "Sure, in open competition, some Jews will do better than dumb whites, and some blacks will do better than weaker whites, BUT all in all, smart whites will prevail over Jews, and strong whites will prevail over blacks." Or so the white elites, so full of themselves, assured themselves. White elites took their dominant position for granted as virtually eternal. In a way, it’s like the naivete that many modern people have about nature and animals. It wasn't always thus. When mankind struggled in nature, they understood all-too-well that humans were inferior to animals in many ways. Other species could do things humans couldn’t, like swim under water and fly through the air. And big animals were many times stronger than humans. Indeed, even many animals smaller than humans were stronger and posed a danger. So, humans didn’t play around with animals. They knew that humans, being inferior in speed and strength, had to find and develop certain methods to defend themselves against other species. But modern comfort made so many people feel so smugly superior over the animal world that they take their vaunted status for granted. While it’s true that civilization has given humans a huge advantage over animals, it doesn’t follow that animals aren’t dangerous or that humans aren’t weak. Indeed, without the protection of civilization, most humans would find themselves utterly helpless against the forces of nature. Just because the system favors your well-being and power over the Other, never assume that your advantage is natural or eternal. Likewise, the white race gained tremendous advantage over other races due to many factors(which could change over time, especially if whites allowed non-whites to rise too high in the white world). White advantage and power relied on the system. Lose the system, lose the advantage. Just because the white race was on top, it didn’t mean that whites, as individuals, were naturally superior to other races in just about all endeavors. That was fatally fallacious thinking.
In some ways, one might argue that the white race is the most talented all-around race. It is not the toughest race, but it is tougher than most peoples and bested only by black Africans. It is not the most intelligent race, but only Ashkenazi Jews(who are at least 50% European) are more intelligent, and only East Asians are comparable in cognitive abilities. It may not be the most creative in certain areas — like ‘funk’ & ‘boogie' dominated by blacks and the kind of wit, humor, & strangeness Jews are known for — , but it has been, by and large, the most creative race in many areas of arts, culture, philosophy, and technology. It may not be the most profound race as one could argue that the Semites, Hindus, and East Asians came up with greater/deeper spiritual concepts, but the white race came up with the greatest myths(especially among the Greeks), and it has explored and achieved great things under the influence of Christianity. (Furthermore, the early Jews who formulated Christianity were said to have been profoundly influenced, directly or indirectly, by Greco-Roman ideas and culture). Just like the decathlon athlete is not the best athlete in every particular event — he will lose in events matched against the very best sprinters, shot-put throwers, javelin chuckers, etc. — , the white race will lose in particular endeavors to other races, but the general all-round talent of the European people has been hard to beat. And in order to preserve this all-around-excellent-but-not-the-very-best advantage, the white race has had to resort to intra-meritocratic competition while being wary or even downright hostile toward inter-meritocratic conflicts. Indeed, such wariness went back to the Greeks who restricted participation in the Olympics only to Hellenic folks. As the Greeks warred with hostile tribes(and even enslaved them), what would have been the point of letting non-Greeks participate, kick Greek butt, and hog prestige as the top hero-idols of the Hellenic World? (Roman Gladiator spectacles did allow non-Romans to beat all competition and win great glory, but this had the impact of making the Romans lionize stronger Africans and bigger Germanic barbarians, with the effect that Roman women, even from elite backgrounds, lost respect for Roman men and went off to have sex with barbarians and savages.) Even though the merito-competitive spirit of the Greeks did wonders for their civilization, it was also well understood that the Greeks had to make a clear distinction between Greeks and ‘barbarians’. The winners in the Greek world had to be Greek or sufficiently acculturated and absorbed into Greekness in order to be part of the Power/Prestige Game. Jews understood this principle too, which is why they came up with the Covenant that restricted the Sacred Learning of the Jews to the Jewish people. If non-Jews wanted to join the Tribe, they had to undergo the most grueling hazing in the form of circumcision. Most Jews never wanted non-Jews to join the Tribe, and even Jews who were open to the idea of goyim converting to Judaism insisted that Gentiles had to get their foreskins cut off, which made most Gentiles run like a mothafuc*a. Even among early Jewish Christians, it was assumed circumcision was essential for conversion until Paul argued that the New Faith was about circumcision of the heart than the pud. At least Jews were circumcised as babies who had no idea what was up and had no memory of the agony they were put through. Just like it’s much more difficult to learn a new language in adulthood, it was obviously much more difficult for grownup Gentiles to go under the Jewish Knife.
When white people see black domination in sports, the spread of jungle fever, the black takeover of pop music, Jewish domination of finance-academia-media, East Asian & Hindu gains in college enrollment & high-tech jobs, and etc., some are apt to blame meritocracy per se, but that's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Such whites might argue, "All those non-whites are taking over because we gave them opportunities to compete against us." Then, would it be preferable for whites to live in a stable Racial/National Aristocracy where the white ruling class, as the BEST of society, protects the interests of white folks? Some might argue that aristocracy was about meritocracy, but actually it wasn’t. While there were surely talented and intelligent aristocrats, one was an aristocrat mainly by birth, not by achievement. The most intelligent child born of a serf was a serf, whereas the dumbest child born to an aristocrat was an aristocrat. Though all aristocrats were raised with certain principles and codes to live by, there was equal chance that an aristocrat could be smart or dumb. The true emergence of a meritocratic elite began with the rise of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie, being men of enterprise in production or trade, had to have business sense. Also, as capitalism made the greatest profits by offering new-and-improved items on the market, it provided huge incentives and rewards for those with knack for science & technology and design & engineering. While intelligence was prized all throughout history, never had it been so ‘monetized’ to produce super-profits. Today, consider the billions upon billions made by the ‘geeks’ at companies like Google and Apple.
Given that the bourgeois order has been infinitely more meritocratic than the aristocratic order, what has been its downside? A key factor is that, whereas the aristocracy was raised and inculcated with notion of honor and dignity(notwithstanding the fact that many aristocrats neglected their obligations and abused their privileges), the bourgeoisie expanded mainly with wealth and profits in mind. Aristocrats had class, whereas the bourgeoisie were merely constituted a class, one aspiring to be dominant by More Money. (In contrast, because honor mattered so much among aristocrats, even the richest aristocrat might have to face off squarely against a poor aristocrat in a duel where the two men had to meet on equal terms independent of wealth.) The competition between aristocracy and bourgeoisie was one between elite vs elite as neither group constituted the huge swaths of unwashed masses. Aristocrats ruled over vast numbers of peasants, and the bourgeoisie ruled over vast numbers of factory-workers. As both groups constituted elites by blood or money, they were held in distrust by the masses. Therefore, both elite groups appealed to the masses in different ways. The kings & aristocrats spoke of the Divine Right to rule & the noblesse oblige of the aristocracy that supposedly had the well-being of the peasants in mind. The Russian Tsar wanted his subjects to see him as a father-figure of the nation. In contrast, the bourgeoisie presented themselves as agents of tireless change and progress of great benefit to mankind with more rights, freedom, and goods. The aristocratic types argued that the greedy bourgeois merchant-class only cared about more money, whereas the bourgeois types argued that the haughty aristocratic snobs only cared about protecting their own privilege. It all came to a head in the French Revolution. In the US, the bourgeoisie vs aristocracy conflict erupted in the American Civil War where the bourgeois North of industrialists and factory-workers locked horns with the South of plantation owners and black slaves and white farm labor. Even though the bourgeoisie eventually won out(despite setbacks that restored the reactionaries in Europe after the fall of Napoleon), the problem remained that the new ruling class of bourgeoisie was really the ‘new boss’ who took over from the ‘old boss’. Furthermore, following the trauma of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie grew less confrontational and more accommodating of one another, forming a kind of ‘aristogeoisie’. Why spill more blood when both sides could come to an understanding? The aristocracy would allow the progression of history whereby the West would be transformed by the power of bourgeois capitalism. It was a force that simply couldn’t be stopped. In return, the rising bourgeoisie would try to attain some ‘class’ and ‘dignity’ by emulating the aristocratic ways, marrying with aristocrats(who were in decline), lending money to aristocrats, and buying titles from aristocrats for a good price. This accommodation more-or-less held firm across Europe until World War I, and then the implosion of the Old Order and the weakness & ineffectiveness of the new democratic order led to mass frustration and dissatisfaction that led to a powerful communist movement that many feared would take over all of Europe.
Communists argued that the rise of the bourgeoisie, though inevitable and necessary, could NOT be the End of History since the bourgeoisie also constituted an exploitative class like the aristocracy. Bourgeois power also meant continued Elite Domination. The ONLY way to ensure People Power was by communist revolution that would ensure the dictatorship of the proletariat. A counter-argument for People Power came from Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. While, contra communism, fascist ideology argued that elites were not only necessary but natural, it also argued that true People Power could be secured and protected by inspired national leaders who stood for something other than received privilege or more profits. Fascist ideology believed in the need for struggle(as the very essence of life), and the problem with the aristocracy was that it eventually led to pampered children raised in an entitled bubble-world of plenty. The appeal of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had much to do with their modest and ‘humble’ origins. Unlike aristocrats who were born into power and privilege, men like Mussolini and Hitler had to struggle for every ounce of power to climb to the top. Thus, according to fascist ideology, their power was real and well-earned whereas aristocrats were essentially soft and passionless because everything had been handed to them on a silver platter from birth. (Of course, such charge wasn’t entirely fair because, even though aristocrats were BORN into privilege, plenty of aristo-families were strenuous and demanding in the way their children were raised. At its best, the aristocracy stressed upon the young the need for dignity, honor, arts & culture, and virtues such as courage and commitment, and plenty of aristocrats proved their mettle in battle and other endeavors.) Fascism also distrusted the bourgeoisie, at least as the ruling elites of a nation. While Fascism recognized the economic worth of the bourgeoisie and wasn’t murderously averse to them in the way that communism was, it thought the bourgeois class was unfit to rule and/or define the culture because capitalism was mostly about profits, individualism, and greed. The bourgeoisie should be relegated to the business world, and their ‘values’ should not define the essence of the nation, people, and culture. If communism said the People can have justice ONLY BY getting rid of the ruling class of elites, fascism argued that the People as members of a nation can lead meaningful lives ONLY BY being ruled by the right kind of elites who are inspired — a notion rooted in Romanticism — and possess a vision of society & culture that aren’t mainly about received privilege or more profits. Fascism rejected communism because it was regarded as too ‘materialist’, too much at odds with nature, too drab and ‘plain’ in its idealization of the Worker, and too abstract in its universalism.
Part of the reason why the embattled fragments of the ruling class following World War I decided to support fascism as protection against communism was it had elements of both aristocratism & bourgeoisie-ism — fascism valued elitism in ways that communism did not, though one can argue that communism-in-actual-power was just rule by party elites as the new boss — , and the reason why fascism gained such mass appeal in certain nations had to do with more than social crisis & hunger for order. For the masses of the modern world, aristocratism was too reactionary, unjust, and irrelevant to changing times while bourgeois-ism was too materialist, heartless, self-interested, and ‘greedy’. Also, even many among the working class felt that communism was too radical and fanatical in its ideology and vision. For the elites and the masses, fascism was like the great mediator among the plurality of forces from top to bottom, between the past and the future.
Anyway, the old aristocratic order is long gone, and it could only have existed in an agrarian society where most people toiled in the fields while the noblemen, as either protector and/or tyrant, lorded over them. As modernity led to rise of huge cities and with the dwindling of the agrarian class, the days of the aristocrats were numbered. (In the US, aristocracy was out-of-favor even among the agrarian folks because there was enough land that allowed landless people to move to greener pastures and own/run their own farms than for their lords.) As people became concentrated in cities, there was power in numbers, and this led to democracy and electoral politics, as well as socialist measures to ensure certain basic dignities and rights for the Worker. Freedom is an infectious thing, and in Europe, even the urban poor felt freer than their ancestors who'd toiled in the fields as tenant-farmers and the like. Even if their freedom didn’t lead to riches or fame, it was psychologically reassuring to be ‘free’ and ‘independent’ than live under the power of lords and their overseers. While one didn’t have much say on the factory floor, one truly belonged to oneself after work whereas tenant-farmers, even off-work, always felt like subjects of the land-owner. Unlike farmland that always belongs to Someone, urban spaces belonged to anyone and everyone. While private property could be excessively expensive and valuable in the city, urban spaces were organized so that all the streets, parks, and squares belonged to The People. Thus, while city life could be alienating and disorienting, it could also be liberating and exciting. And so, there was no way modern people could accept a reactionary return to aristocratism.
And yet, late modern capitalism is now exposing the dire consequences of what has come to be known as ‘globalism’, a massive contradiction in terms, rules, and management, not least because it purports to be about equal justice, opportunity, and freedom for all peoples around the world but is really dominated by the US as neo-empire that is, furthermore, controlled by Jews, an intensely tribalistic and supremacist people.Furthermore, even as globalism champions meritocracy and equal competition for all peoples and all the world(in the spirit of libertarianism), it violates its own principles of individualist meritocracy with calls to Diversity, Inclusion, and Identity Politics(especially geared against whites). In addition, even as it demands respect and appreciation of all cultures, it seeks to replace every faith, tradition, and culture with globo-homo degeneracy, rap music, dumb Hollywood blockbusters, video-games, and pornified pop culture as One World Consensus. It promises equal hope and dreams for all people regardless of race, color, or creed, but the result is domination of entire fields by just a few races or groups. And the matter of who/whom means everything to globalism as currently practiced, especially among Jews, fruitkins, Afro-Jivers, and the dotkins(aka Hindus). Apparently, it’s totally okay and just for SOME peoples or groups to have dominance far out of proportion to their numbers, whereas the demise of certain groups, especially White Goyim, cannot be welcomed enough EVEN WHEN white representation in nations that they'd built falls below proportionality.
For those who are understandably distraught about the state of the white race in America, meritocratism is an easy scapegoat. Even if it’s fair play that opened up competition in America to all the races and peoples, many white people feel, "Why should we hand over what our ancestors built to OTHER peoples?" Even if Jews and Asians do better in colleges, why should they take over and dominate the very institutions built by Europeans and Christians? There’s a saying, "finders keepers". The white race didn’t only find the New World but did most to build it. Then, why should they allow OTHER Peoples to take over America EVEN IF it is by fair play? (And exactly WHO gets to decide that America belongs to ALL THE WORLD even though ALL THE WORLD didn't found it and build it? Why should America belong to MOST PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD who had NOTHING to do with its foundation and development? Such a view assumes that whites have no autonomous worth & value and therefore whatever whites do must be for the Others. It's like humans make sure that cows produce milk and chickens produce eggs for HUMAN consumption. On farms, cows and chickens have no self-worth. They exist ultimately to serve Others, the humans. The rejiggering of Americanism can only imply that everything whites have done, do, and shall do must be for the Good of the Other. But in a way, with notions such as the "White Man's Burden", whites brought it upon themselves. Conquer the world, then you must feed the world.) The more libertarian-leaning white folks are convinced that the main reason why so many white people lost out in the New Order is due to ‘affirmative action’, quotas, and other forms of statism. They regard libertarianism as defacto white-power-ism because they believe, all things being equal and under fair play, the Great White Race has most to gain and win by a combination of intelligence, creativity, ingenuity, inspiration, and individualism.
But as the years pass, libertarianism-as-virtual-white-power-ism is wearing thinner by the day. In sports — powerfully important in American mythos, idol-making, hero-worship, and symbol of manhood, for good or ill — , libertarianism is obviously a total bust. Under fair play, the black race has totally defeated and humiliated the white race into a bunch of bench-warming cucky-wucks. But white libertarians comforted themselves with the conviction that whites would outperform blacks in all endeavors other than sports. But then, rap became mainstream, and it spread jungle fever far and wide, and white males began to lose sexually as well as athletically. Still, if not for ‘affirmative action’, wouldn’t whites win in areas that require brain power? But here, whites lost out to Jews. Still, whites told themselves that Jewish success isn’t a bad thing since Jews are also white people. But as Jews gained more power, they didn’t act pro-white but anti-white, using their vast resources to chip away at white advantages by any means necessary. So, in areas where whites lost out to other groups by meritocracy, Jews promoted fair competition. But where whites did better than blacks and browns, they were hamstrung by the ‘social justice’ ideology of ‘affirmative action’ that forever invokes the past to secure permanent advantages in the future.
But, libertarianism really failed with mass non-white immigration. After all, even if blacks beat whites physically and Jews beat whites mentally, both groups remain minorities, esp with Jews being only 2% of the population. So, even as whites lost out to them in some fields, they had the advantage in numbers. But even that eroded away with massive arrival of browns from ‘Latin America’. Even the demographic advantage was lost, but as libertarians only care about the INDIVIDUAL and ignore the power of UNITY, they ignored this most crucial fact. And if masses of browns from the south reduced white demographic power, the arrival of yellows and Hindus from Asia posed another cerebral challenge to the whites. Prior to massive arrival of Asians, only Jews bested the whites. But now, so many Asians are taking slots in colleges and institutions that were founded by white folks in the American Past. They did it for posterity but got kicked in the posterior... mainly because, at some point, the Anglo-American elites lost confidence & pride and silently transferred their ruling power over to the Jews. Given all these challenges, it’s understandable why so many whites aren’t so keen about meritocracy.
But the White World couldn’t have risen without the principles of meritocracy. Even within the West, why did certain societies make advances far ahead of others? It had a sense of fair play, rule of law, sense of honor, code of conduct, and culture of dignity. Such mind-set became more pronounced among Northern Protestant Europeans than among Eastern and Southern Europeans, such as Sicilians and Greeks who represented the bottom of the barrel when it came to ethical outlook and behavior. Southern Italians, Greeks, and certain Eastern Europeans were utterly shameless in their pettiness, self-interest, boorishness, and/or clannism. Also, given their temperaments, even upon being exposed they didn’t confess and apologize but just pulled their hair, threw tantrums, and went into hysterics like in all those Italian and Greek movies. But then, meritocracy factored even less in most non-white nations where whom-you-know mattered far more than what-you-did. East Asia, with its Confucian culture, did have some sense of meritocracy, but as the Sino-centric civilizations defined worth and merit in a very rigid and narrow way, so much of brainy talent was wasted on memorizing Confucian texts that hardly had any applicable value outside politics and family.
Now, if meritocracy did such wonders for the West, especially Protestant Northern Europe, why has it been so problematic in recent years? It’s because Western Meritocracy lost its race-ist foundation and sense of limits. (By ‘race-ism’, I mean belief in race & racial differences and the necessity for racial/ethnic consciousness. It’s not meant as an epithet as is commonly used in our idiot PC discourse. In a way, globalism is the ultimate supremacism as it is obsessed with victory and domination of all the world by the very Best. What is called 'white supremacism' is actually defense against Global supremacism that presses upon all peoples to favor and choose the Best even against the interests and integrity of their own people. According to globalist logic, if a bunch of tougher blacks beat up members of your race in sports, you should idolize the victorious blacks and disregard your own kind because all that matters is the raw prowess of the Best. According to globalist logic, if Jews are the richest & most powerful group and even if they're doing everything to harm your group, you should still admire and obey the Jews because they've demonstrated via inter-meritocracy that they are the most awesome race when it comes to intelligence, drive, radical will, and cunning ruthlessness. Race-ism, in urging you to favor your kind even when it is inferior vis-a-vis other races, is actually counter-supremacist against globalism that says all races and all peoples should bow down to the best of the best EVEN WHEN the globalist victors are clearly enemies of your race. Globalist supremacism is the ultimate nihilism of power.) For most of white history, meritocracy was limited to the people of the race and community. While exceptions were plentiful, especially with OTHER whites across Europe and the Americas, meritocracy wasn’t simply a means of ‘let the best man win’, but "May the best of us rise to the top to do great things for All of Us." It wasn’t only the triumph of the best atomized individual(regardless of race) but a kind of heroic endeavor whereby the best of the community was allowed to rise to the top to use his ability, skills, and knowledge for the good for the whole community. (Of course, if another race or people were ahead of the game and had made key advances, their superiority should be recognized, and your people should learn from them, as the Japanese did in the late 19th century to catch up to the obviously more advanced West. But, the thing was to learn from the Other to strengthen your own people. Jews certainly learned a lot from non-Jews, but at the end of the day, it was to boost Jewish Power, not to serve the goyim simply because they happened to be ahead of the Jews in certain areas.) To assure that meritocracy will serve the community, it had to be intra-meritocracy, or fair competition and fair play among those within the Tribe. In any classic tale of the hero, the extraordinary individual ventures beyond the norms to attain something higher, but it is for his people than merely for the self. Ethno-Nationalism is the Goldilocks middle between the self and the world. While individualism is important(and a key factor in the rise of the West), it must be part of something bigger than merely ‘me’. As for the entire world and all of humanity, they are TOO BIG and TOO MUCH to constitute any kind of viable community. While one can feel a spiritual or philosophical camaraderie with large swaths of humanity — like among Catholics or Muslims or Communists or Liberal Democrats around the world — , such can hardly serve as an organizing principle for a meaningful community. It’s like family is limited to blood relations and close ones. While one can feel brotherly love for those outside the family, the family constitutes those living under the same roof. National community is much bigger than a family, but its sense of community simply cannot include all the world filled with peoples of different races, cultures, and customs. Under such circumstances, everyone must forgo too much that is meaningfully particular in order to accommodate the Other or to assimilate into the Other. America has gone past the limit beyond which a meaningful sense of Americanism is all but impossible. Initially, America went from an Anglo nation to Anglo-Germanic-Celtic nation to one where Other Whites sought to assimilate to Americanism. Because, at the very least, all those whites were part of the same race and sprung from the same continent, Americanism as accommodation/assimilation was doable. Next, America became a massive laboratory of turning non-whites into Good Americans. This had always been problematic with blacks. But when massive amounts of non-whites kept coming and coming, they went from trying to assimilate into white norms to demanding that whites accommodate to ever increasing numbers of newcomers and their relatives and so on and so on, as if the white race/nation was nothing but teats on a dairy cow for all the world to suckle from. If the numbers of non-whites had been controlled by gradual immigration, it might have worked, but it is failing in the US, Canada, Australia, and across Europe(that now models itself on the Jew-run US as a Continent of Immigrants).
Under such conditions, meritocracy for all peoples, or Inter-Meritocracy, can only hurt the white race, not least because current PC says whites must only struggle for power and privilege as deracinated atomized individuals, whereas non-whites, especially Jews and blacks, may invoke their pride of identity and call for tribal solidarity in their competition for wealth, power, and resources. That said, if whites had natural advantages over all other races in every endeavor, it might not be so bad. But as a matter of fact, even though the white race may well be the all-around most capable race, it is not the best in every endeavor. In the specialized fields of athletics, blacks beat whites, and in the specialized fields of finance, media, and brainy fields, Jews beat whites. And all those yellows and dotkins offer stiff competition in test-taking and the rush to enroll in elite colleges. Jews and blacks are especially threatening because they beat whites in the most important areas in American Life either by power of influence or idolatry. To own the media and finance is like controlling all the rivers and channels of a country. And to win in sports(and command attention as bad boy gangstas) means to control idolatry that is so important because, in any given society, most people are faceless and only a handful of 'celebrities' and idols serve as the Face of the People. White race is not only be deracinated but de-faced. Jews in Hollywood and BBC go out of their way to make the Black Man the new archetype of Western Manhood, and white girls grow up looking up to the Negro as the Gangsta Hero. But as if that isn’t bad enough, many whites cannot even hope to have decent white-collar careers because of feminism and mass immigration. Too many women take jobs from men who need jobs more than women because, whereas women without jobs can still get married to men with jobs, men without jobs(or good jobs) will have a difficult time attracting women with jobs(and esp good jobs). There is also the factor of mass immigration. If globalism robbed too many white working class folks of blue-collar jobs, it is now robbing educated white middle class individuals of good jobs that are being taken by hordes from Asia. Globalism ships blue-collar jobs to other nations and ships over white-collar workers from other nations via H1B program. And there is the real danger of the children of immigrants doing better than white kids and taking slots in colleges that could have gone to whites. Thus, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. It should have stuck to race-ist Intra-Meritocracy.
Now, one could argue that Inter-Meritocracy is better at picking the best-of-the best from around the world than Intra-Meritocracy ever could. After all, a society that welcomes the very best(regardless of race or nationality) from around the world will likely have the best of everything. Think of traditional Sweden and then imagine two exact but divergent versions of them. These two Swedens would be exact copies of one another. However, a bold experiment makes Sweden A go with Intra-Meritocracy whereas Sweden B implements Inter-Meritocracy as its iron policy. Being Intra-Meritocratic, Sweden A has a system of fair play and rule of law that allows the most intelligent, ingenious, and inspired Swedes to excel and reach the top. These special Swedes are expected to exert themselves to do remarkable things of great benefit to all Swedes. The great advantage of Sweden A is that it will remain an organic and cohesive community as the best of the Swedes will gain the most wealth and power to rule as Swedes over the Swedes. As Intra-Meritocracy applies only to fellow nationals, Sweden A need not worry about non-Swedes taking over and using their power in nefarious ways to harm Sweden’s survival and security. And yet, the downside of Sweden A is that it cannot be the center of the world’s best talents in many areas of competition. It will not be the land of super-smart Jews nor a world of blacks who win most sports trophies. The best minds of Sweden will generally not be as bright as the best of Jews, and the best athletes of Sweden, though considerable in talent, will be no match for the blacks. Therefore, Sweden A will never be able to think in terms of "Sky’s the Limit". Still, even if it doesn’t have global champions, it will be a world of local heroes. Swedes can rest assured that, at least in their own homeland, they are the kings of the hill. And as a nation of Swedes ruling over Swedes, it is a genuinely organic nation where people are part of a larger family.
In contrast, Sweden B decides to open up to the entire world in the hope that the very best will come to compete in and for Sweden. As Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than Swedes, as blacks are tougher & funkier than Swedes, and as there are many millions of talents who can best the native Swedes, the future of Sweden B is one where the best around the world come to Sweden and out-compete the natives. The result is that Sweden comes to be dominated, ruled, and represented by non-native ‘Swedes’, aka the New Swedes. Obviously, the advantage of this is that Sweden B has attracted many individuals from the world who are better than native Swedes in many endeavors. Thus, Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A. In business, sports, science, and the arts, Sweden B could be said to have the kind of wide-ranging and hyper-talent that Sweden A doesn’t have for the most part. Also, with such talents, Sweden B is better poised than Sweden A to win in the global competition in sports, pop music, science, technology, finance, and etc. One might argue that because Sweden B has more talent than Sweden A, its people, whether native or invasive, are better off than the ones in Sweden A who are limited to and by the native talent pool. From a purely libertarian and anti-historical & anti-cultural viewpoint, this may well be true. But IF one cares about preserving the identity, heritage, culture, history, and territoriality of one’s own people, Sweden B is a total disaster. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the rich & powerful Jews, tough & aggressive blacks, and studious & high-achieving Asians will care much about the native culture, history, or heritage of the Swedes. Indeed, in order to consolidate their claim on Sweden, they may use their power and influence to spread the idea that Old Sweden was a ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘drab’, ‘dull’, and ‘white supremacist’ hell-hole. Also, tougher blacks may come to feel contempt for weak and wussy white Swedes and look upon Swedish women as their harem to sexually colonize, thus leading to ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs; indeed, consider how a single African Simon Mol nearly turned Poland into Moland as jungle fever spreads rapidly among the white ‘thots’). There is always a trade-off. Sweden B gains something by losing something.
Now, if Swedes no longer care about their race, culture, and history, it doesn’t matter. But if they do care, Sweden B is a total tragedy. It’s like Palestinians in Israel. If they don’t care about their identity and culture, they can seek comfort in the notion that they are materially better off under Jewish rule, which is probably true. Who cares if Palestine is now Israel as long as individual Palestinians still remaining in Israel are pretty well off compared to Arabs in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa? But if Palestinians DO care about their own identity, culture, and territoriality, the Zionist transformation of Palestine has been most tragic. Given that man doesn’t live on bread alone, national-humanist neo-fascists such as myself prefer Sweden A to Sweden B. Jews surely understand this. Though they yammer about how Israel is so neat because it’s modern, democratic, and prosperous, what they really care about is the ethno-national integrity of Israel. For example, if it could be demonstrated that Israel has much to gain economically and scientifically by taking in tons of white goyim, Chinese, & Hindus and much to gain in sports by taking in tons of black Africans, would most Jews in Israel agree to mass goy immigration into Israel? Of course not. It’s because Jews prize what has become their homeland for reasons other than materialism or abstract idealism. They regard it as their sacred territory rich in history and heritage(though, to be sure, Palestinians and certain other groups can make similar claims on the land, just like Serbs have a legitimate claim on Kosovo and Greeks have one on Constantinople, which is now Istanbul). For Jews in Israel, Intra-Meritocracy is all that matters.
But then, notice how Jews spiritualize and tribalize their own claim to Israel while materializing and idealizing the national concepts of other peoples. So, while Israel has sacred blood-and-soil(and soul) meaning to the Jews, goy nations are to be judged purely on their adherence to ‘universal ideology’(distorted by the Jewish-controlled Globo-Homo US as the sole superpower) and material gains. So, if massive immigration might boost the economy, goy nations MUST welcome massive immigration EVEN IF there is a chance that the natives will be overrun by the newcomers. What does it matter when 'muh restaurant' trumps all other considerations? Or, the richer goy nations have a moral and political obligation to take in ‘refugees’ and poor migrants from all over the world. Materialism and idealism. But these rules do NOT apply to Israel, the priority of which is to preserve the spiritual-and-historical bond between the Jewish people and their land. Thus, Jews are mono-nationalists who believe that ONLY JEWS have a history, culture, blood, and heritage worth preserving for reasons above and beyond the call of abstract idealism and materialism(for profit or compassion). Just like Jewish monotheists disdained all gods and religions other than their own as ‘idolatry’, Jewish mono-nationalists disregard all goy identities, nations, and cultures as unworthy to defend and preserve. Down with poly-nationalism, say the Jews. Only Jews are magic whereas goyim are just matter. Only Jews have blood worth keeping, whereas goyim have the kind of blood that should be drained like with animals slaughtered in the Kosher Way. Indeed, it’s incredible that Jews have even made themselves the Only Sacred People of America. One might think that title should go to Anglo-Americans who founded and settled the New Nation. Or, it might go to the American Indians who'd lived on the land for tens of thousands of years before they met tragedy at the trampling feet of mass-invasion-immigration from the Old World. But NO, Jews figure that the ONLY truly Sacred People of America are themselves via the prophetess Emma Lazarus who turned the Statue of Liberty from a beacon of freedom to one of mass-immigration of Jews and others(who are to serve as the minions of Jews against the Anglo-Germanic-Celtic Americans). While Jews insist that their support for Immigration is out of compassion and concern for All of Humanity to make their dreams come true in America, the only Immigration Narrative that Jews really care about is their own. Jewish Immigration is seen as the modern Exodus. It was when the ocean was split open so that Jews could flee from the Tsar-Pharaoh to find freedom and happiness in the New World. (In time, white Americans may increasingly realize WHY the Russians and other Eastern Europeans came to hate Jews so much. White Americans thought Jews, finding unprecedented freedom and opportunity in the US, would stop acting like stereotypical Jews and become good decent Americans. How wrong they were. Give Jews an inch and they take a mile. The Old Narrative that Jews turned nasty and vicious mainly because they were forced into poverty and traumatized by ‘antisemitism’ now seems like a pile of manure. In America, Jews had it so good, but look at the nature of Jewish power in the US, and it has only gotten uglier and nastier than ever before.) If Jews really intend for the Holy Immigration Narrative for ALL GROUPS, why do they insist that All Americans, white and non-white alike, all get behind Israel, all support Zionism, all remember the Holocaust as the only great World Tragedy, and all turn a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians? Notice how Jews bitch about Donald Trump as Literally Hitler, but they are utterly silent about one area where Trump is indeed most Hitlerian: His blind and fanatical support of Zionist tyranny and brutality against Palestinians who are now poised to lose even the West Bank. How nasty and clever these vicious Jews are. They are in the process of erasing West Bank as the last remaining Palestinian homeland, BUT they coach their whore-puppet-politicians to mutter platitudes about how they are all for a ‘two-state’ solution. It is incredible what these vile and vicious Jews can get away with.
In a way, the first half of American history is roughly that of Sweden A while the second half has been of Sweden B. Even though the US had a variety of groups from the outset, Anglo-Americans were the most prominent and numerous, and furthermore, the Germanic populations were so racially close to the Anglo-Americans that, sooner than later, they became sufficiently Anglo-Americanized. This was also true of the Celtic Irish despite their Catholicism at odds with the predominant Protestantism among the Anglos and Germanics. This Anglo-and-Northern-European America was about freedom, liberty, and meritocracy BUT for the founding stock that comprised Core America. Thus, it was about Intra-Meritocracy. The Constitution, Rule of Law, Protestant Ethics, Enterprise, and Individualism all favored demonstrable merit over personal privilege by inheritance or connection(though reality didn’t always subscribe to principle). This foundational American had a clear sense of its racial & cultural composition and how America’s destiny was to grow as a Great White Power. Whites understood that Indian savages would have to be swept aside, and blacks must be relegated to physical labor in order for White America to be viable. One could say it was unfair to blacks and downright tragic for the Indians, but there was no other way America could have been created. Had Indians been allowed to hold onto the land, America would have remained a world of wilderness and savagery. And if blacks had been given equality at America’s foundation, they would soon have realized they could beat up whitey and gone on rampages and reverted to their jungle-jive nature. Slavery and white rule prevented blacks from going wild and acting totally destructive(as they now do all over Baltimore and Detroit); the post-Civil-Rights Era has proven that the ‘racist’ whites were more right than wrong. While their suppression of blacks was unjust from a purely sociological point of view, given what we now know about the black nature it now seems that social equality with blacks doesn’t work because whites and blacks are biologically so unequal in so many regards. Whites are better in brain work, and blacks are better in brawn force. So, whites out-earn blacks, and blacks beat up whites and rob white men of manhood and colonize the wombs of white women who’ve lost respect for their men as a bunch of cucky-wucks. In that sense, the suppression of blacks throughout most of American history was both unjust and just. It was understandably unjust to a black man who was told, "Hey nigger, why don’t you pick some cotton and dance like Uncle Remus?" Naturally, he would have wanted to kick the whitey’s ass. But precisely because the black man can so easily whup the white man, whites had sound reasons to deny equal rights to blacks. It would have been like chimps offering equal rights to bigger/stronger gorillas.
Anyway, roughly the first half of American history was like Sweden A. But there was gradual shift toward something like Sweden B, a inter-meritocratic society. It didn’t happen overnight but gradually, especially with the massive influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Unlike Germanics and Irish, these people looked somewhat different, and it was more challenging to turn them into ersatz Anglo-Americans. Even so, they weren’t the real problem as, over time, most of them did become Good Americans. The real problem was the half-white and half-Semitic Jews, a people of immense talent, keen intelligence, monstrous chutzpah, raging hatreds & resentments, and limitless lust for white wealth and white women. It was the Invasion of the Portnoys(and then Portnettes as, once unloosed, the Jewish women were just as ‘crazy’ as the men). Unlike most Southern and Eastern Europeans who struggled but eventually became part of Anglo-Germanic America, Jews remained apart because of their religion, unique sense of historical consciousness, and burning passion to take over as the new elites of America.
Jews quickly realized that they could easily rise above the ‘dumb Polacks’, ‘childish Italians’, ‘drunken Irish’, and such ilk(indeed as they'd done so in the Old World, at least economically). Having risen above them, they would have to compete with the Wasps. Then, as the Wasp elites constituted the only real ruling class in America, Jews would have it ALL once they bested the Wasps. That was it. It was a two-step approach and made rather simple & all-too-possible under Wasp principles of meritocracy that gradually but dramatically went from intra- to inter-. In a corrupt and chaotic society, Jews would not have been able to rise so quickly above the white ethnics. As white ethnics came from clannish and tribal parts of the world, they had few qualms about fighting dirty and resorting to all sorts of corruption to ‘get what is ours’. The reason why Jews were able to rise about the ethnics with such ease was because the Wasps, not the ethnics, held the most power and had the final say in the US. So, while Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans pulled a lot of dirty tricks with the mafia or the machine, the ultimate power and say were with the Wasps. While Wasps were no angels and had their own long history of dirty tricks, they(along with other Northern European folks) were nevertheless the most honorable and principled peoples on Earth, relatively speaking of course. (Indeed, compare Anglos and Germanics in modern times with Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, Latin whites, and etc., and it's no contest as to which people were more trustworthy and honorable.) Because Anglos had the ultimate say in matters of power and principles, Jews could appeal to the Rule of Law and get justice from Anglo-Americans that they couldn’t get from the Italian-American mafia, the Irish Machine, ‘dumb Polaks’, the icky Greeks, and etc. So under the protection of Anglo Rule of Law, Jews were able to rise above the ethnic rabble. But did this make Jews appreciative and grateful of what the Wasps had provided for them? To have thought so was to know NOTHING about the Jews. Unlike the Japanese and Germans who were grateful for having been allowed to survive and rebuild their economies following World War II, Jews simply don’t have ‘gratitude’ in their vocabulary. By ways of Jewish culture and genetics(innate personality traits), Jews have less of softer & kinder characteristics, and if anything, when they see goyim being nice to Jews or doing them a favor, Jews think, "What a dummy!" Goy niceness is seen as weakness and vulnerability to exploit than a virtue to admire and reciprocate in kind. Also, fueled by their powerful personality and supremacist concept of ‘Chosen-ness’, Jews believe they should rule and dominate all the world, and that means taking over all societies.
Early on, Jews understood that the US would be a great nation, the most powerful in the world, and if Jews just took over the US, they could use it like how the small kid used the big kid in the movie MY BODYGUARD.
But if the kid in the movie finally came to realize the human side of the big guy and learned to fight his own fight, the cunning and conniving Jews will always seek to tame one bunch of goyim to fight other goyim. Jews are king mixers(like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT) as their advantage often relied on the divide-and-rule strategy of making goy fight goy, just like the Romans and Chinese resorted to tactics that encouraged barbarians to fight barbarians. To Jews with their ancient pedigree, all other groups are just barbarians. As Jews see it, there is real culture, there is barbarism, and there is modernity. Real culture is rooted in ancient civilization, and among all the ancient cultures, it’s arguable that the only ones to have survived intact are those of Jews, Chinese, and Hindus. These are peoples who founded and created their own cultures. Among the Europeans, the Greeks were the only real culture-creators, but they lost out to the Roman barbarians whose civilization owed to stealing so much from the Greeks. Thus, whereas Greeks truly civilized themselves by founding a culture, Romans were barbarians who put on cultural pretensions by stealing from others. At any rate, the Romans fell apart, and their culture was lost. Then, Central and Northern Europe began to rise, but as far as Jews are concerned, peoples in those parts are also barbarians who, being unable to form their own high/deep culture, stole from the Greeks and Jews. Thus, unlike Jews, Chinese, and Hindus who created cultures of their own, the Western Europeans, as great as they became in power and wealth, don’t really have cultures of their own as they'd mostly rejected their own indigenous barbarian cultures in favor of high/deep cultures created and shaped by Greeks and Jews.
As for modernity, it is essentially anti-cultural as it favors individualism, universalism, materialism, libertinism, consumerism, and hedonism. Modernity has opened up lots of possibilities and created all kinds of opportunities, but its overall effect has been to weaken, degrade, and destroy cultures around the world. Under the onslaught of modernism, Jews, Hindus, and Chinese are poised to weather the negative effects of rapid changes better than Europeans and especially White Americans. Northern and Central Europe did not have ancient high/deep cultures. Rather, they were barbarian folks who became civilized 'too fast' by borrowing the ideas, visions, and inspirations of other peoples. Because their ‘core’ culture is really a borrowed culture that doesn’t really belong to them in terms of origin or creation, it is easier for them to lose it under the assault of modernity. Jews are like a great tree with deep roots. Even if the tree is damaged by wind and storm, the roots remain deep in the soil. Western Civilization is like a huge tree with shallow roots. It grew too-big-too-fast with tons of borrowed fertilizers but hadn’t the time to allow its roots to penetrate deep into the soil over a long period. Thus, it can easily be toppled by external forces, and we are now seeing the impact of modernity on the West. Indeed, it’s amazing how easy it’s been for Jews to persuade white folks that ‘whiteness’ is just a social construct and that Western Civilization isn’t something that white folks can claim. If Jews tried to convince the peoples of China and India that their cultures and histories don’t belong to them, the Chiners and Dotkins would laugh in the Jews’ face, but whites seem totally captivated by the Jewish BS. It’s as if white people aren’t truly civilized but remain essentially as barbarians who only took on the outward appearance of civilization.
It’s no wonder that Nassim Nicholas Taleb has such contempt for Northern Europeans who think so highly of themselves. While Taleb is most certainly wrong about I.Q., there is a kernel of justification in his derision of Northern European pride because success up there came too-much-too-fast without the requisite transformations that allowed peoples there to truly form meaningful identities. And this is true enough with the Swedes who were once ruthless Vikings but then became devout Protestants with their heads bowed low. How could a people change so fast from point A to point B? A people with real culture would not be so easily persuaded to take on another culture, but that is what happened to the Swedes in the past and is happening to them now. (If Europeans could so easily be persuaded to abandon their own indigenous cultures, accept 'Jew on a stick' as their main God, and accept Judaic scriptures as their own Narrative, it then makes sense why current Europeans can so easily be persuaded to abandon traditional morality for globo-homo and to exchange European identity for Afro-Globalist one. In a way, what they are doing now is in keeping with what they did in the past. Lacking foundational vision and imagination, they easily fall under the spell of those with bigger visions.)
While it may well be true that Northern Europeans have higher IQ, they don’t have very deep understanding of culture. As their IQ is mainly devoted to materialist search for ‘more stuff’, it hasn’t done much for a sense of culture. Europeans failed to come up with anything like a Covenant, Karma, or Familism. IQ is a tool, not a meaning. One thing for sure, if Jews and Nassim Taleb have anything in common, it is their cultural and even racial disdain for Northern Europeans as childish upstarts, a people with spirit and inspiration but no sense of longevity and direction. Indeed, the main reason for the longevity of European Civilization as a continuing process has been Christianity, a religion that was taken from the Jews. (Some European thinkers see continuity as a bad habit learned from Jews and call for a return to cyclicalism of rises and falls that are supposedly more in tune with nature and the organic way of things. In a way, such thinkers embrace barbarism as a vital element of the European soul. It is the necessary fire that burns away the accumulated dry wood of civilization that extends life way past its expiration date. As tragic as the fall may be, the new can be birthed only from the demise of the old. It's rather ironic that Western Europe that suffered the Fall of Rome experienced the Renaissance whereas the Byzantium that extended the life of the Roman Empire fell into stasis and stagnation. In both ZARDOZ and EXCALIBUR, John Boorman takes the Jungian view that mankind must not separate itself too far from the Way of Nature.) And, with the rediscovered fire of the ancient world during the Renaissance, parts of Northern Europe began to change dramatically and then rapidly, and indeed, the rise of Modernity(as most people understand it) must be credited mostly to France and Northern Europe.
And yet, did Northern Europeans have the sufficient sense of roots-and-home not to get lost in their adventurous lunges forward? Could it be that the people who were most instrumental in bringing about modernity are also among the ones most endangered by it? Suppose there are adventurers with the drive, courage, and curiosity to venture into the unknown but without much in the way to redirect themselves homewards(much like the children in THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA who, once they become immersed in the fantasy world, forget all about the real one until they are brought back almost by accident). They may be the most pioneering people but also the most lost people, and in a way, America has been a world of lotus-eaters where everyone forgets where they came from and who they are, especially as the meaning of 'American' has become pretty useless as anything but mindless consumer, shallow fashionista, and worshiper of Jews, blacks, and homos as the Holy Three. The only exceptions of late seem to be Jews and Hindus. (Even the Chinese cannot maintain their sense of culture and history in the US and Canada because Chinese-ness is rooted in learning & cultivation than blood and spirit. Only Hindus and Jews have something like a consciousness that emphasizes the unity of blood and spirit. For the Chinese, the highest value is education, learning, & status, and that means their priority in the West is to go to good schools and say/do anything to earn them the right kind of status among the right kind of people. In contrast, even as Jews and Hindus are also obsessed with success and status, they still have a sense of who they are that is more important than worldly success. Thus, their ancient consciousness is more resilient in the West. In contrast, almost all other groups have become hapless lotus-eaters in America that might as well be called ‘Amnesia-rica’.) Jews look upon white people in the way that older people look upon younger people. Young people have more spirit and energy but almost no sense of roots and hardly any sense of direction. They are mainly enamored of the New and Now.
Granted, Jews and Hindus of modernity also share in the white obsession with the New — no one can escape from modernity in our world — , but there is MORE to Jewish and Hindu consciousnesses with their deep sense of ‘home’ and roots that are historical, ancestral, and cultural. Their sense of future, ambitious and modern as it is, comes with a map and compass that also remind them of whence they came and what they are with identities that are bigger than any idea, movement, or trend. White consciousness has become like blooming flowers. So fixated on highlights that it overlooks the fact that a flower isn’t just the bloom but the stem, leaves, and roots. And so, HBD community goes on and on about higher white IQ and greater white originality compared to most peoples, but such talk is all about the flowers and overlooks the deeper sense of whiteness that has value regardless of IQ.
At some point in US history, America as big Sweden A gave way to big Sweden B. Jews took over from the Wasps(whose children increasingly came under the intellectual influence of Jews and cultural influence of blacks) and decided to open the flood-gates so that white America could never constitute an effective united force against Jews as the new ruling elites. Thus, America became a World Nation, and as such, it was to absorb all the best talents from all corners of the globe. And in a way, one could argue the US has benefited from this. Because of its large black population, US often produces the best athletes around the world and grabs lots of gold at the Olympics. Also, because of black prowess in funky music, US pop music dominates the world scene. And because of Jewish business smarts and enterprise, US Hollywood dominates global cinema. And US has attracted the best scientists and engineers from the world over, which is one reason why the US leads in high-tech. Not only does the US have a core white population with lots of talent but it has attracted many of the best minds from Asia and Latin America who would rather work in the US and make more money than remain ‘stuck’ in their own nations where they earn less and have to deal with more corruption. US, corrupt as it is, is still not as bad as most major nations around the world.
But what has this done to the white race as a whole? It’s been utterly disastrous. While one could argue that Jews, blacks, and others contributed much to America with their special talents, their success also led to the degradation, humiliation, and ultimately even dehumanization of whites. If Jews had taken elite power and showed gratitude to white goyim as fellow racial brethren, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Instead, Jews used their great power to undermine the white race as much as possible. And what has black music and black sports really led to? Humiliation of the white male, decline in white manhood, and jungle fever among white women. A race cannot survive when the women of the race lose respect for the men. That is a historical truth, and so, while one can admire black achievements in athletics as a form of inter-meritocracy, the effect has been utterly dire for the white race. If whites had kept with intra-meritocracy that excluded blacks, they may not be the best athletes in the world but they could still be the best among their own kind... like the Ancient Greeks were the best in their Olympic events that was open only to Greeks. Isn’t it better to have local heroes for every people/nation than to have one set of global champions for all peoples? According to globo-logic, all nations should have and celebrate blacks since blacks can beat all races. France won the World Cup with mostly black players, but is it really a triumph for France or a symbol of its utter humiliation & defeat? When black Africans are the new face of French manhood and when even white Frenchmen cheer for blacks against whites of other European nations, it is double-cuckery: French bowing down to blacks as their new masters and then cheering on the blacks to beat OTHER whites as well. It's bad enough for French men to resign themselves to defeat and humiliation under black African athletic prowess, but it is downright disgusting when the whites of France hang their 'national' hopes on blacks as New French defeating all the white teams of Europe. Such is the distressing consequence of Inter-Meritocracy that, in favoring the Supreme-Best over Our Team, leads a people to even welcome defeat and humiliation at the hands of the Other as long as the Other has demonstrably superior talents over one's own kind. Now, it's one thing to admire the talents of the Other if indeed they are superior, but it's quite another to replace one's own with the Other simply because the Other is better. While in global competitions, all peoples should acknowledge the top winners, they should protect their own people AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL from the threat posed by the superior other. It's like the US has by far the most powerful military, a fact that must be acknowledged and even admired by all nations. Still, the role of every nation is to protect its own people and military from the Other that could very well be neo-imperialist US. It'd be stupid for all nations to put out and cuck to US power simply because it is the most powerful. Globalism says all the world should put out to US as the lone superpower, all the world should put out to blacks as the sole champions, all the world should put out to Jews as the sole wizard-masters, and all the world should put out to globo-homo as the new faith for all the world; and all of the Middle East and North Africa should put out to Israel as the region's only superpower. I rather admire Syrians and Iranians for saying NO to such hegemonic and supremacist conceits of Jews. Naturally, all people are fascinated by power for power's sake, but the most important question should be, "What is the implication of this power on my people, culture, and land?" It's one thing for coyotes to admire the power of wolves but quite another thing to invite wolves to coyotes' lair.
According to supremacist globo-logic, all nations should serve Jewish finance-capitalism since Jews are most adept and cunning in their mastery of money and trade. It’s like blacks should be champions for all the world, Jews should be money-lenders for all the world, China should be manufacturers for all the world, Hindus should be computer engineers for all the world, and etc. Under inter-meritocratic pressures, the state of the white race has been chipped away from all sides. Smarter Jews took elite institutions away from whites. Stronger blacks took sportsman pride and manhood from whites. East Asians and Hindus are taking college slots and white collar jobs from whites. And even the mediocre browns from south of the border are chipping away at white majority advantage in demographics. And even though America as World Nation is idealized as the place that attracts the best from the world, the current Open Borders madness also attracts many mediocrities and criminal elements. It’s even worse in Sweden where most newcomers, far from being people of skill/talent, are the dregs of society. Current Sweden isn’t even the hypothetical Sweden B that, for all its problems, still benefits from attracting top talent from all over the world. Most people of talent would rather move to the US than to a place like Sweden. Most people who are attracted to Sweden are moronic leeches from Africa and the Muslim World. Thus, Sweden gets the worst of both worlds. The natives lose to newcomers who are utterly without talent or worth as individuals. Meanwhile, the Best of Native Sweden are too brainwashed by PC, corrupted by globalist prizes(handsomely rewarded to cuck-elites who betray their own people and serve the Jews), and earnest in their do-goody national character to smell the coffee and finally wake up and do something about what amounts to White Nakba that will do to native Swedes what Zionist immigration-invasion did to the Palestinians.
Anyway, a healthy nation is about leaders, elites, heroes, and idols who stand up for their own people, and this can be assured ONLY THROUGH Intra-Meritocracy. While it is theoretically possible that the Other, upon gaining the top prizes of society, may commit itself toward serving the good of the native or majority people, it’s usually not the case. Do the white elites of Latin American nations really give a shit about the masses of browns on the bottom? Did Jews who streamed into Palestine one hundred years ago really hope to take control to do nice things for Palestinians? No, they were just laying the groundwork for massive expulsions of the Palestinian peoples. And while one could argue that the British Imperialists did some good for their non-white subjects around the world, their main priority was to make the non-whites serve the British overlords than vice versa. Same goes for the Jewish elites of America. Of course, the many Jewish contributions in science, medicine, technology, finance, media, and etc. have had positive benefits for white Americans. But what is the ultimate ambition of the Jews? To use their power and wealth to do what is good and right for ALL AMERICANS OR to manipulate the system and to mold minds so that ALL AMERICANS will be obedient dogs of Jews. Jewish masters make goy dogs bark at one another but command all goy dogs to roll over before the Jew.
This is why this thing called ‘inclusion’ is really invasion. For a nation to maintain its integrity and viability, it must exclude most foreigners and restrict the competitive field to the nationals. Now, there may be a complicated and arduous process whereupon by foreigners can be absorbed into the national mainstream and allowed to become full citizens, but this must never be easy; it mustn't be like the crazy American way of turning foreigners into full-fledged citizens after only five years whereupon they have voting powers equal to that of Americans whose ancestries go back centuries(and stretch back into millennia into Europe, the civilization that discovered the Americas and birthed the American Civilization). When citizenship is made that easy, the nation is amnesiac than historical, and the amnesiac will always lose out to those who cling to the historical. The fact is the Jewish immigrants with their radical will and tribal resilience had no intention of just assimilating into Anglo-Americanism and becoming Good Americans. Just ask yourself. When all those Jews moved to Palestine, were they trying to become New Palestinians or Good Palestinians? No, they went there with the express purpose of taking over and re-defining Palestine into what they envisioned as the Jewish Nation.
Now, Palestinians and Anglos couldn’t have been more different as the former were small in number and weak whereas Anglos had conquered much of the world and were the most advanced/powerful people in the world. But it didn’t matter to Jews for whom both groups were merely goyim to conquer and control. If Jews saw Palestine as the base for Jewish Nationalism, they saw America as the base for Jewish Imperialism. Thus, Zionism was devised to be against assimilation. Jews moving to Palestine would NOT assimilate to Arab-ism, Islam-ism, or Christian-ism(as many Palestinians were Christian). Rather, Jews would go there with a powerful sense of tribalism and eventually expel the native Palestinians and take over as the New Natives(albeit with ancient historical claims of their own). As for Anglo-America, it reeked too much of Gentile-Nationalism to the Jews. Until relatively recently, to become an ‘American’ meant to become Anglo-Americanized. Not only did newcomers learn to speak English but they were instructed, informed, and entertained with images and words that made Anglo-American history at the center of the national narrative. Thus, even though America expanded with imperial ambitions, it had a certain national core in its self-definition, i.e. in order for newcomers to become American, they must essentially become Anglo-Americanized. That Anglo-element had a nationalizing impact on all Americans, Anglo or not. But with Americanism defined in such manner, how could Jews take over as the New Elites and overlords? It would mean Anglo-Americanism has primacy over Jewish-Americanism. In order for the US to go from an Anglo/American super-nation to a Jewish Globalist-Empire, the Anglo-American element had to be demoted, degraded, and disgraced as much as possible. (And of course, by this time, the English language, especially American English, has become the ‘lingua franca’ of the world, and therefore, many peoples everywhere feel that they own it just as much as Anglo people do. It is one of the dangers of cultural imperialism. While your culture may gain hegemony over the Other, the Other can claim your culture as their culture since it has become second-nature to them. The Jewish God sure became a World God fast enough with the rise of Christianity. And all the roads that the Romans built to conquer other lands became useful routes by which others invaded Rome.) Now, how could Jewish power supersede Anglo-American power? Jews, as relative late-comers, don’t have the foundational claim on America that Anglo-Americans(and some Germanic-Americans) have. Besides, Jews are only 2% of the US population, and furthermore, unlike Christian Civilizations, Jews never wanted to share Jewishness with others. Anglos didn't mind others learning English and emulating Anglo ways, but Jews weren't happy with non-Jews mastering Yiddish or Hebrew or doing Jewishy things. Therefore, Jewishness could never serve as the basis of Americanism like Anglo-Americanism could. If Anglo-Americanism allowed non-Anglos and even non-whites to take on Anglo-ish ways and become good Anglo-ized Americans, Jewish-Americanism demands that non-Jewish groups all get on their knees and bow down before Jewishness. Jewish-Americanism, unlike Anglo-Americanism, doesn’t welcome non-Jews into Jewishness. Instead, non-Jews must merely serve and honor Jewishness. Jewishness lacks the genericism of Anglo-ness and Christianity that allows some degree of acceptance. So, even though Wasp country clubs may have excluded non-Anglos, the modes and manners of Waspiness were open to all. Wasps had no problem with others trying to be waspy, and if anything, were flattered by it in places like India and Hong Kong where the Asiatic natives aspired to be like English gentlemen and ladies. In contrast, Jews really don’t like non-Jews to think, feel, and act like Jews. They only want non-Jews to worship at the feet of Jews.
For that reason, Jewishness could not become the new template of Americanism. While all Americans were to honor, serve, praise, and worship Jewishness, they were always to be reminded that they are NOT Jewish, therefore inferior. Now, if Jewishness could not supplant Anglo-ness as the basis of Core Americanism, what could? Jews settled on Immigrationism because the Jewish-American experience is more about late-immigration than conquest, founding, settling, and building. By making immigration the centerpiece of Americanism, Jews made themselves(and other immigrant-groups) the people with the MOST claim to call themselves Core Americans. Now, one may wonder how this is good for Jews when MOST immigrants, then and now, are NOT Jewish(and many have been even wary of or hostile toward Jews). It’s because Jews became the kingpins of immigration, the most successful group with the most power. A conquering army may be made up of diverse peoples, but the only thing that really matters is the question of WHO are leading the hordes. Romans, Mongols, Turks, and the British used mercenaries and foreigners. As Alexander the Great conquered more territories, he recruited new warriors among the conquered tribes. But in the end, the power was with the Greco-Macedonians because they were the commanders. Likewise, Jews know that most immigrant groups cannot hold a candle to Jewish intelligence, drive, and radical will. Most will never rise very high and will end up serving the Jewish neo-imperialist elites hellbent on finally transforming the US from an Anglo-American(and Anglo-Americanizing) Nation to a Jewish Globo-Homo Empire.
Despite the imperialist aspects of Anglo-Americanism, there was something like American nationalism when immigrant groups were pressured to become Anglo-Americanized. It instilled them with the sense that the US, as powerful and great as it is, is not the world or a World Nation. Rather, it is a nation in which many people from around the world did their best to fit into a pre-established National Mold. In time, they could add to Americanism with stuff like pizza and taco, but there was a Core Americanism that was decidedly Anglo(and Germanic) in origin. But once Anglo-Americanism is degraded and discarded, America will no longer have a national core to bind it together. Instead, it will become a full-fledged World Empire headed by Jewish overlords who look upon America not as their national home but as their prize imperial possession, their Jewel in the Crown. America is to Jews what India was once to the British. The real spiritual national home of the Jews is Israel. Many Jews prefer to live outside Israel, just like so many Brits chose to live outside humdrum England in one of their imperial possessions. Even so, all Brits felt that Britain was their Mother Country, their true home. Likewise, Jews feel nationalist only about Israel. As for the rest of the world, Jews go into imperialist mode as they seek hegemony and dominance over all the goyim. Notice how Jews in Great Britain insist that all Brits support Israel as the sacred homeland of the Jews BUT also insist that UK must be ‘welcoming’ and become part of the globalist empire that is to be controlled by Jews at the top and filled up with Muslims and Africans from the bottom. With Jews, you lose.
Theoretically, it’d be nice if Jews weren’t like this and if they just regarded themselves as ‘different’ white people with much to gain by becoming part of white society. But this is nearly impossible with Jews because of their nature. Due to problems of ‘antisemitism’, it was thought that Jewish nastiness was just an overreaction to gentile mistreatment of Jews, but if we regard post-WWII West as a grand social experiment in Being-Nice-to-Jews, it’s become rather obvious that Jews act even WORSE when they are indulged and allowed to do as they please. But then, this raises the question of whether the main culprit of Jewish Evil is Philosemitism or Jewish nature. We saw with Hitlerism and Maoism what can happen to a nation when radical elements are allowed to run riot and act on their whims with blind support of the masses. Could it be that Jews went crazy after WWII for the same reason the Nazis went crazy with too much power and adulation? Could Jewish Power have developed more sensibly and responsibly IF it had been criticized like Wasp power once was? But then, the taboo of ‘antisemitism’ made it nearly impossible to honestly criticize Jewish power. Anti-antisemitism led to Philosemitism that led to Jews being allowed to indulge all their perversions, sickness, and dementedness.... like with Roman Polanski who is still protected and lionized by powerful Jews as ‘one of us’.
Or, is the problem much deeper? Philo-Semitism or not, is there something about Jewish nature that is innately vile, venal, ugly, and demented? In some ways, Jews developed many positive traits in their devotion to learning and trade, and yet, their immersion in mind and money also made them develop overly fanatical and cunning personalities. And some Jews are so extreme in their mental makeup that they seem utterly lacking in self-awareness of how ludicrous they can be. Andrea Dworkin was a living caricature of such Jewish mind-set but hardly an exception as too much of media, academia, and deep state are crawling with fanatical Jews with extreme personalities and worldviews. Generally, fanaticism, for all its dangers, at least comes with the virtue of earnestness and sincerity of devotion, but what is truly appalling about Jews is how they can be utterly fanatical and devious at the same time. It's like being totally honest with absolute lies. Jews are atrocious in their utter lack of honesty and honor. Even though they claim to stand for Inter-Meritocracy in the name of fairness and equality for ALL peoples, they don’t want to be equal with humanity but above it. They only pretend to care about blacks and non-whites(aka Diversity) to use them against moral, political, and demographic cudgels against whites. Indeed, especially damaging to whites has been the moral weapon of bleating about ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’ all the time. This isn’t really about justice but merely to silence whites(and other goyim) on the subject of Jewish Power by conflating any anti-Jewish feelings with the Shoah. As for the slavery narrative, why do Jews fixate so much on Anglo-American use of black slaves when slavery had been common all over the world at the time, and besides, Latin America, especially Brazil, imported many more blacks than the US did? And Jews also played a big role in the slave trade, directly or indirectly, as Jews or cryto-Jews. It has nothing to do with Jewish concern for justice. It’s just a power play to instill Anglo-American whites — the most successful and powerful whites around the world — with ‘white guilt’ so that they won’t possess the pride and confidence necessary for independent white interests. Thus enslaved morally, emotionally, and ‘spiritually’ to the dogma of White Guilt, whites will be putty in the hands of Jews, not least because the Holocaust Narrative has elevated Jews to the status of god-men through whom(and only through whom) the rest of humanity can be redeemed.
For Jews, there are two kinds of justice: One for themselves as the Master Race and one for the rest of humanity. There are times when Jews will especially favor one bunch of goyim over others, but it’s all about "Is it good for the Jews?" than for any genuine concern for justice. Granted, there are exceptions among Jews, but they are few and far between. Remember the time when World Jewry were simultaneously allied with Apartheid South Africa and working to undermine white power there? Jews bitch about the bad ole days of Jim Crow but enforce racial policies in Occupied West Bank that are many times more severe than anything in post-slavery American South and South Africa under Apartheid. IDF death squads even mow down women and children in Gaza who want to return to their homeland.
According to Jews, Africans and Muslims who have NO ROOTS in the West have the ‘universal human right’ to invade and take over European nations, but Palestinians who’d lived in what is now Israel for 1,000s of years have no Right of Return. When Jews yammer about ‘universal morality’, it applies only to goyim, never to themselves as they live by the Master Morality of Jewish supremacism. If Jews are really about equality in the US, why do they pressure all politicians of both parties to favor Jews and Zionists over Muslims and Palestinians? How come no politician even raises the question of hypocrisy?
Anyway, Inter-Meritocracy has been a total disaster for the white race. To smarter Jews, whites lost most elite positions. To tougher blacks, whites lost most positions as cultural icons and sports idols that are so rich in symbolism. (Today, white men as cucky ‘white boys’ grow up in the US, Canada, France, UK, and Netherlands to admire black guys in sports and pop culture as their idols, heroes, role models, and representations of Western Manhood. With white males reduced to such embarrassing cucky-wuck status, white women have naturally been infected with jungle fever and welcome ACOWW as it’s part of female nature to go with the ‘winner’, and in our vulgarized and debased culture of thuggery and open sexuality, victory is measured in terms of who can holler loudest, punch hardest, and hump longest.) Having lost elite positions to Jews and manhood symbolism to the blacks, can whites at least look forward to dominating most white-collar jobs that offer job security and decent livelihoods? No, because endless mass-immigration from China and India will mean that whites will have to compete for those white-collar jobs with yellows and dotkins who, though not brighter, are more committed to studying night and day to make the exams.
— Battle Scarred Russian Bot (@AggroRussian) August 9, 2019
And whites even lose out to competition of quantity and economy. As browns keep pouring into the US from the south and as American jobs can be shipped off to nations with cheaper labor, working class whites lose to what might be called Inter-Mediocrity. Naturally, the working class is about mediocrity. It’s about people with average intelligence and limited knowledge. Thus, they cannot win in the game of meritocracy. Still, they can perform many tasks that don’t require advanced skills. True nationalism protects the Mediocrities as part of the national family, and traditionally, the working class of nation-states were favored, protected, and taken care of by the state and its elites. But no longer under globalism. If American mediocrities can be replaced with cheaper mediocrities, globalism says JUST GO AHEAD to boost the profit margins of the elites. So, just like Intra-Meritocratism is preferable to Inter-Meritocratism, Intra-Mediocritism is preferable to Inter-Mediocritism; the former protects the national working class from mediocrities from all over the world who may be willing to work for pennies than for dollars, for beans than for burgers.
