Logic of 'Antisemitism' Would Suggest Powerful Jews Are the Most 'Anti-Semitic' for Their Actions Exhibiting Obscene Levels of Jewish Power and Influence

Is Alan Dershowitz an Anti-Semite for saying Jews indeed do possess disproportionate power and influence?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAYS JEWS SHOULDN’T APOLOGIZE FOR THEIR POWER

Of course, Dershowitz is full of BS as he frames the argument on the assumption that Jews are being ‘defensive’ about their power and wealth when, in truth, they are being DECEPTIVE, a big difference. ‘Defensive’ implies apologetics, anxiety and self-doubt that perhaps Jews aren’t deserving of all their power, influence, wealth, and success. But, there’s hardly any evidence of such. The Jewish denial of their wealth and power(or at least the nefarious influences associated with them) isn’t a manifestation of guilt or shame but a ham-fisted strategy to secure their dominant position in a society where they are a small minority.
When confronted with the facts of their power and influence, when have Jews squirmed & sweated, wrung their hands, and apologized for having too much or misusing them? Instead, they hiss with venom at any probing question, which is denounced as ‘Anti-Semitic’.
If Dershowitz were honest, he’d admit that the neurosis among some Jews about their power has less to do with feeling defensive or sorry than with the awareness that it’s no easy feat for Jews to ‘earn like Episcopalians(actually much more) while voting like Puerto Ricans’. How do Jews maintain their image of ‘champions of equality and social justice’ when they are by far the richest and most privileged people in the US, indeed the whole world? This makes some Jews nervous, not apologetic, as they feel they are deserving of all they got and, if anything, more and more.

Traditionally, the great majority of Jews were associated with the Political Left, so much so that many goyim still tend to identify Jewish influence with socialism and communism, ROTFL. Jewish Power abandoned true leftism long ago, but many Jews were weaned on leftist ideology and tactics. They are now fully tribal-capitalist-imperialist but were acculturated on radicalism.
It’s no wonder that much of the 21st century is a story of Jews trained in leftism using left-like technics to gain more power for Zion, all the while trying to transform leftism into something almost the reverse of its original intent, much like how the super-capitalists in METROPOLIS(directed by Fritz Lang) create a double of Maria whose message to the masses is the very opposite of what the real Maria has been preaching.
Much like today’s Chinese Elites invoke Maoist guerilla mythology to justify and reinforce their iron grip over a vast managerial state, Jewish Power in this century plays the role of the global capitalist-tribalist hegemon while retaining the radical will of yesteryear.

There’s been much talk of the Neocons and their political transformation but more interesting is the story of the Neolibs as they, more than the Neocons, represented the Jews who held the most sway and influence. While the ex-Trotskyite Neocon turn to the Right was swift and dramatic in the Seventies and Eighties, what went under the radar was the fact that the same process had happened to the Neolib Jews who were simply more adept at veiling this change among themselves.
Even before the Neocons fully turned to the Political Right, they(still as Democrats) represented a political minority in the Jewish Community by asking some inconvenient questions about the relationship between Zionism(supported by Jews of both parties) and Leftism.
If Neocons turned against the Left in their hardcore support of Zionism, the Liberal Jews wanted to have it both ways by supporting Zionism while serving as the leading light of American Leftism.
In the long run, the Neolib influence was far more consequential in all its devious and mendacious ingenuity. If the Neocons joined the Right(though only to use the White Right to serve the Jewish Ultra-Right), the Neolibs faced a far more arduous task of remaining on the Political Left while prioritizing the support of Zion and transforming leftism into an ever malleable ideology that could be squeezed and stretched in any shape or manner to suit Judeo-centric needs. Their monstrous brain-child was ‘wokeness’, many tenets of which run counter to traditional and true leftism. It is the Fake Maria of METROPOLIS.

Granted, the Neocons and Neolibs played a tag-team match. One wonders if Jewish American influence might have been more ideologically consistent and conscientious if (1) the American Right and GOP remained anti- or counter-Jewish (2) virtually all of Jewish Power was on the Democratic Side. If the GOP had remained anti-, counter-, or non-Jewish, it would have been more difficult for Zionist Jews to threaten the Democratic Party with defection of personnel and donations to the GOP UNLESS the Democrats cave to all Jewish-Zionist demands.
The Zionist shtick has always been, “Most of us Jews are Democrats, but we donate a lot of money to the GOP too. GOP totally cucks to Israel, and more of us Jews could migrate to there… unless you Democrats grant all our demands on Zion.”
If there were no Neocons and if the GOP adamantly rejected Jewish/Zionist influence, Jews would have considerably less leverage over the Democrats. They couldn’t threaten the Party with defection to another party. Then, Jews couldn’t be as demanding on issues related to Zionism and Wars for Zion, and conscientious Jews and genuine progressives would worry less about lots of Jewish talent and money going to the other party.
Neocons not only took over the GOP but ensured that Neolib Zionists would have a free rein in the Democratic Party. Neocon presence in the GOP meant Neolib Jews could always threaten the Democrats, “We can join our Neocon brethren in the GOP unless you agree to all our demands on issues related to Israel.” The result is the ‘uniparty’.

Jewish commentators and social critics often argue that Anti-Semitic Stereotypes or Tropes never seem to go away. What are their examples of ‘Antisemitism’? The perception that Jews control the mass media. The suspicion that Jews control banking and finance. The accusation that Jews have inordinate controls of elite institutions of society and abused their power to make the US fight Wars for Israel. The impression that Jews are more loyal to other Jews around the world than to the particular nation in which they reside. And there are others too: Jews control vice industries such as gambling. Jews promote drugs, illegal and legal, to demoralize and even destroy goy peoples. Jews push for Mass Migration-Invasion to increase Diversity to play divide-and-rule among fractured and contentious goyim. Jews promote prostitution, pornography, and sex slavery(especially with Ukrainian women) to exploit goy women as sexual commodities. Jews are two-faced and play both sides. Jews favor minority elitism over majority power. Jews are rank hypocrites in insisting that goyim support Jewish identity, territoriality, and nationality while doing everything to undermine national autonomy & sovereignty among gentiles. Jews seek to drive a wedge between goy men and goy women to weaken organic unity within the goy population. Jews invoke universal principles to cynically disarm goy nationalists while strengthening their own identity and tribalism. While Jews are perfectly fine with well-armed tribal brethren in Jewish-majority Israel, Jews seek to take away the guns of American goyim so that the Jewish-controlled state will have monopoly of arms over the populace. And so on.

Now, if all such inklings, suspicions, impressions, perceptions, accusations, and convictions are ‘Anti-Semitic’ and if we push its moral logic to conclusion, then one would have to admit that those who PRACTICE acts and behaviors that support ‘Anti-Semitic’ THEORIZING are most guilty of ‘antisemitism’.
If John commits murders and if I suspect that he is committing murders, who is more guilty of Anti-Johnism, that is IF ‘Anti-Johnism’ is defined as an unwarranted negative view of John as wicked character despite his virtue, nobility, and innocence? If John is indeed innocent and a wonderful fellow but if I suspect him of being a cretin and a killer, I would then surely be guilty of Anti-Johnism. But suppose there’s hard evidence that John is a serial killer and goes around murdering people. And suppose my suspicions/accusations are based on that evidence. Then, who is the real Anti-Johnist? Isn’t John the Killer the true Anti-Johnist because his actions have destroyed the Pro-Johnist position that John is a good guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly? Actions speak louder than words, or Actions SHOULD speak louder than words(though too often they don’t), and moral logic would place the burden of Anti-Johnism on John’s shoulders if he is the one who committed acts that betrayed the spirit of Pro-Johnism that contends that John is a jolly good fellow.

Then, the same logic applies to the matter of antisemitism. If our perceptions of Jewish wealth, power, influence, corruption, abuse, crimes, perfidy, and nastiness aren’t supported by evidence, then we would indeed be guilty of ‘antisemitism’, which is defined as irrational fantasizing and hyper-exaggeration of Jewish impact on society, much of it negative.
To clarify matters, let us consider the Eskimos. We know that Eskimos or Inuits have no power over us. They may be good at constructing igloos, walking on snowshoes, and lifting objects with their ears, but they have no control of the media, finance, Deep State, gambling, Hollywood, Military-Industrial Complex, pornography, music industry, real estate, law firms, universities, the courts, and etc. So, if we were to spread rumors about Eskimo power and its negative impact, we would indeed be delusional. We could be said to be Anti-Eskimoan, in this case defined as “Casting irrational and fantastical aspersions of power, influence, and problems on the Eskimo community.”

Now, if Jewish influence were on the level of Eskimos(or the Amish or West Virginia hillbillies), we could agree with those who sound the alarm on ‘antisemitism’. It’d be ludicrous to ascribe so much social, economic, and political influence to Jews when Jews are so feeble and ineffectual as a group. But seriously, are Jews comparable to Eskimos and the Amish? ROTFL.

Jewish Power is real, and it is vastly disproportionate to their share of the population. Jews are only 2% of Americans, but Jews are seriously over-represented in elite institutions, upper echelons of finance, top law firms, Ivy League universities, State Department, most influential think-tanks, Big Tech monopolies, uppermost courts, vice industries of gambling-drugs-and-pornography(which should be called E-Prostitution or Electronic Prostitution, very useful to Jews after they lost the business of pimping to the lowly blacks), Big Pharma(such as the sinister Sackler Family, the 21st century counterpart to the Jewish Sassoon Family that dominated the opium trade in China), and etc.

Now, Jewish Power isn’t necessarily evil or wicked. Power, like fire, can be used to do good or bad, and indeed, positive Jewish contributions to humanity in many fields such as medicine, arts & literature, philosophy, science, math, and etc. have been nothing less than astounding. Most human groups have been inconsequential, and only a handful have made a real difference, and Jews have been among the most consequential if not the most.

But among all consequential peoples, there’s been much bad as well as good. No one would say Romans were all bad or all good. No one would say the Chinese or Hindus, very consequential in Asia, were all good or all bad. Same goes for the British, French, Germans, and Arabs(who spread Islam). Great power is such that it can never be only good. Just like the Force in STAR WARS has a dark side, all forms of Great Power are open to abuse and exploitation, and all great peoples and empires have done their share of wicked things. Then, this would apply to Jews as well.

The concept of Antisemitism has moral validity if defined as follows: (1) Blaming Jews for just about everything, even for things they aren’t responsible (2) Noticing only the negative side of Jewishness and Jewish history without acknowledging the positives. But ‘antisemitism’ is not defined thus.

Rather, the mere noticing of Jewish Power is said to be ‘Anti-Semitic’. Criticism of Jewish power & influence and even the state of Israel is said to be ‘Anti-Semitic’. The notion that Jews have been bad as well as good is also ‘Anti-Semitic’. We are to believe Jews have always been noble innocent victims even when they were the villains, bad actors, or oppressors.

For example, Palestinians are accused of denying the right of Israel to exist while there’s hardly any mention that Israel was created as a denial of Palestine’s existence. We are bombarded with endless scare stories about how Iran is on the verge of getting nukes while ignoring Israel has 300 nukes(made from technology and materials stolen from the US), most of them aimed at Iran that could be wiped off the map by Zionist nuttery.
We are also to believe that Holocaust Holiness passes down through the generations(as if in accordance with Old Testament logic). So, even descendants of European Jews of the World War II period are entitled to reparations from the German government.

And it doesn’t matter how nasty Jews may be as individuals. Never mind what they do. The mere state of BEING Jewish means they are morally clean as a whistle. If a Jew spits in your face, you will be blamed for being unclean with saliva running down your chin. Jonathan Pollard was sprung from jail even though his treason led to the deaths of many. Jeffrey Epstein did come to a bad end, but the pervert-psychopath never faced true justice. And white-collar Jewish crooks can have their own luxury prisons whereas white goyim must be stuck in cells with Negroes who fuc* them in the arse.
Such social arrangement would suggest that Jewish Semites are now Supremites, or Supremacist-Semites who believe that they, as the Chosen People or Holy Holocaust people, are god-men over us and live as VIP with a separate set of rules that privilege their ilk uber alles.

In a way, it’s as if the world is divided between Jews & ‘Meta-Jews’ and Palestinians & ‘Meta-Palestinians’. Jews and ‘Meta-Jews'(or ‘Other Jews’) — groups favored by Jews, such as Homos/Trannies and American Negroes — are above the law and get special treatment… like Jussie Smollett who didn’t have to serve his sentence.
In contrast, white Americans and white Europeans are essentially the ‘Meta-Palestinians'(or ‘Other Palestinians’) as their future increasingly resembles the fate of Palestinians who were destroyed by dehumanization, deplatforming, unperson-ization, and mass-migration(of Jewish Zionist imperialist-immigrants). What is called ‘antisemitism’ in the current era is really Anti-Supremitism as those who call out on Jewish Power are not opposed to Jews or Jewishness per se but against Supremacist-Semitism or Supremitism.

Jewish obnoxiousness on this matter is made all the worse because Jews indulge in the kind of hysteria, paranoia, and lunacy they accuse others of. Jews complain that Jewish Power is exaggerated, but it’s the Jews who keep alive the fantasy that the KKK or Neo-Nazis have any power or influence in America. They do this by funding the SPLC and ADL that cook up mostly fake news about various KKK-sightings and incidents that turn out to be ‘hate hoaxes’.
The cleverer Jews use the terminological dragnet of ‘white supremacism’ in a generic way to corral just about every Donald Trump voter into the ‘Nazi’ camp. Jews insist that even expressions such as “It’s Okay to be White” and “Stop White Hate” are ‘white supremacist’ or ‘racist’.

Jews also use guilt-by-association(something they condemned during the ‘McCarthy Era’). So, since A is somehow connected to B who is connected to C who is connected to D who is connected to E, A must be in league with E. Using such a logic, it’d be too easy to connect anyone in the Democratic side with extremists and radicals. If anything, Barack Obama had direct ties to Bill Ayers, and powerful Liberal institutions did much to rehabilitate some of the worst scoundrels of 60s radicalism. Certain cop-killers were hidden by their radical associates for decades. And given Jewish-American ties with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, one can easily connect many influential Jews with extremists in Kiev. And given Thomas Friedman’s close ties with Israel that has ties with ISIS, game of connect-the-dots can easily accuse Friedman of ties to terrorism.
Of course, invocation of principles doesn’t matter if you don’t have any power. Jews got the power, the megaphone for themselves and the mute-button for others, and they get to decide what is what… and too many people are sheeple and dummies to realize what is really happening.

The great irony of our era is that Jews, as the ‘New Nazis’, employ quasi-‘Anti-Semitic’ tropes against certain peoples who might as well be the ‘New Jews’. Jews do everything they accuse ‘Anti-Semites’ of doing to Jews. Notice how Jewish power often blames EVERYTHING on white goyim, the main scapegoat or ‘scapegoy’ for all that is wicked in the world. If something is wrong, blame white men, white women, white this, or white that. It’s as if whiteness is a disease and can only cured by extinction by non-breeding, race-mixing, or even murder(as in South Africa). Pathological Jewish Scholars push ‘whiteness studies’ that would have us believe that there is something innately sick or perverse about white identity and white consciousness.

Jews say it was wrong, even evil, for white Christians in the past to try to convert Jews, but Jews are hard at work converting whites to Political Correctness, ‘Wokeness’, Globo-Homomania(Queertianity as the new chrisianity), and white self-loathing as the only white virtue worth being proud of: “I’m proud of being ashamed of being white.”

But, it’s not just whites, of course, who bear the brunt of pathological Jewish ire. Jews also target Iran & Syria and spread all manner of hysteria, hatred, and paranoia on the basis of “Is it good for the Jews and Israel?” Scratch off the surface of any Jewish argument, and it comes down to “Is it good for Jews?”
Why is non-Jewish immigration bad for Israel? Because it would demographically erase the Jewish State. Why is mass-immigration good for Hungary? Don’t Hungarians have a right to preserve their territory and identity? No, because such a right for Hungarians would undermine Jewish Power to use divide-and-rule to take over Hungary. George Soros apparently wants to play Sith Lord around the world, and that is just wonderful to Jewish Power as Jews stick up for other Jews.

To understand the psychology of Jewish and Goy relations, imagine a meeting between Yahweh and the pagan gods. Suppose the pagan gods of various peoples and cultures want to meet Yahweh halfway and arrive at a compromise. Would Yahweh accept? No and why not? Because Yahweh believes Himself to be the one and only God, the one true God whereas all other gods are false gods or wicked idols that must be destroyed.

To the extent that the spiritual space constitutes the mental landscape of a people, we need to remind ourselves that the Jewish Mind is essentially Yahwehisitic. And this mental habit is alive and well even among secular atheist Jews whose obsession is Mono-Tribalism and Mono-Nationalism for Jews. Even secular Jews will accept the validity of identity, territory, and history for Jews Only. Jews reject poly-nationalism and poly-tribalism that argues that every people have a land, legacy, and lineage worth preserving. As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and only Jews are deserving of uniqueness.

In contrast, the goyim must be universalized in their worship of the Great Jews as Holy Holocaust neo-messiahs. Jewish body and blood are real. As for goyim, their identities are to be treated as baseball caps and t-shirts: Soulless objects, interchangeable and commodified. If white men controlled pornography and used Jewish women as sex meat for Arab men, how would Jews react? Jews would call it defamation and sexual imperialism. But Jews see nothing wrong with turning white women into sex meat to be traded. If anything, Jews will deem it evil for white men to demand that Jews stop trading in white women as white meat.
One thing for sure, Jewish Power is not to be trusted. Just remember the Russia Collusion hysteria spread by the Jewish control of media, academia, and Deep State.

Jews claim that Russia has historically been guilty of antisemitism, but Jewish anti-Russianism seems to be many times worse(and eternal). Also, Jews don’t believe in the middle ground or meeting people halfway. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his book TWO HUNDRED YEARS TOGETHER, called for both Russians and Jews to atone and bury the hatchet, but Jews have ignored the gesture because they want to own all the righteousness and dump all the blame on the Russkies whom they regard as subhumans who exist only to serve Jews. Like their God Yahweh who insists He and only He is the one true God, Jews must have it all.

Jews may pretend to compromise, but they’re always aiming to have it all eventually. They are always plotting for total control. This is where Anglo-Americans miscalculated and failed in their relation to Jews. They thought they could meet ascendant Jewish Power halfway, i.e. if declining Wasps welcome rising Bugs(Busy Urban Globalist Semites), then Jews would embrace Anglo-Americans as their bosom buddies. It’d be a win-win for both sides.
But, Jews didn’t see it that way; they were out to make themselves the New Masters and turn Wasps into their running dogs… and that is the state of the world today.

Russians learned the hard lesson in the 1990s. They hoped that Jews would act with honor and decency if given the reins over the economy, but Jews, whether Russian or American, conspired to take over just about everything and turn Russia into their fiefdom. The current Jewish hatred of Russia has little to do with past pogroms or Cossacks running wild. It’s because Russia managed to thwart the Jewish Plot to take total control. Jews today aren’t anxious about survival but obsessed with supremacism that they regard as their global right.

Of course, the Jewish War on Russia isn’t over, and it will never be over until Jews have it all. As long as Jewish Supremacism exists, it will seek to gain control of every part of the world, directly or indirectly. Just ask the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Jewish promotion of Globo-Homomania has one purpose: To weaken the moral and national integrity of every nation in favor of elite minority privilege. Homo elite-minorities in all nations hook up with elite-minority Jewish Power, especially as Jewish Power showers prizes on vain homos who choose to collaborate with Jews against their own national folks.

Jews, like white Europeans, have an adventurous spirit. When white man gazed upon the tallest mountain or the distant Moon, he didn’t give up the dream of conquest, no matter how impossible it seemed. No matter how long it took, he was going to fulfill the dream one way or another. But if whites lionized physical feats of courage and daring, the Jewish dream was always cerebral. Jews weren’t so excited about risking life and limb to accomplish the ‘impossible’. Unlike Anglos and such folks, they weren’t clamoring to climb mountains or make it to the North Pole.

Rather, they found witty ways to make other people do the bidding of Jews so that Jews could both keep their limbs and inherit the world. Consider the Wars for Israel. In the 1980s, who could have foreseen the events of the 1990s and the 21st century? But Jews pulled the strings of the media, finance, and government to make them happen. And Jews made OTHER peoples kill and die for the Jews. In the opening of the movie PATTON, the great general says that wars are not won by dying for one’s country but by making the other ‘poor dumb bastard’ die for his country. Jews got it even better: Jews win wars by making one bunch of poor dumb goy bastards slaughter another bunch of poor dumb goy bastards while they themselves rake in the dough and turn white women and Arab women into a bunch of whores. (Jews turned white women into sex toys for Jews and black men, and Wars for Israel have forced so many Arab women, especially Christians, into prostitution.)

Anyway, even if we play the rules of ‘Antisemitism’ as defined by Jews themselves, honest moral logic would suggest that Jews are the biggest ‘Anti-Semites’ because their actions provide ample evidence for those who notice patterns of Jewish power and influence that are increasingly abusive because, as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews control the mass media, then Jews who DO control the mass media must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Media Control.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews control much of Wall Street, then Jews who DO control financial industries must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Money Control.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews control Silicon Valley, then Jews who DO control companies like Google and Facebook must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Big Tech Control.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews control pornography, then Jews who DO control the porn industry must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Porn Dominance.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews use their power to suppress freedom and liberty, then Jews who DO push for Censchwarzship must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Speech Control.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews control foreign policy, then Jews who DO control the State Department must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Israel-First Policy.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews corrupt public morals and spread degeneracy, then Jews who DO spread Homomania and Sexualization of children must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Moral Decrepitude.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews subvert Christianity & other spiritual-moral systems, then Jews who DO push ‘gay rainbows’ into Christian churches must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish War on Christianity.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews commit genocide and wage wars, then Jews who DO oppress Palestinians & spread wars in Middle East & North Africa must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish World Violence.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews seek to replace goy national populations, then Jews who DO push for mass immigration & great replacement must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish strategy of demographic imperialism. (George Soros must be one helluva Anti-Semite for firing off so many ‘Anti-Semitic tropes’ all at once.)
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jews use their power to undermine the Second Amendment, then Jews who DO push for gun-banning must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish Disarmament of goyim.
If it is indeed ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say that Jewish minorities in goy nations are more loyal to their own Tribe than to their fellow goy countrymen, then Jews who insist on Zionist & Jewish-First Policies must be ‘Anti-Semites’ because they provide evidence for the perception of Jewish In-Group Preference.

Consider US foreign policy. Is it equally fair to both Jews and Palestinians? And look how the mass media endlessly remind us about the ‘plight’ of Jews around the world while turning a blind eye to all the whites robbed, raped, and/or murdered by nonwhites.

In terms of what Jews DO, they are the biggest Anti-Semites because their policies and practices illustrate the vast, venal, and abusive power of Zion. Zionists complain that Israel is the victim of a double-standard that doesn’t apply to other Western Democracies, but this is more Jewish mendacity. Israel is fully supported by the US and EU despite its direct support of terrorism, illegal possession of nukes, occupation of the West Bank, and overt racial-supremacist ideology whereas all European ‘democracies'(more like ‘hegemocracies’) aren’t even allowed to defend their borders on the basis of identity, history, and territory.

Of course, the great irony is that Jews can insist that we pretend they have no power precisely because they got the most power. In history, Jews were sometimes the mouse trying to survive among elephants. Today, Jews are like the elephant that insists on being noticed as a mouse. The effect on society has been downright surreal. It gets even more surreal and twisted when so-called ‘Anti-Semitic Tropes’ are easily converted into Philosemitic Tributes via verbal trickery.

For instance, if you said Jews played a key role in pushing the ‘gay agenda’ sometime ago, you would have been smeared as an ‘Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist’. But now that elevation of Homomania or Queertianity as the neo-religion of the West is considered fait accompli, there are now Jews who brag that their ilk had indeed done most to push the agenda. Jewish puppet Joe Biden said, yes of course, Jews did play the most important role in the triumph of the holy-and-wonderful ‘gay agenda’.

So, it’s thumbs up or down, ‘Philo-Semitic’ or ‘Anti-Semitic’, depending on one’s attitude toward Jews. If you say Jews control Hollywood and spread much filth, you’re a rabid and virulent ‘Anti-Semite’. But if you say Jews control Hollywood and deserve much praise for their ingenuity and enterprise, then you’re a wonderful Philo-Semite.
As nervous as Jews are about goyim discussing Jewish power, it’s permissible in some cases IF you praise Jews for their wise and wonderful use of their influence. Whether something is ‘Anti-Semitic’ or ‘Philo-Semitic’ also depends on who/whom and who-said-it. So, if Alan Dershowitz says that Jews indeed have lots of power and DESERVE TO HAVE IT, all is fine and well. But if someone like Kevin MacDonald notices the same power, he must be delusional and foaming at the mouth.

Granted, Jewishness always posed a great contradiction. Even as a mouse-people, they worshiped an elephant-sized God. In contrast, the pagan empires, even as elephant-powers, worshiped mouse-sized gods. Much of Jewish history is about a weak people with a strong God surrounded by strong peoples with weak gods. The Covenant is a powerful thing. In modern times, Jewish History has been about people with weak bodies but strong minds surrounded by peoples with strong bodies but weak minds. In the end, the mind wins over the body. Man controls horse, not vice versa. And all goyim need to be mindful of that.

Following the logic of today’s ‘Antisemitism’, Steven Pinker must be a rabid ‘Anti-Semite’ for noticing so much Jewish power, privilege, wealth, and representation:

The National Core of a People Is Revealed with the Loss of Empire

 

The French Empire unraveled soon after World War II. But, it was far from a total loss. The French colonialists reconnected with the National Core. They returned to France, their homeland. Back then, French colonialists had a homeland waiting for them with open arms. But, what is France today? It is a demographic colony of Muslims, a sexual colony of Africa, and a political-financial colony of the Jews.
As for the Netherlands, it doesn’t lift a finger to save a single White Boer Farmer in South Africa. Holland now proudly identifies as ‘multicultural’, which means that it belongs as much(if not more) to Africans and Muslims than to the Dutch themselves. It is now a crime for the Dutch to say, “My country belongs to my people”, but it is wonderful for Africans and Muslims to say “We have a right to colonize and take over Dutch lands and wombs.”

In the end, true nationalism is defined by the National Core. National identity, history, and territory become confused when an order opts for imperialism. As one people gain dominance over other peoples and their lands, their sense of national interest and destiny becomes intertwined with those of other peoples.
Thus, distinctions between the National and the Imperial become muddled and contradictory. As Amy Chua discussed in her thesis on hyper-powers, the conquering people must be sufficiently ‘tolerant’ of ‘diversity’ in order to rule over a vast empire. The subject peoples must be co-opted with rewarding, even prestigious, roles in the order.

While a determined power can use brute force to assert its will over weaker domains, brute force alone cannot rule over vast lands inhabited by different peoples indefinitely. In the case of American History, white people could just remove the relatively small numbers of primitive native folks and create a more-or-less homogeneous White empire-nation.

However, most empires were about one people ruling over other peoples who vastly outnumbered the former. Also, even though the conquered peoples were relatively deficient in technology and/or organization, they were not hopeless primitives like the American Indians who were doomed against whites.

Therefore, to keep an empire, the ruling people had to be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and pro-‘diversity’ in relation to the conquered peoples. Empires are inherently diverse since they are about one people conquering and ruling over other peoples of different races, cultures, and religions. Also, in order to win over collaborators(or, better yet, converts at least in religion or ideology), the ruling people must be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and use the carrots as well as the sticks. It’s been said that the Nazi Empire was doomed in Russia because it offered only extermination/enslavement for the natives.

That said, Hitler also understood certain historical truths, just as important in their own ways. An empire can survive in only two ways: Via ‘diversity’ & ‘tolerance’ OR eradication & homogeneity. He understood that while D&T method was useful and effective, it was ultimately doomed. All D&T empires eventually faded from history. The only kind of permanently successful empire is where one people take over, effectively exterminate or crush the natives(or absorb them racially, as happened to the indigenous Ainu people of Japan), and become the ruling majority.

Anglos in North America & Australia and Russians in Siberia could forge such uncharacteristic ’empires’ because only sparse populations of primitives stood in their way. But it was a tall order for Germans to pull off such a feat against the Soviet Union that, in 1941, had 170 million people and an advanced civilization. Easier to kill a gopher than a bear.
In order for the German Empire to be permanent, it had to effectively take the form of a giant German Nation, or empire-sized nation. Not so much one where Germans ruled over others but where Germans were both the rulers and the ruled. D&T(diversity and tolerance) method, while effective in the short term, usually led to the conquerors being either expelled or absorbed by the larger native populations. Mongols were absorbed into non-Mongol peoples or, in time, driven out by the native folks. Alexander’s Macedonian and Greek rulers eventually faded into the local domains that they conquered. The Aryan Conquerors in India may have used an extreme and elaborate system of race-separation ideology to perpetuate rule over the natives permanently. But despite DNA studies showing lingering differences among the various castes, lots of Brahmins in India look dark like the natives. Over 1000 yrs, they’ve been absorbed far more than they’d like to admit. Libido will do that over time.

Under the policy of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, an empire may grow and flourish for a spell. Initially, the dominant people maintain the rule of ‘us’ over ‘them’. While the ‘them’, or the conquered, are offered positions and opportunities in the empire, they nevertheless have the subordinate role vis-a-vis the ‘us’, the conquering people.
But, as time passes, the conquerors come to rely more and more on the conquered for materials and manpower. Also, among the conquered, some perform their duties so loyally that they are accepted into the conquering tribe. There have been cases where, over time, the conquerors and the conquered merged into one people, where it was hard to tell who was on top.
This was especially true IF either the conquering people or the conquered people(or both) had a weak cultural identity. Mongols were fierce and aggressive but culturally barbarian/backward. As such, they were absorbed into more complex cultures even as they remained on top militarily.
When an advanced or complex culture conquered a backward culture, the latter usually got sucked into the former. Christendom and Islamic World converted and absorbed many peoples. And long ago, certain gentile tribes were absorbed into the Jewish Tribe possessed of a most powerful sense of culture rooted in the Covenant. The merge is usually doable IF the conquerors and conquered are of the same race despite cultural differences. Plenty of Germanic and Slavic barbarians became ‘Romans’ or ‘Greeks’.

But when a powerful culture conquers powerful cultures, neither side is willing to be absorbed into the other culture. This is even truer if the peoples differ in race as well as in culture. Latin America is an interesting case. Because the natives mostly had weak cultures, they were absorbed into the conquering Latin Culture. They took on Spanish names and language. And they accepted Christianity.
If the natives of Central and South America were white, they might have just become ONE with the Spanish. But being brown, distinctions and separations remained between the conquerors and the conquered despite the effective cultural ‘Latinization’ of the whole continent.

At any rate, empires eventually confuse the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered. This confusion is a double-edged sword. In some ways, it facilitates further integration between the conquerors and the conquered. If the conquerors come to care more for imperial glory than for the national core, then they may come to feel a stronger bond with the conquered folks than with their ethnic kin back home, especially as parts of the far-flung empire become their new ‘homes’.
And if the conquered folks come to share in the pride of imperial glory, they could come to regard the conquerors not so much as a swarm of locusts but as manna from heaven. Still, the ensuing confusion can lead to all kinds of anxieties, paranoia, tensions, distrust, and resentment.
Both sides may have to acknowledge the limit to their convergence due to lingering differences, as well as the real danger of loss of identity and culture. Then, it is hardly surprising that most empires have faded in time.
Latin America is still in a state of limbo. In one way, it appears to be a successful and permanent merging of the conquerors and the conquered. Unlike the rest of the Third World, there was no movement to decolonize the continent and ship the whites back home. At most, ‘de-colonization’ meant reducing the power of the ‘yanquis’ or ‘gringos’. In other ways, however, it looks like an ongoing imperial project where something BIG might happen with drastic transformations in power politics.

Nationalism appears most vital and vivid when empires fall apart. Such collapse finally decides what is Core Nationalism and Expansive Imperialism. It’s like separating wheat from chaff, gold from dirt. Core Nationalism is muscular and lean, Expansive Imperialism is fat and round. An empire is like a person with excessive fat. He has eaten too much, and it has made him bigger. He carries a lot of weight and can push others around with the heft. There are advantages to be sure. A sumo wrestler gets a lot of leverage with the fat. But, he tires easily and has to keep eating and eating to maintain his size. The excessive fat becomes a burden.
Now, when a fatso exercises and sheds the extra weight, does he shrink to nothingness? No, he will reach a point where he is mostly lean muscle. That is the Core Person. Minus the fat, he may look diminished and won’t be fit for something like sumo, but he will feel healthier and lighter. So, if one wants to know what a fatso really looks like, the fatso must lose weight. All the flab makes the fatso look like other fatsos. They are defined by fat that covers their body. But with exercise and healthy eating, a fatso will lose weight, and then he will really look like his true self.

This also goes for empires. Empire confuses the identities of peoples, for both the conquerors and the conquered. The conquering people may become so attached to the empire that they forget what they really are at the ethnic, cultural, and territorial core. Indeed, because they’ve come to covet the empire above all else, they may conflate the loss of the empire with the end of the world, the end of everything. But, of course, it isn’t so. Losing an empire is really to (re)gain the nation(for both the conquerors and the conquered), as it finally reveals the Core Character of the People and their Culture. Far from a total loss, it is merely the loss of the Imperial fat that allows for the re-emergence of a defined National musculature. The conquerors return home, and the conquered regain sovereignty.

When the British lost their empire, they still had Great Britain, their true homeland. After the French lost their empire, they had Core France, the land to which the French colonialists came home to. When the Turks lost the Ottoman Empire, they finally defined the borders of Turkey and what it meant to be a Turk. When the Japanese Empire collapsed in Continental Asia, there was still Core Japan. Austrians lost the empire, but they still had the Austrian Core. Russians lost the Soviet Empire but not the Russian core. And Germans lost their short-lived empire in World War II but still had the German national core, albeit in a diminished state.

As for the conquered peoples, their National Cores, if solid enough, remain submerged but intact under Imperial Waters. The Polish people and civilization were long submerged under Russian and Prussian Imperialism but remained as a steady rock awaiting to re-emerge with the ebbing of empires. This was also true of the Greeks whose ethno-rock was long submerged under the Ottoman Imperial Sea.

So, true nationalism is Core Nationalism, and it reappears with the fading of empire. The imperialists may fear that the loss of empire is the loss of everything, but it’s actually a realization of and a re-connection with the National Core. In the end, was it so tragic that the French in Indochina returned to France or that the British in Kenya returned to Great Britain? Gone was Imperial Glory, but there was National Integrity.

What is truly ominous about globalism is it is an attack on the Core itself. It isn’t like losing(or gaining weight) but like a flesh-eating disease. Apparently, it wasn’t enough for the Brits and the French to lose their far-flung empires. They must lose their national cores as well(though some might characterize the current trends in places in Britain and France as reconstituting the old empire in miniature forms).

Globalism doesn’t only target the former Imperialist Nations. World Jewry insists the attack on the National Core must be universal(with pass-over privilege for Israel only). Even though Swedes and Poles didn’t have overseas empires, they too must surrender their national cores. Even though Polish Conservatives mouth patriotic platitudes, they collaborate with Globo-Homo capitalists to import tons of nonwhites and spread Homomania everywhere.

Also, the pervasiveness of deracinating Pop Culture, anti-ethno-ideology, and anti-life feminism have led to Child Dearth all over the Modern World. Women take jobs from men and then wonder why there aren’t enough marriageable men around. Feminism is narrowly focused on female careerist ’empowerment’ while ignoring the dire consequences for society as a whole.
While the relative freedom for women was an advantage for the West, the West’s greatest rise came in the past when balance was maintained between the ideal of equality and the reality of biology. Thus, Western women enjoyed more freedom and rights than women in other cultures, BUT they still performed their crucial biological functions as wives and mothers. This led to the triumph of the West. (If modern feminism had remolded the West in the 18th century, there would have been no Rise of the West.)
There once was a sense of All-Empowerment(for men and women) for the entire society, and this required a complementary relationship between men and women. But materialistic feminism led to women seeing themselves as a separate and independent group apart from men. Instead of working with men to create a powerful society for all, women opted for the narrowest goals of personal/sexual entitlement. Of course, most women lost out in this order as only a handful of women succeeded in the most coveted fields. But the toxic mindset infected most women, and they lost all sense of what is GOOD FOR ALL or Mutual Empowerment. They just opted for the narrow self-interest of me-me-me in-this-instant.

There was a time when even the loss of empire meant that a people would not lose all. The fall of empire meant that the conquered peoples regained(or conceived of) their own nationhood while the conquering peoples withdrew into their national core. Both sides got something. Liberation for the conquered, Re-connection for the conquerors. Imperialists returned home and reconnected with their nation and kin… like Lawrence(of Arabia) who had enough of imperial ventures and embarks for Britain his home at the end of David Lean’s film. Or the guys in THE DEER HUNTER who say goodbye to all that(imperialism) and return home where family and friends are. The fall of empire was like declaring bankruptcy. You lost lots of stuff, but you could keep your house and core property. So, if you rashly speculated in lots of real estate deals and got burned, you needn’t lose your core home.

But globalism says even the Core possession of a people/culture must be placed on the auction block or turned into something like a brothel. The culture and ideology of current the UK is a whorehouse or a house-party. It is not a home where anyone would feel safe.
In Christopher Nolan’s DUNKIRK, the soldiers feel safe ‘at home’ as they make it across the channel. Today, London has been colonized by the Other. British Police looked the other way when girls were turned into sex slaves in Rotherham(or Brothelham). And yet, this is the the New Centrism, and anyone who calls for Core Nationalism is smeared as ‘far right’… unless he or she happens to be an Israeli, in which case he or she is showered with praises by the Western elites.

We are told endlessly that Global Warming will raise sea levels and submerge sea coasts all around the world. But even more alarming is the prospect of Global Swarming that may well submerge all the First World under the rising tides of Third World invasion egged on by globalist Jews.