To Combat Globalism, Whites in the West Must Restore their Own Nationalism, Not Attack Chinese(and Russian) Nationalism — Globalism Is Essentially a Jewish Creation and Tool, and Jews Suppress White Identity Necessary for White National Liberation in the West

https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-globalization-meant-sinification-until-china-virus-intervened

Using the Covid-29 crisis to push nationalism against globalism is good and sound.

Oddly enough however, so-called nationalists in the West are attacking Chinese Nationalism. But if Chinese being nationalist is wrong, it then follows that nationalism itself is wrong. And that means West shouldn't be nationalist like China(and Russia)... which is self-defeating to nationalists.

China used globalism for nationalist purposes. It believes in China First.
And Western nations should use the World Order for their own national interests.
But when people in the West attack Chinese nationalism, they are attacking nationalism itself. It's like Tucker Carlson denouncing China for being 'ethno-nationalist'. Funny coming from someone who opposes immigration on grounds that all of US will turn into California. (But his confused or hypocritical self is full of praise for Zionist ethno-imperialism.)

Russia has shown that a nation can be nationalist and work with China. China has never been opposed to other nations being nationalist. China and Russia get along despite tensions(historical and geopolitical) because both understand and respect each other: Russia uses the alliance for Russian interests, China uses the alliance for Chinese interests. Russia is okay with Chinese nationalism, China is okay with Russian nationalism... as long as neither goes imperialist on the other.

So, why not follow the Russian model? What does Russia do? It pursues Russian nationalism without denouncing Chinese nationalism. That way, Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism can co-exist side by side. They can hammer out differences and compromise on certain matters on basis of mutual understanding.

The problem isn't Chinese nationalism or even Chinese globalism. Pakistan and Iran are far less rich and powerful than the US, but they maintain their sovereignty vis-a-vis China. They trade and cooperate on certain interests without surrendering their power to China. Even impoverished North Korea(with 1/40th of the economy of South Korea) has managed to do its own thing in defiance of China.

But we are to believe that the rich and mighty West has been helpless to stop Chinese power and influence? ROTFL. True, Chinese business interests have moved aggressively into Canada and Australia, but whose fault is that? Anglos turned into a bunch of worthless cucks who measure everything in terms of money and 'woke' virtue-signaling about 'muh diversity'.
What did Sun Tzu say in the Art of War? Power is like water. It generally runs into open spaces. So, when Anglo nations went cucky-wuck and opened themselves to Chinese people and money, guess where a lot of people and money went? China didn't forcibly invade the West(like the West once did against China). Rather, Canada and Australia freely opened themselves up to Chinese people and money(as well as to Hindus, Arabs, and even thuggish Sudanese blacks).

But why did Anglos go from proudly race-ist and nationalist — Canada and Australia used to have WHITE ONLY immigration policies — to globalist, 'anti-racist', cucky-wuck, and pro-diversity? Why did Anglos allow Africans and Muslims to take over entire parts of London? Because Mao sent his Red Guard hordes to conquer them? Because Jackie China and Bruce Lee's ghost led an army of kung fu warriors to invade the West? No, because Anglos let Jews take over the West, and Jew filled white minds with 'white guilt', jungle fever, self-loathing, diversity-mania, and 'muh restaurant' lunacy.

Jews made Anglos cuck to the Other(the Primary Other being Jews of course). Once Anglos got into the habit of cucking to Jews, it was only a matter of time before other groups followed the Jewish Lead: Chinese, Hindus, Arab Sheiks, illegals from Latin America, the African invasion, etc. They all learned to chant 'diversity' and 'racism' to gain increased entry into the rich and clean West. And as white minds were colonized by Jewish PC, whites just nodded along. Keep in mind that until Donald Trump came along, 'nationalism' was a dirty word among nearly all Western elites, intellectuals, journalists, and managerial class.

Russia showed what a nation can do. Russia partly regained national sovereignty from Jewish globalist oligarchs. It has operated on basis of nationalism(relative to the rest of Europe) since. So, when it deals with China, it is on the basis of Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism respecting each other. Russia doesn't have to vilify China, and China doesn't have to vilify Russia.

But US, Canada, UK, and Australia are without Anglo sovereignty. Anglos(like Derbyshire himself) are sorry cucks to Jewish Globalists. If Anglos had sense, they wouldn't opt for anti-Sinicism. Rather, they would argue that white nations must be like China, Russia, and Iran in regaining national sovereignty and operating on the basis of national interest. This can be done without anti-Chinese rhetoric as Russia proved. Initially, China respected Trump as a tough-talking nationalist. Chinese nationalism can work with other nationalisms. Alas, Trump turned into just a cuck to Jews who talks nationalism but engages in continued US globo-homo hegemonism and imperialism. (Also, as Deep State operatives are addicted to the hyper-power game of globalist-imperialism, they despise nationalism as 'small potatoes'. For them, the only game that matters is the globalist contest of world domination. So, instead of envisioning a future where American Nationalism and Chinese Nationalism co-exist peacefully, they can only think in terms of American globalist supremacism vs Chinese globalist supremacism. They project their own supremacism onto others. It's like Jews project all their pathology onto Russia. The difference is China wants to trade with the world but has no interest in spreading 'Chinese values' or 'Chinese ideology', whereas American missionary impulse, Anglo imperial-adventurism, and Jewish supremacism are addicted to transforming the entire world.)

It's weird how Anglo nations are many times richer than Russia(that is strong in military but weak in economy) but politically many times weaker. The West is like one big Hong Kong under British Rule: Rich but a puppet of the Brits. Today, Anglo nations are rich but political and ideological colonies of Jews. When China deals with Russia, it is with a second-rate economic power but a first-rate political power. When China deals with the West, it is with a first-rate economic power but a third-rate political power. Just look at Justin Trudeau or the female leader of New Zealand. Even tough-talking Trump regularly takes it up the ass from Jews and acted as their hitman in the murder of hero Soleimani, the Iranian patriot who's been battling terrorists in Syria. All such Western goy politicians are mere tools and puppets of Jews. But Jews are so powerful that they can hide their power, and goy-cucks play along with the hope that, if they suck up to Jews just one more time, Jews will be nice to them. So, white 'liberals' blame Russia for everything, and white 'conservatives' blame China for everything. Jewish Power manipulates and corrupts US politics, but we had three long years of Russia Collusion nonsense. Jews control US institutions, but we now get 'China Inc or Chinc. controls everything'. It's downright hysterical.

There was a time when the West was both a first-rate political and first-rate economic power. White Christian elites ruled, and they were united as one people with white Christian masses. But over time, Jews took over, and white elites became managerial cucks serving the Jewish globo-homo agenda. And white masses were to be replaced by White Nakba, race-mixed with jungle fever & bamboo fever, and/or killed off with opioids(sold by Jews who once sold opium to the Chinese). Then, the cure is obvious: White Liberation from Jewish supremacism. Unity of white elites and white masses. Nationalism like in Hungary. But we hear NONE of this from the likes of Tucker Carlson. All we get is blaming China for globalism that is really the tool of Jews. The truth is China is prepared to deal with nationalist white nations. Rise of nationalism in White Nations may be disadvantageous to China in certain areas, but Chinese are not ones to tell white nations what to do. (The 'woke' anti-white Chinese in the West are the products of Western PC media and academia controlled by Jews. Chinese in China tend to despise the 'white left'.) They will adapt to the new reality. The one group that is most hostile to revival of nationalism in white nations is the Jews. This is why Jews are now urging whites not to restore nationalism in white nations but to attack Chinese nationalism as the source of globalism's problems. By blaming Chinese NATIONALISM, snuff nationalism in the West as well.

The problem is Anglos are doing NOTHING about the source of US enslavement to globalism: Jewish Power. If anything, they are pretending China is the master of globalism and forced globalism on the West. This is total nonsense. Jews pushed globalism on the West. Jews urged big business in the West to dump on their own workers and send factories to Mexico & China and outsource to India. Jews in Silicon Valley invited all those Hindus. Jewish New York Times hires Hindu and Chinese 'woke' scholars to dump on whites. China didn't create this World Order but merely took part in it. Also, despite all the corruption and brutality of current China, it did make real products and shipped them to other nations, which did a helluva lot more for the world than Jews in Wall Street making trillions via financial manipulation.

If Anglos followed the Putinist model, they could bring back white pride and white-majority nationalism in the West. And then, they could deal with China on the basis of mutual respect. If China currently doesn't respect whites, it's because whites cuck to Jews. Chinese know Jews rule the West. And as whites are cucks of Jews, whites adopted Open Borders and can't say NO to mass immigration-invasion. So, if whites want pride and power back, they must come to terms with Jewish Power. But whites are so in awe of Jews(and so frightened of them) that they are in Alex Jones mode: Jones was deplatformed by Jews but blames the 'Chicoms' for his woes, perhaps in the hope that if he grovels before Jews by blaming everything on China, his accounts will be restored in Jewish-monopolistic platforms.

Whites must blame Jews for globalism. Whites must restore nationalism and white identity by pushing back against Jewish Power. But people like Tucker Carlson and John Derbyshire suck up to Jews... even though Jews hate them most. (It's like Jared Taylor has been denied Twitter and Paypal by Jews, but the fool censors anyone who speaks truth to Jewish Power at American Renaissance.) Jews even fund Antifa that went to Carlson's house and threatened his family. Derbyshire has been de-personed in journalism because Jews smeared him as 'white supremacist'.

Instead of confronting Jews to regain white identity and white-majority nationalism, whites are attacking Chinese nationalism. White 'conservatives' attack Chinese nationalism and white 'liberals' attack Russian nationalism. But if nationalism is bad, then it must be bad for the West too. But if nationalism is bad for China, Russia, and the West, how do we counter and control globalism?

White people need to restore nationalism and come to terms with Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism(and Iranian nationalism and etc), but instead they blame China for globalism while being utterly amnesiac about the fact that the West embarked on globalism that was created by Jews and Anglo-traitors. If whites don't restore nationalism and merely blame China for globalism, then the result will be continued globalism, especially as the REAL source of globalism goes unmentioned: Jewish Power.

Also, if the West is to pursue nationalism, it must give up on imperialism. It is downright hypocritical for the West to bitch about China(and Russia) when the US and NATO invaded and destroyed nations in Middle East and North Africa in Wars for Israel. It is Trump, tool of Jews, who is interfering in Venezuela. Also, how many Chinese naval bases surround the US? How many US military bases surround China? Who created the mess in Ukraine by instigating a coup?

Wittingly or not, John Derbyshire is merely a shill of Jewish globalists who are trying to blame China for the World Order that Jews have created. If nations like US, Canada, and Australia were to go nationalist and ban further Chinese immigration and investment, China will accept the policies and learn to live with them. It is Jews who will go crazy and denounce white nations as 'racist', 'xenophobic', and 'nazi' at the slightest whiff of white majority interests. It's the Jews and castrated white cucks who insist that even the sentiment "It's Okay to be White" is 'racist'. Has China or Russia denounced Viktor Orban and Hungary? No, all the hatred comes from Jews, and those Jews are well-served by Anglo-cucks who now bark like dogs at the feet of their Jewish masters.

‘Phobia’ is one of the Most Misunderstood and Misused Terms — Jews, Power, and Personality — Why Jews just Can’t Stop their out-of-control Madness

Eric Schneiderman, yet another vampiric Jew with Excessive Personality

Some people suggest that Antisemitism should be called ‘Judeophobia’, but it’d be wrong and misconceived, just like what goes by the name of ‘Russophobia’. (The current lunacy about Russia is hype and hysteria, not a phobia. Big difference.)

In the strictest sense, phobia is a medical condition. It isn’t a common case of mere dislike or fear. It is an extreme, irrational, and panicked fear of something harmless. The term should not be abused for political or ideological purposes. Its meaning should remain within the range of clinical psychology and psycho-social behavior. When you say someone is ‘phobic’ in the political context, you aren’t merely suggesting that he is anti-something. You are saying his antipathy is a mental disorder. Indeed, it is worse than a slur. A slur suggests someone is a bad person or an a**hole. In contrast, labeling someone with a phobia is to diagnose him as mentally ill or soul-sick. We know Jews in WWII hated and feared Nazis; so, does that mean Jews-in-hiding were Nazi-phobic? Of course not. They had sane and sound reasons for evading Nazis. Likewise, it is why the term ‘homophobia’ is totally bogus. Finding homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting is NOT phobic. It’s natural and normal.

So, what is a phobia? THIS is a phobia:



And even though Charles Grodin fakes it in MIDNIGHT RUN, extreme fear-of-flying is also a genuine phobia:



This is why ‘phobia’ has been effective as a political smear. It not only says your enemy is wrong in policy or position but sick in the head, heart, and soul. Cuckoo.

Critics of Jews, for the most part, are not ‘Judeophobes’. They are Judeo-Critics or Judeo-Skeptics. Furthermore, most people who are smeared as ‘Anti-Semites’ are more like Anxi-Semites, or people who are ANXIOUS about Jewish-Semitic Power.
Now, there are Judeo-Psychotics, the kind of people who are obsessed with Hitler-as-hero or Shoah-as-charade. The Nazi movement certainly had lots of Judeo-Psychotics, though, to be sure, their radicalism was an extreme reaction to Jewish pathologies that exploded with Bolshevism and Weimar decadence.

Most critics of Jews are not Shoah-desecrators. They are Shoah-atheists, which is to say they take a secular historical approach to the event. After all, the Shoah has been turned into a quasi-religion that cannot be discussed rationally and empirically. It must be ‘believed’ than studied. Indeed, there’s no shortage of Shoah-worshipers who insist that the 6 million number is sacrosanct and must never be ‘denied’. We are to adhere to ADL’s sacro-narrative just like good Catholics are supposed to obey and follow the positions of the Vatican.

Also, in regards to our problems with Jews, it has little to do with ancient traditions or beliefs. After all, would people care about Jewish culture or credo if Jews were without power and influence? We learn about the Jewish past to look for clues about Jewish Power in the present. If Jews today were a powerless people, we would be far less interested in their history, culture, and attitude(especially toward non-Jews).
Mongols were once a fearsome people who regarded the rest of humanity as LOOT to pillage and plunder. Today, Mongols still revere Genghis Khan, which suggests they aren’t the most sensitive or conscientious people when it comes to historical memory. But who cares? Mongols got no power except in wrestling in open fields among yaks and using eagles to hunt wolves. Modern Mongols pose no threat to Russia and China and Iran. So, even if Mongols may be unrepentant and still dream of the ‘good ole days’ of Genghis, it’s neither here nor there. If anything, most people would find it rather amusing, even endearing. Two million Mongols dreaming of taking over China or Russia on horseback. LOL.

Same logic applies to any people, including Jews. Suppose present Jews have an IQ average of 90. Suppose they got little power or wealth. Suppose they have the mild personality of Amish. Would it matter what they think? Suppose these Jews believe that it’d be wonderful to conquer all goyim, kill goy kids, and suck out their blood. Suppose their ideology is utterly diabolical. Should it alarm anyone? No, it wouldn’t matter because Jews wouldn’t have the power to make a difference in the world. It’s like American Indians were once frightening blood-thirsty childish savages who reveled in hacking skulls with tomahawks and whooping like wolves. But they got no power in our world. They just drink, watch Negroes on TV, and collect some cash from the local casino to buy some more booze. So, it doesn’t matter what Indians think. Their power doesn’t amount to a plate of beans.

In contrast, what Jews think does matter because of Jewish ability, intelligence, personality, and drive. Jews got chutzpah. Alan Dershowitz, an especially chutzpastic Jew, wrote a book by that title. Fun reading.

The matter of personality is crucial in understanding the Jewish Problem. Granted, personality alone isn’t sufficient to explain it. Southern Italians, Gypsies, and esp Greeks can be pretty nasty, tenacious, and devious in personality too. Just look at Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS and CASINO. And when it comes to throwing tantrums, Greek women take the cake. Even Negroes never scared me as much as an angry Greek woman.
But Greek IQ and Southern Italian IQ’s aren’t anything special. Same goes for the Other Semites, the Arabs who have personalities not unlike those of Jews. But those cousin-humping camel-piss-drinkers aren’t all that bright either.

With Jews, it’s the combination of pushy personality and high IQ. Joe Pesci does real damage throughout GOODFELLAS and CASINO, but thuggery is limited in range and scope.

Another thing about Jews is they are more passive-aggressive whereas Greeks and Southern Italians are more aggressive-aggressive, thus less effective in being devious. When Greeks lose it, they really lose it. It’s tantrum hour, Greek drama and tragedy. Jews can get wild and passionate, but they are more adept at juggling hot and cold. As merchants and wheeler-dealers, they developed chameleonic personalities. They had to be more like octopus or squid that can shape-shift and change colors. Very Zeligish. Jews always hold reserves of emotions than pouring them all out. An angry Greek will just throw a tantrum and burn up in fury. An angry Irish will growl and try to knock you out. A Jew may get angry, but there’s a huff-n-puff thing going where you aren’t sure how much of it is fire and how much of it is smoke.


So, Jews have personalities that are driven and pushy… but also fluid and deceptive. And they have higher IQ, more talent, and greater ability for cunning. Now, if the world were filled with non-Jews with similar traits and abilities, Jews wouldn’t have amounted to much. But as it happens, non-Jewish personalities tend to be more one-dimensional, obvious, and/or straight & square, and that means they often fall prey to more devious and cunning Jews.
Sure, Negroes got that jive-thing going, and PC blinds people to the Way of the Negro, but any honest person can soon enough learn to see the bull-jive for what it be. With Jews, it’s far trickier.

Anyway, because Jewish personality and ability evolved octopus-like to survive, adapt, and gain an advantage in a Sea of Goyim, Jews naturally developed a kind of contempt for non-Jews. The Jewish way is to hoodwink and fool others, and it just so happens that the hoodwinker will always look down on the hoodwinked. (Also, if non-Jews see the world in terms of the Powerful over the Weak — the Weak must bow down before the Powerful — , Jews believe that they should and could prevail even against the Powerful by whatever means necessary. Most peoples, as Davids, would have knelt before the bigger Goliath. But the Jewish David found a clever way to prevail over Goliath. When most immigrant groups came to America, they were awed by Anglos and wanted to serve the Great Anglo Power. But Jews thought otherwise. From the very beginning, they were looking for ways to take over America and prevail over the very people who’d founded and built the nation.) Jewish tradition of CULTURAL chauvinism and exceptionalism may have contributed to the current chutzpah, but it’s not the crucial factor. Suppose Jews have milder personalities and mediocre intelligence. Then, Jews would soon realize that their cultural chauvinism is just a lot of hooey. It’s like Chinese have long thought of themselves as the superior people of the Middle Kingdom and felt contempt for other peoples. And Japanese were into the conceit of belonging to some sacred Yamato race. But as minorities in the West, they realize they aren’t anything special. They got dull personalities, and their IQ’s are on par with whites. As diligent drones, they study and get admitted to nicer schools, but they don’t feel special because they really aren’t when compared with most whites.

But even secular Jews who never read the Torah and Talmud often feel contempt for goyim. Smart people tend to be impatient or eye-rolling around dupes and dummies. (Dummies are just dumb, whereas dupes could be smart people who’ve been ideologically, emotionally, or psychologically tricked into believing horseshi*... like the Lindsay Crouse character in THE HOUSE OF GAMES, an intelligent woman who is tricked by a bunch of con-men hustlers. Dupes, like dummies, draw only contempt from people who are either smarter or savvier.)
Most non-Jews seem pretty dumb, naive, or gullible to Jews.
Now, a nice smart person can feel compassion than contempt for the dumb and have no design to dupe others. But being trusting and kindly is difficult for many Jews due to their passive-aggressive haggly-waggly merchant personalities. Jews evolved to survive in a world of many larger tribes who could even be hostile and dangerous. So, Jews had to seek out angles to squeeze through cracks and crevices of power. They had to be like Houdini. And this personality type made Jews tireless and restless in their penchant to score another one, then another and another and another. If some people are degenerate gamblers, Jews are like degenerate scorers. They just gotta score another round. It’s like the personalities in David Mamet movies. Never trusting anyone and always using one’s wits and antennae to stay ahead of the game to score some more. If some Jews are neurotically offensive in scoring more and more — such Jews have gangster mentalities — , other Jews are neurotically defensive(and paranoid) in protecting their treasures or nest-egg from Others, the gangster Jews and pitchfork goyim(who may be out to loot the properties of smarter Jews). Take Mamet’s SPANISH PRISONER. If HOUSE OF GAMES is about clever ‘gangster Jewish’ types looking to make another score, SPANISH PRISONER is about a smart ‘genius Jewish’ type aiming to guard what is rightfully his from a world of sharks. We don’t know where intuition ends and insinuation begins.


Because of this personality + ability, many Jews just can’t help themselves. Taking advantage of dumb, naive, or craven goyim is to those Jews what hunting for wildebeest is for lions and hyenas. It’s like crack to a Negro or meth to a hillbilly. They gotta have it. This aspect of Jewishness was colorfully illustrated in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET. Sure, the real Jordan Belfort tried to rationalize his financial hijinks as revenge against Wasps who’d kept his grampy out of some golf club. But, EVERY GROUP has resentments. Mexicans probably have lots of resentment about how they generally serve as helots to gringos and Jews. But where are the Mexican Belforts? Guillermos of the world are too mild in personality and too low in ability. The most they can do is get together for tacos and tequila and tell lame jokes about gringos and Jewez.

But someone with Belfort's drive, personality, and ability could go very far. And Belfort didn’t just use drugs to feel good. He got HIGH from cheating people. He just couldn’t stop swindling people. It was better than sex. It was better than drugs. Besides, more money meant more sex and more drugs.


Now, some Jews are troubled by all this. David Brooks, in his esoteric way, urges Jews to act more like model ruling elites. Learn from the best of the Old Wasp way. The Dean Witter way.


But at this point, collective Jewish morality may be hopeless. It’s like with the Negroes and Homos. There was once a time when some sober Negroes like Booker T. Washington not only pleaded with whites to be fairer with Negroes but pleaded with Negroes to be a credit to their race and value work ethic and lead proper lives. But such dreams are impossible today. With rap culture all over, with mandingo-sports-stud as the icon of the ‘west’, and with Magic Negro cult(that sacralizes Negroes to a holy race), Negroes just can’t help themselves and are into self-worship, hollering, walloping, and crazy behavior. BLM is used as excuse to throw tantrums, shoot cops, riot and loot.
As for homos, forget about doing their own thing in their own space and keeping it discreet. ‘Gay liberation’ means homos can do whatever they please, and any criticism is derided and denounced as ‘homophobic’. Homos are now addicted to excessive vanity and self-celebration. Indeed, Milo the ‘gay conservative’ defends liberty mainly because he wants no barriers to his deranged revelry in everything ‘dangerous’. And women are into slut culture and believe they deserve both the right to act like sluts and the respect of ladies. They want the cake and eat it too. Negroes wanna burn down cities but also be seen as saints. Homos wanna bugger every bung but be seen as ‘new normal’ and respectable. Feminist women wanna act like whores but also seen as victims of ‘misogyny’.

And Jews don’t want any restraint in their hunger for wealth, influence, and domination. They revel in Zionist-globalist nihilism. They are addicted to power and can’t stop. Jews sitting before Power & Money is like a Negro sitting at a table filled with watermelons, buckets of chicken, and entire case of Colt 45. Or, it’s like a lesbian with bed full of dildos and vibrators and cucumbers. It’s like a hillbilly with a big batch of moonshine and meth to drink and smoke all night long. Jewish drive, personality, and ability all ‘conspire’ to make Jews excessive in their behavior once it goes out-of-control. Today, even Moral Hazard is dustbin of history because Jews control most elite institutions. So, if Wall Street goes bust, there are Jews in the FED and government to bail out Wall Street Jews. If Neocon warmongers mess up, Jews in the media push most of the blame on goyim like Bush, Cheney, Hillary, or Obama. Jews remain untouchable. Notice how Jews act as a tag-team against Trump. The combination of Deep State, Ivy League, Big Media, Hollywood, Wall Street, and Think Tanks all work together and close in on him.

Even though Bernie Madoff finally got caught, why had he been able to run such a scheme for so long? Surely, many experienced Jews knew something fishy was up. Madoff could be Madoff because he was a Made Guy(like certain members of the crew among the Mafia who have the "license to steal, license to do anything"); he was one of the Tribe, and he was making other Jews very rich. He had connections. And even when he was finally brought down, there was the Jewish-controlled Media to shield the Jewish community that had made Bernie Madoff possible. The media spun it as "Madoff stole mostly from Jews" and "it’s antisemitic to see his behavior as part of a Jewish pattern." Media failed to mention that before Madoff sunk Jewish fortunes, he had fleeced tons of goyim to pass their wealth over to Jews. And the ‘antisemitism’ taboo has indoctrinated and conditioned generations of Americans not to notice certain patterns that keep recurring among Jews.
It’s like David Schraub made the utterly bogus argument that the Zionist kid who’d faked bomb threats is really an ‘anti-Semite’. This from a legal scholar at an elite college! Never mind that the Jewish kid defamed white Christian gentiles for the ‘hate hoaxes’ he himself committed. Never mind he did it to serve Jewish interests. Schraub conveniently blamed it all on ‘antisemitism’. So, ‘antisemitism’ is not only when gentiles defame Jews but also when Jews defame gentiles to serve Jewish interests. Jews are ALWAYS the victim.
But then, according to Jewish logic, the Antifa scum who initiated the attack on the Alt Right at Charlottesville after the Jewish mayor violated constitutional rights were just ‘protesters’ whereas white patriots who defended themselves were ‘violent extremists’.

Part of the problem is Jewish wheeler-dealer personality. Jews get high from spinning things via propaganda, advertising, and finance to increase wealth and power. It’s like Matthew Weiner of the TV series MAD MEN making a big stink about ‘white privilege’ while pretending Jews got none. Hoodwinking others is part of the Jewish DNA that evolved in competition not only to survive but to gain mastery to smite all others.
But, it’s also due to panic and fear. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population, and who knows what might happen if the taboos against ‘antisemitism’ were finally lifted.
Paradoxically, Jews are more paranoid about ‘antisemitism’ precisely because so many Jews are now acting in ways that almost validate antisemitic stereotypes.
It’s like what Yossi Sarid said: In These Very Moments, The Protocols Are Being Rewritten.

The Protocols of Elders of Zion is a forgery BUT so much of bad Jewish behavior is just giving ammo to old antisemitic stereotypes. Given this development, wouldn’t it make sense for Jews to sober up and act more responsibly? Sure. But the problem is Jews have an extreme personality that, once allowed to run free, can’t stop running. Same goes for Negroes. The black genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Negroes are naturally savage and love to swing their dongs and pump their booties and holler like Aretha Franklin and wallop like Mike Tyson. They be wild. So, there is no way to stop black lunacy. With blacks acting crazy, there is bound to be more anti-black feelings.. and this is why blacks must double-down on PC and ‘white guilt’ to ensure that whites will continue forgiving blacks and offering more freebies.

Likewise, Jewish egomania is totally out of control. We see it in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Pornography and the Pornification of culture at large(even for kid shows), support of homomania as new religion, in foreign policy with likes of hideous Victoria Nuland messing up Ukraine, and etc. If not for internet sleuths, the loutish Sabrina Rubin Erderly would have gotten away with her appalling piece of defamation against Southern white men in Rolling Stone Magazine run by homo Jew Jann Wenner. Is it any wonder that there is an alliance of extreme personalities? Jews, Homos, and Negroes? And to some extent, the People of Dot as some Hindus got the IQ of Jews but the moral character of Gypsies.

At this point, Jews are loathe to admit something is wrong with their community even though they know full well that something has gone terribly wrong. So much is rotten that they fear that the slightest admittance will lead to more holes that may break the dam. When power grows rotten and fills up with gas, everyone dreads to pierce it as its foulness will explode all over(like with a beached whale). (But maybe the fall of Harvey Weinstein and others is a sign that things are really beginning to change.)

Organic Diversity vs Imposed Diversity - Diversity as Imperialism and Genocide - The Need to Reconnect the White Mind(the elites) with the White Body(the masses)

Jewish Globalists push Diversity and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Invasion of White Wombs kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and replaces them with Black Babies. Only a worthless castrated cucky-wuck white male could WELCOME such a thing.

Not only is Diversity the chief cause of butchery and hatred, it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

How did the Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

Tibetans are angry because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. Tibetans are forced to ‘include’ the Han Chinese colonizers.

Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans as slaves.

Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I’ll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

True, empires can unleash new possibilities and discoveries; they can spread useful ideas and values. Imperialism led to the discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic resulted from world explorations and conquests. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn’t have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there’s always been a huge price tag to diversity. The clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It’s like powerful storms can wipe out entire eco-systems and human communities.

Also, we should make a distinction between Organic Diversity and Imposed(often incompatible) Diversity.

A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial unity or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, even an extrinsically diverse society will result in formations of groups based on common age, interests, or skills. So, young people of various colors may hang out together. And smart people of various colors may work together. And people of shared interests might rub shoulders at a convention. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a child grows into an adult who grows into an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be Forever Young with slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over 30?.

As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn’t do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse… as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds's character after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he’s even more helpless than a child.

In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to old age. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It’s one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is that the identity of ethnicity is diluted and weakened, and identity becomes confused, contradictory, and/or unstable. Or overly narrow — the very smart club — or overly generic — like ALL young people. It’s no wonder that there’s been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

Now, it’s been said that a lot of affluent white people don’t care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s).
But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF they feel a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their ‘friends’ or pack members.

So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or concern about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn’t always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it’s beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it’s always for the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it’s like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn’t just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one’s emotions from rest of humanity, even one’s own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and to tyranny.
Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and ‘socialist’ with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see the same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and ‘white trash’ act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and least civic-minded.
Fascist socialism is about asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can’t lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it’s this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won’t even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism — no matter how successful the individuals are — is bound to lose to group-oriented strategies of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS OF HIS KIND to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others of another kind. It’s like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decide to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It’s like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness… though they’ve now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It’s one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East — war with Iran next on the menu? — , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentiles to get what they want.

Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But the horrors of WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it’s not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It’s this connection that makes life meaningful. It’s like the thief in the Akira Kurosawa film KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he feels a connection with the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food in another town, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotional pain because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it’s like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it’s not enough that he is safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses’ life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel a racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
Also, it’s not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren’t a great culture, it’s worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate and preserve white culture, it wouldn’t be the same thing. It’s like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It’s just a joke. It’s like it’d be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be ‘larping’.

Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It’s not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting is destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting were destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal were destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is infinitely more important. It’s like one’s mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It’s okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cords to their own race and history. It’s like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can’t feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind(elites) and white body(masses). White mind feels no pain even when the white boy is being destroyed.
But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

Why White People Need Their Own COVENANT in a One-Truth and One-Power World

Why did Jews need a Covenant with God? It was because they believed in only one God. If Jews believed in many gods for different peoples as pagan folks did, then there would have been no need for the Covenant. Jews would have said Romans have their gods, Syrians have their gods, Persians have their gods, Egyptians have their gods, and so on; therefore, we Jews have own God or gods. If Jews have their own God or gods and if other peoples have their own gods, then every people are satisfied and secure in the worship of their own gods. In the absence of one God and one Truth to rule over all the heavens, all the earth, and all of man, there is no need for a Covenant. After all, the gods of your people are yours. Granted, pagans might ‘steal’ other people’s gods or fuse their gods with foreign gods. Romans fused many of their gods with Greek gods. Still, your people have a unique set of gods and other peoples have their more-or-less unique sets of gods. Even when one pagan tribe took the gods of another tribe, they eventually transformed the gods into their own. And Jews could have been content with God or gods of their own while believing in the legitimacy of other peoples having their own gods to worship.

But Jews didn’t go that way. Out of boldness, imagination, arrogance, megalomania, or whatever, Jews came to believe in only one God for themselves. So, if pagan folks worshiped many gods, Jews only worshiped one God. But Jews didn’t end there. They decided all the other gods of pagan folks are false gods. They don’t exist, they are not real, they have no validity. Only the one and only Jewish God is the sole maker and ruler of all. In a way, such a development may have been defensive. After all, since many other tribes were bigger and stronger than Jews, there was the chance that Jews might be tempted to ditch the Jewish tribe and its God and go join some other tribe that is mightier and worship their god-idols. But if every Jewish child were instilled from childhood with the warning all other gods are false — and it is a GRAVE SIN to worship their idols — , there was much less chance of Jews going over to other tribes to worship different gods.
But the development of Jewish psycho-theology was also aggressive, ambitious, and ‘imperialist’. If Jews couldn’t conquer the material world with hands and feet, they could conquer the spiritual world with the feat of imagination. So, in their souls, Jews came to believe that their God not only conquered all the world but own all the world. Indeed, Jews went even further and said their God created the world. Pagan mythologies were far more humble in their claim. Few if any said their gods created everything. Even in Hinduism, the gods are as created by the cosmos that is created or ‘dreamed’ by them.

So, in the Jewish spiritual imagination, there is only one God, and this God is for all times, all places, and all peoples. But here’s the rub. If there is only one God, and if He did indeed make all the world, all the peoples, all the places, and all the things, why would He favor any one people? Wouldn't all the world be part of His holiness? Wouldn’t all peoples be His beloved children? Wouldn’t all things be His precious creations? If God is the only God and if He has universal ownership and mastery over everyone and everything, then why would He belong to Jews alone?
Now, such considerations didn’t worry Jews prior to the development of monotheism. At one point, the proto-Jews had their god or gods, and they respected the fact that other tribes had their own gods. So, Jews prayed to their god or gods, and other tribes had their own forms of idol-worship. But at some point, Jews got into ferocious prophetic mode, and their leaps of imagination led to believe that they must worship only one God, and furthermore, their one and only God is the one and only God of all the universe. With a blinding stroke, the Jewish mind exploded an atomic bomb in the spirit-verse and wiped out all the competing gods. "...now I am become Death, the destroyer of gods..." And in the end, the Jewish mind decided there is only one God and one Truth. All other competing gods are not even inferior gods or even defeated gods. They are false gods, and they never existed. They were phony from the start, because from the beginning of time to the end of time, there was, is, and will be only one God, the God of the Jewish imagination.

But if this God is so great and if Jews are such a humble insignificant tribe, why would God favor the Jews? I mean, if there were indeed just one God in the universe, wouldn’t it be likelier that He would favor and side with a great powerful tribe than one so pathetic as that of the Hebrews? In ancient times, the Jews weren’t even close to being a great power. Even at the height of their glory, they ruled over just a bit of land and soon got invaded by others and had to survive at their mercy. So, why would the great God have favored such a pathetic tribe? After all, in pagan stories, gods favor the strong and powerful. Greek gods, Persian gods, Roman gods, or Germanic gods, they bestow affection and favors on the heroes, adventurers, and conquerors. Jews were far less accomplished in those fields that other tribes and kingdoms that were much greater.
And this is why Jews needed to come up with the Covenant. Without it, there was no guarantee that God would stick with the Jews. Imagine there’s an island with only women. Suppose each woman believes in her own dream man. Some women are beautiful, some women are plain, some woman are ugly. But each has a dream of her ideal man. But suppose one homely woman says all their dreams are false. Only HER dream of the ideal man is true. So, her dream and only her dream of man has validity. Now suppose what she says comes to be true. While all the men of other dreams never materialize, the man of her dreams does materialize. Suppose one evening, a man arrives on the shore of the island, and it is the man of the homely woman’s imagination. So, she was right, whereas all the other dreams of man were false. There is only one man, and he is it. BUT, if indeed it is true that he is the only man, a wonderful handsome man, where’s the guarantee that he would choose the homely woman over other women who are much prettier? So, if the homely woman is to bind the man to her, she has to come up with a covenant between him and her. Without that sacred bond, he might act like Bill Clinton and drive her crazy like Billy Boy did to Hillary. Also, not only would he want to go to others, but all the women will want him since the word is out that he is the one and only man. When the women had believed that their dreams of man were also valid, each could hope for the arrival of her special man. But if they all now agree that there is only one man, then all will want to do it with him.

The Jewish way of spirituality and truth has always been ultra-contradictory. They wanted their God to be Lord over all but belong only to the Jews. Jews were like an ultra-jealous wife. Jews insisted there is only one Truth for the world, yet they wanted sole ownership of this truth. We still see this Jewish trait today. America is like the god of power, the one and only superpower in all the world. On the one hand, Jews promote America as the lord of all nations, the one and only model for all peoples and cultures. The American Way is the only way, and all the world must be Americanized abroad, and all peoples must aspire to come to America. And yet, America must serve Jewish interests above all. Even as America is a ruler over and savior of all peoples, it must have a special covenant with the Jews. AIPAC makes sure that the US pledges no loyalty to any other nation but Israel. Jews hate Donald Trump even though he’s pro-Zionist because he ran on better relations with Russia(a nation totally hated by Jews) and ending the Wars for Israel. What? United States improving relations with Russia that refused to let Jews take over everything? What? United States not fighting more wars to strengthen Israel’s hands in the Middle East?

Also, Trump’s anti-immigrationist stance is threatening to the Jewish notion of the special covenant between the US and Jews. After all, the people with the greatest historical claim of covenant with America are the Anglos. They are the ones who settled it with colonies, they are the ones who fought the Revolutionary War, and they are ones who laid the foundations of America. So, if any people can claim a special covenant with the US, it is the Anglos(and their Dutch and Germanic brethren) who did the most heavy-lifting in the formative stages to expand and build the nation. American Indians were here first, but they had to be removed in order for America to be possible. Black slaves did a lot of heavy-lifting in the South, but it wasn’t their vision, ideas, values, culture, and language that made America.

But if Anglos have a special covenant with America, then it means Jews have no right to steer the one and only America as lone superpower to their own ends. If America must serve Jews like the one and only God serves the Jews, then the American covenant must be with Jews, not with Anglos. Just like God lords over all peoples but only serves Jews, America must lord over(and provide for) all peoples but serve only Jews. Imagine if America decided to serve the interests and the narrative of Palestinian-Americans as well as that of Jewish-Americans. Zionism would come under a lot of heat, like white rule in South Africa.
Trump’s implicitly pro-white anti-immigration stance is seen by Jews as an attempt to restore the American covenant back into the hands of white gentiles, especially people of Anglo-Celtic-Germanic stock. Even though Jews frame the immigration-debate as one between ‘white supremacist’ America and wonderful Diversity, it’s really between white American special covenant and Jewish American special covenant. Jews are pro-immigration because, on their own, they simply don’t have the numbers. Now, if the US were 80% Jewish, I guarantee Jews would NOT be calling for more immigration unless it’s Jewish.

Because Anglos and Northern Europeans have the most powerful rationale for a special covenant with America, Jews have done everything to impugn, discredit, invalidate, or reinterpret the founding and development of America. So, Jews say the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not foundations for a creation of white Christian nation but a universal proposition nation. So, Jews make a big fuss about black slavery to instill whites with guilt. (Jews don't make a fuss about slavery in Latin American nations even though they brought over many more slaves — and many Jews were involved in slavery in Brazil — because Jews need Latinos as allies against whites. Jews also don’t make much of a fuss about the ‘genocide’ and ‘rape’ of the indigenous folks in Latin America for the same reason and also to promote race-mixing as a good to deracinate the white race. And Jews are no longer interested in American Indians because their tragic story is about how immigration-invasion can destroy the native cultures of a land. It’s difficult to be romantic about Emma Lazarus when one considers what happened to American Indians. It’s like Zionist immigration to Palestine led to Nakba and dispossession of Palestinians who ended up on their trail of tears.) To instill whites with guilt, Jews made the Civil War a bigger event than the Revolutionary War. It won’t be long before Jews make the date of Emancipation Proclamation or the end of the Civil War a bigger holiday than the Fourth of July. Jews also love the Civil War because it could be spun as ‘good whites’ siding with ‘justice’ against ‘bad whites’, a theme that would recur in WWII(for far more valid reason as Hitler was really something else). The Jewish lesson of the American Civil War is that whites must attack and fight other whites than side with fellow whites. Jews thrive from divisions among gentiles. Jews remember how the rapprochement between Northern whites and Southern whites led to tremendous revival of white power that held back Jewish interests in the first half of the 20th century. The massive immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe drove many Northern whites(even former Liberals and Progressives) into an alliance with fellow Anglos in the South. All their own problem with immigrants made them sympathize more with Southern whites’ problem with blacks. Northern whites felt, "If we are having such trouble with white folks such as Poles, Russians, Hungarians, Greeks, Italians, Jews, and etc., imagine how tough it must be down south with all them Negroes?" And, so there was growing unity of spirit and purpose between Northern Anglos and Southern whites, and this unity led to tremendous political victories, one of which was ending mass immigration in the mid 1920s. Jews see this as a calamity because of WWII and the Shoah. Jews feel that, had the immigration gates been kept open, many more Jews could have escaped Europe. But Jews never ask themselves whether things would not have gotten so bad for Jews if (1) they didn’t play such a prominent role in the Bolshevik Revolution that ended up killing and tyrannizing so many people (2) they didn’t employ financial dirty trick and cultural degeneracy to make things far worse for Germans in the depressions that followed WWI. But expecting self-reflection among the likes of Jennifer Rubin, William Kristol, Jonathan Podhoretz, Max Boot, Harvey Weinstein, Sarah Silverman, and etc. is a bridge too far.

Anyway, Jews eventually gained near-total control of the elite institutions and industries of America as the one-and-only-superpower(following the Cold War and so-called End of History), and they decided to change the narrative and whatever necessary to ensure that the American Covenant is with Jews and only with Jews. And to secure this, America must rule over Diversity because Diversity cannot unite against Jewish power. And white people will forget about White America because such a concept stirs up memory of a different time when most white Americans felt, most justifiably, that the main American covenant is with Anglos and Anglo-Americanized white European Christians. This is why Jews are so eager to destroy the notion of White America. This is why Jews promote stuff like HAMILTON that has the Founding Fathers as a bunch of ‘groids’. And of course, Latin American whites are eager to collaborate with Jews since the much greater success of Anglo-America had made them feel so small and insignificant for so long. It’s the Latin American way of getting revenge by serving as toadies of Jews.
And it is also why Jews have been especially committed to spreading PC in Northern European nations like UK, Sweden, Ireland, and Germany. After all, those peoples were the covenant-ial building blocks of America. Consider the films EMIGRANTS and THE NEW LAND by Jan Troell. In the past, when white Americans looked back to those nations, they saw whiteness, all whiteness, and the whiteness reminded them of their true origins and roots. But now, due to Jewish intellectual virus having infected the institutions of all those nations, they’ve been committed to (1) massive non-white immigration (2) declaring that their identity is purely cultural and not of blood (3) race-mixing makes for superior people because pale whites sucks (4) feminism that makes white women hate white men, thus breaking the sexual covenant between white men and white women (5) Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) on the premise that white women must go with ‘superior’ Negro males while cucky white males accept their inferiority and crawl into their Cuckanda (6) retro-characterizing European heroes and giants as black, a common practice with BBC; even a Finnish TV movie cast a black guy in the role of a famous military officer.

So, there is a reason why Jews have intensified their culture war in Northern European nations. Why did Jewish media pour so much efforts into those nations? It’s because of their historical, cultural, and racial ties to their cousins in the US. As American browns, white Anglos, Germans, Irish, Swedes, and other are bound to look to the old countries for identity and roots. But if even their ancient homelands are Africanized, Asianized, and Islamized, they don’t even have a homeland to hark back to. (Imagine if you remember a time when everyone in your community was white, and things were so much better. The memory of an earlier time might inspire you to rebel against the current order. But suppose Jews have a mind-device that alters your memory so that you remember half of your white friends as blacks or browns. Then, even memory would no longer be a guide to action to restore what you've lost.)

Now, you don’t see Jews doing the same to Israel. Why would American Jews support Jewish-only immigration to Israel but push for non-white invasion of nations like UK, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, and etc? It’s not only to break the white will in those nations but to gaslight and demoralize white Americans. If white Americans see the very lands of their forefathers and foremothers going the way of Diversity and even celebrating it like retards, then what hope is there for white revival in the US? And once white hope is broken, Jews will own the American Covenant for themselves forever as NO OTHER PEOPLE have claim to it once whites are out of the picture. It’s also like Jews believe Israel can have nukes but not Iran.

Anyway, the Jewish contradiction of God, Truth, and Power wasn’t exactly stable. Indeed, it was radioactive. How can a people come up with an idea of the one and only God but insist this God serves only Jews even as He rules over all? And why would He make a special promise to Jews but not to any other people? How can such a singular and universal God be cuffed to one people? Now, this contradiction didn’t matter so much when most gentiles just ignored Jews and showed no interest in Jewish spiritual ideas. Indeed, for the longest time, the Romans scoffed at Jewish pretensions. The Roman way was to just let the Jews be as long as they paid their taxes. I mean what did it matter to gentiles or to Jews if Jewish faith belonged only with Jews? Even if Jews say there is only one God, your own pagan tribe can go on believing in your own gods.
But then, something happened. Jesus, His Disciples, and Paul decided to ‘democratize’ God’s rule. He would be made into a ‘propositional’ God, and the Jewish Biblical ‘constitution’ would be reinterpreted to mean that, from the beginning, the REAL prophecy of the Torah pointed to the arrival of Jesus who would make God’s justice and love equal to all the people of the world. This was bound to make the Jews shit, not least because the crazy idea was hatched by a bunch of Jews. I mean, the Old Testament is clearly Tribal and says God gave the Covenant to the Jews. But the New Testament claimed deeper understanding of sacred texts that interpreted events in the Old Testament as prophecy paving the way for Jesus the Messiah for all mankind. Jews reacted to this like Alan Dershowitz reacts to Norman Finkelstein or Philip Weiss.

Now, if Christianity had merely spread to some weak pagan tribes under Roman rule, it might not have amounted to much. But it eventually made inroads into the Roman elites, and they finally decided to make it the official and then the ONLY faith in the land. This meant that the universal vision of Jesus would have the backing of universal military might. The word and the sword would work together. Now, why were the Romans finally attracted to Christianity? Outwardly, one might say some Romans were moved by the story of Jesus, His love, His sacrifice, His Resurrection, His message of peace and justice, His promise of afterlife to the virtuous and redeemed. But there was surely another reason. Through Jesus, Romans could claim to have the blessing of the most powerful conception of God ever. So, the message of Jesus’ love was really a cover for what REALLY attracted the Romans to the new faith. Its God was the most powerfully conceived deity in the universe. Compared to Him, Jupiter was but a gopher. Indeed, all the pagan Roman gods combined didn’t amount to pack of prairie dogs compared to the Jewish conception of God. After all, the Roman gods weren’t all powerful. They weren’t around at the beginning of time. They have to negotiate with other gods since each power as limited powers. In contrast, the Jewish God is infinite, eternal, all-encompassing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and everything under and over the sun. Romans had always been dissatisfied with their own gods because they were limited in form and power. For a people hellbent on conquering all the known world, their gods just didn’t keep up with the pace. It was like having a rock band where the lead guitarist played only acoustic. For them to really make it big, they would need a Jimmi Page or Eric Clapner as electric guitar god. Likewise, if Romans were to be masters of all, they needed to follow a God who was the ruler of all. This way, Romans could not only own all of earth but all of heaven. They would conquer not only bodies but souls.

And this is when things got really serious for Jews. It was one thing to be live under pagan Roman rule. But when Romans had the Jewish God as their own and not only spread the faith among Romans but all peoples within the Empire, Jews really needed to hold onto the covenant to remain a special people. Prior to the spread of Christianity, the special relation between Jews and God could be maintained simply because non-Jews showed little or no interest in Jewish culture or faith. But once the Jewish concept of God went nuclear, exploded, and spread all over the world, it was only the Covenant that assured them a fallout shelter... like the one that the school-master is trying to open at the end of Coen Brothers’ SERIOUS MAN as a tornado approaches. Without that Covenant, Jews could have been swept up with the rest of humanity in the new faith and become scattered, assimilated, and lost among so many other tribes.

Now, what does this have to do with White folks? It’s a question of survival. When the Jewish God was universalized, how were Jews able to survive as a people and culture? Because, despite the fact that Jews and Christians(and later Muslims) worshiped the same God, only Jews had the Covenant that made them feel that they and only they had a special contract with God. So, in the end, it didn’t matter to Jews if their God went over to gentiles who called themselves Christians or Muslims. What mattered was that Jews could carry on with their ancient conviction that, even if God rules over all of mankind and shows His love to them, only the Jews have a special covenant with Him.
Of course, Christians and Muslims could tell themselves that Jews are deluded, that the Jewish Covenant was broken with the coming of Jesus, and that Jews are just so full of shi* with their conceit of a special Covenant. Also, how could Jews compete with growing numbers of Christians and Muslims — as both encouraged conversion among all humanity around the world — when Jews, who favor Covenant over Conversion, remained fixed in number and expanded only by the slow process of childbirth? And yet, the lack of a special covenant among Christians and Muslims meant that their power would be diffuse, divided, and confused than concentrated. Because Jews were a family of people, their Covenant bound their shared blood with God. In contrast, precisely because Christians and Muslims came to comprise such large populations, they couldn’t agree on much of anything. So, Catholics and Protestants got to fighting. And Shias and Sunnis got to hating each other. Also, even if the faithful were all of one sect or denomination, they could be divided along race. It’s like white Christians, black Christians, and Mexican Christians never had much in common, and each people invoked God for totally different purposes.
But because Christians, especially white ones for some reason, theoretically identify with and care for all fellow Christians regardless of race, creed, or color, their sense of white identity and interests grew weaker. Also, try as they might, even with the utmost goodwill, to connect with non-whites as fellow Christians or possible converts, there wasn’t much that whites felt in common with non-whites. In contrast, Jews were compact and united, relatively speaking, and all the more remarkable considering that they had to survive as minorities in exile and scattered all over the Middle East and Europe. Jewish power was like a city where the population is closely packed together. The Covenant provided Jews, even in exile, with a sense of shared blood and purpose. So, some Jews could be in Poland, some Jews could be in Germany, some Jews could be in Italy, some Jews could be in Iran, and etc., but the Covenant made them feel close even though they were so distant from one another and unlikely to ever meet one another. But as long as the Covenant existed, there was the Israel of the heart even before there was Israel of the feet that called on World Jewry to come together in family unification. Now, consider the Japanese in contrast. Because they have no Covenant, they can easily become estranged from one another. Japanese in America just become Americanized and ridiculous like Yoko Ono. And when Japanese who’d settled in Brazil returned to Japan, the Japanese people didn’t relate to them, and they didn’t relate to Japanese people. And in neighboring Korea, there is hardly any passion for national reunification because, lacking a national Covenant, Koreans don’t feel very close to one another despite their long history of having survived as one people and culture. And have you seen Josef Stalin’s granddaughter recently? That Russo-Georgian idiot, having no real grounding in meaningful identity or heritage, has degenerated into an idiot teen-wanna-be. And of course, Jews who lose a meaningful sense of Jewishness are also likely to lose it and turn into flotsam and jetsam.

For a long long time, there was a kind of defacto covenant between Europeans and Christianity. Even though the origins of Christianity are in the Middle East and even though the faith spread all over Near East and North Africa, the eventual triumph of Islam turned those areas into Islamosphere. Had those parts remained Christian, the history of Christianity for the first 1,500 yrs might have been bi- or tri-racial. But because Arabs and other non-whites became Muslim, Christianity became mostly a mono-racial power in conflict with Muslims who were not only different in both faith and face. As such, there was no danger of the Vatican being overrun with a bunch of darkies and swarthers. A blackamoor like Othello was an exception than the rule in most of Europe except in parts that had been colonized by North Africans for a spell.

Had Europe kept to itself, its people-culture-religion may have remained all-in-the-family. But for a host of reasons, the West came to dominate all the Rest. Indeed, the Western Way became so dominant and so pervasive that people all around the world don’t even realize how Westernized they’ve become in terms of their dress, technology, eating habits, and use of time. This Triumph of the West can be a matter of pride for Europeans(and white Americans are really just transplanted Europeans), but as with the Romans who conquered everyone but then got conquered by everyone, there is a good chance that whites will lose their way precisely because the Western Way has become the World Way. Because the West did so much to transform the world, there is this idea that the world should not only learn from the West but come to the West, become part of the West, and constitute the New Way. So, non-whites should abandon their way to join the Western Way as the only World Way, and in turn, whites should abandon their identity to accommodate all the non-whites who want to be part of the Western way. So, non-whites lose their culture to become Western, and whites lose their race to universalize the Western Way.

Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster for the white race, white heritage, and white territoriality. The current globalism is a pipe dream. It’s one thing to find John Lennon’s "Imagine" to be a nice in melody and sentiment, but it’s quite another to form a world order on the basis of such tripe, all the more so when so much that is now called ‘Western’ is really Jewish supremacist, Afro-thuggery, and Homomaniacal. Therefore, it is of the greatest essence that white people look deep into their hearts and history to formulate a covenant for themselves in the current globalized order. We cannot put the genie of universalism back in the bottle. The Western Way of math, science, economics, technology, pop culture, and dress have become universalized. Also, all the world has caught onto the concept of ‘human rights’, and there is no going back from English being a World Language. Just like what had been unique to the Jews became universalized through Christianity, what had been unique to the West has become universalized through Western military power, communication, free trade, pop culture, media, and academia, much of it controlled by Jews. When so much that had been uniquely white had been made rendered worldwide, how can anything uniquely European survive. This is where it requires individual with leaps and depths of imagination and vision to formulate a unique covenant between white people and the destiny of the world.

Even when the Jewish God became a World God, Jews survived as a people and culture by doubling down on their Covenant that said their relationship to God was special. So, even as Jews recognized how God could be revered and worshiped by peoples all over the world, they maintained that they had a special connection to God that was unlike any other. Then, likewise, whites people need to come up with some way to believe that even though the Western Way has become the World Way, there are still things so deeply unique and special in being white that white folks and only white folks have this Covenant with the Western World Way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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