Some Thoughts on Colin Liddell's Criticism of the Alt Right and His Need to Rebrand as Affirmative Right — The Usefulness for Politics of Irreverence — The Need for the Left-Right

Colin Liddell of Affirmative Right

As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help.
It has entered Normiespace and the offices of Big Tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life.
For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later).

Will changing the label to 'affirmative' do the trick? What if Andrew Anglin and others take up that banner as well? After all, chameleon Anglin initially attacked the Alt Right but later labeled himself as such(and even trolled that he's with the GOP and Trump).

One problem with Colin Liddell and others like him(expatriates) is they are too far removed from ground zero of The Action to lodge legitimate complaints. Many Alt Right figures are in Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Japan, Philippines, or some other part of the world. Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch got to define the Alt Right because they are in the US. As such, they could organize where The Action is. If Liddell were in the US or EU(two areas most crucial to the fate of the white race), he could have led a counter-movement to define the Alt Right in his manner. But, like too many expatriates, all he can offer are words and criticism. Granted, many radical leaders throughout history spent many years in exile. Vladimir Lenin moved around Western Europe as he was regarded as public enemy #1 in Russia. Still, he eventually returned to lead the movement IN Russia.

Maybe Affirmative Right blog does some good work, but words alone cannot define a movement. If Liddell really wants to define the future of the alternative-affirmative movement, he has to do more than talk or write. He has to form an organization and lead people. I don't see him being up for the job. And Andy Nowicki is more writer-novelist-critic by temperament than a man of action.
In contrast, Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch did bring people together and did organize a movement. Now, I agree with many of Liddell's criticisms of them. When Spencer ran Alternative Right website with Alex Kurtagic as his main henchman, I posted many comments warning about the dangers of the Alt Right getting too cozy with Neo-Nazi types. And there is no doubt that Kurtagic has the outlook(and looks) of Heinrich Himmler.

Richard Spencer is a spent force. (He should be called Richard Spender.) With his looks and charm, he could have done much for the movement. And I'll give him credit where it's due. He could have had a plush job in Conservatism Inc. if he'd played along and went by the script like most whores in the GOP. He did not and instead staked out a rather courageous path for himself. Still, there is smart courage and dumb courage. Also, just because you're anti-stupid doesn't mean you're smart or wise. One form of stupidity can be against another form of stupidity. And Spencer is ultimately a stupid person whose ideology is composed of Darth-Vaderian Nietzscheanism and James-Bondian Tomfoolery. He loves to clench his fist and talk about power and struggle, and blah blah, but he's really a spoiled brat who thinks everyone should make everything 'fun' for him. When the Power effectively shut down his college tour, he sniffled that it wasn't panning out. Gee whiz, he thought it would be 'fun'. What did he expect from the repercussions of a radical movement that really threatens the Power? The Power is just gonna sit back and roll out the red carpet for Spencer to have 'fun' with? Is that how Jews treat Palestinians? It sure ain't fun for Palestinians there and here(whose BDS movement has effectively been criminalized by Jewish Power). How childish and naive can one get? Spencer is all talk and no understanding of the Power even as he yammers endlessly about power, power, power. He needs to study Zionist suppression of Palestinians than watch 007 movies to understand how power works. Or at least watch THE GODFATHER and NO WAY OUT. He's always been yakking about how it is the Power that really matters, and yet he is surprised that the ruling power in the West used dirty tricks to shut him down? The student of Power didn't see it coming? He sudden fame really got to him. His 15 min of fame owed completely to Hillary and Mass Media's attempt to tie Trump to the 'toxic' Alt Right, but Spencer began to see himself as a self-made man than as a media creation and tool. (And as if to prove Hillary and the media correct AFTER THE ELECTION, Spencer steered the Alt Right into a genuinely toxic direction.)

Also, his narcissism is so stupid(and now stale) that he's turning into a laughing stock. He goes on and on about how the media just couldn't get enough of Spencer because he's so good-looking, brilliant, and awesome. Oh, he's the Don Juan of the movement, the man they love to hate to love, and they can't keep their hands off him. Well? When the Power finally decides he's a menace, the Power shut him off, and that's been that. So, he wasn't so irresistible after all. He's more Don Quixote than Don Juan. (Never mind that the media also interviewed 'albino' Anglin and fat Matthew Heimbach a good number of times.)
But even worse is that Spencer's future vision is hardly better than that of Neocons and Zionist-supremacists. If Jews feel that they should rule the world, the only difference with Spencer is that he feels that his Faustian tribe should rule the world with new rounds of imperialist ventures. (At least old imperialism could be rationalized on the prevalence of different sets of values, curiosity about the world, sense of adventure & discovery, and pioneering spirit. But what's the point of imperialism at a time where every corner of the world has been explored and mapped? Also, a world where any nation can offer stiff resistance to invasive imperialism(as in Iraq and Syria)? Imagine the Brits trying to invade China or India today.
Instead of countering Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism with the ideal of universal nationalism, Spencer's agenda is to rule the world with white supremacy. It is all the more ridiculous when Spencer can't even order a cup of coffee in a diner and keep a membership at a health club. When white people are on the verge of losing their homelands, Spencer-the-clown's silly little mind is filled with Kiplingian fantasies(of conquering the STARS too -- Let's rule over Ewoks and defeat the Klingons).
In any struggle, the weaker power must seek moral advantage over the stronger power that has the material advantage. If you allow the stronger power to have both moral and material advantage, your side is cooked. But how can there be any viable moral argument from the Spencerian Alt Right when its main message is "Ultimately, we want to conquer and rule the world with Faustian-Nietzschean-Bondian-Vaderian white supremacy?" Spencer is too stupid to lead anything. At best, he's a decent commentator on a host of Beltway topics.

On the matter of Andrew Anglin, 4Chan Trolls, The Right Stuff(TRS), and others like them, Liddell's complaints are somewhat misguided. The real problem was taking people like Anglin seriously, an error committed by Liddell's site as well(even if in condemnation than praise). There is NO POINT in taking Daily Stormer seriously or engaging with their 'ideas' and proposals like 'white sharia'. Also, it doesn't matter if Anglin is or isn't a Fed-asset AS LONG AS Alt Right or Aff-Right people keep him at arm's length.
There are two ways to fight the power. One way is the moral and serious way. But there is also the other way: The irreverent, pestering, and outrageous way of the jester. The trick is to keep the two sides separate. Jews used many ways to undermine White Gentile domination of society and culture. They made serious Holocaust movies & documentaries. They built museums and published many scholarly books. But the other way was also effective. Jewish nasties, comedians, pranksters, subversives, and etc. were masters in mocking Jesus, spreading porn, indulging in vulgarity, and shitting on every sacred cow in the West. Jews made both SCHINDLER'S LIST and CADDYSHACK. Jews host both Holocaust conferences and Porn conventions. The trick, however, is not to mix the two. We don't see the director of the Holocaust Museum having serious conversations with a Jewish porn-oligarch. Now, behind the scenes, it's very likely that Jews of all kinds see eye to eye. It turns out ADL had ties to Jewish mafia since the beginning. But at least for public consumption, Jews keep seriousness over here and clownishiness over there. I don't think the Holocaust Museum will be inviting Howard Stern any time soon.
So, as long as the Alt Right keeps the Nazi-larping trolls in their own sphere, it's not a problem. Even though much of the trolling and 'shit-posting' have been offensive, they've also been effective in spreading irreverence of sacred cows of sacred Jews, magic Negroes, holy homos, and globalism. They've also been effective at exposing hypocrisies of the Power. That is the key, the use of outrage antics and black humor to make people laugh at Jewish power and its bogus pieties.

The problem arose when Spencer decided to have a SERIOUS discussion with Andrew Anglin. Now, one can have a conversation with anyone -- Bill Buckley invited all manner of guests on FIRING LINE -- , but Anglin is NOT someone you can have a serious discussion with about the future of the white race. He's too much of a clown, idiot, and degenerate. His stuff has to be kept in the jokesphere. You can't mix oil and water. The Radical Left in the 60s found out the hard way when its serious wing joined with the clownish wing represented by the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the Yippies whose priority was gaining notoriety as attention-whores. The Yippie shtick of running Pigasus(an actual pig) as political candidate was funny, but when these clowns were allowed to be part of the Leftist movement itself, everything began to turn into a shit-show, indeed something like the Gong Show. Soon, radical leftism spiraled out of control into a circus and poisoned the Democratic Party in the 1972 election against Richard Nixon.

Liddell is right that Enoch and Spencer were foolish to form a direct contact with Anglin and the Daily Stormer crew, but his site was, in a way, guilty of the same thing by taking Anglin and DS seriously even in opposition and condemnation. Whether pro- or con-, one should never take that stuff seriously. Anyone who's been to Daily Stormer knows the site is criticism-proof because it's too absurd. As Spencer often likes to say of things, "It is what it is." Debating DS is like taking Hustler Humor seriously. Of course, courting DS is even worse, but denouncing it also gives DS far more credit than it deserves.
Anyway, the point is even nasty Nazi-larping trolls have some value to the movement AS LONG AS the movement doesn't get near them. Trolls spread irreverence of sacred cows and premises underlying the Power. It's like Jews will use even Stormy Daniels against Trump. 'Serious' Jews will not invite her to their conferences and gatherings or take her seriously as a person, but they will let people like her vent their spleen against Trump and whomever Jews hate. So, we should regard Daily Stormer as Stormy Daniels of Counter-Power politics. A porn-bomb that can make a mockery of PC and the Power. Just be sure not to take the bomb in your own hand. Let Anglin and other clowns toss them. We can just watch and enjoy with plausible deniability since WE don't officially condone such things. The problem with Spencer and Enoch is they took the stormer-bomb in their own hands. It's like Jews don't condone what Kathy Griffin did with a decapitated rubber-Trump head and publicly even disavow it, but they don't mind OTHERS doing pulling such stunts. In opposition to Trump, Jews employ both the respectable gavel and the jokey poker.

Mike Enoch is the most interesting figure in all this. Whereas Daily Stormer is mostly retarded, The Right Stuff has presented something close to first-rate satire and insightful commentary. But because its satire is edgy and abrasive, it too would be problematic if it became an ACTIVE WING of the movement. As an independent voice cheering on the movement, it can do much good. But as a part of the movement, it can too easily be highlighted by the enemy as 'nazi' stuff. Again, oil and water doesn't mix in politics, especially for a movement with huge disadvantages in media and money. For such a nascent movement, good image is crucial, and TRS is counter-productive as a movement player. It's one thing for TRS guys to make Nazi jokes in their racy podcasts. But it was quite another thing for Mike Enoch to pull a Heil stunt at the NPI conference(after Trump's victory) when the whole world was watching. There was no way the Mass Media were going to cover that as 'larping' or 'joking'. Also, even if Enoch meant it as a prank, there were some real morons there who took it seriously and joined in the salute.
Still, DS and TRS aren't problematic AS LONG AS they stay in their own space and do their own thing. To be irreverent and outrageous against sacred cows, one needs more freedom and vulgarity than serious people in the movement. But serious people need plausible deniability from TRS and especially DS because some of their stuff are really over-the-top. That said, just like all religions were built on both iconography(affirmative erection of holy cows) and iconoclasm(mocking desecration of false gods), the Movement will need not just a serious & respectable arm but dirty fingers to pull down the pants of the Power and grab its nuts.

Finally, maybe what is more necessary than changing the adjective -- 'alternative' to 'affirmative' -- is changing the noun. Why stick with only the 'right'? This left vs right dichotomy has been useless since the end of the Cold War(and fall of communism) and the emergence of the Convergence between 'Fiscal Conservatism'(more money for the globalist rich) and 'Social Liberalism'(cultural decadence promoted by capitalists as the New Norm). Indeed, even regarding the Cold War as a right vs left conflict was problematic as communists nations tended to be more nationalist and culturally conservative than capitalist nations of the West. But because of the egalitarian economic ethos of the Soviet Empire(that seemed awesome in reach and power), people went along with the narrative of 'right-wing' capitalists vs 'left-wing' communists. And because the rich class feared economic leftism, it formed an alliance with social conservatives and nationalists. But in truth, the rich everywhere tend to mainly care about more riches and more self-indulgence. For this reason, they secretly despised social conservatism that said NO to excessive decadence. And they felt restrained by nationalism that said capitalists should prioritize doing what is good for the nation as a whole(like hiring native workers and paying them a decent wage with benefits); nationalism was less profitable than globalism. Because of the threat of worldwide communism, the capitalists went along with social conservatives and nationalists. After all, if American capitalists had treated the American working masses during the Cold War the way they treat working people today, many American proles may have demanded either fascism or communism. Why would the American working classes have tolerated and even supported the capitalists IF the latter had just to shipped jobs overseas, lowered wages, and brought over tons of foreigners to replace native workers? But with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of China from a Maoist to a Market economy, American capitalists had a golden opportunity to enrich themselves with Free Trade and to indulge themselves with fun decadence. The big losers were not only social conservatives and the working class but the True Left and Classic Left that had prioritized the needs of national workers and the importance of speaking Truth to Power. But the Democratic Party went with Free Trade under Clinton, and Big Business made a pact with PC because the 'new leftism'(a bogus variety) emphasized globo-homo-mania that, if anything, was great for the rich because, after all, homos are the most vain and narcissistic people on Earth who love catering to the powerful and privileged. Washington DC is 10% homo, and many of these 'gays' are in the Deep State cooking up new Wars for Israel, new Fruit-Crusades to turn the world pink, and new economic policies to make the super-rich in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood even richer. Calling someone like Rachel Maddow a 'leftist' is to defame true leftism and to give her ilk too much credit. They are not about equality or working people. They are about elitism, hierarchy, Jewish tribal supremacism, globo-homo power grab, and censorship of little people who dare to speak truth to power.

Indeed, we in the 'dissident right' are more leftist than those freaks. Calling such globalist tribal-oligarchs and their commissars a bunch of 'leftists' obfuscates the fact that they are really a bunch of supremacists who don't give a shit about the people. Because leftism has long been associated with much good(as well as bad, like discredited communism) -- struggles for workers, more freedom and liberty, equality under the law, and etc --, it only lends credence to our enemies by calling them the 'left'. Tucker Carlson calls Rachel Maddow a 'leftist', but in fact, his positions are now closer to the True Left and Classic Left than Maddow's. We need to remember that the leftism of the French Revolution forged a new politics where the national elites were compelled to identify first and foremost with the national masses. (Current globalism is neo-aristocracism whereby elites of the world mainly identify with one another than with their own national folks who are to be replaced by Diversity.) Nationalism is leftism as well as rightism. It is about Socialism of identity and interests between national elites and national masses. It is also about the tribalism of shared history, blood, and culture. Even though National Socialism turned evil upon lurching into imperialist mode with wars and genocide, its core nationalist and socialist policy was sound. Indeed, Zionism has been, from the beginning, a national-socialist ideology. It was a means to bring together Jewish rightism(reverence of blood, history, and culture) with Jewish leftism(the need for the elites to be mindful of the people as fellow brothers and sisters than as mere subjects). The reason why Jews hate left-rightism with such virulence among goyim is that they want to keep that great secret to themselves only. It's like Jews in Israel hate the idea of Iran having the Bomb because they so dearly want the Bomb for themselves. What Jews want most for themselves, they most vociferously deny to others. Jews love free speech but not for thee. Jews love Israelis owning guns but not for thee. Jews love nuclear weapons but not for thee. One thing for sure, just like National Socialism turned evil by going imperialist, Zionism too is a moral failure because it went from nationalism(defense of Jewish homeland) to imperialism(use white goyim to wage endless Wars for Israel).

Would American Foreign Policy be Sounder and Saner IF NOT for Heavy Jewish Involvement?

Due to the undeniable Jewish domination of US foreign policy, there’s been increasing criticism of Zionist-Jewish influence on America’s role in World Affairs. Many have noted that Jewish interests or Israel First mindset has warped a rational assessment of America’s true interests. Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer even wrote a book on the subject called THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. And Andrew Bacevich in AMERICA’S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST duly noted that following the end of the Cold War(when the USSR no longer existed to lend support to Arab client-states), nearly all of America’s wars have curiously been fought in the Middle East against nations especially feared or hated by Jewish Zionists. That said, is it fair to blame Jews when American History has long been replete with examples of imperial expansion, foreign meddling, ‘police actions’, subversion & regime change, and outright invasions? And yet, certain things are indeed no longer the same following the change in elite power from Wasps to Jews. It is worth considering the differences between Then and Now and how they’ve affected the reach and tenor of perceived U.S. interests and interference in world affairs.

Firstly, in the past, especially prior to WWII, US expansionism was part of the World Norm. Imperialism was common and proudly practiced on every continent. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire stretching across Middle East, Southeastern Europe, and parts of North Africa. Russians kept expanding into Siberia and Central Asia. It had also swallowed huge chunks of Central Europe. When the British opened up trade with China, it’d been under Manchu Imperial domination for ever a century and half. There were native imperialist wars among savage tribes(among whom Zulus were the most impressive and notorious) in Africa before European nations began to carve it up. And Mexico(as with the rest of ‘Latin America’) was also the product of empire building. Spanish imperialists bested the Aztec Imperialists. In the other words, the Conquistadors were aptly named. The Spanish also took Philippines. The British and the French embarked on creating vast new empires. The US was created out of empire-building and continued in that vein up to the 20th century.

Therefore, US warmongering in the past, for better or worse, was part of the world norm. Every major power did it or aspired to it. Also, empire-building was deemed as national glory for the Whole People(as in Roman times). So, even though the elites benefited the most, there was a shared sense of pride and victory among all Britons in the British Empire. And, all Frenchmen were to share in the glory of French magnificence around the world, i.e. they weren’t merely part of a great civilization but a great civilizing project in the world. And US expansion into SW territories was seen as a great opportunity not only for the Power Elites but for ordinary Anglo settlers who could start new lives in those parts. And it was an improvement, at least materially, even for Mexicans in the region because Anglos did so much more with the land than Mexico ever did. It’s like the character of Ramon has it pretty good working for gringos in THE BIG COUNTRY. He was like the Guillermo of his day.


So, imperial wars were once standard among the great powers, and nearly all peoples participated in them as conquerors or subjects. Even smaller powers practiced a local version of imperialism. If not for French Imperialism, the mini-imperialism of the Thais and the Vietnamese might have wiped Cambodia off the map. And of course, American Indians had been like childish savages ‘genociding’ one another since time immemorial, long before the first white man ever arrived.

In the Age of Empire, glory belonged to ALL the people of the victorious power. Empire-building wasn’t just an elite endeavor and enterprise. So, when British power gained domination in India, even British masses could go there and enjoy the privilege of calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘brown sammy’. The elites got to lord over the empire, but the white masses got to feel some of the power too, like calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘bloody coon’.


And when Anglo-American Empire spread across the ‘fruited plains’(now the fruity plains), little people gained alongside the big people. While the big industrialists always got more, little folks got their little house on the prairie. (If People Power in land-deficient Europe had no recourse but to demand distribution by taxation, People Power in the land-abundant US could be satisfied with promise of property... that is until the majority of Americans became urban dwellers dependent on wages than personal property, especially farmland, for a livelihood.)

But then, with the spread of European-style and American-style nationalism all around the world and the emergence of native elites who felt slighted by European imperialists(with their exclusive all-white clubs) and were no longer willing to collaborate with foreign masters, there was a sea-change in attitudes among non-whites, and anti-imperialist uprisings finally exploded in every non-Western corner of the world and achieved their main objectives as European powers were reeling from the calamitous effects of World War II. (Also, as even the great European powers had either been conquered/humiliated or attacked/devastated by Nazi Imperialist aggression, many Europeans after World War II began to feel that imperialism could no longer be justified in any part of the world. They increasingly sympathized with non-white subjects resisting European imperialism, even of their own kind.)

Still, prior to imperialism’s gaining a bad reputation, it was part and parcel of how the world operated… even though Europeans had extended it far beyond the reach of earlier civilizations. So, warmongering back then was perceived and practiced differently from the warmongering that existed in the post-WWII era. During the Cold War, nothing was deemed worse than imperialism in the court of World Opinion. This was rather ironic since both US and USSR were great neo-empires(or crypto-empires). However, it is telling that they employed imperial might in the name of combating the imperialism of the Other side. When the British and the French had competed on the world stage, it was openly about empire vs empire. In contrast, the US and USSR practiced empire vs empire ostensibly as anti-empire vs anti-empire. It’s like Progs pretend that HATE exists only on the other side. They themselves hate but see HATE only on the Right. Likewise, US and USSR practiced imperialism but saw it only on the other side.

Cold War was a strange phenomenon in exerting tremendous neo-imperialist energies against the threat of the OTHER imperialism. Pax Americana portrayed itself as representing the ‘Free World’ against Soviet-Communist Imperialism that held the Eastern Bloc captive and funded radical lunatics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to spread the Marxist virus. In Afghanistan, the US purported to back the ‘freedom fighters’ against Soviet Imperialist occupation.

Soviets returned the favor against US hegemony. Soviets conflated imperialism with capitalism, i.e, US imperialism was the logical outgrowth of the naked greed of capitalism . So, US support of right-wing autocrats all over the world was part of the capitalist-imperialist plan of global exploitation. Pax Sovietica promised justice and equality for all peoples under the liberating power of communism and compatible ideologies.

And even though some historians and ideologues now claim that the Cold War was exaggerated and overblown, it was a real enough international conflict between giants. Both great powers resorted to strategies of imperialist character to brutalize their main enemy(or its proxies) and to bribe their allies(or puppets). So, the warmongering of the Cold War era was intrinsic to the how the world was structured and divided back then into two major spheres of influence. It was a real Struggle of History, one that finally came to an End when the USSR agreed to Western terms of peace.

So, even though US aggression and warmongering in the past(when Jews did not control America) had their dark side, they were either in tune with the international norm(dominated by Great Power politics) OR engaged in a Grand Battle of Ideas that would decide, once and for all, the ‘End of History’.

But, matters are so different in the present. The US is the lone superpower and stronger than ever. Imperialism is still regarded as a dirty word, and there are no rival ideologies that seek to unseat, let alone defeat, the US as the premier world power. If Soviet imperialism and US imperialism during the Cold War could be justified as ‘necessary evil’ against the Other Imperialism, such logic fails today because the US and its allies face no existential threat(except in Immigration, aka Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism, which is enabled by the very rulers of the US, Europe, and now Japan too). This is why US globo-imperialism must be ever more hysterical in exaggerating New Threats to justify its obsession with world hegemony.

Worst of all, the New Imperialism is used to serve the vanities of the 2% of Americans. Actually, it’s closer to 0.2% of the population that make up the Jewish globalist elites because many ordinary American Jews are increasingly growing critical of Israel’s reckless policies.

Whatever one may say of past imperialism, it served and represented an entire people. When US grabbed Southwest territories from Mexico, it was for ALL Americans to share in the land, cattle, and opportunity. But when the current neo-imperialist US makes a mess of Middle East and North Africa(nations hated by Israel), it only serves the extremely narrow interests of the Tribe.
Also, if warmongering during the Cold War had some overarching purpose in the War of Ideas, the new warmongering is petty and tribal by design and delivery. Sure, some Neocons try to portray it as the Next Great Cause. World War IV as Norman Podhoretz called it.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/. 9/11 was spun by Neocons and globalists as the beginning of the Next Big Struggle: The War on Terror. But as it turned out, the US found itself at war with a bunch of ragtag nobodies. Not exactly WWIV. And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? If anything, Saddam Hussein(vile nasty bugger that he was) had ruthlessly clamped down on terrorists within Iraq.
Furthermore, how could the world suddenly be sprouting all these ‘new hitlers’? Lately, Putin became ‘new hitler’, apparently because he said NO to Homo Poo-Ride parades and ‘gay marriage’ in Russia. Most perversely, the War ON Terror soon morphed into War WITH Terror. Under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the US actually worked with remnants of Alqaeda(rebranded as ‘moderate rebels’) to undermine secular modern regimes that had kept order and stability in the region. It is incredible that Americans aren’t outraged that the war that had begun AGAINST the terrorists who did 9/11 eventually metastasized into war ALONGSIDE those very terrorists against secular Arab regimes in the region. It was as if Jewish Power was willing to tell any lie or invoke whatever convoluted logic to justify warmongering to expand Jewish globalist hegemony and crush any Arab or Muslim enemy or rival of Israel. (Even 9/11 was mostly blowback for needlessly intrusive US policy in the Middle East. Iran and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was US and Saudis that had funded and created Jihadi forces, esp in Afghanistan, to use against the Soviets and then Iran. US was attacked by the very monster it helped create with the Saudis. It's like poison gas could blow back to one's own side with shift in the wind. Indeed, it is telling that following 9/11, the US did absolutely nothing against Saudi Arabia, the very nation that had been most instrumental in the creation of monsters like Osama Bin Laden. But because of the deep historical ties between Saudis and the US[that had been no less involved in creating useful terrorists like Osama], the Jewish media moguls and the Deep State overlooked key details and spun wild theories about how Iraq and Iran must be destroyed to prevent another 9/11 or worse: the Day After of Nuclear Terrorism.)

All of it was hype: Speak pushily and carry a big Shtick. Cold War may have been exaggerated but it was real enough. Soviet Union at its peak was a great power and did rule over Eastern Europe. And if China had maintained good relations with Russia and if Mao had better economic sense, the Sino-Soviet alliance might have kept the Cold War going for much longer. Imagine if, with some economic reforms, Chinese labor had combined with Soviet resources and know-how. Communist power would have been far more formidable. But Mao had a peasant mentality and didn’t get modernity.

Anyway, the nature of today’s imperialism, hegemonism, and warmongering is far more perverse because it runs against the New International Norms that emerged as part of a universal consensus following WWII: Imperialism is bad, and nationalism is ideal for each people for whom nationhood is viable. And in recent years, there have been Western voices(usually shills of Jews) that say the US in the 21st century should openly and proudly espouse empire-building as its modus operandi. Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson are agreed on this. Their dream of Lost British Empire is relived through Zio-Anglo-American might. Still, most people will not defend imperialism as policy. By and large, even globo-hegemonic US continues to justify its expansionism and interventionism on the basis of defending the World Order from imperialistic or terrorist threats posed by Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, and etc.

So, why is the US acting like an imperialist power in a world that, ideologically at any rate, has no place for imperialism? US freaks out about Russia ‘invading’ Crimea(when it wasn’t invaded) but insists it has the right to make threats on other nations and invade & destroy Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and maybe Iran and Venezuela too down the line. The undeniable fact that most of these targets of US hostility and hegemony happen to be nations hated by Jewish globalists is proof that Jewish Tribal hostility is at the root of current World Problems.

During the Cold War, many people in both camps knew of the most egregious abuses and betrayals carried out by their own side. Surely, there were people in Soviet Union who felt bad about Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. And there were Americans who were disillusioned by US meddling in Latin America and Asia. But many Americans believed the alternative could be worse on basis of the Domino Theory that posited that if Commies are given an inch, they take a mile. Likewise, the Soviets believed that if ONE nation were allowed to exit from the Soviet-sphere, the rest would follow. If Soviets had done nothing following the Hungarian Uprising, the anti-Soviet rebellion would have spread to all Warsaw Pact nations.

But, we now live in a world that could be peaceful and harmonious IF the US wanted it that way. The world no longer believes in empires. There is no longer any great ideological struggle. Some characterize the New Struggle as The West vs Islam, a ‘clash of civilizations’, but actually, it could easily be resolved by ending mass immigration and US meddling in the Middle East. Leave those people alone, and they will leave you alone. Keep them out of your domain on the basis of nationalism, and they will live in their own nations. It was Jewish-Israeli paranoia about Iran, Syria, and all the rest that led to these useless wars that served NO ONE but Israel and Jewish globalist-Zionist interests.

Francis Fukuyama is a real globalist shill, but he was right in the sense that there was no longer any great ideological struggle following the end of the Cold War. Today’s so-called Big Ideas are all hype, manufactured and phony, like Homomania or Queertianity, which is really just a proxy of Jewish Hegemonism. If the world just wanted to get along and do business, it could do so and have peace and stability, the kind hoped for by Steven Pinker in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, on the basis of Universal Nationalism.

Look around the world. Japan doesn’t want to fight wars. European nations don’t want to conquer and rule over other nations. Russia wants trade and investment, not more wars. It doesn’t have plans to retake Lithuania and Estonia. It is reluctant even to annex Donbass. China just wants more trade opportunities. Chinese don’t want to put military bases all over the world, nor does it want to ‘save’ or rule the world with Big Chinese Ideas. Chinese don’t think "inside every barbarian is a chinaman trying to get out." Latin America shelved ideological conflicts that had once seemed intractable. There was a time when just about every other Latin American nation was severely challenged by Marxist insurgency. That is all gone. Peace is possible if people want it.

So, what is driving all this madness that threatens to turn 21st century into a hellhole?

1. It is Jewish globalist greed in foreign policy. The desire to use American power to further Jewish Might, esp in the Middle East. As Jews control the US(the key vassal of the Empire of the Judea) and the EU(a vassal of the US), they pretty much own the two richest parts of the world. But Jews also want control over vast Russia with all its resources. The only obstacle to Jewish Supremacism is Russian nationalism, which is why Jews seek to undermine Russia with appeals to ‘democracy’ and homomania.
The main problem of this approach is the insanely narrow tribal interests of Jews on the World Stage. Jews simply don’t identify with most peoples who make up nations like US or Russia. When Anglo elites ruled America, they put their class interests above all else, BUT they still felt some degree of connection to the masses, many of whom were also Anglo, similar to Anglo, or, at the very least, white and Christian. Vladimir Putin feels a real connection with fellow Russians. Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt felt a certain bond with the white masses. Even though they were elites, they were of the same racial-and-cultural stock as the majority population. But Jews simply don’t feel much affinity with the goyim. Sure, Jews will make temporary alliances and feign compassion or shared values. For example, Jews will unite with Christians against Muslims and then later unite with Muslims against Christians or do both at the same time. Jews will make white Christians hate ‘muzzies’ and drop bombs in the Middle East... and then hug Muslim ‘refugees’ and pretend to protect them from ‘racist white Christians’. Jewish contempt for goyim runs very deep. Not all Jews have this animus, but many powerful Jews do. Chinese elites may be lowdown and dirty, a bunch of snakes, BUT they feel some degree of solidarity with other Chinese as fellow countrymen. But Jews lack such sentiments for the goyim, the white masses, the ‘deplorables’ who crave real leadership and inspiration. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but then go about welcoming Invasive-Immigration to replace urban blacks with Asians, Hindus, Arabs, and Mesos.

In a way, Jews feel that a world in a state of flux and crisis is to their benefit. After all, if all nations were stable and at peace, they would focus on their own domestic affairs. And then, each nation will ask itself, “who has the most power and privilege in our nation?”, and the finger could easily point to Jews. So, in order for nations around the world to NOT notice Jewish power, they must be set against each other. If Americans are angry with Russians, they won’t notice who really rules America. That way, Jews can play the role of ‘patriots’ defending US from Russian ‘aggression’ and ‘influence’. And if Americans are made to hate Iran(as an ‘existential threat’), they won’t ask questions about who really controls US foreign policy and why. And why not push the Yellow Peril narrative so that Americans will blame China for everything… even though Jews played a key role in bringing China into the globalist economic system. Do business with China but use media power to make China out to be the Princess Dragon Mom. If you’re a coyote, it’s better to have bears, tigers, lions, buffaloes, and etc. hate and fight one another than notice YOU.


2. But there is even a bigger threat that will mess up all nations in the 21st century. It is mass migration(or mass invasion) and demographic imperialism. No group has been more responsible for pushing this than the Jews. This will spell doom and end for Europe and possibly for East Asia and Australia/New Zealand as well. And Canada and US. Europe is esp in trouble as it’s being flooded with black Africans who are more muscled, more aggressive, more loutish, and bigger-donged than white men. As Europe become junglo-Africanized, white men will be wussified and white women will be womb-colonized and give birth to vile creatures like Obama and Kaepernick. Europe will become like Morocco or worse.
With control of Media, Academia, and the Sacred Narrative, Jews have persuaded all these naive native whites into embracing Diversity, Jungle Fever, Replacism, and ‘White Guilt and Atonement’ as the only way forward. And US is no different.

For a time following WWII, there was the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism when all peoples aspired to independence-from-imperialism and national sovereignty. At the UN, it was agreed upon by all members that imperialism is wrong in any part of the world. So, the end of the Cold War seemed to promise the end of imperialism. Indeed, even the first Gulf War was billed as anti-imperialist because, after all, Iraq had invaded Kuwait. But this posture of anti-imperialism and limited war soon morphed into a prelude for More Wars of imperialist power-lust. Saddam Hussein was small potatoes in grabbing only Kuwait. US will smash-and-grab entire nations, at least if Jewish globalists want them occupied or destroyed.

Anyway, the Golden Age of Nationalism could have been fulfilled with the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had necessitated both US and USSR to act like imperialist powers in the grand struggle. But absent such conflict, each people could finally be independent and secure their own national destiny. Indeed, the liberation of each Eastern European nation was greeted with enthusiasm. The defunct imperialism of the Iron Curtain no longer stood in the way of national independence of peoples finally freed from the Soviet/Russian yoke. Furthermore, the former Soviet Union itself birthed many new nations. Russian empire broke into various new republics, mostly peacefully. There was war in Yugoslavia, but at the end of the day, stable long-term peace was achieved with assertions of national identity and independence. And it could have been a happy story. And most peoples would have been content with Universal Nationalism.

So, what destroyed it? One was US-warmongering in Middle East and North Africa that led to huge ‘refugee’ crisis, mostly into Europe. Another was rise of PC in EU that made ‘diversity’ sacrosanct. Apparently, it was the duty of white nations to keep letting in tons of non-whites on some crazy notion that ‘diversity is a strength’. (If so, why are super-diverse Latin America and North Africa such a mess?)

But even more dangerous was the alliance between Jewish globalists and non-white elites & masses all over the world. Non-whites who had once resisted and fought Western Imperialists and told whites to GO HOME now decided to shift into Demographic Imperialist Mode and mass-colonize white nations. The reason was crass and obvious. They’d made a mess of things in their own nations with corruption, repression, violence, and/or barbarism. And they wanted shortcuts to material comfort and social stability in the West. So, these non-whites around the world went from the slogan of YANKEE GO HOME to YANKEE LET ME IN. And it was Jewish Power that pulled strings to pressure white nations into taking all these People of Color(or Corruption).

People of Color(POC) found PC very useful as a moral cover for their crassness. In reality, they’d failed their own nations and hoped to flee from their own peoples and cultures to enjoy better material conditions and opportunities in the West among Nicer White Folks. But admitting-as-much would have sounded crass and shameful. It would have meant they’d rather run off to White Success than deal with their own failures. PC came in handy because it justifies non-white invasion of white nations on moral grounds, however bogus they may be: Redress or reparations to compensate for white ‘exploitation’ of darkies in the past. The combo of POC and PC has led to a strange phenom of “whitey, I hate you, so please let me come live with you”.

So, universal nationalism was destroyed by this new virulent form of globalism. If the West had not allowed mass immigration, non-whites would have remained in their own nations and worked harder to improve things. But once the gates were open to the West, non-whites figured it would be much easier and faster to enjoy the good life in the West. In time, the process was completed with non-whites joining elite ranks alongside Jews and Homos.
When white elites used to send signals like ‘No Dogs and Chinese allowed’, non-whites felt slighted or insulted and decided to lead their own people in national struggles. But once Western elite institutions made room for non-white elites(as collaborators and partners-in-crime in globalist hegemony), the latter joined the Elysium club and pledged their main loyalty to neo-imperialist Jews/whites than work for their own kind. This has led to Diversity of Privilege where elites of all colors rub shoulders in hogging power, privilege, and influence. Having no allegiance but to power and privilege, they will cynically work to further Zio-US hegemony, even if it means harm and degradation to their nations of origin.
In contrast, masses get Diversity of Poverty. While white elites rub shoulders with fancy mulattoes and non-white sophisticates, white masses get punched by nasty thug Negroes and replaced by grubby masses of non-white foreigners.

So, under globalism non-whites effectively became demographic imperialists, and so, the world has reverted to the Age of Empire. But then, it is much worse than past imperialism. Back then, whites, the most advanced peoples, went to less developed places and spread science, technology, and new ideas. Also, except in some parts of the New World(and Australia), whites didn’t have the numbers to permanently replace the natives. So, Africa is still black, South Asia is still brown, Middle East is still Arabic, and East Asia is still yellow.

But the current demographic tide into the West, if unchecked, will turn white nations into mulatto nations forever. France will become Morocco-Cameroon. Germany will become Nigeria-Turkey. Sweden will become Somalia-Afghanistan. Why would Jews do something so terrible? After all, Jews insist on keeping Israel Jewish, and Zionists don’t take in any Africans or new Muslims.
Jews do this to white nations because they ONLY care about their own power. Jews figure that if all white nations are made ‘diverse’, there won’t be sufficient white majority and solidarity to work against Jewish elite power. Also, whites will be too busy bickering with Africans and Muslims to confront Jewish Power. Jews effectively play both sides. Jews go to the non-whites and say, “we are your allies against nazi ‘racist’ whites” and Jews go to whites and plead, “Oh help us poor poor Jews from those terrorist antisemitic Muzzies who are like the new nazis.”

As the result of current trends, the 21st century will be even more crucial than the 20th century. It will determine if the West and white race survive at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism is the best defense against imperialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, the overall arc of history.

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

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

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

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

Play the Game of AAJ or Ask-A-Jew - Then See the World Anew as Scales Fall Off Your Eyes - It’s Most Necessary Because the Fall of Wasp Power was even More Momentous than the Fall of Communism

Play ASK A JEW with Jennifer Rubin

Play ASK A JEW with Max Boot

The game of ASK A JEW. It’s a simple game that anyone can play, even a child. Its purpose is to understand the true nature of the People who rule over us. (For tips on how to play this game, skip most of this post and go to where it says *How to Play ASK A JEW*.) Why did the world begin to change so fast and so much since the End of the Cold War? The main reason was not the Fall of Communism but the fall of White Gentile Power, especially in the US. By hogging all the news, the fall of communism masked a far more important, momentous, and significant fall: The Fall of Wasp Power, White Christian Power, and Catholic Power. If, following the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States had remained under White Christian Power, we would not have witnessed the crazy accelerated transformation of so much of the world.
Since the end of WWII, Western Europe has essentially been the vassal of the U.S., but this wasn’t such a bad thing because, for most of the Cold War, the US was controlled by Wasps and White Christians. Conservative or Liberal, they had no problem with Europe being the domain of Europeans. They had no problem with European nationalism as long as European nations got along together instead of instigating new wars for hegemony. (The trauma of WWII, the fear of the USSR, and the reliance on the US made Western Europe emphasize mutual respect and cooperation above all else.) Also, the US stoked nationalism in Eastern Europe to inspire resistance there against the Soviet Empire. The European political norms of the 1980s were essentially moderate-nationalist. German citizenship was still based on blood and ancestry. UK, France, and Sweden had not yet gone utterly crazy with PC and Diversity. Jews and radicals had already spread such seeds, but the US, as the superpower, didn’t press upon European nations to adopt those ideas as sacrosanct.

So, how did the political norms of the 1980s come to be regarded as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’ in today’s world? If someone in the UK today espoused views that were common in the 1980s, he’d be sent to jail. If German citizenship based on blood(that was still operative in the 1980s) were proposed for re-introduction today, it’d be denounced as Neo-Nazi. The crucial difference between then and now is that the US currently presses on EU and all its vassals to undergo vast social, cultural, and ideological changes to discredit, undermine, and transform the very meaning of what it means to be European and Western. When the US had been ruled by Wasps and White Christians, there was far greater respect for the national norms and local customs of other nations. The idea of the US using its power and money to spread Homomania and African-as-New-European would have been unthinkable back then. Even though the US was a kind of empire after WWII and throughout the Cold War, it wasn’t hellbent on forcing other peoples to become like Americans(who, by the way, were not the degenerate morons they came to be beginning in the late 60s). Sure, US sold consumer products and exported Hollywood movies and American music all over the world, but it was up to each and every nation to formulate their own national policy to deal with such influence. And those were considered as unserious popular culture.

Some might argue that the US got more arrogant after winning the Cold War. As the lone superpower, it couldn’t resist spreading its power, ideas, and (anti)values all over the world. But would this have been so IF the US hadn’t come under the control of Jews? Would US have fought those Wars in the Middle East if not for Jewish influence? Would US have been so hellbent on crushing Iran if not for Jewish power? Would the US be waging this ridiculous ‘new cold war’ with Russia if not for Jewish Power. Would the US be spreading Homomania as a neo-religion all over the world if not for Jewish Power? Would the US be forcing the Cult of Diversity into every nation if not for Jewish Power?

In the 80s, the US didn’t press upon Japan and Germany to become diverse. The US elites back then would not have shamed Poland and Hungry for wanting to preserve their national integrity. If anything, the US urged Eastern European peoples to reassert their national identity and interests to gain independence from the Soviet Union.
Bill Clinton has been called the ‘first black president’, but as the first boomer president who’d especially come under Jewish influence, he was really the first Jewish president(and Bush II was the first Neocon Jewish president, and Obama was the second Jewish president).

When Wasp and White Catholics ruled the US, there was no American animus against European patriots and nationalists. The American Empire following WWII was mostly a live-and-let-live affair. It didn’t even have the messianic passion of the first wave of overseas American imperialism beginning in the late 19th century that sought to Evangelize the world. The international contract of Pax Americana following WWII was that the US would offer protection and markets to certain nations that would, in return, pledge allegiance to the US against the Soviet Union or any new power that might aspire to challenge the World Order of the postwar era. Now, the marketing of US consumer-capitalism was aggressive all over the world, but Americans never pretended that it had moral or spiritual value. Coca-cola was good to drink, Marilyn Monroe was good to see, and Elvis Presley was good to dance to. But they were not serious. But things are now so different. Globalist culture promotes trashy rappers as quasi-prophets, skanky sluts as idols of female empowerment, and homos/trannies as saint-angels whom young children should look up to. If, in the past, America marketed pop culture as just fun, entertainment, and recreation, the New America promotes pop culture as inspiration and salvation. So, people around the world are supposed to watch something like BLACK PANTHER and really dream of Wakanda. Or kids around the world are supposed to embrace Diversity and Interracism because the New Star Wars movies say they’re cool.
At least in the past, Hollywood tried to make adult-oriented movies to spread loftier themes and values. Think of TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR, and THE LONGEST DAY. These days, the kinds of movies that get the most buzz even from the shakers and makers of cultural opinion are often based on superhero comics and childish fantasies.

Back in the day when Wasps and White Catholics ruled America, Jews who controlled much of movie-and-music culture had to watch themselves. If they promoted something too crazy and trashy, especially as message or propaganda, there might have been a white or Christian backlash. This is why Jews were savvy in promoting the notion of ‘antisemitism’ and tie it with Shoah(or the Holocaust). That way, if Jews did something slimy and sleazy and if whites called out on Jewish foulness, Jews could just yell ‘antisemitism’ and associate critics of Jewish influence with ‘Nazis’. This is how Jews got around to legalizing filmed pornography. Jews were the main forces behind it, but Wasps and Catholics were too afraid to name the Jew because of the Jew Taboo. Fast Forward to today, and Jews have weaponized pornography against the white race. Indeed, Jews weaponized everything: media, education, advertising, finance, the law, and even free speech(with the notion that ‘hate speech’ — speech hated by Jews — is not free speech and must be banned). Because so many gentiles get their ideas, idols, and icons from media, academia, and entertainment controlled by Jews, they become rabid true-believing lunatics, just like so many young impressionable Russians were turned into diehard communists almost overnight under Bolshevik Rule.
But Jews also use the stick as well as the carrot. By ruthlessly punishing groups like the Alt Right and BDS, Jewish power sends a message that anyone who deviates from the Official Narrative will be taken out. And it can happen even to those ensconced in the Establishment. Jason Richwine was a member of the 'esteemed' Heritage Foundation before he was purged at the behest of vile Jewish bitch Jennifer Rubin. Rick Sanchez used to work for CNN before he was banished for having noticed and blabbed about Jewish power. Even a veteran journalist like Helen Thomas couldn’t save herself when she said European Jews in Israel should go back to Europe. She died soon after being fired and dragged through the mud by the vile Jewish Power machine.

Anyway, what Jews did to the White America has been the template for what they did to Europe also. It’s no accident that exactly what Jews did to White America also happened to the EU at the same time. The cult of diversity & multi-culturalism, the rise of Homomania, the notion that one’s country is a ‘nation of immigrants’, the objective of economically destroying Iran(or any other nation hated by Israel), and the hysteria for ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Why is it that both the US and EU have been acting in tandem since the end of the Cold War? We need to understand that Jews see Europeans differently from how Wasps and White Catholics used to see them. White Gentiles in America saw Europeans as fellow racial and cultural brethren. They harbored no animus or hostility toward them. White Americans just hoped that Europeans would stop fighting one another and learn to live in peace. Also, white Americans respected European histories & cultures and didn’t want to mess with the narratives and symbols. If anything, there was a widespread feeling among White Americans that, even though there was something instantly appealing about Americanism, European histories and cultures have greater depth and that white Americans should respect and learn from this. In contrast, Jews always views the Christian West with hostility. Even though they found the US, another white Christian civilization, far more welcoming, they still regarded white Christians with resentment, hostility, and envy. So, if the Wasp hegemony over Europe had been live-and-let-live, Jewish hegemony became one of "do as I say... or else you are Nazi". So, if Wasp America’s power in Europe had mostly been political and military-related, the Jewish-ruled American power in Europe has been ideological and neo-spiritual. Jews want to penetrate, alter, and own the souls of Europeans.

Another key factor as to why Jewish domination of the US proved to be far more dangerous than Wasp domination ever was due to the Jew Taboo. Wasps were feared and respected but were not seen as a holy people. So, if Wasp America was perceived as doing bad, Europeans could push back a little and denounce American Power and Influence. The reason why Europeans were so hard on George W. Bush was he came across as a big dumb American cowboy trying to ride the world like a horse at a rodeo. Granted, he was controlled by Jews, but he was seen by Europeans as the archetypal Ugly American. Anyway, when the US was perceived as being ruled by Wasps, there was some push-back from Europe. There was no taboo against calling out against Anglo elites, Cowboys, Uncle Sam, and Yankee Doodle Dandy.

But as it became more evident that the US is a totally Jew-dominated nation, it became ever more difficult for Europeans to push back against the US. (Ever the fervent European opposition to Bush II focused on his cowboy image, not on the vampiric JEWS around him. And of course, when the Iraq War went badly, the Jew-media conveniently placed all the blame in Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.) It was one thing to denounce American foreign policy devised by Wasp Cold Warriors. But the ‘new cold war’ with Russia is a Jewish thing, and no one dares to remove the mask and say it like it is... lest he be accused of ‘antisemitism’, the biggest sin in Europe where Holocaust has been made a virtual religion(and not just in Germany). Also, the rise of American financial power and high-tech power since End of the Cold War has been spectacular, and those sectors are dominated by Jews. That means much more Jewish money greasing the entire institutional apparatuses of Europe where many bureaucrats, activists, and journalists are really little more than paid shills of Jews like George Soros.

Also, because of the Jewish transformation of both the US and EU, it is more difficult for Europeans to feel ideologically purer or more virtuous. During much of the Cold War, Europeans loved to turn the tables on the US for being a ‘racist’ nation of rednecks, stupid nation addicted to vulgar pop culture, greedy nation of uber-materialists, and reactionary nation of ignorant religiosity, but especially since the end of the Cold War, the US and EU have been merging into one. Most young people in the EU are now an anti-intellectual and addicted to trash culture as American youth are. Also, even though majority of Americans still claim to be religious, the power of religious institutions has vanished in the US. Christianity not only couldn’t stop Homomania but bent over to it. The Civil Rights Era is now a thing of the past, with rap music, black-dominated sports, interracist pornified TV being the culture of America. Also, the US even got a black president... which means Europeans could no longer accuse the US of ‘racism’. Also, with massive invasion-immigration, the US is fated to become white majority faster than any European nation. As the US turns less white, it will be deemed politically incorrect to condemn it because Diversity is worshiped as holy. This is why Europeans feel most free to disparage the US when it's ruled by cowboy types like Reagan, Bush II, and Donald Trump. Despite facing an existential threat from Mass Invasion from Africa and the Muslim World, the European Soul following WWII has been instilled with the notion that Historical Sin is uniquely a White Thing,and therefore, the ONLY approved way to score moral points is by attacking other whites for moral failings. (Granted, it's still OK to invade and destroy non-white nations IF the green light comes from Jews, especially with black president as a front. So, too bad for Libya and Syria.)
As for Europe, it is now as addicted to pop culture as America is. Its young people in UK, France, Sweden, and Germany are vapid trashy whores who worship crass celebrities and bling-strapped rappers. And with ‘gay marriage’ being the law of the land in the US(even before in some European nations), Europeans can’t wave the 'gay' flag to feel holier-than-thou with homomaniacal virtue-signaling. And with US universities now being a net exporter than importer of PC, Europeans can hardly feel more ‘radical’ or ‘progressive’ as they used to in the Age of Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault.

It used to be that Europe was a vassal of Wasp-ruled US. Because Wasps had a special relationship with Anglo-Brits, Continental Europeans used to see US-UK as a separate political-cultural entity: Anglosphere vs Eurosphere even as they made common cause against the USSR during the Cold War. Also, there used to be some pushback against English as the common language for all Europeans. There was a time when French and German had special prestige in Continental Europe. But that was then, this is now. All Europeans have surrendered to English, especially the American kind, as the new lingua franca. So, Americanism has spread all across Europe like wildfire as Europeans grow up immersed in everything associated with American English, which these days is mostly about worship of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. After all, Jews control media in the Anglosphere and Rap is the #1 musical genre in America. So, English, though Anglo in origin, is now the instrument of Jews and blacks.

Paradoxically, it's precisely because English has become such a world language that Continental Europeans are less resistant to it. When it used to be associated with Anglo-British Power and Anglo-American Power, Continental Europeans associated it with the domination of Brits and Wasps. The Narcissism of Small Differences made Continental Europeans feel resentful and envious of the Greater Power spawned by the troublesome Island Nation across the English Channel. But once English came to be regarded as a World Language that no longer belongs to Anglos but also to Jews, blacks, Hindus, Arabs, Chinese, and anyone who wants to do business and smoke the PC pipe, the use of English among Continental Europeans was no longer seen as triumph of Anglos over other Europeans.

If it used to be the case that Europe was under the thumb of Wasp-ruled America, the new reality since the end of the Cold War has been that BOTH Europe and the US(along with Canada and Australia) are under the rule of Judea, the most powerful empire in the world. When Jews took over the institutions of America, they didn't see themselves as the owners of American Power. They saw themselves as members of Judea or World Jewry, for whom America is the biggest prize, the Jewel in the Crown. It was like Alexander the Macedon was not content with the conquest of Greece. Though Hellenized and the new ruler of Greek peoples, Alexander didn’t see himself as First among Greeks. He saw himself as the Ruler of the World. He saw himself as lord of not only Macedonia and Greece but over Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, and parts of India. Likewise, Jews are not content with being the New Elites of America. Their main identification is not with American Power but with World Power as Judea has networks all over the world wherever there are Jews, and this means in Israel, Europe, Russia, Latin America, and even in Iran. With Jewish men marrying Chinese women, Jews also aim to sink their influence into China itself.

This is why PC has accelerated all over the West. It is the Jewish weapon of castrating white power and enforcing White Submissivism in both the US and EU. So, we have White Submissivist cuck-collaborator elites denouncing nationalism in Europe as being ‘far right’ and ‘nazi’. So, we have cuck-dogs like John McCain never denouncing the mass invasion of Germany and UK — but then, he never opposed the Mexican invasion of Southwest territories either because Jews would be angry with him — while growling at Russia, a nation whose advice to Europeans is that they should defend and preserve their borders, race, and cultures. Because Jews are so little in number, they know that their power is OVER the minute white people begin to reject White Submissivism. Currently, most whites are under the impression that white folks wanting to defend their nations, peoples, and cultures from non-white mass invasion is ‘white supremacist’ when, in fact, it’s the non-whites who are aggressively conquering white lands and replacing whites who are left to drop dead like flies from opioids and other excesses urged upon them by the Jews. But there is always a chance that whites will wake up, especially in the age of the internet when even whites without establishment power can get their ideas and images across. This is why Jews go all out to infect whites with PC from the youngest age. Jews urge white parents to start the brainwashing in the crib lest the kids turn out, oh my god, ‘racist’! To condition white minds to cucky-wuck defenseless, Jews promote Homomania that idolizes wussy white men(as nobler than masculine white men) and lionizes trannies who make white people accept degeneration and disorientation as the New Normal. If a nation believes ridiculous-looking men with dicks and balls are ‘women’ because they wear wigs & dresses, then it can be made to believe in just about anything. It’s the infantilization of adults. It’s like kids who can be made to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy can be made to believe in whatever.

Even so, Jews know that the power of PC is all in the mind. If whites were to eject PC from their minds, they could abandon White Submissivism and stand up to vile Jewish Supremacism and smash it. It's like, once the character in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is disinfected of the mental virus, he can see everything clearly.

So, the ONLY sure way for Judea to rule over the West forever is to create massive Diversity, whereby they can play divide-and-rule among so many different gentiles who can never agree on anything. And even if all those gentiles were to dislike Jews, they would also dislike and distrust one another and thus fail to form a united bloc against Jewish supremacist power. Even if every white person were a razing Nazi, he couldn't do anything if his race made up only 30% of the population.

Now...

*How to Play ASK A JEW*

Jewish Power is up to no good, but Jews love to put white gentiles on the defensive by accusing White People of ‘supremacism’ whenever white folks insist on their identity, inheritance, history, and right of territory. Jews don’t want white folks to have autonomy of history because it is natural for all groups to be ‘ethnoistic’, just like it’s natural for individuals to be egoistic. Every person wants to feel that his or her version of events is most correct and most justified. Even when people do wrong and know it, they seek emotional justifications for why they did what they did. Consider the Akira Kurosawa film RASHOMON where each of the three characters admits to the murder(or suicide) but passionately justifies what he/she did on emotional and egoistic terms.
This is why, to control memory means to control the world. Because all individuals and all groups tend to shape their memory, personal or political, to justify their actions and deeds, people who gain control of others’ memories gain control over them, and people who lose control of their memory to another people become owned by them. Indeed, NOTHING is more important than control of memory that serves as the basis of the Narrative that validates an individual, a group, or a people.
If a man has memory and 10 million dollars, he is a lucky man. Now, what would be worse? For him to keep the 10 million and lose his memory OR for him to lose the 10 million but keep his memory? Of course, the latter. Money is precious but memory is priceless. None of us would know what or who we are without memory.

Also, there is another side to memory. It’s the management of memory. Memory itself doesn’t ensure pride and power. It all depends on how the Memory is Managed. For example, Jews committed massive pogroms to expel Palestinians to create Israel. All Jews now know this part of Israeli history. So, why aren’t they filled with shame and guilt? Because Jews have Management over their Memory. Even as Jews admit to what they did to the Palestinians, they manage and spin the memory in such a way that justifies their actions. Now, imagine what would happen to Israel if the Palestinian minority were to gain control of most media & academia and bought up all Jewish politicians to do the bidding of Palestinian power. Suppose Palestinian elites gained control of Jewish memory and its management. Suppose they suppressed any memory that makes Jews look good and Palestinians look bad. And then, suppose they managed the memory of the founding of Israel in such a way that makes Jews look especially vile and evil. It won’t be long before Jews lose pride & confidence and turn into putty in the hands of Jews. Unless Jews wake up and regain their memory and its management, they are sure to be a doomed people who, year after year, will lose out to the Palestinians who will gradually take over Israel and turn it back into Palestine, especially with Right of Return instituted as historical redress.

Jews sure love to mess with white/gentile minds. Jews do it so well that so many white Progs and Liberals are convinced that Jews are so noble, saintly, wise, and wonderful. They’ve been brainwashed by Jews to believe that Evil is something almost unique to whites(and Russians, Iranians, and Chinese). They look up to Jews as knowing more, understanding more, and being morally superior. But are Jews really this way? Indeed, what are they really like and what are they really about? To access that truth, it’s best for these white progs and white cucks to play the game of ASK A JEW. Now, what kinds of questions should they ask to the Jews?

Here are some suggestions. Just look Jews straight in the eye and ask them to answer the following questions:

1. Is it true that you Jews want Hungary and Poland to be mass-invaded by Muslims and Africans while Israel gets to protect its borders and preserve its Jewish ethnic identity and cultural integrity?

2. Is it true that you Jews believe that gentiles, especially Europeans, have NO identity based on blood, history, and territory? So, Irishness, Italianness, and Germanness have no roots and lineage? They are just pieces of paper that anyone can apply for to become, virtually overnight, New Irish, New Italians, and New Germans? If so, should Jewishness be defined the same way in Israel? Anyone who wishes to be ‘Jewish’ should have the right to move to Israel and claim identity as 'New Jews'?

3. If you Jews believe that race is just a social construct, why do you not notice that all those sports teams owned by your kind are dominated by blacks due to factors of real racial difference? After all, if race is a phony social construct and peoples of all races are the same in everything but skin color, why are Ashkenazi Jews far more likely to make big bucks and own sports teams while blacks are far more likely to dominate sports and make big bucks that way?

4. If you Jews believe that American History was stained because it favored whites over non-whites, why do you insist that the New and Improved America should favor Israel over Iran and favor Zionists over Palestinians? And if the US, as a Nation of Immigrants, should have equal respect for all nations and all peoples, why do you Jews command us to chant "Israel is America’s greatest ally"? And where is the evidence that the US needs Israel for security or prosperity?

5. If you Jews love Immigration, why do you stay put in the West? Why don’t you take up immigration again and emigrate to Africa, Asia, or the Middle East? Why stay put in places like NY, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Miami? Why not get back in nomadic gear and immigrate to other nations? After all, you Jews say all Nations are ‘nation of immigrants’ since all of them were created by invasions and migrations. Since all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, isn’t it about time you Jews moved to, say, Africa? Or how about Latin America? You Jews say it’s great that whites will be a racial minority in the future. You say Diversity is awesome. Well, if that’s true, shouldn’t you move to Latin America where whites are already minorities in very diverse nations made of all sorts of mixed races? Why do you stay put in the West?

6. You Jews decry inequality and call for 'fair' representation. If so, why do you Jews freak out whenever people point out that YOU JEWS are over-represented in many elite institutions and industries? And if white people should try to hire non-whites as much as possible to promote Diversity, why are you Jews so prone to hiring and especially promoting fellow Jews in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Media, Academia, Law firms, and Deep State?

7. Why do you Jews oppose gun ownership in the US but support the right of Jews to have assault weapons in Israel? Is it because Israel is majority Jewish and that means an armed Jewish majority with the firepower,esp against the Arab minority? In contrast, because the US is mostly gentile, maybe you Jews fear all those gentiles with guns? Since you Jews control the government, you want guns to be monopolized by the state so that the people won’t be able to resist when the Jewish-controlled government comes after them, right?

Surely, we can come up with many other questions for Jews. Anyway, it’s a fun game for the whole family and all your friends. Just look at the discrepancy between what Jews say and what Jews actually do. Don’t be a dummy and remain silent. Come up with questions and ASK A JEW. One thing for sure, it’s better to Ask-a-Jew than Ass-Kiss-a-Jew.

Maybe we can even have an Ask-A-Jew March where many people hold up placards with QUESTIONS FOR JEWS(as the dominant power in the world). It’s smart to pose questions to the most powerful power, which is currently Judea. It’s dumb to just obey the ultimate power and never ask questions. And if you remain mute out of fear, then it’s just craven cowardice.