'Minority Rights' means Different things to Minority Elites and Minority Underclass. To Minority Elites, it means the Right to Rule. To Minority Underclass, it means struggle for representation. Jewish Minority Overlords and Non-White Minority Underclass.

There are different meanings to ‘minority rights’. We must ask, what kind of minority are we talking about, and what is meant by ‘rights’?

After all, both British imperialist elites and the native Untouchables were minorities in India. But whereas one minority, the Brits, was at the top, the other minority, the Untouchables, was at the bottom.

For the British imperialists, ‘minority rights’ meant the right to rule over Hindu(and Muslim) masses. For the Untouchables, 'minority rights’ would have meant the modest hope of having the same legal protections conferred upon other Indians of 'higher' castes.

A similar confusion of meaning perplexes the Current West when it comes to 'minorities' and 'rights'. After all, right-to-rule(like the Divine Rights) is light years apart from right-to-representation. One is for kings, the other is for the peons. (To be sure, universal rights flowed from elite rights. The idea of rights began at the top and gradually reached the bottom.)

In the US and UK, Jews are the ruling minority or the minority elites. (Homos also belong to this group.) But Mexicans, many blacks, and many immigrant groups are either part of the minority underclass or minority ordinary folks; they have no special power or out-sized ambitions & expectations(though blacks have out-sized egos that demand attention and adulation, the blings and glitter). Asians do better academically & economically than most other immigrant groups, but their dim sense of identity and servile attitude don't translate to much power and prestige. Even in Hawaii where yellows constitute the majority, they lack political will or cultural vigor. They are just parrots and puppets of PC emanating from Harvard and Hollywood.

So, ‘minority rights’ means different things to Jews and to other minorities. For Jews, it means the quasi-divine right to rule over US & UK and make demands & dictate policy. Old ‘antisemitism’ used to mean denial of basic rights and liberties to Jews. New ‘antisemitism’ means any kind of criticism of or challenge(no matter how justified) to the Jewish supremacist right-to-rule over goyim.
And the logic is similarly operative with homo politics. ‘Gay rights’ used to mean the tolerance of allowing homos be homo and do their own thing without persecution. Today, ‘gay rights’(or Gay Rites as the neo-religion of Homomania) means we must admire, celebrate, and worship homos as angels and even change marriage laws to appease the Great Holy Homo. It means those who mock or deride the so-called LGBTQXYZ community, culture, lifestyle, or agenda must be quarantined as being afflicted with 'phobia' and be blacklisted. (In Castro's Cuba, homos suspected of HIV were quarantined and stigmatized. In the Jew-run West, sane people who seen LGBTQ nonsense for what it is are effectively contained and blacklisted from engaging in social discourse and economic competition.) And we must even put homo regalia(or re-gay-lia) in churches. It’s as if homos have some divine right to be admired and adulated, and so, we humble folks must perform our obligatory duty to homos as our 'spiritual' superiors. In all big cities, it is virtually mandatory for all politicians and 'respectable' citizens to sing hosannas to homos & trannies and take part in 'gay pride' parades. Indeed, people mustn’t even joke about(or cringe over) something as ridiculous as Bruce Jenner calling himself 'Caitlyn' or Bradley Manning(as Chelsea) expressing joy over replacing his penis and balls with a fake 'vagina'. (In the UK, a criminal investigation is under way to hunt the man who cursed out precious Brucie.) We must laud and applaud like dumb dogs at the feet of their master.

Now, there are other minorities that also demand special favors. Blacks demand affirmative action, and Mexicans demand affirmative immigration(amnesty). But many blacks and Mexicans are on the bottom looking up. Their hope is to reach the middle. (To be sure, too many blacks just fantasize about being sports stars or rappers, goals out of reach for most blacks, but then, blacks are stupid.) But even if blacks and browns demand special favors, they won’t amount to much and will never gain elite power in the West(unless they race-mix with higher-IQ Jews, whites, or Asians). Historically, all they could hope for was equality(and then some) under the law.

In contrast, equality of any kind isn’t good enough for Jews(and homos) anymore. For them, ‘rights’ means something closer to ‘divine right to rule’. Jews are now addicted to supremacism and won't settle for anything less. The New 'Antisemitism' isn't about denying Jews basic rights(what the rest of us have) but refusing to cave to all their demands(as rightful decrees of overlords who deign to rule over us as 'sheeple').
But the current arrangement makes Jews nervous because it is natural for the masses to resent and challenge the ruling elites, especially if of another racial, ethnic, and/or religious identity. Jews are different from non-Jews both ethnically and religiously. This makes Jews nervous because they, as the current ruling elites, make natural focus of the critics of power and populist angst.

So, to morally shield their power, Jews associate themselves with minorities who are relatively powerless. (Notice how Jews rig admissions at Ivy League Schools to favor Jewish students but obfuscate this operation by making all the usual noises about the need for 'Diversity'. Jews hide behind affirmative action for blacks and browns to justify the current 'holistic' system, the main agenda of which is to favor Jews uber alles.)

Since many immigrant groups have historically arrived with little and started on the bottom), they've been pegged in the popular imagination as humble and vulnerable(like a newborn baby), indeed as if Ellis Island Blues is still the anthem of New America. So, Jews associate with immigrants as 'fellow minorities'. This way, Jewish minority supremacist power is morally sanctified in association with the 'huddled masses' of recent arrivals who presumably need protection from the native populist mobs and nationalist 'xenophobes'. By posturing as noble defenders and champions of newly arrived minority immigrants, Jewish minority supremacist elites pose with(and even as) the 'powerless' by association. It's like the desperate alliance of the minority Afrikaner minority elite and the black Inkatha Freedom Party in the twilight yrs of Apartheid South Africa. Even though whites were at the top and Inkatha party members were on the bottom, they were both minorities(racial or political) and faced the challenge of the ANC party supported by the great majority of blacks. (Inkatha Party, as the political embodiment of the historically aggressive & expansionist Zulus, found common ground with European-Imperialists who came to dominate South Africa.)

The logic behind Jewish minority uber-elite alliance with economically depressed non-white minorities(mainly browns and blacks) and scab-immigrant-mercenaries is comical if one thinks about it. (Keep in mind the British Imperialists also used Migration-Collaboration to bolster their empire. Brits used Chinese migrant-minorities in Southeast Asia and shipped tons of Asian Indians to Africa to do their bidding. It was also under British Empire that the Jewish migration to Palestine began in earnest, and we know how that turned out for the native Arabs. Today, Jews control US & EU and use mass-migrations of non-whites to alter the balance of power in the West by reducing native whites into just another minority at the mercy of the divide-and-rule master strategy of the Tribe.) Imagine if the British Imperialist Elites in India sided with the Untouchables as ‘fellow minorities’ against the ‘bigoted’ and ‘populist’ masses of Hindus and Muslims demanding national liberation and independence from alien imperialism. Imagine the gall of the British ruling minority elite making overtures to the Untouchables, the underclass minority, and claiming shared victim-hood as ‘fellow minorities’ regardless of the fact that the British minority rule as the Master Class whereas the Untouchable minority is mired in poverty at the bottom. That would have been pretty amusing. But devious as the Brits could be, they didn't have the sheer audacity of chutzpah to pull off something that ridiculous.

That said, there were times when the Brits did advance the Minority Issue to morally justify their rule over India. In Richard Attenborough’s movie GANDHI, the British ruling minority presents itself as the protective guarantors for the Muslim minority from the potentially domineering Hindu majority were India to gain independence. The Brits were "masters in someone else's home" just like Jewish globo-homo elites are currently in the West. For Jews, everything is a question of "Is it good for Jews?", and this is why Jews get hysterical when whites begin to ask a similar question, i.e. "Is Jewish power good for whites?" As far as Jews are concerned, Jews and whites must share the same premise: "Is it good for Jews?" Jews must operate to serve Jewish interests, and so must white folks. One might call it shared interest and destiny, but the same can be said for master and dog. Master and dog both act on the basis of "Is it good for the master?" Shared interest is not the same thing as common interest. In a case of common interest, both sides have autonomy and arrive at a compromise that benefits both sides more-or-less equally. In contrast, there is no guarantee of parity in shared interest. Master and slave have shared interest, but it's all about the slave serving the master. Jews and whites cooperating on the basis of either 'Is it good for Jews?' or 'Is it good for whites?' is a case of shared interest, but the former is about whites serving Jews whereas the latter is about Jews serving whites. It makes all the difference.


Thankfully for India, it had a leader of Gandhi’s caliber who was witty, shrewd, and devious enough to match wits like a lawyer with the British. (He would have made Professor Kingsfield of PAPER CHASE proud.) Too bad the West lacks such leaders with just the right combination of cleverness, will, tenacity, and resolve.
Back then, the British Imperialists claimed that India was ‘British’. Now, the bloody fools in UK, under the influence of their Jewish masters, say non-white immigrant-invaders are the ‘New British’.

Gandhi urged Indians to engage in civil disobedience until the British minority elites left. Maybe white Europeans can do something similar. A strategy of mass non-cooperation and civil disobedience until the West is cleansed of globo-homo imperialism, cuck-collaborators, and Third World migrant-invaders & African sexual colonizers doing ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).
Since overt resistance has been banned by the PC state, whites can exert their collective will through mass non-cooperation. (Whites can start by asserting that they will no longer support WARS FOR ISRAEL and act as goons for Jewish Imperialists. Let Jews fight their own wars.) But then, so many whites have been led to believe that Diversity is sacrosanct and that restoration of nationalism is unacceptable. After all, PC reminds them endlessly that the truest expression of 'European(or Western) values' is hankering for spicy exotic restaurants and jungle fever mating with Negroes. (Interestingly enough, Brexit won in UK because of older voters, but Macron won in France especially with the older demographic, 80% of whom chose him over Marine Le Pen.)

The future of Europe will be determined by whether it can produce leaders like Gandhi, Mao, Lenin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Castro, T. E. Lawrence, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, DeGaulle, and maybe Putin(as fate of Russia is still uncertain). While some of those men were pathological and dangerous, they could play politics on the grandest scale. When a civilization is faced with an 'existential' crisis, it calls out for visionaries and prophets, not technocrats, paper-shufflers, and wine-sippers. Run-of-the-mill 'leaders' won’t do. The current heads of state in Europe are not leaders but spineless flunkies of globalist oligarchs(with Jews having the most power due to Moral Advantage stemming from Shoah-Worship, the reigning religion of the West; a white goy with $10 billion is richer than a Jew with $1 billion, but the latter has 'spiritual' advantage because the Shoah Cult confers holiness upon him; the material has a price tag whereas the spiritual is priceless, and Jews have priceless value due to their moral exploitation of the WWII tragedy). Just look at Justin Trudeau the Man-Child cuck of Jewish donors. Why did so many Canadians vote for such pathetic clowns? Because Jews control media & academia and have infected so many white minds with nothing but PC and Pop Culture. 'Celebristianity'(largely shaped by Jews, Afros, and 'gays' or JAG) is the neo-religion of the West.

If Europe keeps producing nonentities like Merkel, Macron, Hollande, Sarkozy, Blair, Cameron, May, Berlusconi, and even Farage, it’s finished. Things are getting serious, and it will take real visionaries of wit and grit who can take the shit.
As for nationalists, the likes of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and others won’t do. (The exception may be Viktor Orban.) They are too much part of the system(despite disapproval from the ruling elites) and unable or unwilling for bold action under current rules that are totally rigged by media, academia, and deep state. Trump made it in the US, but he is not a serious man. He’s a showman and salesman, and he can’t be counted on to do much that really matters.
Also, as long as enough white people are comfortable and satiated with bread & circuses and mentally infected with PC for the time being, it's difficult to shake them out of their doldrums.
If Europe is to be saved, it will require the rise of truly remarkable individuals with the power to inspire, lead, and forever alter the trajectory of history.

Extreme times call for powerful personalities.

The threat that Europe faces is the greatest ever. Past wars and repressions were horrible, but WWI and WWII were still about white Europe. So, even after millions died, it was the same white Europe. And as bad as communism was, it didn’t change the demographics in most communist nations.
But now, things are direly different. Not only is Europe being colonized physically by foreign masses but European minds have been PC-colonized to ‘welcome’ this as a good thing, even as a 'European' thing.

We need a new set of leaders and rulers who can eradicate the mental virus from European minds and purge them of this ‘guilt’ and ‘fever’. Indeed, the task is daunting because whites welcome mass invasion not only out of ‘white guilt’ but because of ‘afro-fever’, aka jungle fever. European women are turning into sexual deserters who are offering their wombs to millions of African men who are storming the beaches of Europe. As African birthrate is 6 or 7 children per women and since EU has a policy of ‘saving’ millions of self-stranded Negroes in the sea, the demographic and sexual math for Europe is horrible.

White minds are colonized by Jewish PC, white lands are colonized by Third World mobs, white males bodies are brutalized by stronger Negro men, and white females’ wombs are colonized by Negro seeds. It is White Nakba.

In Jewish history, there were two kinds of cleansers: prophets and warriors. Prophets cleansed Jewish minds of the virus of pagan idolatry and reminded them of the Covenant with God. And the warriors took up arms to do battle with enemies of Jews. (The third kind of Jews were diplomats who used wit and cunning to negotiate with rivals, enemies, or overlords of Jews.)

Anyway, unless warriors have vision and conviction, they are mere mercenaries(or Janissaries). In order for white knights to rise, white souls must be cleansed and purged of the PC virus of guilt-and-fever.
It’s like Islam has two meanings for ‘Jihad’. One means to do physical combat against infidel, but there is another meaning that says the soul must be cleansed of infidel ideas and images.

In the present, even if great white leaders were to rise, majority of white masses will curse them and denounce them since their minds have been infected with the crazy idea that ‘racism’ is the greatest sin when, in fact, race-ism is a most noble creed and conviction.

Are Some Young Jews Turning against Zionism out of Egalitarian-Humanitarianism or Elitist-Cosmopolitanism?

According to Norman Finkelstein and some other prominent members of the Tribe, many young Jews are far less interested in Israel than their parents’ generation is. Their attitude ranges from indifference and apathy to revulsion and loathing for Israel as a criminal state. If Max Boot remains a fanatical Zionist, Max Blumenthal has turned hardcore anti-Zionist and even wrote a book called GOLIATH that argues the current Israel is ruled by ‘far-right’ imperialist monsters. And Philip Weiss runs a popular site that details the daily problems of Israel’s Occupation of remaining Palestinian territories. And increasing numbers of young Jews have become vocal supporters of the BDS movement. And even in Jewish journals and websites, it isn’t uncommon for some Jews, especially younger ones, to voice opposition to Zionist policies. Some Jews expect, with hope or fear depending on one’s ideological leanings, that the majority of future Jews will not be supportive of Israel. But then, maybe younger Jews today will grow more identitarian and pro-Zionist as they gain in years. Who knows?

But one thing seems certain, and that is today’s young Jews are not as pro-Zionist as young Jews of past generations. If you were young and Jewish in 1970, 1980, or 1990, you were likely to have been more pro-Zionist than a young Jew today. Of course, there is also the fact that, especially since the 1960s, many Jews have intermarried with non-Jews, and many of today’s Jews may be only half-Jewish or quarter-Jewish. So, even if they still identify as Jewish, they will have gotten Jewishness from only one side of the family.

Anyway, what could be the bigger reason for young Jews’ relative lack of interest in Zionism? By ‘interest’, I mean pro-Zionist sympathies. After all, one could be interested in Zionism in the most negative way. David Duke and Patrick Little are certainly interested in Israel and Zionism, but it has nothing to do with sympathy. And Max Blumenthal and Philip Weiss surely know more about Zionism than most Jews do, but their interests are harshly critical. Whether positive or negative about Israel, there’s a spectrum from fanaticism to indifference. A pro-Zionist Jew could think of Israel 24/7 . Or he could say he supports Israel but do little or nothing and hardly think about the topic. Likewise, anti-Zionist Jews range from men like Max Blumenthal who’s on an all-out crusade against the Jewish State to people whose positive impression of Israel has dimmed over the years but who don’t get worked up over what’s happening in Gaza or West Bank. It’s likely that the majority of pro-Zionist Jews and anti-Zionist Jews are generally indifferent about the issue. They don’t care enough to organize FOR or AGAINST Israel and lobbies like AIPAC.

People like Norman Finkelstein and Philip Weiss would like to believe the decrease in the enthusiasm for Israel among young Jews is the result of disillusionment with Israel’s mounting human rights abuses, mainly vis-a-vis Palestinians but also in the Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy to cause trouble all over North Africa and Middle East, now especially against Syria and Iran. The idea is that increasing numbers of young Jews are morally outraged by what semi-theocratic Israel is doing to Palestinians who are just hanging by a thread in Gaza and living under ‘Apartheid’ conditions in the West Bank. Thus, feelings and attitudes of young Jews are motivated mainly by Egalitarian Humanitarianism, i.e. Jews must live together with Palestinians as fellow brothers and sisters, as equal members of humanity. Supposedly, these younger Jews are moving from supremacist domination to egalitarian justice. I’m sure some Jews do sincerely feel that way.

But could the bigger reason for growing disinterest in Israel and Zionism be the result of Elitist Cosmopolitanism, aka Elysiumism or Elysianism? After all, more than 50% of Jews earn more than $100,000. Given the levels of Jewish power and influence, it is difficult to see Jews being motivated by genuine egalitarianism. Indeed, most Jewish talk of Equality is merely rhetorical, or it is a means of misdirection to fool people, especially non-whites, into thinking that the real problem of America is WHITE PRIVILEGE and that noble Jews are hard-at-work in trying to fix the problem by pushing for more ‘inclusion’ of non-whites into white-dominated domains and institutions. By using the smokescreen of White Privilege, Jews are able to gain even more fortune and power. As the bulk of moral outrage and ideological hate is directed at Whiteness, the forces of ‘Social Justice’ end up berating middle-class and working class whites far more than Jewish elites that truly run and rule America. Indeed, why would intelligent, ambitious, and contemptuous Jews be interested in real equality? Why would Jews want to be on the same plane with Dumb Polacks, stupid schvartzes, ‘white trash’, hillbillies, Mexican Gomezers, and other riffraff?

When Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrived in the US with little more than the clothes on their backs, they felt some degree of camaraderie with the ‘have-nots’ as they arrived in the same boat and had some ways to go to make the climb from the bottom to the top. But, especially in the years after the 1960s, Jews were on the up and up, and now, they are the undisputed(and also unmentioned) ruling elites of the US. Jews are now addicted to power, privilege, prestige, elitism, and even supremacism. The idea that most Jews would sincerely be interested in equality is ludicrous. If the US were truly egalitarian, Jewish representation of media would be 2%. Jewish control of Wall Street, Law firms, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley would also be only 2%. What Jews would want this? Indeed, Jews seem hardly troubled by the fact that they, who comprise only 2% of the population, control 40% of the wealth in the US. And 95% of the media. And most elite institutions. Jews also rake in most of the cash from casinos and other vice industries. Jews also use Big Pharma to hook so many people to drugs, the side effects of which require the patients to become dependent on yet more drugs. With so many Jews having so much, why would they care about most of humanity except as a publicity stunt or political strategy? After all, even tyrants, monarchs, and autocrats claim to care about the People as they carry out self-serving policies. If Jews were honest and spilled the beans on their insatiable greed, a lot of people would wake up to Jewish influence and act accordingly to challenge it or even bring it down. So, it has been in the interest of Jews to keep feigning their role as one of the Holy Victim Groups forever associated with Shoah and Emma-Lazarusean Immigration.

Because Jews arrived as Poor Immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is as if their eternal identity is Immigrant-Americans. Even though most American Jews have multi-generational roots in America, even young rich Jews act like they just got off the boat and are standing in line at Ellis Island. Because of this association as Immigrant-Americans, Jews pretend they are spiritually united with all New Immigrant folks. So, if a new batch of folks arrive from the Middle East, India, China, Africa, or Latin America, they are fellow Immigrant-Americans along with Jews. And even though many immigrants now arrive with lots of money, lots of luggage, knowledge of English & the American Way, and even well-established connections in America, we are to believe that every generation of Immigrants arrive with the Lazarusean dream of yearning to breathe free. You could be a millionaire Hindu arriving in the US with a good job awaiting you, but as an Immigrant-American, you are shrouded with the Ellis Island myth. This way, the well-established, rich, and powerful Jewish-American community, as the original Immigrant-Americans, becomes forever associated with the 'humble dreams' of ever newer batches of Immigrants who, in turn, are ennobled by the Emma & Ellis myth as the ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ even though many of them arrive with good amount of cash, advanced college degrees, and extensive knowledge of modernity & American Living.


Jews feign at Egalitarianism and Humanitarianism, but their main position in the world is as Elitists(even supremacists) and Masters(over inferior goy humanity). Most privileged Jews have a Master Race mentality(even if hidden and unstated), though it ranges from the Anglo-Enlightenment Model to the Neo-Nazi-Model. One school of Jewish Master Race ideology believes that Jews should rule like the Anglo Imperialists of Old. They should have the ultimate power but treat the goyim with modicum of justice and conscience. A Jewish variation of the White Man’s Burden. This school of Jewish Master Race ideology isn’t particularly hateful though it is arrogant and can be overbearing. It’s no wonder some Jews sound like schoolmarms always telling us how to think, what to say, what to do. There’s an element of Neo-Victorianism in this strain of Jewish Worldview.
The other school of Jewish Master Race ideology is truly Nazi-like, and it’s not far-fetched to label such Jews as Judeo-Nazis. These Jews are filled with contempt and virulence toward goyim who are seen as subhuman, cattle, servants, and cannon fodder. These Jews look upon goyim the way the Nazi Germans looked upon Russians and Slavs in general: as Human Cattle that exist to serve the superior ‘Aryans’. If both groups of Jews have something in common, it’s an anxiety(or even aversion among some of them) toward race-mixing. If some Jews are hostile to race-mixing altogether, other Jews are very selective in their race-mixing strategy, and this is especially true among Jewish men. If Jews must mix with non-Jews, the important thing is to marry the upper echelons of goyim so that higher IQ goy genes will mix with high IQ Jewish genes. Also, the kids must be raised to identify and feel pride as Jews first and foremost. Jewish men especially feel this strategy is necessary. If in the past Jewish men married ‘shikses’ out of Portnoic lust, today they feel a need to marry non-Jews because too many Jewesses are either too obnoxious, nasty, or infected with out-of-control Jungle Fever. What with too many Jewesses acting like Lena Dunham and Chelsea Handler, Jewish men figure they need Nicer Women, and such are found among ‘Aryans’ and Chinese. Jewish men are tired of female version of Howard Stern who say stuff like, "I had an orgy with a bunch of Negroes with biggus dickus."
Jewish men are truly freaked by Jewish women who, furthermore, are trying to replace the Jewish Covenant of the Pud with the neo-covenant of the Poon. All this talk of Vagina-this and Vagina-that is essentially a Jewess-instigated movement that wants to swallow and destroy the Jewish pud and then take the Negro dongs until the Jewish Poon becomes like man-eating plant in THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. Notice that the Plant opens up like a vagina but talks like a Negro. The Jewish bitches have come up with neo-covenant where Jewishness will be defined by Jewish Poon gone jungle. It is no wonder so many Jewish men are freaked and seeking refuge in non-Jewish poons.


Even though Jewish Elite Power is overwhelmingly pro-Zionist at the very top — consider donors such as Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and many billionaire moguls of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — , it appears that many young affluent Jews aren’t so passionate about Israel. Or maybe they are but prefer to remain closet-Zionists in order to hide their ideological hypocrisy — "national for me but not for thee" — or to avoid confrontations especially with increasingly vocal BDS forces. After all, most highly educated affluent people tend to be ‘progressive’(if mainly for reasons of status), and it’s not very convenient to be labeled as Zionist at a time when Israel politics has veered so far to the Right. It mattered less in the past because Israel was, more often than not, ostensibly ruled by the ‘progressive’ Labor Party. Also, as the US was less diverse, Jews usually mingled with non-Jewish whites who, due to Shoah Narrative, tended to be extra-sensitive toward Jews. But as the US has grown more diverse, Jews are rubbing shoulders with non-whites who don’t share the ‘white guilt’ burden. Also, if white Evangelicals feel a spiritual connection to the Jewish State, non-whites feel no special attachment or sentiment for the Holy Land as they are neither Jewish nor Christian. And this means they are far less likely to be partial the Jewish-Zionist POV, not least because Zionism reminds them of Western Imperialism that had once ruled over their parts of the world. On the other hand, most non-whites don’t much care about Palestinians either. Ironically, whites are likely to be both more pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian. In a way, their pro-Palestinian stance is an offshoot of their commitment to Jews. It is precisely because they admire and love Jews so much that they are appalled by Jews acting so brutal towards a seemingly helpless people. If anti-Jewish voices on the Alt Right tend to express support for Palestinians according to the logic of ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’, certain Philosemitic types lean toward BDS and Justice for Palestinians because they want to believe in the Noble Jew. They hope and dream of a peaceful and lasting resolution between Jews and Palestinians because they want to believe in the myth of Jewish sainthood and wisdom. Surely, a people who suffered Shoah shouldn’t be treating people like dirt. Also, given that sanctioning South Africa in the 1980s and anointing Mandela as the holiest man after MLK came to define Progressivism in recent times, Israel became increasingly vulnerable as the New South Africa, an Apartheid Nation in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the Right seemed to have History on its side as the Communist Left spiraled into deeper abysses of inefficiency and insolvency. But if the Right ‘won’ the Cold War, the Left won what was, in some ways, even a greater prize: End of Apartheid in South Africa. Even though the world appreciated the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, there wasn’t much ‘idolic’ power among most Eastern Europeans and Russians. They were just more white people who, unlike their Western Counterparts, didn’t even have the ‘cool’ factor and had bad teeth. In contrast, South African struggle was black, and that meant a lot because the US, the center of the world, was heavily invested in the symbolism of black holiness. Also, as the main moral narrative in the US came to center around the Civil Rights Movement, many saw parallels between the black American struggle and South African struggle.

To the extent that ANC of South Africa had been closely allied with the PLO while white rulers of South Africa had Israel as its closest all, it was becoming ever more convenient for Progressives to notice parallels between the Original Apartheid State and the New Apartheid State(Israel). For white Progressives in search of a new passionate cause, something like BDS pushes all the right buttons. Even as its agenda is hostile to Israel, supporters of BDS can claim that they protest Israeli policies because they believe in the goodness of Jews and are traumatized that Jews, a people associated with the ‘Holocaust’, could act in such a manner. Indeed, most White Progs who protest Zionist policies against Palestinians are not ‘racially’ hostile to Jews in the way that some on the White Right are. If some on the Right see the struggle between whites and Jews as essentially one of blood-and-culture, the those on the White Left tend to see it in terms of Hawkish Bad Jews enabled by crazy Evangelicals & the War State VERSUS Dovish Good Jews allied with White Progs and People-of-Color. Some on the White Left fetishize Jews as a holy people to such an extent that they are terribly triggered by the sight of Jews acting like New Nazis. They are so used to the image of Jews as saintly victims(like in SCHINDLER’S LIST) that it bothers them to watch images of Jews as ruthless victors against a helpless people. Others on the White Left don’t have a particular fetish for Jews as holy-schmoly and simply expect Jews to fully embrace the Rules of PC. So, if UK, Ireland, Germany, and Sweden should go into post-national mode and become like Morocco or Venezuela, Israel should do likewise and be Third-World-ized too. (Granted, Israel does have Third World Jews — those with lower IQ and ability than European-Ashkenazi Jews — , but they are all Jewish, thus bridging First Worldism and Third Worldism in Israel. It’s like Italy has First World Italians in the North and Third World Italians in the South, but they are bound together by Italian-ness. It goes to show that shared ethnic identity goes a long way in easing socio-economic divides.) But the Jewish Problem is difficult to resolve because the supposed Dovish Good Jews(with the good kind of political allies) are really no less identitarian, tribal, and supremacist than the Hawkish Bad Jews. The former are better at hiding their true agenda. Even so, there is increasing pressure on Dovish Good Jews to distance themselves from Hawkish Bad Jews. Bernie Sanders whose main base comprise White Progs has come under increasing pressure to speak out for Palestinian rights against Israel, thus reversing his long history as a hypocritical Jew whose modus operandi was ‘nationalism for me/we but not for thee’. The pressure on Jews is even greater in European nations, not least because the European ‘Left’, utterly committed to the racial-and-cultural extinction of Europe and fully allied with Muslims and Africans, demands that Israel also drop its guard against Muslims and Africans. While European government elites still support Zionism, European intellectual and cultural elites have become, by and large, very critical of Israel and its alliance with ‘far right’ forces in the US. Openly Right-wing Jews are alarmed by this and even forge an alliance with European Rightists. Left-wing Jews try to walk the tightrope in a balancing act in making all the correct noises about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ while doing their darned best to make sure that EU remain solidly behind Israel.

Of course, this is one reason why Jews have been so eager to push Homomania. A decadent Western Ideology(and even neo-religion) that is bound to turn off many Third Worlders, especially Muslims, while winning the hearts-and-minds of so many deracinated and decadent whites in a state of cultural degeneration, its effect is to boost support for Israel as the outpost of Homo ‘Pride’ in the Middle East. (It’s interesting that so much of National Degeneration is associated with sex. When Spanish mixed with natives in Latin America, it led to racial dissipation and cultural degeneration. When North African Caucasians mixed with Negroids, their cultures became less stable and more barbarian. When the West began to celebrate ‘gay pride’ and homo fecal penetration, its culture and values became degraded. Pushing tranny business on little children has made things even worse. It has expanded the number of boys who, urged by parents and pop culture, act wussy and girlish to win more affection as having ‘woke’ sexuality. And West’s support of Feminism and Jungle Fever has led to rapid decline of civility. Spread of Negro genes increases levels of savagery and chaos in the white world. And Jungle Fever turns white women into mindless ‘mudsharks’ and turns white men into wussy-ass cucks who’ve lost the respect of their women. Among Muslims, the degenerative factor is cousin marriage. All that semi-inbreeding has led to lower IQ and host of genetic diseases. So, sexual values, habits, and practices are intimately associated with the decline of civilizations.)

Anyway, I would argue that the main pressure on Jews isn’t egalitarianism and humanitarianism but elitism and cosmopolitanism. Young Jews may be moving away from Zionism because they want to be with the top winners. Currently, Jews are the top winners of the US and the World, but in the coming years, the elites of the West are bound to be ever more diverse, made up of not only Jews and whites(mostly Progs) but Yellows, Hindus, mulattoes(not least due to Affirmative Action), and even Muslims. Thus, a kind of caste system is forming in the West. It won’t be as rigid and strict as the one that congealed in India, but the end-result could be that people will identify mainly with their neo-caste status than anything else. This Coming-Apart(the separation of Winners and Losers as expounded by Charles Murray) is affecting all peoples. Granted, moving to America creates a temporary Coming-Together effect among Immigrant Communities. So, Asian Indians of various stripes(and even Pakistanis) who never saw eye-to-eye on anything back in the Old Country find themselves to be part of the Asian-Indian-American Community. And the various kinds of ‘Latin Americans’ — whites, mestizos, Indios, mulattoes, and of different nationalities, e.g. Mexican, Venezuelan, Brazilian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and etc. — who never had much in common in their own nations suddenly find themselves as members of either ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’ community. Being newcomers and minorities starting anew, they feel a need to pool together with others who are more similar to them. The effect of this is Coming-Together, but it’s not very long-lasting. After all, the ‘dream’ of immigrants is to climb up the social ladder and join the elite club of wealth and privilege. Over time, it means the creation of a Diverse Elite Community where various members feel more as Elysians than as people of any particular tribal or ethnic affiliation. Consider Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain, Nikki Haley, Fareed Zakaria, Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Amy Chua, Nicholas Kristof, Marco rubberboy Rubio, Francis ‘End of History’ Fukuyama, Walter Russell Mead, Lawrence O’Donnell, S. E. Cupp, Niall Ferguson, and etc. All they care about is belonging to Elysium. Indeed, their pro-Diversity and pro-Inclusion ideology only furthers status and neo-caste as the main basis of identification. If Lawrence O’Donnell felt strongly as a Drunken Irish, he might be less obsessed with status because he would feel closer to all kinds of Irishmen as his fellow ethnic kin: Rich Irish, middle class Irish, working class Irish, poor Irish, super-drunk stupid Irish, and etc. But having no such ethnic sense in the name of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’, what is the only meaningful mode of identity and belonging left to O’Donnell? Wealth and Status of course.

After all, we know it’s impossible to identify with ALL OF HUMANITY. There are too many ethnic groups, too many cultures, too many languages, and too many competing & conflicting narratives. For example, if you claim to love Saudi Sunnis and Iranian Shias equally, how do you resolve the conflict between their competing religious agendas? If you claim to love Turks and Armenians equally, who do you side with on the issue of the ‘Armenian genocide’? If you claim to love Zionists and Palestinians equally, which side is right on the issue of West Bank and Gaza? Thus, all this talk of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ is meaningless as a source of identity. It’s no wonder that so much of Multi-Culturalism’s emphasis is on Food because peoples of all cultures can agree on culinary delights. (Even so, even the Politics of Foods is fraught with dangers because Muslims don’t eat pork, Hindus don’t eat beef, and Chinese/Koreans/Vietnamese eat dogs. As yet, the US will not allow dog-eating as part of celebration of Multi-Culturalism though, perhaps, that could change as some might argue that laws banning the eating of dogs is culturally discriminatory and ‘exclusive’.) So, what happens in a society committed to deracination and ethnic bleaching? What happens when people realize that they cannot identify with All of Humanity. Indeed, consider the recent Refugee Issue. So many White Progs expressed sympathy and even identification with Muslims. Some even donned burkas and played ‘Muslim for a day’. But identity-for-a-day or identity-based-on-faddish-agendas is shallow and fades as easily as it appears. It’s more like mushrooms than trees. It has no roots. Too much of Current Cult of Makeup Identity is about Mushroomism against the traditional essentialist identity of Treeism. Anyway, the Muslim-for-a-Day craze was as vapid as could be because it was based entirely on political expediency: Let’s Get Trump! It was also morally risible because the very people who suddenly showered sympathy on Muslims and Liinda-Sarsours of the world had been utterly silent when Obama and Hillary were wreaking havoc in the Middle East and North Africa at the behest of Israel and Jewish-globalist supremacists.

Prior to the rise of Diversity in the West, elite power essentially came down to Jews vs Wasps. In the end, Jews won, and Wasps were eager to play the role of partners and underlings of Jews. What advantaged the Jews was the control of Narrative, especially as they gained a stranglehold of media and academia. Jews also became experts of Lawfare to defend their interests(and any interest that subverts white power) and to threaten or destroy their rivals or would-be-enemies with lawsuits. Before the Rise of Diversity, Elite Power meant Jews on top using White Guilt as the paralyzing agent to ensure that Wasps will serve and obey and BUGS(Busy Urban Globalist Semites). That was the one big advantage that Jews had over Wasps. The Guilt Factor. Because Wasps were steeped in the Christian mindset of atonement & redemption(and pride through such), they could be artfully manipulated by cunning and crafty Jews. Jews could invoke the Holocaust and Slavery to morally shame and disadvantage whites. Also, by showering praise on Good Whites committed to redemption, Jews made White Guilt the basis of New White Pride. Paradoxically, white pride could only come by the way of White Guilt. By prostrating themselves before the Magic Negro and Holy Jew, the Good Whites could gain an element of pride, especially by bashing the Bad Whites who weren’t as born-again showy in their expressions of atonement. This is why White Guilt has produced not only sappy wussy whites but angry & violent ones. If White Guilt gave whites No Chance of atonement and redemption, whites who swallow the bitter pill would just keep their heads bowed and feel sorry. However, White Guilt allows whites to confess their ‘sins’ and partially cleanse their souls. This fills them with a neo-Christian kind of Pride. Thus, they go around barking at Bad Whites who refuse to sufficiently cleanse their souls of White Guilt. This is why so much of PC goes after not only whites who are obviously anti-black or anti-Jewish but those who aren't sufficiently pro-black and pro-Jewish.

But if such a psycho-political strategy worked wonders with whites(especially Wasps who tended to be more conscientious than other white ethnic groups), it was bound to fail with non-whites. After all, most of humanity had nothing to do with World War II and Shoah. If anything, most non-whites around the world came under White Domination or Western Imperialism in some form or another in the past four centuries. Thus, they could claim victim-hood under the Current PC. One could argue that Arab Muslims did enslave black Africans, but Muslims don’t have the Guilt-Complex thing that is so integral to Christianity. Also, many black Africans converted to Islam and took on Arab culture and did a lot of enslaving themselves. Furthermore, Arab slavery was less ‘racist’ in the sense that they enslaved peoples of all races, and that supposedly made their form of slavery less unjust. Latin whites(and Jews) could be accused of mass genocide, rape, and slavery over the indigenous peoples of the New World, but the current Narrative says that because of extensive race-mixing among the whites, indigenous folks, and blacks in Latin America, they are just a mass of one Brown Folks. Via race-mixing, White Guilt has supposedly been ‘washed clean’(or stained holy) in Latin America. It means that Latin whites were less ‘racist’ because they deemed non-whites as worthy of ‘rape’. Besides, even if substantial number of Latin Americans are whites, Jews need them as allies against White Americans, and so, there is the charade that even light-skinned Latin Americans are part of ‘People of Color’.

Over time, due to greater infusion of Diversity into elite ranks and further globalization of cosmopolitan elite culture, Jewish elites will increasingly come under pressure to choose between Elysianism and Tribalism. In the past, cosmopolitanism had a national(if not nationalist) flavor. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, when the elites, intellectuals, and artists got together at festivals devoted to arts, culture, or film, there was an undeniable sense of national origin. So, despite the cosmopolitan spirit of the occasion, each person knew where he came from and to what group or tribe he belonged to. Such sense is far weaker today because so many non-whites have studied in the West(and feel closer to Western institutions and associates than with their own), air travel has gotten cheaper, global communication is instantaneous & virtually free(especially via the internet), and because white elites have been conditioned not to have an identity(which serves as a model for all would-be elites; multi-culturalism is less a 'celebration' of different cultures as an insistence that non-whites all sign on to PC centered around Holocaustianity, Homomania, and Magic Negro Cult; it explains why non-whites who claim to be multi-culti tend to be more obsessed about Homos and Negroes than their own identities and cultures, most of which have zero idolic, let alone iconic, value in the West). As the West embraced Diversity and Inclusion, the ideological emphasis has been to deracinate, dilute, and genericize Western Identity, Culture, & Values to the point where they can easily accept and apply to just about anyone. In order for something to appeal to everyone, it must be ‘disinfected’ and ‘de-toxed’ of anything might be offensive to anyone. Suppose you have an ethnic dish that your people love but may be strange or weird to people of other cultures. In order to make it appealing to more and more people, you would have to remove spices, sauces, and ingredients that might offend anyone. In the end, you end up with something bland and dull.
There have been two main strategies to make the West more ‘welcoming’ of non-white folks. One was to genericize the West into White Bread. After all, anyone can eat white bread. The other strategy has been to urge exoticism on white people. It’s like all those foodie-explorer shows where some white guys travel to other nations to try all sorts of pungent local flavors and loves it. Whiteness must be made as bland and generic as possible even as white folks are encouraged to become attracted to exotic flavors and aromas of other cultures. The paradox makes perverse sense. After all, if whites are pressured to abandon all the particular elements of their identity and culture that make them unique in order to be more ‘inclusive’, then it means whites will grow bored with their ‘white bread’ selves. Thus, they will seek color and meaning in OTHER peoples and cultures. Then, it is no wonder that Prince Harry was attracted to Megan Markle. In the New Britain where white folks, top to bottom, are not allowed to emphasize what makes the British uniquely British, deracinated & de-tribalized white people have come to feel dull, boring, bland, and without direction. Thus, they must latch onto the Other to feel any sense of Purpose and Meaning. If whites cannot be proudly white, they must seek tribal pride by associating with other races. (But then, if Megan Markle is so proud of being black and is such an inclusive egalitarian, why did she marry a white guy and into a Royal family? What a phony bitch-whore.) Of course, it isn’t much different in the US. Because whites are not allowed to feel pride of identity, they must get their tribal kick by yammering about ‘Muh Israel’. And there is always Homomania, a kind of replacement identity for whites. A white person can’t feel pride in whiteness, but he can feel pride as a homo or as a 'believer' in Homomania. Indeed, what used to be called ‘gay pride’ is now just called ‘Pride’, as if homosexuality is synonymous with pride itself. Narcissistic and vain homos not only stole the term ‘gay’ but now even ‘pride’. What will blacks do? Claim ‘great’ for themselves?

Thus far, Jews have done their best to educate, pressure, and reward Diversity elites into serving the Jewish Globalist Agenda. So, we have the likes of Nikki Haley shilling for Israel and saber-rattling at Russia and Iran. We have the likes of Fareed Zakaria praising Trump for lobbing missiles into Libya. We have Francis Fukuyama serving George Soros when it comes to Hungary and Poland. We have Amy Chua shilling for Zionist imperialists and being showered with book deals and praise. We have Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Huma Abedin serving Jewish Power. Because Jews have the ultimate power in finance, media, academia, law, and Deep State, the new members of Diversity elites are mostly servile to Jews, just like cucky-wuck Wasps are. The vain-and-ambitious know the rules of the game. If you want to make it in America today at the highest echelons of power, you have to serve the Jews... just like, in the past when Anglos were dominant, you had to serve Wasp interests to have doors open to you. But how long can this go on? (For personal gain, greed, and ambition, even non-whites who don't care for Israel and Jews profess to do so. For the time being, open hostility to the Zionist Agenda or Jewish Power can lead to the fate of Rick Sanchez or Helen Thomas. So, even anti-Jewish non-whites must swallow their personal pride and play fetch-and-roll-over for the Jewish gatekeepers of Elysium. But as more and more of Diversity enters elite institutions and industries, there will be increasing clamor as to why People of Diversity must always think in terms of Israel First, Jews First, and Holocaust First, especially since Jews seem to be the New Wasps. It was one thing for Jews to morally browbeat whites by invoking the Holocaust and the Jewish-Black Alliance in the Civil Rights Movement, but the same strategy won't be so easy with Diversity as elite institutions fill up with non-whites who suspect white-shoe Jews have rigged the system to ensure Jewish domination. In time, White Privilege may be understood to be (((White Privilege))). Once that happens, the Power dynamics will go from non-whites professing love of Jews & Israel to enter Elysium to Jewish elites professing end of Jewish Privilege to keep their own personal positions in Elysium. In either case, it's about choosing, when push comes to shove, personal privilege & prestige to group power & strategy. Jews, as the New Wasps, may have to play the game that members of Wasp elites mastered so well. If you can no longer maintain Group Power, do whatever necessary to salvage personal privilege. So, Tom Brokaws and Joe Bidens of the World rose higher in profession and privilege in the Name of Diversity while abandoning all vestiges of white or European identity.) Francis Fukuyama was born in 1952, and Fareed Zakaria was born in 1964. So, their formative experiences took place when the US was firmly controlled by Anglos or Jews. But the changing faces in elite educational institutions portends a very different kind of future. The Current Power of the Establishment reflects Demography of Past America where most people who attended elite educational institutions were white or Jewish. Since then, the share of non-Jewish whites have plummeted in percentage terms in many elite schools. Jews welcomed this in the conviction that Diversity will better serve Jewish interests, i.e. Jews could ally with Diversity against White Power and then pit various goy groups against one another. But there is one serious disadvantage for Jews in the decline of whiteness in favor of Diversity. Whites have been reliably pro-Jewish due to either cult of White Guilt, Shoah as neo-religion, or conviction that Judeo-Christian Values have forged a special covenant between Jews and Christians. So, even though many whites suck up to Jewish power for cynical and opportunistic reasons, the reason why whites are so amenable to the Jewish Way goes beyond mere materialism. There are serious moral, cultural, and/or spiritual issues involved.

In contrast, Diversity’s shilling out to Jewish power seems to be mostly self-serving, especially among blacks and Hindus. Blacks, brash and nasty, resent the fact that white ‘honkey-ass’ Jews get to compete with blacks for the victim sweepstakes. Many blacks feel that Jews have been just as(if not more) ‘racist’ and exploitative toward blacks as whites have been. But because Jews control the media/entertainment and make a big stink about the ‘Holocaust’, they get to play Eternal Victims even though they too be a bunch of ‘honkey-ass motherfuc*as.’
As for Hindus, they are an astute, cunning, savvy, and slithering bunch of ‘dotkins’. Used to haggly-waggly social gamesmanship, one never knows where Hindus are really coming from. After all, India, with its many castes and cultures, hardly developed an organic sense of unity. Instead of Trust, Integrity, and Honor, the key was trickery, deception, and negotiation. So, like a multi-headed elephant, a Hindu may say one thing but mean several other things. This is why, if there is ANY GROUP that might be able to outsmart Jews, it is the ‘dotkins’. While some Chinese or other East Asians may be reasonably smart, they lack the 5D-Chess mentality of the Hindus because East Asia, being more homogenous and harmonious, have developed societies of relative trust and order(at least when compared to India). A Chinese in China or a Japanese in Japan is more likely to feel as an organic member of the community. So, the ideal psycho-social norm & preference for such peoples is to go with the flow. But such feelings are always absent among Hindus(and Muslims) in India who don’t have an organic connection with peoples of so many castes and cultures. Thus, from cradle to grave, the ‘dotkin’ thinks in haggly-waggly terms of "What can I do to find or keep my place in this crazy-quilt cultural order?"

As today’s establishment Jews retire and die out, what will happen to future elite culture in the US? Many Jews today attend schools with as many non-whites as whites. They form friendships with Diversity, and many Jews may have closer bonds with non-Jewish kids than with Jewish ones. Also, young Jews find it difficult to browbeat their Diverse peers with Holocaust Guilt. And forget about ‘white guilt’, though it seems some East Asians are stupid enough to appropriate it. (East Asians are so eager to be the Other Whites that they even follow whites in Guilt and self-loathing. If Jews and most non-whites practice anti-white-ism by blaming whites for everything while making themselves out to be pure-as-snow, dog-like East Asians, in their earnestness and servility, seem to believe that they must be ashamed and self-loathing of similar ‘sins’. So, if whites are guilty of white ‘racism’, then yellows must be blamed for yellow ‘racism’. We rarely see blacks berating other blacks for failing to live up to PC standards, but it’s quite common for yellows to not only attack white ‘racism’ but yellow ‘racism’. What this shows is that Racial Personality is very important. Though considerably different from whites, yellows have more of that Earnestness Gene that make them swallow the PC pill straight. In contrast, Jews, Hindus, blacks, and Latin whites pretend to swallow but spit it back out. They believe only suckers swallow the pill whole.) With Diversity and Inclusion as such catchwords in the Current Year, the role of Affirmative Action will loom ever larger in society. Standards will be lowered to allow more blacks and browns. And even Muslims. As the system grows less meritocratic, Jewish elites will have to rub shoulders with more Diversity. And much of this Diversity will be indifferent to the Holocaust Cult, especially as they will notice that Jews are the most privileged people in the US. And to pressure Jews to relinquish and share more power and wealth with Diversity, non-whites will increasingly warm up to the Palestinian cause and BDS. And because of the internet, it will be harder for Jews to control the Narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Many young people today get much of their news and information from various internet sources than from ‘Mainstream News’ that is controlled by media conglomerates(run by Jews). Granted, there is a genuine alliance between Jews and non-whites on One Issue: Immigration or Mass Invasion. Non-whites want to leave their own nation, culture, & people and move to the West, especially America. They want access to white land, white laws, white institutions, white sex, and white everything. And non-whites, especially the smart ones, know that Jews have been the most significant factor in opening the West to the Rest. So, as long as non-whites feel that Jewish Power is the key to Western Open Borders policy, they will pretend to side with Jews. But suppose Open Borders become a permanent feature of the West that is destined to become swamped by the Rest? Under such circumstances, non-whites will no longer feel that they must maintain the alliance with Jews. If non-white access to the West is assured for the foreseeable future, non-whites will focus on how to get more concessions from Jews-as-the-most-privileged-whites. Thus far, the alliance of Jews and non-whites have been predicated on the proposal, "If you non-whites side with us Jews, we will help you take more from whitey", but once whites totally lose out and there isn’t much more to take from them, non-whites will have to turn to Jewish wealth and power for goodies for themselves.

As competition for elite spots heats up with more Diversity, future successful Jews will have to choose between Jewish identity & tribalism and cosmopolitan meritocracy or ‘progressive’ Inclusion. Jews must choose between ethnos and ethos, between tribe and status. Jews will also come from increasing pressure to choose between the two by white people who’ve been ‘red-pilled’. They will demand Jews to choose either ‘Nationalism for all white peoples’ or ‘Nationalism for no white peoples’. So, if Jews insist that Jews deserve a Jewish Homeland in Israel, they will be pressed to answer why such is not okay for Hungarians and Poles. And such questions will embarrass Jews in front of Diversity. If Diversity is supposed to feel grateful for Jews for opening the Gates to the West, why do Jews act so cruelly and brutally toward Palestinians who are kept behind walls or in caged territories?

If young Jews really were pressed to choose between Zion and Elysium, which will they choose? I’m inclined to say the latter because when, push comes to shove, people will take success, money, and status above all else. It just feels so much better to have the good life and social approval. In yrs to come, having strong Zionist sentiments will likely lead to social opprobrium and moral stigma. It could be that Jews will be put in the same position that whites in South Africa were. Jews have been able to get away with the problems of Zion for a long time because the Holocaust Cult paralyzed whites into obeisance and acquiescence to the Jewish agenda. Also, as Palestinians weren’t black(like the majority folks of South Africa), their suffering simply didn’t register in the Western Imagination. As the US became the center of the world, not only did it export movies, music, and chewing gum but its own hangups, neuroses, and guilt complexes. Yes, the Imperialism of Guilt. So, if whites feel especially guilty about blacks, the rest of the world must do likewise. But since Americans never felt much guilt or any nice feelings about Palestinians or Arabs in general, Jews could treat Palestinians with impunity. They could do to Palestinians what White Rule in South Africa couldn’t dream of doing to blacks without severe international condemnation. But, this may be finally changing as the West becomes more Diverse and less responsive to White Norms of Political Conscience. If anything, Jews could end up feeling ever more defensive about Zionism and their power/privilege as Diversity increasingly feels immune to Jewish Tricks. Jews are partly to blame for this. Having taught Diversity that there is no greater evil than White ‘Racism’ and ‘White Privilege’, it is only logical that Diversity will one day see Jews as White People too, indeed the richest and most powerful white people who must also relinquish much of their power and privilege to give non-whites a chance. Also, as the fall of Anthony Weiner and Eric Schneiderman showed, Jewish outrageousness and chutzpah will be seriously curtailed by increasing PC and rising power of feminism. And, as so many Jewish women are now wild and into Jungle Fever, more Jewish men will marry outside the Tribe, and their kids will grow up with weakened sense of Jewishness. Under such conditions, the ONLY thing Jews will have left to cling to is wealth, status, and privilege. So, in the future, Jews could end up dropping Zionism not so much out of a humanitarian sense of equal justice but because, under the pressure of rising power of Diversity, they will have to choose between Tribe and Status. Also, as they will grow so addicted to wealth and status, their main identity could be neo-caste-oriented than tribal. Why not attend fancy parties and go on yacht trips with elites of all color than lose sleep, respect, and friends by sticking with reactionary Jews for whom tribalism is a crutch for their lack of comparable success in life? India and Latin America are more about caste-status than tribal affiliation. Indeed, the caste, in and of itself, constitutes a new kind of identity. In the future, the only choice may be Haute Diversity of the Winners or Hovel Diversity of Losers. Haute Diversity in the West will have more Jews, Latin whites, Hindus, mulattoes, Asians, and Wasps. Hovel Diversity will have more blacks, mestizos, Muslims, and ‘white trash’. But both groups will be Diverse. Because all classes/castes will be Diverse, there won’t be a clear association between Tribe and Caste, as had once been the case in Apartheid South Africa. In the New Order, you could be white and very rich or very poor. You could be whatever and be privileged or mired in poverty. So, what will matter most is status itself. This pressure may be so great that even Jews may have to choose between Tribe and Class.

The South in the American Civil War fought both FOR and AGAINST slavery — Manhood as Psychological Well-Being — Threat to Manhood by Other Manhoods

The Truer Narrative of the America Civil War must be…

The South fought both for and against slavery. How could that have been the case? It’s because there are more than one kind of slavery.

In the most obvious sense, the South fought to maintain the system of Social Slavery that kept the black race in bondage(though some blacks gained legal freedom). The agenda of the South was clearly unjust, especially given the founding principles of the American Republic. Many in the South invoked various rationales to justify slavery. Some invoked the Old Testament where even the laws of God allowed for owning people as chattel. Some argued slavery, though hardly ideal, was nevertheless an improvement for blacks who’d only known savagery(and crueler forms of slavery) in the Dark Continent. Others argued that slavery was just a phase that would gradually fade as the Southern economy grew and as blacks became more attuned to the demands of complex civilization. Whatever the merits of such arguments, the fact was slavery as an institution had been introduced to the New World out of greed. And given that the moral basis for America’s independence from the British Empire was liberty and freedom, the argument for slavery soured the spirit of American experiment.

One might argue that the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians was a graver 'sin', but in some ways, black slavery was less excusable. Regardless of whether the ‘genocide’ of Indians was worse or not, the fact was it was ‘necessary’(or a necessary evil). The American Enterprise simply couldn’t have happened without the removal of the native Indians from the ‘fruited plains’. In contrast, blacks were not necessary to create America. True, black labor was, for a time, hugely profitable for the white slave-owners whose economy was intricately linked with the North and Europe. But even without black slave labor, an expanding and developing America would have been possible with white immigration and reproduction. Canada and Australia developed without black labor. Though America would have been slower to develop in the early stages without slavery, its long-term prospects would have been much better. There would have been no horribly destructive Civil War.

Also, if blacks were a net economic gain in the first half of the American experience, they became a net loss thereafter. Also, fear of blacks distorted so much of white culture as well as black culture. If US had no blacks, such fears would never have materialized. Also, white manhood would have been secure and healthier as whites would have dominated all sports and wouldn’t have had to worry about black crime and jungle fever(and the attendant cuckery among white men reduced to 'white boys'). So, in the larger scale of things, the short-term greed of relying on black slave labor proved to be America’s biggest mistake and undoing... just like Europe now faces the greatest threat to its existence not from Muslims but from black Africans. (But people prefer to blame Islam and Muslims that aren’t deemed as sacred as blacks[and homos] in Western PC that is controlled by Jews.)

Also, it was bound to linger as a moral stain, paradoxically because most modern people are amnesiac. Now, if people's memories are so poor, wouldn’t they know less about the past and be less burdened with historical ‘guilt’? Yes, IF people know NOTHING about the past. Surely, if people today knew nothing of slavery, they couldn’t be made to feel ‘guilty’ about it. But, even as most people know little about the past, they know just enough from public education, TV, and movies to have a vague idea of what happened long ago. But because their knowledge is so thin, there is hardly an understanding of the past and its different sets of values and assumptions. Instead, the complex past has been reduced to a few sacred icons, pat slogans, and simple Manichean narratives. Therefore, people today find it inconceivable that those living in the past were just as sure of their ethos as current progs are of theirs. PC makes people of the Current Year feel that they are the ‘most evolved’ and their way is the only way. So, discovering that the past was a world racked with a host of ‘evils’ is shocking and triggering to them. It is no wonder that so many Current Year zealots are eager to tear down any monument that reeks of past 'evils'. Lacking empathy and imagination, Current Year progs believe that people in the past just should have known better and intuitively arrived at all the tenets of today's PC. Having morally failed to do so, the past must simply be expunged and eradicated from memory except as evil spirits summoned in annual rituals of scapegoating(or scapewhiting). In this sense, the sorry fact of American Progressivism is that people who claim to be most empathetic have no real empathy at all.

Indeed, they confuse empathy with selective favoritism of certain specially designated groups. True Empathy isn’t about feeling special affection or concern for groups favored by PC. Real empathy is about trying to understand different individuals, peoples, cultures, places, and times on their own terms(even if you disagree with or are appalled by those terms). PC is too judgmental to be empathetic. It is too busy screaming ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and etc. to understand why different peoples in different times and places thought and acted differently. So, even as so-called Liberals claim to own empathy, they really have none. Their idea of ‘empathy’ simply means they have blind faith and special affection for three special groups sanctified by PC: Jews, blacks, and homos. Also, this special sympathy is based not on knowledge or understanding of actual Jews, blacks, and homos but on trite symbolisms of black sainthood, Jewish nobility of eternal suffering, and homo angelic fruitcakery.

The fact that Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates) has gotten so much mileage with white libby-diberals is because he gives them what they crave: Lots of Purple Prose about suppressed or denied black sanctity that deserves and needs the love of goody-good white people. He is Little Orphan Nehisi. Real empathy, in contrast, is the ability to probe and understand why another people(or people in the past) felt justified and validated in their ways and means so different from ours in the present. But today’s PC dolts are so full of themselves(and so addicted to the cult of ‘progress’ as measured by adherence to every new screeching fad) that they find it too difficult to even ponder the possibility as to why some people don’t believe in nonsense like ‘gay marriage’. And don’t try discussing logic and facts with such idiots.

PC is less about ideas and values than about ‘sacralized’ identities, or the Cult of Identity. So, if a certain group or identity has been deemed ‘noble’ or ‘sacred’, its demands must either be met or championed. The right-or-wrong is decided not by morality, facts, or reason but by the simple fact that some groups are ‘more equal than others’. So, even if blacks misbehave at Starbucks or act like stupid monkeys at a college graduation, the fault is not with their behavior but with those people(especially white) who treated blacks as they would have treated anyone else. By facts and logic, Starbucks’ policy is that people who occupy a table must order something. You can’t just loiter as non-buying customers. This rule applies equally to all individuals. So, if whites or non-blacks had acted like those idiot blacks, they would have been asked to leave. But apparently, such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC deems the Negroes to be sacred. So, it makes no sense discussing right-or-wrong since PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what and anyone who displeases blacks must be wrong. And the same goes for the Florida college graduation. The rules of the graduation require all students of all races to show respect and act with dignity appropriate for the ceremony. (They can party and celebrate afterwards.) The rules apply to all students equally. But such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what. So, never mind principles and rules. If blacks feel like doing something, they have some special right or license to do so. If anyone is ‘wrong’, it is he or she who deigns to apply the same rules to blacks as to other groups. How dare he treat blacks like he would any other people? Doesn’t he know that blacks are always ‘right’ and that anyone who displeases them is automatically ‘wrong’?

And the same rule applies to Jews and Palestinians/Iranians. Whatever Jews do, it’s ‘right’. Jews can steal uranium from the US. Jews can shoot up USS Liberty. Jews can cook up lies to invade Iraq. Jews can kill bushels of Palestinians. All those actions are ‘right’ because Jews are right always. And Iran is always wrong no matter what it does. Even if Iran complies with the nuclear deal, the Jew-run US will find yet more excuses to declare it ‘wrong’. And of course, homos have always been right, even when they acted irresponsibly in spreading HIV all over in endless bath-house orgies. That is how PC really works. Its bogus ‘empathy’ is really about Emphasis of certain Favored Groups over all others. It should be called ‘emphasy’ than ‘empathy’.

Anyway, there was another side to the Civil War. While it’s true that the South was fighting to maintain slavery as a legal institution, in a profound way they were fighting against the prospect of biological slavery under blacks. White Southerners feared the specter of biological slavery that might result from black emancipation. Once blacks were freed and granted the same rights as whites, there was no guarantee that the two races would become equal and live side-by-side in harmony. Now, if blacks happened to be merely white people with black skin, co-existence might have been possible. Caste or no caste, the reason why India was able to exist as a civilization for so long was because darker-skinned Indians are not all that much different from light-skinned Indians in strength or temperament. Despite genetic separation by caste, your average lower-caste ‘dotkin’ isn’t likely to be all that different from a higher-caste ‘dotkin’. Indeed, to an outsider, most ‘dotkins’ of whatever caste look like other ‘dotkins’. But this was simply not the case between whites and blacks in the South(or in the North following the Great Migration). Blacks were not simply white people with darker skin. They were noticeably more muscular, rowdier, self-centered, egotistical, and more aggressive. Because of the fear and obedience instilled into them over several generations through means ranging from blatant to subtle, there was a chance that blacks might not immediately go jungle upon emancipation. But over time, as blacks would grow to realize that they are stronger, meaner, and more aggressive and that whites are anxious, fearful, and nervous, their attitude and behavior were bound to change drastically, and then the full reversion to Jungle would happen. The first great sign of this was Jack Johnson, the tough Negro who beat up all the white males and humped tons of white women. In one way, Johnson was a tough and resilient challenger against racial discrimination and white supremacy. But in another way, he was the template of the looming biological slavery of whites under black supremacy. Johnson-ism meant black guys would whup and humiliate white males who would be robbed of their manhood and therefore their womenfolk as well(just like bigger and taller white and black American soldiers robbed little Japanese guys of their manhood and womenfolk after their defeat in WWII. To this day, Japanese men have not recovered from their humiliation. They are a race of dogs.) As Black Pigeon Speaks argues, women have weak sense of tribal loyalty. They just go with the Power or the Winner:

And as white manhood would be humiliated by black manhood that dominates sports and street violence, there would come a time when white men would become the biological slave-cucks of blacks, and white women would lose respect for white men and surrender to jungle fever and accept ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Consider the blonde girl in the movie SPECTACULAR NOW who dumps her white boyfriend and goes with a big athletic Negro who later even physically threatens the 'pussy-ass white boy' who is reduced to giving him tips on how to make the white girl love him better. Total cuckery, but this is what the Jew-run Hollywood promotes to white kids as a moral-racial ideal.) Of course, do-goody naive white Liberals and cunning Jews(who sought the mental enslavement of the white race that was to be turned into cattle in service to Jewish supremacism) understood how these fears were a pediment to social change. If whites, especially the males, understood the full implications of black emancipation and racial integration, they would have realized the end-result would be biological slavery under tougher, stronger, and rowdier blacks. So, 'anti-racist' radicals sought to assuage white fears by presenting blacks as sexless noble Uncle Toms who were always falsely accused of raping white women. Or consider how the early interracial propaganda focused on white man and black woman when, in fact, the main threat was that white men would lose white women to black men.

Cunning Jews played it both ways, presenting blacks as both sexless angels who would never rape anyone AND sexy dancers whose performances would liberate white folks from puritanical repression. Even today, Jews play both tropes at once, and so many white people still fall for the nonsense. White kids are bombarded with both the (To Kill a)MOCKINGBIRD and the MANDINGO tropes about blacks. There is no rhyme or reason to any of this, but then, PC is less about right-and-wrong of ideas and facts than about the righteous sanctity of certain favored groups. Since PC deems that blacks are always right, the trope that makes blacks out to be sexless spiritual saints(as in GREEN MILE) is 'right' but so is the trope that says blacks are SO awesome as masterful big-donged muscled super-studs(or big-booty-shaking hot-mama skank-ass ho’s) that other races must sensually surrender to blackness and join in the jungle jive of vibrant liberation. PC warps moral logic. For this reason, PC is best understood as a neo-religion. After all, it is in religion that God is always right, even when He seems to do wrong. The idea is that God is so above us insignificant earthly creatures that He lives by a truth and logic far beyond us. It would be wrong for us to demand consistent logic from Him, as Job realized. Likewise, PC says it is futile for us to invoke reason, logic, and facts in relation to blacks, Jews, and homos. Doing so would be ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘homophobic’. We must honor, worship, and serve them on the basis of faith.

Anyway, there was no guarantee that the long-term result of ending socio-legal slavery in the South would result in racial equality and harmony. It could very well lead to white people becoming biologically enslaved to stronger, tougher, more aggressive, more muscular, and more dangerous blacks. This danger was bound to increase as America became more individualistic, hedonistic, and vulgar, not least due to black influences in music, comedy, and attitudes. If the US were a theocracy or strict ‘ideocracy’(one that metes out harsh punishment to those who act out of line, as in Cuba where blacks better behave or else), perhaps black aggression could have been held in check even upon emancipation. But as the US was a fast-changing democracy with increasing freedom and liberties in the pursuit of happiness, it was only a matter of time before blacks lost all their inhibitions and made ‘muh dick’ and 'muh fist' the central themes of their culture. And today, in the 21st century, we are living in a thoroughly pornfied culture when even kids watching Disney are really partaking of a form of kiddie porn.

Everything that D.W. Griffith prophesied in THE BIRTH OF A NATION came true. If that movie made many people uncomfortable in the past because it seemed like paranoid fantasy, it is bound to make people uncomfortable today because it now seems so factual. The movie said freedom is bound to turn too many blacks into uninhibited thugs and pimps, and guess what the main cultural expression of blacks is today? Rap music, the main message of which is ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh fist(or gun)’. And look at the state of black-run communities in Gary, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, parts of Chicago, Newark, and etc. And the movie warned about naive white cuck-politicians and cunning light-skinned Negroes who shamelessly hustle suckers into buying into fantasy of racial harmony. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION was a great prophetic work. What he warned eventually came to be. Blacks have reverted to jungle savagery. Their music is rap, their dance is ‘twerking’, and their culture is thuggery. And Pop Culture is now mostly about Jungle Fever. And not only in the US but in Canada and EU.

Anyway, the loss of manhood and cuckery is a form of slavery. The dark fact is white manhood cannot survive integration with harder-muscled, meaner-tempered, and bigger-donged Negroes. Eventually, white men will turn into ‘white boy’ cucks, and white women will go with Negroes and their wombs will be colonized to produce the likes of Colin Kaepernick whose anti-white virulence is less about Racial Injustice than sheer contempt for wussy-ass whitey. After all, his mother rejected the men of her own race and chose to have a child with a tough Negro. Even though his black father abandoned him and even though a nice white family went to the trouble of raising him, Kaepernick associated whiteness with wussy weakness and associated blackness with power and manhood. Blackness = studly power that conquers white vaginas and wombs. Whiteness = cucky weakness that raises a child of a black guy who humped a white woman and took off. Due to their wilder nature, blacks don’t much appreciate weakness, no matter how kindly and caring it is. They instinctively see it as ‘faggoty-ass’ and ‘lame’. So, all the love Kaepernick got from his adoptive white family hardly left a positive impression on him. He just wanted to get away from such wussy weakness and be accepted by the badass brothas.

When white people brought over a stronger and meaner race to be slaves in the US, they got caught in a Moral Trap. Socio-legal Slavery controlled blacks and kept their savagery in check, but it was unjust and sometimes cruel. But freeing the slaves meant eventual disaster for the white race because too many blacks happen to be built like Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, and Jim Brown. And too many black women are crazy and loud 'biatches' whose antics in music and dance encourage the most savage and trashy behavior among women of all races. Abraham Lincoln sensed all this, which is why he said, “We have to free the ‘groids’ and then ship them back to Africa, because, if we don’t, they will kick our butts and hump our daughters.”

It is time to face the truth. The South was in a bind. True, they did fight to preserve ugly social slavery. But they were trying to prevent horrid biological slavery of white race being physically and sexually dominated by tougher and nastier Negroes.
Furthermore, it is about time we understood the importance of manhood. It's time to assess the harms of Toxic Cuckery. A society can’t be healthy unless its men feel manly pride and are respected by their womenfolk. Indeed, it’s often been said that one of the humiliating things about slavery was that black manhood was trampled upon. As black men had to shuck-and-jive before the massuh, who also might enjoy some fun with a chocolate-titted mama, they could not be full men. This was especially humiliating because black slaves knew they could kick the white boy’s ass if they were to face each other one-on-one. But whites had all the guns, and the laws were on their side. Blacks had to suffer the humiliation of being ordered around by white men who were weaker than them. So, in order for black men to gain the pride of manhood, they needed to be freed. So far so good. But the problem with black freedom was that black manhood now posed a serious threat to white manhood. Due to the BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — factor, legal equality between blacks and whites was bound to lead to biological supremacy of blacks over whitse. This meant blacks kicking white butts in sports, and this was a big deal in the modern world where so much of social, communal, national, and racial pride & prestige are invested in and expressed through sports. White male defeat to blacks in sports meant whites losing their iconic status as Real Men. Is it any wonder that so many white wombs get colonized by black men while so many white guys are turning into cucks and wussies?

Indeed, Antifa is like radical cuckery. These white boys are so invested in their own inferiority and submission at the feet of blacks that they get triggered by any white guy who says NO to such humiliation. To Antifa, the rightful place for whites in the West is as biological slaves to blacks who are deemed superior both morally(due to Slavery and Jim Crow narrative) and physically(as they easily kick white butt in sports and conquer white wombs). And yet, by beating up 'nazis' to protect blacks and other minorities, Antifa guys also feel as alphas, without whom blacks would presumably not be safe. So, Antifa guys both worship blacks as their superiors(in holy victimhood and badass style) and patronize blacks as their inferiors(or a powerless people in need of white knights to defend them).

Well, if black male psychology suffered so terribly during the slavery era because black men were denied full manhood and the respect of their women, the same logic applies to whites today. White society cannot be psychologically healthy unless white men have their manhood back. But this is impossible with racial integration because biological slavery will reduce white guys into cucky ‘white boys’ at the feet of tougher and meaner blacks as their eternal biological massuhs. And the fall of white manhood will mean the fall of the white race. White women will not respect ‘loser men’, which is what white men become when integrated with black males.
There are many reasons for the decline of the white male in America, especially among the working class, and one reason has to do with loss of manhood vis-a-vis blacks. Both Abraham Lincoln and D.W. Griffith were right. They both acknowledged the problems of slavery but also understood that freedom would lead to a new kind of slavery. It is too bad that whites in the South failed to come to terms with Honest Abe and settle on some grand plan to free the blacks and send them back to Africa where the Negroes could harass hippos but not white folks.

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.