Some Observations on Jewsteronomy — What are the relations between Jewish Power Elites and Ordinary Jewish Masses — Jews compared to Japanese — To Own and to be Owned

Notes in Reply to GGAllin's comments on the Saker's ruminations on Russians and Jews:

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/our-fundamental-disagreement-about-wwii-hitler-jews-and-race/#comment-3706681

Since I began earning over $20/hour late in life, I’m not nearly a billionaire. Have little to no influence other than if I write something in an online forum or Tweets. It’s weird to read about “me” as an existential threat, but it’s interesting to grasp the context, of past harms done by “my people” who I pretty much don’t know any other than immediate siblings. It makes more sense than “irrational hate”.

It's not about YOU per se, though an average Jew, with an income of nearly 100,000, does make more than $20 an hour. The fact is powerful Jews will likely look down you as a 'dumb Jew'. That said, rich Jews do care about lesser Jews more than rich whites care about lesser whites, and that's something. We goyim don't see YOU, an individual, as an 'existential threat'. Indeed, if all or most Jews were like you, whites and Jews would likely get along. Most people want to peacefully co-exist with others, even folks of different ethnicity, in a sound and stable system. Even under Nazi rule, most German individuals were like you. They were not fire-breathing Nazi monsters. They were working stiffs who got up every morning, went to work, returned home to family, and relaxed, then did the same the next day. But Germany was then under Hitler's rule, and Hitler could be batshit crazy. National Socialist elites guided Germanic energies towards dark ends. In a typical socio-political order, most individuals are powerless and end up serving the agenda of the rulers. So, even anti-Nazi Germans ended up working and paying taxes to support Nazism. And most Jewish individuals end up supporting Jewish Power. One reason is relative powerlessness of the masses(who are like herds of cattle without control of levers and steering wheel of power), but the other reason is most people, with free will and left to their own devices, will choose their own side(as the devil they know or feel familiar with) over the other side. Even as they know their cabal of elites are plenty flawed and even rotten, they figure its rule is preferable to being conquered and/or controlled by the other side. Even Jewish Israelis who are deeply critical of Zionist rule would rather be ruled by Jewish elites than by Arab overlords. And this is why many Jewish individuals continue to support Jewish power. Furthermore, even as they know much of it is rotten, they nevertheless feel a pride of power — the incredible fact of Jews as 2% of America controlling the greatest power in the world — and a paranoia for the Other, the potential new pogromites or 'nazis', if goyim were to regain elite power. Indeed, this is why Germans and Japanese also supported their regimes to the very end in WWII. What if the conquering Russians kill or rape all Germans? What if victorious Americans wipe out all Japanese?

Also, even though a single German was like most other 'ordinary individual' around the world, there was a certain tendency within Germanic Teutonism to push things too far. It's like one straw on a camel's back is nothing, but enough of them will break its back. Even though Nazism and its horrors were not inevitable and could have been avoided(without defeat in WWI and the ensuing economic depression), there was still something powerful and irrational in German national character that, under certain circumstances, could cast a dark shadow over the world. It's like one little flame is nothing, but if you combine the flames together, it can form into ag massive pyre that can burn down a forest.
Same was true of Japan during WWII. Your average Japanese guy was a nice person. But there was something extreme and insane in Japanese national character that, under certain circumstances, could unleash a hellish kind of madness. It's like there is the sane side of Yonoi in MERRY CHRISTMAS MR LAWRENCE but also the obsessive side driven by dark national mythos.
Same with Negroes. One Negro isn't much of a problem(though, to be sure, problem enough), but too many Negroes leads to a critical mass or critical badass of jivery, criminality, and madness.

If a single Jew was dropped into any goy community, he would likely just get along. Much the same if just a few were dropped. But with sufficient numbers, Jews tend to go into Judeo-centric solar mode: They feel goyim must revolve around them than vice versa. They alter the gravitational dynamics between Jews and goyim. Though much smaller in number, the Jewish Covenant-mentality and pride-of-intellect provide Jews with a super-gravity-pack that can warp the relativity of political power.
Even as a minority, they feel like they own the place and should set the agenda and tell others what to do. Look at Jewish behavior under early Bolshevism. Look at Jewish behavior in 'capitalist' Russia of the 1990s. Granted, Jewish chutzpah wouldn't be so effective if not for goy goopery. Jewish culture taught Jews to be resilient and tenacious, even at the genetic level via selective mating that favored merchants and scholars. In contrast, Russian Orthodox culture and agro-centrism bred a race of people who were passive, witless, and expended most of their energies on useless diversions like swilling vodka, wrestling with bears, and dancing in such manner to blow the knees. While Jews were singing with their minds, Russians were dancing with their bodies. Guess which side gained advantage over the other?



So, while it's inconceivable that a tiny number of Russians could ever gain control over a vast majority Jewish population, even a small number of Jews could gain power over Russians. It's like a horse can't own a man, but a man can own a horse and ride it. Indeed, Jews even gained power over Anglos, the mightiest people that ever lived, so they naturally could so easily toy with Russians. Yet, there is a certain paradox here when we consider Jews-and-Anglos and Jews-and-Slavs. How strange that, in the end, Jewish power over Anglos was more total than power over Russians(or Italians). Why would this be if Russians and Greasers have been far less impressive and competent than the Anglos? This is where corruption and lack of scruples are almost an advantage for the goyim. Anglos, being more committed to Rule of Law, meritocracy, and fair play, were bound to be more sensitive to charges of hypocrisy and dirty tricks. Also, Anglos came to revere Rule of Law as a cornerstone of their might. So, Jews could exploit Anglo Ethos and Rule of Law to gain total power over Anglos on legal and ethical grounds. But among Russkies and Greasers, legality counts for less than machinations of power. So, despite being less impressive than Anglos, Russkies have been more adept at wresting power back from the Jews by dirty means(but then Jews also used dirty means to gain power over Russians).

Even though an average Jew is just an ordinary person, doesn't he share the values and worldview of powerful globo-homo Jews? After all, Jews, more than any other people, support globo-homo. Jews, more than most white groups, support Diversity. If all powerful/rich Jews were to die of some disease today, and if they were replaced by average Jews as new elites, would things really be all that different? I think not. Look at Max Boot, Julia Ioffe, and the Vindman Brothers. They came to the US with little or nothing. They began as ordinary Jews. But once they gained elite positions, they've been working with rest of World Jewry to mess things up for white goyim. A new batch of Jewish elites would likely push for mass immigration, great replacement, White Nakba, wars for Israel, cold war on Russia, hate-war on Iran, promotion of 'white guilt', total blind support for Israel, and etc. Now, YOU yourself may be an atypical Jew of a more pro-white and 'conservative' bent. But most ORDINARY Jews voted for Obama and Hillary. Most Jews hate Trump, and even most of those on his side are merely using him to serve Zionism 200% than merely 100%. Alan Dershowitz hasn't any good will toward Trump and Deplorables. He's such a fanatical Zionist that he figures Trump is more useful to the Israeli agenda.

Since middle school, I grew up in a suburb with many Jews, and most of them were nice people. As individuals, I'd say they were generally better, or preferable(and conscientious on the personal level), than most other groups, such as Scotch-Irish hillbillies, 'dumb Polacks', messy Mexicans, haggly Hindus, trashy Irish, doglike yellows, and of course, the ghastly Negroes. As individuals they are nice people, but over the years I've learned most of them are for globalism, great replacement of white goyim, exploiting collective 'white guilt', pushing jungle fever, and the like. Also, their hypocrisy on political matters amazes me. Most are staunch Zionist nationalists, but they denigrate nationalist feeling among goyim. They incessantly yammer about 'white guilt' about blacks but expect whites to support Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. They go on and on about Shoah but never face up to Jewish role in 20th century historical 'crimes'. And they push globo-homo. Most voted for Obama and think pushing jungle fever on white women is the greatest thing while they talk about Arabs and Palestinians as near-animals who should be pushed out of Greater Israel. I know this from personal conversations. So, even though a Jewish individual can be a nice person, associate, or friend, his political attitudes, combined with those of other Jews, signal danger to the well-being of goyim. I mean, isn't there something truly rotten in how Jews, the most privileged and powerful(and over-represented people in elite circles), berate whites for 'white privilege'? Isn't it lowdown for Jews to say Americanism is about colorblindness but then insisting ALL Americans must support Zionist-Israelis over Palestinians and Iranians? If the US must be a colorblind nation and fair broker among all peoples, why this supremacist outlook that favors Jews uber alles?

Even though your average person, Jew or otherwise, is different from members of the elite, the fact is elite outlooks don't come from nowhere. Often, they spring from the national character of the people. After all, Jews didn't land on American shores as elites. Many of them came with little or nothing. So, most members of today's Jewish elites have humble origins and rose from the bottom. So, that means their elite attitudes are, to a large extent, an expression of something intrinsic to Jewishness. Same with blacks. If all elite blacks were to die this moment and be replaced by ordinary blacks, the result would be much the same because black jiggity-ness has roots in core blackness. Blacks who write for the New York Times just offer a fancier and more haute version of, "Yo, I want all the blings and shit."

I never read the Talmud.

I believe you, but you don't have to read the thing to be affected by it. Talmudic attitudes and outlook have seeped into so much of Jewish life that, even without having read it, many Jews live it in so many Jews(and this true of secular as well as religious Jews). It's like most communists never read Das Kapital but its ideas defined so much of communist life. And plenty of Christians, incredible as it may sound, never read all(or any) of the New Testament, not least because so many goyim were illiterate over the ages. But its tenets still colored many aspects of their lives.

In a way, the problem now is less with Jews than with goyim. Instead of trying to make Jews be like goyim, we should try to make goyim be like Jews. Why should Jews want to be like goyim when so many goyim are so stupid and pathetic? Arabs can't get their act together. Japanese have tentacle porn as culture. Russians are lazy drunkards. Mexicans are garbage-tossing tards. Even the once great Germans and Anglos are castrated cucks. So, why should Jews try to be like them? No, we should all strive to be like Jews. Now, this isn't easy because most goyim don't have Jewish intelligence. But they can still emulate the next most potent thing about Jews: Chutzpah and covenant. Whites must think like Sean Connery in UNTOUCHABLES, written by Jewish David Mamet no less. If the enemy brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun. If they push, you push back harder.



The problem is goyim hasn't been pushing back against Jews. When Jews push, goyim must push back. Also, Jews got the Covenant that says they have a special contract with the ultimate power. The problem with Christianity and Islam is their versions of the 'covenant' are too bland and broad, shared with too large a population. I mean how can whites preserve their unique identity and power if their Christo-Covenant must be shared with Negroes, yellows, browns, and etc? No, just like Jews have a JEWISH covenant, whites must have a WHITE covenant, and this will require a white man of prophetic power who communes with the ultimate power and then brings this truth to his people. (Imagine what Hitler might have been capable of if he'd spoken for all whites, Germanics and Slavs and Latins and even pro-white Jews, instead of just for the Nordics and 'Aryans'.) He must be a river to his people. But do whites have a prophetic soul? Maybe the Germans once did. After all, unlike Greeks and Romans who lacked the Big Picture and emphasized individualism — on grounds that after you died, you just ended up in Hades and that was that — , Germanic mythology had a grand vision of fate and destiny whereby all the great warriors of Valhalla would unite once again to fight the final battle. It was such bigness of vision that made impassioned Germans the greatest musical composers. And it's no wonder that Richard Wagner and Nietzsche were both Germans. And it was Jews in Germanosphere who developed the most powerful ideas, even if dangerous. Could French or Italian culture have produced a Marx? (Also, it was the German quasi-prophet Martin Luther who altered the history of Christianity with a defiant vision of his own.) Jews have long had prophetic power, but this was magnified under Germanic influence. Granted, the problem with Germanic prophecy was its excessive doom-and-gloom, a fatalistic nihilism that unsurprisingly led to the hyper-Wagnerian excesses of Hitler. The awesome side of Hitler couldn't have been possible if he were moderate, but a bit of moderation could have saved National Socialism from itself.

Now, goyim can't be smart like Jews just because they want to be. But even the un-smart can work on chutzpah and covenant. After all, even the idiot Arabs produced a great prophet in the figure of Muhammad. White folks need a White Muhammad who attains the covenant for his people. As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad. Blacks are proof that chutzpah goes a long way(and homos are proof of the power of Poopchutespah). Even though blacks don't make much sense, they always push back when they are criticized. Jews easily run roughshod over apologetic whites, but even a bunch of angry Jews can't make Al Sharpton budge because the wildass Negro hollers back. And look how Ace Rothstein is frozen with fear when Nicky Santoro uses greaser-chutzpah on him. Anglos were never up for that kind of push-back. This is why Jews run circles around Anglo-types in Marx Brothers movies. But imagine what would happen if Groucho and Chico tried to do a number on Nicky Santoro or Tommy(in GOODFELLAS). If Anglo elites had talked to Jews like Nicky does with Ace Rothstein, they'd still have the power. But they had to keep their 'dignity' at all costs. Now, dignity, or true dignity, is about standing your ground with integrity and pushing back against BS. It's not about staying 'clean' by the art of 'reputation'. For Anglos, 'dignity' really means haute status, and that's why they focus on perception than conviction. So, if the New Normal says globo-homo is the New Dignity, Anglos immediately go along with that to maintain their conceit of 'dignity'. They regard 'dignity' as dress and gown than body and soul. Look how Charles Murray the bald-headed cuck-fool supported 'gay marriage' when it became the fashionable thing among elites. In contrast, even though blacks are dumber and poorer than whites, they hold their own against Jews because they push back and possess a special sense of black covenant called FOABP, or Fear of a Black Planet to scare 'honkeys' with, though one might call it POTA or Planet of the Africans.




There are two kinds of people in the world. Owners and the owned. Masters and Slaves. Masters own, slaves are owned. When we consider the Jewish Worldview, it is to be owners of the world. But before you own others, you must own yourself. You must see yourself as special, not a commodity to be traded. And your people must treat others of the tribe as fellow owners. Jews developed this sense via the Covenant that said even the lowest humble Jew was equally precious in the eyes of God the Almighty who didn't favor some Jew simply because he was richer than others. Thus, every Jew, even a lowly Jew, felt that he owned himself as a human. He wasn't owned by others. The only power that owns him is God. In contrast, goy orders were made of masters and slaves. Masters owned the slaves, the minions, the rabble who had no autonomous self-worth. (Also, the elites felt as owners ONLY IF they retained political/military power over the minions. Without worldly power, they felt as worthless.) So, only the elites felt as owners whereas the masses felt as the owned. This was Russia under the Tsars. The Tsar was the master, albeit supposedly a benevolent patriarch, over the masses of Russians who were deemed childlike and cattle-like. Most Russians felt owned by the Tsar and the nobility, and this mentality lingered even after serfdom was abolished. It is then hardly surprising that a single Jew in Russia had 100x the confidence and will-power of an average Russian. Communism didn't help matters. Though it spoke of liberation, Russians just became owned by the Iron State ruled by the likes of Lenin and Stalin as new master-owners.

In contrast to Russia/USSR, the US imbued its citizens with the sense of ownership. And yet, even this couldn't stand up to Jewish power because Anglo-American concept of ownership was centered on individuality, dry letter of the law, property rights, and opportunity. In other words, it was bound to lead to atomization and the Coming Apart along class lines. Also, the excessive emphasis on property rights meant that consumers obsessed with commodities could themselves become human commodities whose only value is economic or GDP-related. No wonder we hear stuff like, "Great Replacement is okay as long as economic activity goes up." Also, excessive materialist-individualism meant that rich Americans would feel as winners or uber-masters, while poorer Americans would feel as abject 'losers' or servant-class.
If whites had a Jewishy concept of ownership that was essentially tribal, cultural, historical, and spiritual, they would be in a much better shape. For one thing, they would be united as a people on grounds that all whites, regardless of class, would be considered as brethren within the white family with shared destiny. Such a rich cultural sense of ownership would mean that even a poor white owns something of great historical-spiritual value, something that cannot be priced with dollars. But the soulless materialist concept of ownership in the US means that the haves feel like masters(as long as they keep on 'having') while have-nots feel like slaves or 'losers'. It's like what Kurt Vonnegut said.

Jews are owners twofold in the US. As the wealthiest group, they own so much of America. But as Covenant-ists, they feel that they own themselves. They are their own people with a deep and rich history. Indeed, even when Jewish immigrants arrived on American soil with little or nothing, they still felt that they owned themselves, not by goyim no matter how richer the goyim may have been. You see this in the Bible too. Even when Hebrews are held captive by more powerful groups, Jews feel they own their own souls. If any Being owns them, it's God and only Him. This is in stark contrast to the Japanese Way where nearly everyone felt he was owned by someone higher. The essence of Japanese-ness was to serve. To serve the master than be a master. And besides, even being a master meant one had to serve a higher master with absolute devotion. 'Bushi', the term for samurai, means 'to serve'. So, when we compare Jews and Japanese in the US, the difference couldn't be starker. Jews feel they own themselves(and even feel that they should own the silly inferior goyim). But Japanese-Americans are happy to be owned by the dominant power. Look at Francis Fukuyama, that worthless spineless cuck-servant before the Jewish globo-homo masters. He's like the Japanese after World War II who groveled at the feet of General MacArthur as the New Shogun. Of course, it was right for Japan to surrender as they couldn't continue with the war effort, but did they have to grovel before the power that had so utterly crushed them? Even if Israel were to face defeat and be conquered by the Other, Jews won't grovel. They will smile, shake hands, and pretend to go along, but they will not surrender their sense of ownership to the Other. Indeed, even after Exile in Roman Times, Jews never lost their sense of spiritual ownership of the Holy Land. That is the difference between Jews and Japanese. This is why, even though Israel is a much smaller nation than Japan, it is getting stronger while Japan is dying. Even as Jews spread globalization to goy nations to destroy them, they maintain total Jewish ownership of Jewish homeland, Jewish bodies, and Jewish history. In contrast, the hapless Japanese cucks, in total obeisance to their globalist overlords, are committing massive harakiri, also true of other East Asian nations with the possible exception of China. Japanese surrendered their Narrative to the West, and Japanese regard their women as sex toys as pornography is a big feature of their 'culture'. It's a nation of plastic toys than soulful humans.

White people used to feel as owners in America. They owned their bodies and souls. They owned their narratives, icons & idols, and the land. They conquered it, they claimed it, they built it, and they kept it. They sometimes owned other peoples, especially the blacks as slaves, but the idea of white folks being owned by the Other, or White Slavery, was anathema to white pride and dignity. And this was due to White Race-ism, the greatest thing in American history. White Race-ism was the glue, the bond, and a kind of emotional sub-covenant that held white folks together.
But the over-emphasis on individualism, materialism, and universalism eventually frayed this sense of white unity of ownership of body, soul, and land. Individualism led to atomization, an excessive focus on me-as-winner than we-as-owners. So, if a white individualist could betray his own kind and cut a deal to make money, he did just that. So many whites became a bunch of Mitt Romneys. Materialism meant that the essence of life was to buy stuff. So, one's value was tied to consumer goods and services. That meant one had no value unless attached to some hedonistic-economic activity. In other words, if electricity were to go out, a white person would have no value, no reason to live. And all this talk of universalism meant that white bodies, white lands, white wealth, and even white history could be owned by others. So, we got jungle fever and Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. We have white-built sports taken over by blacks who now reign as heroes and idols of whites; this means whites are owned by black demigods in fantasy, recreation, and entertainment. Whites used to protect their heroes from the Other. So, white sports kept out blacks, the tougher race. But individualism and universalism undermined white race-ism and paved the way for black supremacism. This has been crucial because the most impressionable things in peoples memories are the peak moments of thrill. People ignore or forget most things in their daily lives and remember only the most exciting moments. It's like we look at peaks of mountains than at slopes or valleys. As blacks took over the peaks of sports, pop music, and sexualized culture, most whites conflate blackness with peak thrills of life. Whites don't even own their heroes. As the demigod heroes are of the Other, it's like blacks own the sensations of whites. And as black entertainers and athletes are owned by Jewish moguls, it's like Jews own whites two-fold. They own the blacks who own the whites-as-hapless-cucky-wucks.
With the fading of white race-ism, whites can no longer claim ownership of white lands, even in Europe. Whites are not owners but mere commodities. White lands can be claimed by anyone, and white people can be declared obsolete or 'antique' and replaced by new people as new cattle, new pets, or new furniture. The rise of pornification of society means whites have gone from owners to the owned. Look at Miley Cyrus and other creatures of Jewish-run Disney, now a shikse-whore-factory. They are not humans but commodities, sex dolls. And white people accept this because they don't even own their minds. Indeed, white minds are now mere extensions of Jewish-owned electronic media. If Jews say 'gay marriage is holy', white minds hooked to Jewish-owned TV nod along. Even the white religion of Christianity has been owned and altered by Jews into worship of Globo-Homo as so many churches now are essentially about worship of Sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting than anything else. (But then, the fact that whites had been converted in such huge numbers to Christianity, a religion originating from the Other, suggests whites are easily owned. Incapable of creating a prophetic vision of their own, they surrendered their souls to a Jew as Son of God.)

Now, imagine Arabs in Israel controlling prostitution & pornography and using Jewish women as sex meat for Arab men, Palestinian men, and Negro men. Jews would be outraged that another group is treating Jewish women as objects to be owned and exploited. They would see it as Arabs treating Jews like commodities. But Jews apparently see nothing wrong with treating whites that way. Worse, if whites a hundred years ago would have been shocked and offended by Jews using whites in such manner, white cuck-maggots of today are sheepishly resigned to the fate of existing to be owned, bought/sold, and ordered around by Jewish Power. Even Donald Trump, who'd been harassed by Jewish Power from day one, is totally owned by Jews and do their bidding, like killing Soleimani, a proud man who is NOT owned by Jews. (And of course, young white men in the US military don't fight to defend America as a nation they own. No, they are mere mercenary goons owned by Jewish Power that sends them to slaughter Arabs and Muslims for the glory of Zion that owns almost all US politicians who are worthless toadies.) Indeed, it seems as if owned white fools like Trump and John McCain are envious of goyim who are not owned. No wonder McCain barked so loudly at Vladimir Putin. No wonder Trump took out Soleimani, a painful reminder to cuck-dogs like The Donald that indeed a goy can be his own master and not be owned by Jewish supremacists.
Under Sorosian Jewish Supremacism, a white man in Europe who says his nation belongs to his own people is now a 'far rightist', but at the same time, all European elites are expected to say Israel belongs to Jews and Jews only. So, Jews are to be admired and supported as Owners whereas whites must resign themselves to Owned status. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where whites can't even own their own history as justification for owning their lands. Under Jewish control, white narratives are being taken away from white hands and rewritten by Jews, white cuck-scribes, and blacks into a 'Diversity' narrative. In other words, Swedes have no ownership of historical narrative to buttress territorial ownership of their land because... uh... the Vikings were black and shit. Right, and because some European merchants visited China and India, those Asian lands belong just as much to whites as to yellows and browns. Can you imagine anyone in China or India falling for that bull? But then, Japan seems falling for it as it's just a cuck-wussy colony of the US that is a cuck-wussy colony of the Empire of Judea.

Implications of White Flight from Black Fight — Nature of Globalist Elitism and its War on the National Covenant — Upper-Class Consciousness among the Globo-Homo Elite Class — National Unity vs Global Diversity

White Flight After the Greater Migration: http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-flight-in-other-countries/

White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.

Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)

In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.

But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.

Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.

A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.

We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).

Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.

Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.

Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.

Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.

Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)

Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.