Covid-19 Crisis has led to Tug-A-Jew Struggle among Wanna-Be-Cucks around the World — Will Anglucks or Anglo-Cucks regain their Status as the Top Cucks of Jewish Supremacism?

Covid-19 Crisis has exposed what the World Power Game is really about. It's a contest among cucks to win the approval of the Jews. In this, Iran is the only true exception. Even China and Russia are in the Cuck-Victory or Cuctory camp. They are trying to win the game of "Jews Favor Us Most".

Anglo Cucks are Anglucks. Chinese Cucks are Chucks. Russian/Moscow Cucks are Moscucks. Hindu Cucks are Hinducks. They are all playing the game of Tug-a-Jew. Jewish Power is like the most awesome bachelor, and the various cuck nations are pleading with Jews to "Marry me, fuc* me, and let me have your baby." It's truly a sorry sight. Among Anglucks, we see such putting-out behavior not only from the usual whores(in the Democratic Party, Republican Party, 'mainstream liberalism', and 'Conservatism Inc.') but from so-called Dissident Rightists like John Derbyshire whose anti-Chinese screed amounts to "We Anglucks sucky sucky you better. Master Jew, come to OUR whore house." How pathetic that these major goy powers/nations are into 'Me So Horny, Me So Horny' mode at the feet of Jewish Power.

Of course, Anglucks have a longer history of cucking to Jews. Indeed, Anglos once had power OVER Jews. They weren't always Anglucks. But what historical ironies. Adolf Hitler and Nazis appealed to Anglos in UK and US for partnership. Northern Anglo whites and Germanics as Fellow Aryans who'd rule the world together. The official narrative says the Anglos, despite being imperialist and all that, said NO to the sinister Darth-Vaderian German offer. "Luke, join the Dark Side." Anglos had supremacist tendencies and had their share of 'racism', but they had a sense of limits and were doing their best to move toward greater justice and liberty for ALL mankind. Anglos said NO to German 'Aryan' supremacism. They sided with pitiable Jews who were being victimized and slaughtered by the Nazi 'Aryan' war-machine that sought to 'conquer the world'. Then, how ironic that the very Anglos who said NO to German supremacism ended up saying YES YES YES to Jewish supremacism? And Jews, the people who've been parading themselves as the primary victims of Racial Supremacist Ideology, are now the biggest practitioners of Racial Supremacist Agenda premised on the vile conviction that any number of goy lives and liberties should be sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Jew. If millions of Arab lives are destroyed? Who cares? If Iranian women and children are made to suffer? Let them suffer, let them die. If EU is flooded with tons of African and Muslim invaders because Wars for Israel destabilized borders in North Africa and Middle East? Let the whites be invaded and replaced. Besides, Diversity is useful for Jews in playing Divide-and-Rule among goyim. Anglos rejected one supremacist offer(of the Nazis) to end up serving the supremacism of the other(the Jews as main victims of Nazis). Of course, as the Official Victims of Supremacism, Jews get a pass on their own Supremacism. Jewish checks, no matter how costly and ridiculous(or bogus), are written off as Reparations for the Holocaust. It's the Holo-Cost.

As Anglos went from Anglo-Lords or Anglords to Anglucks, they set the template for all of the world. Following World War II, the Anglo World was richest and most powerful. US, Canada, and Australia were in great shape. UK was drained by WWII but less damaged than most major European nations. Also, its empire was still intact. Even with the decline of UK and rise of US, it was Anglo Power just the same as the ruling elites in the US were WASPS and Anglo-Americanized whites. Anglords had the supreme power.
But their Christian Moralism of guilt and redemption gave an opening to Jews. Also, there was an element of naivete and 'innocence' in the American Character owing to the official mythology of America as the Nation of Freedom, Liberty, and Equality that had broken free of old, repressive, and corrupt Europe. As such, Anglo-Americans were more sensitive to criticism of American failures. Still, Anglords would surely have kept the power if not for the presence of Jews who not only took over key industries and institutions in media and academia but used them to bait White Guilt. Also, Jewish Big Think or Propheticism seemed sexy like Ron Jeremy's dong to the Anglos who'd grown accustomed to moderation, pragmatism, empiricism, and restraint. Whether it was the Big Think of Jewish Leftists or Jewish Libertarians(like Ayn Rand), Anglos felt 'liberated' by the sheer excess of Jewish ego, confidence, and pride. (Likewise, black music had a similar effect on whites because blacks held nothing back and drew their musical energies directly from their loins.)

Initially, Jews began to gain influence over Anglo/Americans by intellectual fireworks and moral appeal. Back then, Jews didn't have the power to FORCE Anglos to change their views and values at the drop of a hat. They just seemed to make the stronger or more compelling arguments, made easier by their increasing control of the media and narrative. As such, Anglos who changed their minds in accordance to Jewish appeals were not necessarily Anglucks. But with each passing year, Anglos went more and more from Anglords to Anglucks. The children of WASP parents in elite colleges were trained to regard 'racism' as the worst crime and made to believe Jews are pure as snow in historical innocence. They grew up with Anne Frank as the new madonna and the Holocaust as the new crucifixion. And as Jews grew richer and more powerful, more whites came to realize they can't get anywhere without Jewish support. But it wasn't just the increasing influence but the consecration of Jews as Holy Holocaust Victims that made it nearly impossible to speak honestly about or challenge Jewish Power. Whether it was Democrats or Republicans, their highest concept of Morality and the Good was "We are more supportive of Israel and servile to Jewish interests."
If such dynamics had unfolded in some second-rate nation, it wouldn't have mattered much. But it happened in the US, the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. And the people who cucked to Jews were Anglos, the most dominant people around the world for at least three centuries. So, whatever Anglo-Americans did wasn't just something they did on their own with Jews. As the very national group associated with world dominance for centuries, it had a seismic effect on all the world. If Anglos, the lords of the world, cuck to Jews, it must be the New Standard for all mankind. If lowly Greeks or Mexicans had cucked to Jews but if Anglo-Americans hadn't, things would have been different. But Anglo-Americans were the guys who beat Germany and Japan. They were the guys who contained the awesome Soviet Union in the Cold War. Indeed, they'd achieved the tremendous feat of turning the North American wilderness into a superpower in a historical blip. And yet, these mighty people submitted to Jews and found themselves unable to say NO to Jews on anything. So, the ripple effect of this was HUGE. Furthermore, Anglucks didn't just submit to Jews politically and economically but 'spiritually' and 'morally'. Jews weren't merely giants but holy gods. Jews were might and right. And this holiness was associated with Jewish Victimhood, a Narrative that could be used to hide the extent of Jewish Power. So, the message around the world was 'Jews Rule America and Are Not to Mess With' but also 'You Cannot Call Out on Jewish Power'.

As Anglucks surrendered Moral Legitimacy and Political Power to the Jews, their only hope was as comprador cucks of Jews. Let Jews play first fiddle, but Anglos can at least play second fiddle IF they suck up to Jews. This mentality has seeped so deeply into the American Psyche that even those Anglos and whites who've been persecuted and de-personed by Jews do everything to win back the Jewish Affection(that never really existed in the first place). So, the National Review magazine, which cucks to Neocons, had John Derbyshire purged, but Derbyshire thinks his China-bashing will put him back in good graces with Jews. Alex Jones was de-platformed by Jews, but he pretends as if the 'Chicoms' are behind it. Jared Taylor was taken off Twitter and Paypal by the Jews — and his views are often censored on Youtube — , but his priority is always to suck up to Zionists and censor anyone on his site who calls out on Jewish Power. If Dissident Right Anglos act this way, just imagine how Anglos in Democratic and Republican Parties act. The Joe Bidens and Mitt Romneys of the world. What a pathetic bunch.

Now, why didn't Jews accept the Angluck bargain in good faith? After all, Nazi Germans would have been more than happy to form a partnership with Anglos. Indeed, Germans would have accepted an equal or even an subordinate partnership with Anglos. Germans had no designs on the British Empire. Hitler admired the Anglos and wanted to be on good graces with them. Hitler was a shit in many ways, but he did believe in mutual respect with leaders and nations he admired. We see this between Germany and Italy. Though Hitler's view of Italians wasn't much, he truly admired Mussolini and kept his end of the bargain. He did everything to make the cowardly Italians look good. After the third-rate Greeks whupped fourth-rate Italians, Hitler had Germany take Greece to save Mussolini's face. So, if Anglos had made a deal with Hitler, Hitler would have kept it: Germans and Anglos together as best friends forever.

So, why didn't Jews take this offer from the Anglos: Jewish power and Anglo power together would have been unbeatable. But there was one difference. The factor of ethno-psychology. It all hinged on how Jews saw Anglos and regarded themselves(through the imagined Anglo gaze). If the Nazis regarded Anglos as racial equals and brethren, Jews regarded Anglos as the Goy Other(and felt that Anglos, despite their all-too-sudden sentimentality about Jews, privately regarded Jews as a bunch of nasty 'kikes'). Also, if Nazi Germans regarded Anglos as equal to them in every way — intelligence, ability, vision, talent, looks, etc — , Jews felt both massive inferiority complex and superiority complex vis-a-vis the Anglos. Too many Jews who looked like Anthony Weiner and Woody Allen hated the fact that they were funny-looking compared to Anglos. Even when Anglos didn't make fun of Jews and treated them nice, Jews got into an Edgar-Allan-Poe-like paranoia about what Anglos REALLY think. It's like Woody Allen in the opening of ANNIE HALL saying he heard the guy say 'Jew Eat?' instead of 'Did you eat?' So, as long as Jews co-existed with Anglos, the very reality of Anglo looks was an affront to Jewish self-image, made all the worse by the fact that Jewish Portnoys agreed that Anglo women were preferable to Jewish women in looks, the subject of THE HEARTBREAK KID. As Jewish women rose up the ranks, they brought their own brand of neurosis into the mix from the hurt that they felt over Jewish men and society finding White Women more desirable than Jewish Women.


At the same time, Jews felt superiority complex over Anglos as they couldn't help feeling smarter, more clever, and wittier than the Anglos. Whether Woody Allen vs Anglos in his movies or Frederic Raphael's GLITTERING IMAGES, there is abrasive Jewish arrogance in beating White goyim in the arena of wit, insight, and cunning. So, both the angry inferiority-complex-side and arrogant superiority-complex-side of Jews in relation to Anglos didn't make for a stable partnership. No matter how much Anglos sucked up to them, Jews were offended & belittled by the fact that Anglos were taller & more attractive AND felt contempt & arrogance toward the less intelligent and/or more naive Anglos.
Besides, it must have been a truly piteous sight for Jews to see the once-mighty Anglos grovel at their feet. Here was this race that had conquered and ruled the world. The race that produced Douglas MacArthur and George Patton. But they were now on their knees begging the Jews, "Can I suck your cock? I will swallow." It's impossible to feel any respect for such cucky-wucks. It's one thing for poor folks in some hapless third-rate nation to act thus. But for Anglos, the world conquerors and leaders? And to a bunch of nebbish Jews? (Ethno-psychology matters. If Hitler would have kept his bargain with Anglos, he certainly didn't keep it with Stalin and the Slavs, whom he despised racially and culturally. Had Anglos cut a deal with Hitler, they were on safe ground. But Russians weren't.)

Because Anglos created the New Order, Jews formed a partnership with them, BUT it could not be equal or based on mutual respect/interest. Rather, while Jews increased Jewish Power, Jewish Identity, and Jewish Interests, Anglos were to ever decrease their own. Jews would grow more the Master while Anglos would grow more the Dog. While Jews emphasized Jewish unity among Jews of all nations and classes, they demanded that Anglos totally abandon Anglo/white identity except as a dirty epithet or smear. 'Jewish' is noble, 'White' is awful. Therefore, the Terms of Agreement in the partnership was that (1) Jews keep their identity, interests, & unity, and furthermore, whites support, defend, and honor Jewish identity, interests, & unity (2) White elites denounce white identity, white interests, & white unity, and whites may operate & succeed ONLY AS deracinated individuals IF AND ONLY IF they cuck to Jewish Power, Magic Negro Cult, and Globo-Homo-mania.
In other words, Anglos and whites can still become rich and rise up the ladder BUT only as individuals and as cuckish servants & toadies of Jewish Power and Jewish Supremacism.

And so, Anglords turned into a race of Anglucks. And as Anglo-Americanism was the template of whiteness in the US, whites of all other ethnic groups followed suit. We have Italian-Americans who follow the Angluck model. Rudy Giuliani kisses Zionist ass and wears woman's clothing at globo-homo parades. This means that while rich elite Jews can care for and champion the needs of ALL Jews, white elites could not act for white interests or white solidarity. White elites can keep their elite status ONLY IF they serve Jewish elites who stand for Jewish Unity. So, even as whites did everything to ensure and promote Jewish preservation, power, and glory, Jews did everything to chip away at white power and unity. Paradoxically, the Jewish allowance of white elite success undermined white power/interests even more. Had Jews targeted all whites for collective ruin, then ALL whites would have gotten the message that they are NOTHING in the Jewish Dominated Order. Then, there would have been white unity and resistance as smart whites would have sided with lesser whites against Jews. Jews figured that the best way to undermine white unity is to provide lots of carrots for the best-and-brightest whites who would be showered with prizes and accolades as long as (1) they sought success as atomized individuals (2) praised & revered Jews (3) denounced white identity and white pride in favor of Diversity and Jungle Fever. That way, Jews got to own the best-and-brightest whites who, otherwise, might have sided with the white masses against Jewish Power. The most effective kind of oppression is not to equally oppress all of the Other but to provide goodies to the best-and-brightest among them so that they will work for you than champion and lead their own people. (It's interesting how Jews went from appealing to white vulgar mentality to appealing to white elite mentality. When Jews were on their way up, many non-elite whites cheered the Jews as 'populist' bad boys, as with the Marx Brothers, who gave the Middle Finger to rich white snobs. Of course, the Marx Brothers ridiculed the goy in the street as well as the goy in the Ivory Tower, but the sheer anarchic energy of such Jewish comics was appealing to many whites who felt down and out. Back then, plenty of whites in the South, Midwest, and the West resented the 'Eastern Establishment' of Anglo Brahmins. So, when Jewish comedians and mavericks championed unruly class rebellion, they seemed like heroes of the Common Man. The unwashed goyim had no idea that Jews were mocking Wasp elites so that THEY THE JEWS would take over as the new elites. Once Jews did gain the status as the New Rulers of America, they no longer had use for white American populism. If Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges once used to represent Jewish comedy, Jewish humor was epitomized in the 90s by Jerry Seinfeld whose show appealed to urbane yuppie tastes and went over the heads of the hoi polloi. And then, incredibly enough, Jews even waged War on Humor as comedy and jokes could be used to mock Jewish Power and Supremacy by the likes of Sam Hyde. Of late, Nick Fuentes has used comedy to provoke Jewish Power, and Jews won't have any of it, which is why he was taken off Youtube. And today, Jews appeal to white elites in the denunciation of lowly, crude, and vulgar populism of the white working class, the very opposite of what they'd done with the Marx Brothers.)

Anglos, once the rulers of the world, turned into Anglucks. And the world realized this. They came to understand that the US, the lone superpower, is essentially about White Folks cucking to Jews. Jews are like the gods of politics, and in US as Valhalla, Angluck Warriors worship and sing praises to the Jewish gods. If Anglos and Anglo-Americanized whites, the bulk of the US(as lone superpower) act this way, then the message heard around the world is the formula for global success is to serve the Jews to gain their tolerance, approval, and blessing. (It's like Sollozzo the Turk needed Don Corleone's approval to do business in New York in THE GODFATHER.) And Jews know that the world sees Global Power this way. A people or nation won't rise to great wealth UNLESS they put out to Jews as the global godfather or godpimp. Though Anglos had been much diminished under Jewish Power, the fact is many continue to do well in the New Jewish Order only because they serve the Jews for approval and blessing.

And so, the Angluck Template led to the rise of the Chucks(Chinese Cucks), Moscucks(Moscow Cucks), and Hinducks(Hindu Cucks). Of course, there are many others such as Polucks(Polish Cucks) and Japucks(or Japanese Cucks), but as their nations are second-rate political puppets of the US empire, it doesn't really matter. They have no choice but to be cucks. But China, Russia, and India still have some degree of real sovereignty. They are not part of the US empire and therefore must make an extra effort to win over Jewish Approval and Blessing. They must play the game of Tug-A-Jew.
Of course, they play this game with a certain trepidation. They don't trust the US, and they don't trust Jews. (And they don't want to end up as pathetic as the Anglucks.) At one time, Russians did trust Jews in the 1990s and got burned real bad. Boris Yeltsin and his crew thought being Moscucks would bring many blessings. Invite Jews to fix the Russian economy, and both Jews and Russians would get richer and do well. But what did Jews do? They raped the entire economy and let countless Russians die of despair and drugs. Of course, some Russian elites did get rich by collaborating with Jews, but the Jewish-Russian bargain was like the Jewish-Anglo one. Russians could get ahead as individuals(collaborating with Jews), but they better forget about Russian solidarity or Russian nationalism. But things got so bad that it led to a backlash under Vladimir Putin who rejected the Hyper-Moscuck strategy of the 90s. Russians realized that Jews could never treat Russians on equal terms. Jews saw Russians as either collaborators or cattle. Still, Jewish Power around the world was such that Putin could not drop the Moscuck Strategy completely. Rather, he changed the dial from Hyper-Moscuckery to Moderate-Moscuckery. Of course, for Jewish Supremacists, even this was outrageous. How dare Russia not totally put out to the Jews? Don't these dumb, stupid, drunken Russians know that Anglos, once the mightiest people on Earth, totally cucked to Jews? Then, how dare the Russians not totally cave to Jewish demands? (Ukrainians totally cuck to Jews, and that's really been great!) So, that set of the Jewish War on Russia, but there still hasn't been a Russian War on Jewry because, even as Jews piss on Russia, Putin knows that Russia still needs connections to the Empire of Judea to have a role in the global economy. Putin's partial-cuckery is on display every time he meets with Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel undermines everything Russia tries to do in Syria. Jews in Israel work with Jews in the US to sanction Russia and apply pressure. But Putin has to show his philosemitic credentials by shining Netanyahu's shoes and kissing his arse.

One thing about cuckery is it breeds jealousy. While all cucks are in the same boat of cuckery, they are jealous of the affection or approval that other cucks get. It's like all dogs are dogs but envious of other dogs getting more hugs, pets on the head, or doggy-biscuits from the Master. If you give one dog something, other dogs feel resentful. If you hug one dog, other dogs want their hugs and more. Cucks are like Concubines. If one concubine is favored by the lord, other concubines feel jealous and want to knock her down a few pegs.

And this is why Anglucks, Chucks, Moscucks, Hinducks, and others sometimes go out of their way to show that they are more 'horny' and 'sucky-sucky' with the Jews as top pimp. Part of the reason why Anglucks are so hostile to China and Russia is that they see them as cuck-competitors for Jewish Blessing. "We Anglucks cuck to you Jews most, so please oh please love us most, dear master." In the 90s, the Jewish-Russian Axis became nearly a thing as Jews were totally taking over that country. Also, the Jewish-Chinese Axis began to emerge around the same time as Jewish Globalists figured on totally destroying white unity in the US by having corporate elites hire Chinese and others while dumping on the American working class. As Russian elites and the Chinese had much to gain from this New Order, they cucked to Jewish globalists. Though Anglucks didn't publicly protest this(as they were totally afraid of their Jewish Masters), they were feeling jealous and neglected. Instead of strengthening the Jewish-Anglo partnership, Jews seemed to be forming New Partnerships with other would-be cucks. Israel was building Jewish centers in China. The Jewish-Chinese marriage became a big thing in elite circles. China fawned on Jews, and Jewish Media promoted closer US-China ties in the 1990s and 2000's. Around the same time, Thomas Friedman was traveling in India and promoting the Hindu-Jew or HinJew partnership. Jews seeme to think it'd be a neat idea to replace many white professionals with Hindu ones. Google hired a Hinduck as CEO. Jewish Disney figured on bringing over tons of Hindus to replace white managers and professionals. Anglucks were feeling sad and blue over such developments, but if the Jewish Master wanted it, what could they do?

But the Covid-19 crisis offers an opportunity for the Anglucks to win back the affection of their Master. Even though Jews spearheaded globalism and made all those deals with Chucks and Hinducks, Anglucks don't blame the Jews. Instead, they hope to regain the status as the main cuck-darling of the Jews. So, Anglucks make noises about, "Look Master, Chucks lied and People died. Chucks are bad, so please love us Anglucks, dear master." Hinducks see an opening too. "Oh, Jewish Master, Chucks are bad news, so please send bulk of the global economy our way to India, and we Hinducks will serve you most loyally like that Uncle Dot.com CEO at Google." And I'm sure Chucks will look for some pathetic way to appeal to Jews by sucking up to Israel more, cutting ties with Iran, and collaborating with World Jewry to suppress white identity.

It's all so pitiful. It's time for Russians to stop being Moscucks. Chinese must stop being Chucks, and Indians must stop being Hinducks. Maybe they see themselves as just playing the game, but Jews always win because they got so many cuck-suitors willing to take it up the ass. These nations need to learn to live within their means. Let Anglucks have the Jews. Anglucks may believe their future is bright as the main 'partners' of the awesome Jews, but they are doomed. Even if Jews once again chose Anglucks as their main cuck-allies, they will continue to do everything to reduce whites to a occupied and defeated people who must always take orders from Jews, be demographically replaced by diversity, and be sexually Afro-colonized. If Anglucks are so eager to serve such a master, the world should let them have it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without Race-ism, Your Nation, Race, and Culture will NOT survive — It's really that simple, and that is precisely why Jews have vilified white race-ism above all else

We've been told by the Jewish-controlled and cuck-managed media and academia that the greatest 'sin' is 'racism'. Now, if by 'racism', they mean blind and mindless hatred and hostility toward other races based on ignorance, arrogance, and contempt, I would agree. But we must ask why Race + Ism has been defined in such manner. 'Ism' means belief, therefore Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences and/or the need for Racial Consciousness. Race-ism should mean belief and conviction in certain facts, ideas, and principles associated with racial realities. It shouldn't mean the worst possible extreme and radical manifestation of that particular belief system. After all, being a Christian means one embraces the Faith and accepts Jesus as one's savior. Christianity has ranged from extreme theocracy to something approaching New Age flakiness. There have been hardline Christians, moderate Christians, tolerant Christians, and progressive Christians who reinterpret the Bible in startling ways. So, there is no single way to be Christian. But suppose someone defined Christianity by its most extreme expressions and actions. It'd be ridiculous. It'd be like defining 'socialism' by pointing to Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer-Rouge-ism. But in fact, there have been other forms of socialism that weren't tyrannical and ruthless/murderous. Then, how does it make sense to define 'racism' or 'race-ism' only by the extreme actions of the KKK, Nazis, or Nation of Islam? (By the way, the longest radical racism of contempt, paranoia, and hostility is probably certain strains of Judaism and Jewish World View.)

Anyway, I will use the term 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race & racial differences and/or the need for racial consciousness. And by 'race', I also mean sub-race or ethnicity. There is the broad white race of Europeans and then ethnic groups or sub-races such as the Germanics, Slavs, Anglos, Celts, Italians, Greeks, and etc. Now, what do I mean by no race or nation surviving for long without race-ism? I obviously don't mean the people of a nation must act like Nazis and 'invade Poland' and commit mass-killings of the Other. Instead, a people must know that they are unique and particular by blood & genetic inheritance and/or culture & history. Even if whites and blacks were to be raised and instilled with same language and ideology, they would still be different races with unique features, temperaments, and styles. They might learn from each other and borrow ideas from one another, but if either group is to survive as a unique people, it must maintain a general separateness, sovereignty, and autonomy over its own territory and affairs.
Next, even if two peoples are genetically nearly identical, they could have different histories, cultures, customs, and legends that distinguish one from the other. There isn't much genetic distance between Anglos and the Irish, but they have different histories and cultural consciousness. Same is true of Southern Chinese and Vietnamese. Many Greeks and Turks are similar in genetics and blood, but they are culturally and historically separate groups. Same goes for Germans and Swedes, even more so between Norwegians and Swedes. Just because Finns and Russians are both white Europeans doesn't mean that they don't have rich and varied differences in language, culture, and historical narratives. And those differences are what makes the world fascinating. For the world to be colorful and diverse, there must remain distinct nations of peoples and cultures who maintain borders, identities, and territorial integrity.

And that's why no nation, people, or culture will survive without race-ism and culturism: A belief in their racial and/or cultural uniqueness and the conviction to preserve such distinctions. It is by race-ism and culturism that people get to LAY CLAIM to their bios, ethnos, mythos, cultos, and terros. Without such claim, your people own nothing; they have nothing to call their own; everything about them, their lands, their wealth, their culture, their history, and etc. are all toss-up objects for sale at the global flea-market and meat-market. The entirety of your people, culture, land, and history has been turned into mix-and-match items in a Jewish pawnshop. They may continue to exist physically but no longer as the property of your people. Everything about your people now exists to be raided, auctioned off, looted, and passed around the world. Just like cattle exist but don't own their own bodies and therefore are slaughtered, chopped, and sold around the world, your people-culture-and-land will be turned into meat-and-dairy products under globalist hegemony. Cows can't say NO to being slaughtered, butchered, and sold because they don't own their own bodies. They belong to humans-as-either-sellers-or-buyers. They are mere economic units to be bought and sold on the global marketplace. Beef from Argentina may be sold to Mexico, the US, India, China, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Cows are organisms like we are, but they have no racial consciousness, no culture, no history, and no means to lay claim to anything. They are clueless creatures that eat when fed and don't know they are to be killed, cut up, and cooked for humanity. They cannot connect the dots. If they had human intelligence and means of speech, they would be able to assert themselves.
But then, maybe not. After all, so much of humanity are being turned into faceless & mindless consumers and even commodities(especially as sex objects to be marketed by Jewish shysters) and their identities, cultures, and territories are being robbed from them right under their feet, but they are either unaware of what is happening or deliriously supportive of this process of dehumanization, de-nationalization, and de-culturalization. And even though Jews do the very opposite for themselves while pushing commoditization on the goyim, so many goyim praise and honor Jews as their masters — it's like how the animals on the farm all praise the vile and vicious Pig Elites in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM where the promise of equality caves to the ruthless logic of IQ hierarchy, art of cunning, and Will to Power. It goes to show that human intelligence and consciousness are malleable. Rationally or irrationally, mini-minds and weak wills are warped and manipulated by big minds and strong wills. While all people think and feel, most people 'think' and 'feel' as the elites direct them to. And the big-minded and strong-willed elites of the current West are heinous and hideous Jews.

Possibly, the most effective means by which Jews robbed white goyim of their claims to blood, soil, culture, history, and morality is by using the Jew-run media, academia, and deep state to spread the notion that there is no greater 'sin' than 'racism'. Paradoxically, Jews suppressed white race-ism in order to bolster their own racial supremacism. Jews attack even the slightest show of white identity and interests as 'white supremacist' while compelling whites to mindlessly support what is clearly Jewish racial supremacism as it's quite obvious that Jews aren't content with Jewish national sovereignty in Israel or expression of Jewish interests(among other interests, some of them counter to Jewish interests) in the US. Instead, Jews insist on Zionist imperialist tyranny over Palestinians and use their control of the US to destroy perceived enemies and rivals in the Middle East by sanctions, invasions, and support for terrorism. In the US, Jews will not tolerate Palestinian-American support for BDS or a foreign policy that balances Zionist lobbying with counter interests of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others. Instead, all of US must be for Jews Uber Alles, Israel First, and Zionic hegemonism over the Middle East and North Africa. And of course, Jews have done everything to destroy or desecrate Christianity with globo-homo Queertianity. Despite Zionists having turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive homo 'pride' parades, the christ-cucks in US churches praise Jews and Israel in the most embarrassing way. As for principled Christians like Rick Wiles who refuse to kneel before Satanic globo-homo Zion, they are censored, banned, and denied service by Jew-monopolies like Youtube and Paypal.

Incredibly, Jews have gotten away with forcing all of us to support their supremacism, imperialism, and hatred by pushing the pretense that they're combating 'white supremacism' and 'antisemitism'. According to Jews, even the slightest sign of white consciousness is 'white supremacist'. Even "It's Okay to be White" must be shut down and investigated by the FBI. And if you call out on Jewish imperialism and Zionist tyranny, you are smeared and destroyed as an 'Anti-Semite'. They are truly a vile and vicious people, the biggest hypocrites and arrogant scoundrels in the world. As far as Jews are concerned, White History has been nothing but one of 'white privilege', 'white racism', 'white supremacism', and etc. And because White History is so tainted with evil and guilt, Jews insist that even a smidgen of white consciousness, let alone pride, is reason for alarm. In other words, whiteness = disease = evil. Whiteness is so toxic and noxious(and apparently infectious to other whites) that it must remain fumigated and quarantined at all times. Even if just a tiny bit is allowed to escape and assert its worth and autonomy, it might spread like a virus and threaten the Jew World Order as all those 'infected' whites will want to burst out of the Jewish-made PC bubble. Whites must be made at all times to believe that they are ACCURSED with whiteness. They were born with a sickness and, as patients infected with evil, they must listen to Jewish social science doctors who tell them that they must show no pride or unity in their whiteness. If anything, whites must welcome mass-immigration-invasion, the Great Replacement or White Nakba, and massive race-mixing. Whites must all be turned into brown people like those of Latin America or North Africa. Having mixed blood, there shall no longer be proud white consciousness that may stand up to Jewish perfidy. And Jews figure that even if anti-Jewish sentiments may linger among browned folks, they will be too confused in identity to ever unite against Jewish Power. After all, the mixed-race populations of Latin America have been extremely ineffective in overthrowing the white Latin elites who've ruled South America since the days of the Conquistadors.

Whites no longer own their own history. White history has been doctored by Jews who associate whiteness with evil and guilt. Of course, if one does the same with Jewish History, Jews cry 'anti-Semite'. Jews have an effective moral and polemical shield against those who rummage through Jewish History for various evils, but whites have no comparable defense mechanism(and they need to develop it against Jews). Also, Jews covered up the fact that some of the darkest 'evils' of white history have been inseparable from Jewish History. Much of the slave trade that sold Slavic whites to North Africa and Near East were done by Jews. Jewish bankers financed much of Western Imperialism. Jews took part in the Atlantic Slave trade, especially in Brazil that brought over the greatest numbers of slaves. Jews of the British Empire sold opium to the Chinese. Jewish merchants worked with whites who wiped out the American Indians. Jews dominated much of organized crime in Europe and America. And Jewish communists played a key role in the Russian Revolution that ended up destroying millions of lives. So, the evils of genocide, imperialism, brutality, and slave-trade done by whites were also done by Jews who acted as merchants or financiers. But clever, cunning, and nasty Jews make us focus ONLY on the WHITE aspect of those evils. Also, Jews spread the notion among non-whites that WHITES AND ONLY WHITES were guilty of all the wrongs done to them. Indeed, Jews even pretend to be allies and fellow-victims of the so-called People of Color by selectively pointing to events where Jews were attacked by whites while failing to mention that, more often than not, Jews in Europe worked with the European Imperialist elites in the conquest and exploitation of the world. Imagine if the French selectively pointed to periods when they were attacked by the British and claimed to be fellow victims of the British Empire while totally ignoring the historical fact that the British and the French competed and cooperated side by side in their conquest of the non-white world. Jews are fiendishly sneaky that way.
One thing for sure, the Zionist project came to fruition with backing not only from British, Soviet, and American imperialists but even from Nazi imperialists. But then, Jews do a number on naive and stupid non-whites as well. By creating the impression that nationalism in white nations is 'racist' and 'xenophobic', Jews persuade non-whites into thinking that Nationalism = White Supremacism, and therefore, all goyim must reject this Nazi-like nationalism and embrace globalism. But in truth, whites didn't conquer the world through nationalism but through imperialism, and if non-whites eventually regained autonomy and sovereignty, it was through native nationalism and national liberation from Western Imperialism that had been thrust upon the world not only with white arms but with Jewish money. Jews sure are cunning and crafty. By conflating Nationalism with White Supremacism, Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone. They mean to destroy nationalism not only in white nations but in non-white ones. Of course, there are people who know this is BS, but as those in elite circles are mostly fixated on status and as the Jew-run US rules the world, they dare not stick out their necks and speak the truth; instead, they just hunker down and go along with the globalist project on the basis of "I got mine."

Without race-ism, there is no racial consciousness. The only kind of racial consciousness that Jews allow for whites is negative-consciousness or anti-consciousness, i.e. whites are to denounce consciousness of white identity, white history, white culture, and white territoriality as either evil, ill-gotten, or misconceived. Whites must not feel pride and a sense of ownership to what they are, where they live, what they've done, and what they believe. The great achievements of whites must be attributed to ALL of humanity. White history must retroactively be made 'multi-racial' and 'multi-cultural' so that ANY people can lay claim to it. The media put on historical programs where Past Europe has lots of blacks and other non-whites. Even the great white leaders and heroes must be made black or non-white. Jews say there was no WHITE History. Europe was never white but always 'multi-cultural' because NOT EVERYONE in Europe was white. (Using this logic, Japan and China weren't yellow because whites like Marco Polo and other came to visit.) Apparently, the Middle Ages weren't white and European because there were some Arabs and blacks in Europe at the time; therefore, Middle Ages were just as Arab and black. Of course, this isn't really about blacks or Arabs but about Jews. Jews hate the idea of white consciousness that thinks in terms of "we white Christians" and "those Semitic Jews". Such might lead to white consciousness that seeks White Liberation from Current Jewish Supremacism. So, Jews not only push a Diverse Future on the White West but try to fool whites that this Diverse Future isn't a break with the White Past but a merely natural continuance because the White World was always Diverse and into Multi-Culturalism. (Never mind that most of these white relations with non-whites were violent and bloody: Moorish invasions, Mongol invasions, and European Crusades and incursions into non-white territories. If anyone wants to celebrate Ottoman Occupation of Greece and Moorish conquest of Spain as wonders of Diversity, he or she is a mental slave of Jews. I suppose Jews should celebrate Roman tyranny over Judea.)

There are two kinds of histories. Factual history, which should be left up to professional historians who pore over records, documents, data. But for most people, the kind of history that matters isn't factual but mytho-narrative. While this kind of history should stick close to facts and truth as much as possible, its real objective is to fashion a story of a people and imbue it with meaning, significance, and purpose. It's like a biography isn't merely a collection of data on someone. It is a lively tale and summation of his life and what it has come to mean. Thus, certain facts must be selected over others. Certain details are emphasized over others. Necessarily, if you want to portray a man as a villain, you will focus the bad sides of his character and deeds to drive the point home. On the other hand, if you want to portray a man as a hero, you will focus on facts and details that would support such an image. Of course, no man is all villain and all hero. Everyone is a mix of both, and all biographies and all histories should dwell on both the light and the darkness of any person or people. Still, the main purpose of mytho-narrative is to defend, glorify, and romanticize the story of your people. Take the Old Testament. While there are passages that show Jews to have been unworthy of God's love and blessing, it is ultimately a narrative that justifies the story of Jews as a special people with a sacred contract or Covenant with God. This is why it is necessary that mytho-narrative history must be owned and controlled by your own people and its champions. Such historians are essentially word-warriors. They master the power of words and knowledge to fashion a narrative that honors, defends, and justifies your people. While it's possible that a foreigner may be sympathetic to your people while one of your own may be hostile to his own kind, there is a greater likelihood that the history of your people will be sullied, befouled, and condemned in the hands of the Other.
Tragically, white folks outsourced their mytho-narrative to the Jews who selectively spun a tale that made whites out to be the Devil, Cancer, and Virus of human history. Would Jews be so stupid as to out-source their mytho-history to Palestinians, Iranians, or those deemed 'anti-Semitic'? While those hostile to Jews may tell a compelling and convincing story of Jewish Perfidy and Evils through human history, Jews themselves would be stupid not to own their own history and narrative. While it would be good for Jews(and any people) to face up to the dark chapters in their own history, ultimately their narrative must be more of light than darkness. Otherwise, the people will end up like whites under Jews who turned White History into one of exceptional evil that can be redeemed ONLY BY cucking to Jews, ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs) , and White Nakba(aka the Great Replacement).

Now, consider race-ism and the ownership of homeland. Any territory without the stamp of race-ist claim will be lost no matter how rich and powerful a people may be. American Indians lost their lands to whites because they were outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-fought. In contrast, whites are losing their lands in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe not because they are weak and poor but because they've lost race-ist claims on their nations. Despite dire demographic trends, the White West is still the most powerful bloc in the world. Then, why is it so helpless against preventing White Nakba or the Great Replacement brought about by Mass Immigration Invasion? It is because whites have rejected race-ist claim to history and territory. The claim of history and claim of territory are interrelated because, after all, territorial claim is justified by historical narrative. "We Hungarians own Hungary because it's the land bequeathed to us by our ancestors." "We Jews founded the Jewish State in Palestine because it was our land in ancient times." "We whites deserve to own and rule the US, Canada, and Australia because, even though we took it from other peoples, we founded and built great new nations in ways that ONLY WE could have." Such race-ist historical claims serve as basis for race-ist territorial claims. These claims say THIS is OURS, and NOT yours: Either the land belonged to our people from time immemorial OR our people built new nations out of the wilderness. But once a people reject race-ism, they lose racial consciousness. Their sense of story and territory becomes merely individualistic. 'My Story' and 'My Property' but no sense of 'Our Story' and 'Our Property'. Once whites rejected race-ism, they rejected the very concept of white people with white history on white territory. So, while whites-as-individuals have personal stories and private properties, they have no sense of collective narrative(except one that emphasizes 'white guilt') and collective ownership of territory or national property. While individualism is useful and productive, the question is what must it ultimately serve? As no individual lives forever or is a god, it makes no sense to put oneself at the center of existence and meaning. Every individual must realize he is part of a link, an inheritor, and that after he dies, what he'd been a part of shall be bequeathed to others whose obligation is to keep alight the torch of identity, history, and territory. The problem with libertarian individualism is it has no sense of life beyond 'me, me, me'. Furthermore, the fact that so many libertarians nevertheless suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos indicates that even for hardcore libertarians, liberty and individuality aren't enough. Even as they denigrate and negate white identity in the name of individuality, they feel this craving to serve something-bigger-than-themselves, and it's usually 'muh Israel', 'muh Magic Negro', or 'muh holy homo'.

Anyway, despite the greatness of white power and wealth in objective terms, the White West began its slide into oblivion because it subjectively abandoned race-ism, the consciousness that had once united whites in white nations into proud peoples with a powerful claims over the lands on which they lived and their ancestors fought for and died. Without race-ist consciousness, they could no longer felt united as members of a white race in a white nation. Without racial solidarity, they lost their sense of racial history and racial territory. If they no longer cared for white identity, it meant they no longer made white claims over white territory. Indeed, the new dogma was that whiteness is just a social construct or, worse, a disease/cancer, and therefore, the greatest evil is for whites to identify proudly as white or European. Lacking such consciousness, how could white people say WE WHITE PEOPLE OWN THIS WHITE LAND? How could a particular land belong to whites when whites no longer have white identity? Without white identity, there is no claim of white territory.
Thus, it doesn't matter how many white people there are in a certain nation; it doesn't matter how much wealth they own or how much power they have in objective terms of guns, tanks, and bombers. As long as they have no race-ist or racial consciousness, they no longer believe that their territory belongs to them as a race and people. So, even as tons of non-whites pour in as immigrants, whites cannot say NO since their anti-race-ism tells them that it's wrong for whites to think, feel, and react collectively(except in denouncing white unity). Indeed, white nations have been rendered defenseless even against rag-tag illegal migrants because, as whites no longer believe in white identity and territory, who are whites to tell non-whites, legal or illegal, that they don't belong in white nations that are no longer deemed WHITE nations? And so, we see the sorry sight all over Europe. Europe is so much richer and stronger than African and Muslim nations, but they are also helpless to stop the invasion.
Worse, while white identity is taboo, white anti-identity is all the rage among the neo-puritanical progs whose minds have been infected by Jewish Propaganda. So, not only are whites defenseless against the invasion but they are hastening the invasion and Great Replacement with enthused aid to non-white marauder-migrants. Some do it in the name of humanitarianism, but if they truly care about justice, why don't they call out on the factors that have turned so many people in the Middle East into refugees in the first place? Why don't they condemn Jewish Supremacism and Wars for Israel? But then, how could they since, even as they reject white identity, they've embraced Jews-as-Deity, and that means Jews cannot be condemned for their foulness. Why, it'd be 'antisemitic'. So, even as Jews mess up the Middle East, whites cannot condemn the Jews but must suffer the cost of the mess created by Jews. Imagine if I burn down someone's house and force you to take in the family that is now without a home. Naturally, you should be condemning me for burning down the house, but you dare NOT do that as you've come to see me as your master and god; so you feel YOU must bear the burden of what I have done.

It doesn't matter how powerful you are objectively if you're weak and cucked subjectively. Suppose you live in a home with lots of guns and bullets. You have strong walls and lots of food and supplies. Objectively, you are well-protected and secure indeed. But suppose you subjectively believe that you have no special claim to the house. As such, when trespassers arrive and ask to be let in, you just let them in. You have the guns but dare not use them against the invaders because you don't believe the house belongs especially to you and your family. Same logic applies to nations. If you lose race-ist consciousness, you've lost the race-ist claim on your land. Then, it is open to invasion from all the world... which is what is happening to the West. Next time Jews tell you to lose your race-ist claim on your land, you ask them why they maintain a powerful race-ist claim on Israel? The damned buggers.

One of the most important assets a race or people have is possession of the women. A people are effectively finished when the women of the race lose respect for the men. Such women are likely to forgo wifehood and motherhood, thereby failing to produce the next generation. Or worse, they might go with the men of another race, even the invasive and colonizing race because it is the nature of women to go with winner-conquerors(even of enemy races). Always, the conquering race takes the women of the vanquished race. When People A conquer People B, the men of People A don't go to the men of People B and say, "Hey, come and hump our mothers, wives, daughters, and etc." No, it's the winning side that conquers and colonizes the wombs of the losing side. When Turks ruled over Greece, they took Greek women. When Mongols invaded China, Iran, and Russia, they took the women of the conquered. When whites were masters over blacks as slaves, white men humped black women. When Zionists took nearly all of Palestine and carried out Nakba, they raped Arab women as sexual trophies. When Soviet Troops entered Germany, they raped countless German women. When US defeated Japan, they used Japanese women as whores. When the Spanish Conquistadors took over South America and Mexico, they took native brown women.
Now, not all conquering folks were enthusiastic about race-mixing. The British Empire was far less into race-mixing than the French Empire and Spanish Empire were. National Socialists discouraged race-mixing whereas Soviet Empire encouraged it. At any rate, the fate of the brown natives of what is called 'Latin America' goes to show what happens when men lose possession and the respect of their own women. Brown men were defeated by white Spaniards who took brown women to produce a neo-race of 'mestizos' who became confused in identity and, to this day, have no real sense of what they are. While race-mixing of any kind always weakens and dilutes the identity of the conquerors as well as of the conquered, it is always far more damaging psychologically and culturally to the conquered side. It was painful for Russian men to see their daughters taken by Mongol barbarians. It was painful for Vietnamese men to see their women turned into a bunch of whores by US military. It was shameful for black men to see their women be taken by 'honkey-ass mothafuc*as' in the Old South. Consider the trauma of French men who were helpless to stop French women from running into the arms of German occupiers. (Granted, some of these French women weren't necessarily treasonous in spirit. They might have regarded pre-Occupation France as a Jewish-dominated tyranny and therefore welcomed German victory as liberation of France from the Juif.) Without women, there is no future for the race. And while men can produce kids with women of any race, if they want to perpetuate the aesthetics, soul, and temperament of their own Volk, they should have children with women of the same race. Spanish men had children with native brown women, and the results were rather Guillermo-ish(of the dreadful Jimmy Kimmel Show). Guillermo may be a nice guy and all, but he doesn't look quite like a Spaniard. Nor does he look like a proud Mayan warrior. He looks like a human burrito.

In our time, the biggest threat to white ownership of white women and white beauty comes from 'anti-racism' and Jungle Fever, a kind of double whammy. Political Correctness is the colonization of white minds by Jewish propaganda, and what might be called Biological Correctness is the colonization of white wombs by black seed. In a way, both PC and Jungle Fever are 'natural' insofar as smaller minds cuck to bigger minds and wussier men cuck to tougher men. When whites began to practice inter-meritocracy, they were bound to lose out to the 'best man'. White Power could only be sustained with intra-meritocracy that rewarded the best among the whites AGAINST non-whites. But once whites adopted universal inter-meritocracy, white minds lost out to Jewish minds that are higher in IQ and stronger in will. And white muscles lost out to tougher black muscles, and white dongs lost out to bigger black dongs. Now, why did whites forsake intra-meritocracy that had served and sustained White Power so well and instead go with inter-meritocracy, a universal call for 'may the best man of any race win'? Part of the reason was the rise of rationalism and its concept of universal justice. Another reason was rooted in Christian ethos. Also, the radical racists such as the National Socialists gave racial consciousness a bad name. Ironically though, even as Jews reviled racial consciousness among whites on grounds of Nazi Evil in World War II, they revamped their own racial consciousness in pushing through the Zionist project and in making whites submit to Jewish Supremacist Power. (Also, let's remember that the Pacific War was pushed by both Conservatives and Liberals alike as a race war against the yellow 'Japs', and Jews did their part in dehumanizing the Japanese like the National Socialists had dehumanized the Jews.)
In any case, when white people gave up on racial consciousness, each and every white person was encouraged to be a mere individualist, consumer, hedonist, celebrity-obsessed idol worshiper, and etc. White women felt 'liberated' and no longer 'owned' by white men, the evil patriarchs. But most of them being stupid or dumb, they just came to be mentally owned by Jews and sexually owned by blacks. They went from women of a race, history, and heritage to mere commodities of Jews and playthings of blacks. And white men, instead of waking up and fighting the Jews and blacks, were too brainwashed themselves with 'white guilt' and too gushy with 'white fever'(for black thrills in sports and rap) to unite and fight to defend race, homeland, heritage, and honor. And at this point in history, it all looks hopeless. The great lesson, at any rate, is that a people will lose their identity, history, homeland, and women when they abandon race-ism. While sane people need to forsake extreme race-ism(like religious people should reject theocratic fanaticism), they need to realize that there is nothing more precious and valuable than race-ism in the preservation of a people and culture on their sacred land. If whites want to reclaim their land and culture for their posterity, they must say NO to Jewish Supremacism and regain white race-ist consciousness.

The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?

How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.

Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).