We have seen how the material political power of Islam declined very rapidly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Did it decline or fail to keep up with the West? Maybe the Muslim remained where it was while the West advanced technologically. If someone stands still while you walk forward, he's not moving backward even though he will increasingly fall back behind you.
Hilaire Belloc:
Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe; the decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it – we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today. The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines – the very structure of our society is dissolving.
But the real benefit of Christianity was not that Western culture sprung from it but that the culture had something to fall back on when things went south. Christian moralism has stood in the way of cultural inspiration and creativity. Even though Renaissance artists created many religious works, the true spark and inspiration were neo-pagan. But paganism has a way of becoming decadent, nihilistic, and idolatrous, a narcissism of power and beauty. Christianity provided some balance to such tendencies. The main creative source of Western Civilization is Greco-Roman and even Germanic imaginations. But creativity isn't necessarily moral; it is also elitist and belongs to a few. As such, it can't for long serve as the basis of a stable civilization. Morality must be the core values of a people, and that is where Christianity proved most valuable. Not because culture sprung from it — Western Civilization was already great and accomplished before its conversion to Christianity. As for the Reformation, it was a response to the corruption and decay of the Catholic Church that came to overly rely on rituals and idols than on creed and conviction. For awhile, Reformation restored Christian passion.
Hilaire Belloc:
In the place of the old Christian enthusiasms of Europe there came, for a time, the enthusiasm for nationality, the religion of patriotism. But self-worship is not enough, and the forces which are making for the destruction of our culture, notably the Jewish Communist propaganda from Moscow, have a likelier future before them than our old-fashioned patriotism.
But patriotism is not about self-worship. It's not about worship at all. It's about pride and preservation of heritage. It is not a religion in and of itself. Also, spirituality can be made a part of patriotism and nationalism. This is most evident in Judaism and its Covenant that fuses tribalism with spiritualism. In a similar vein, Christianity can be made part of national heritage, i.e. while Christianity is for all the world, each people can stress their own story of how they came to the Faith, and that particularity within universality should have been stressed. Consider the Russian Orthodox Church. It is Christian and Nationalist. Likewise, Buddhism has a nationalist element among Tibetans, Vietnamese, Burmese, and etc.
In the end, Jewish capitalism turned out to be far more damaging to Western Man. Though Jews were heavily involved in communism, its triumph came to suppress Jewish power that relies on individual enterprise, tribal networking, and meritocracy to realize its full potential. In all communist nations, the Jews eventually lost out to the non-Jewish majority as communism is about The People and Mass Mediocrity.
The reason why nationalism came more naturally to Europeans is because European societies developed from agriculture. In contrast, Arabs were nomadic and generally didn't put down roots in any part of the desert. They were movers, traders, and raiders. Of course, in time, Nationalism began to fade among Europeans with increasing urbanization and globalism that made it easy for Europeans to move abroad and for non-Europeans to move into Europe. Nomadism is intrinsic to globalism. Wings rule over the feet.
Steve Sailer:
History often turns upon unexpected personalities. The West has been fairly lucky that no outstanding man has arisen in Islamic world. Since 1936, probably the two most remarkable personalities have been Nasser, who was more of a Bonapartist modernizer demagogue than an Islamist, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
This may be true of past history when Muslims had a chance of literally conquering the West like the Mongols also nearly did. But in the modern era, why would the emergence of a great Muslim leader be bad for the West? Did Ayatollah call for invasion of the West? No, all the stuff about 'great satan' was mostly rhetorical. Kemal Ataturk wanted peace with the West and Westernization for Turks.
The main reason why Gamal Nasser and other notable Arab/Muslim leaders lost out is because Jews gained power in the West and used West as a proxy against the Arab/Muslim World. Israel was a Western creation of Jews and whites who supported, defended, and supplied Zionism at every turn.
The West, under Jewish Power, also crushed Saddam Hussein who, though a horrid person, did much to modernize Iraq. Living standards for most Iraqis were pretty decent prior to the Gulf War.
For all the problems among Arabs, their societies would be far more accomplished if not for Jewish control of the West and use of Western power as proxy of Jewish agenda. Iraq today would be formidable if not for the Gulf War, semi-genocidal sanctions, and the invasion. Iraq was also building nuclear power plants before they were bombed by Israeli jets with US support. Syria would be in much better straits if not for Neocon agenda of sending and aiding terrorists. Gaddafi made real gains in Libya before Jewish-ruled West destroyed it. And Iranian economy would be much stronger if not for sanctions forced by Jewish-controlled US. If it came down to Jews vs Muslims, Jews would not necessarily win even though, pound for pound, they are smarter than Arabs/Muslims. The real secret to Israel's success and Muslim world's failure is that the Jews control the West that does the bidding of Zion. But suppose a Muslim-controlled West sanctioned Israel for its war crimes and dropped bombs to kill Israel leaders and figures. Where would Israel be?
The French Empire unraveled after WWII. But it was not a total loss. The French colonialists reconnected with the National Core. They returned home to France. Back then, French colonialists had a place to go back to. But what is France today? It is a demographic colony of Muslims, sexual colony of Africa, and political colony of the Jews. And Netherlands doesn't lift a finger to save White Boer Farmers in South Africa. New Holland's identity is 'multi-culturalism', which means that it belongs more to Africans and Muslims than to the Dutch themselves. It is now a crime for the Dutch to say, "My country belongs to my people", but it is wonderful for Africans and Muslims to say "We have a right to colonize and take over Dutch lands and wombs."
In the end, true nationalism is defined by Core Nationalism. National identity, interests, and territory become confused and muddled with imperialism. As a people gain dominance of other peoples and their lands, their sense of national destiny becomes entwined with that of other peoples. Thus, distinctions between the National and Imperial become unsure and contradictory. As Amy Chua discussed in her concept of hyper-powers, the conquering/ruling people must be 'tolerant' and 'diverse' in order to maintain a great empire. While a determined people can use brute force to conquer weaker peoples, it is nearly impossible to rule over, with brute force alone, such vast lands inhabited by different peoples. In the case of American History, white people could just remove the relatively small number of native folks and create a White empire-nation. But most empires were about one people ruling over others who vastly outnumbered the ruling/conquering people. Also, even though the conquered peoples were relatively lacking in technology and organization, they were not hopeless primitives like the American Indians who had no chance against whites. So, to have an empire, the ruling people must be reasonably 'tolerant' and pro-'diversity' over the conquered peoples. Empires are inherently diverse since they are about a people conquering and ruling over other peoples of different races, cultures, and religions. Also, in order to win over collaborators(or, better yet, converts at least in religion or ideology), the ruling people must be reasonably 'tolerant' and offer carrots along with the sticks. Nazi Empire was doomed in the East because its plan was extermination/enslavement. But in a sick way, even Hitler understood historical truths. An empire can survive in only two ways: Via 'diversity' & 'tolerance' OR eradication & homogeneity. He understood that while D&T method was useful and effective, it was ultimately doomed. All D&T empires eventually faded from history. The only kind of permanently successful empire is where one people take over, effectively exterminate or crush the natives, and become the ruling majority. Anglos could achieve this in North America & Australia and Russians could accomplish this in Siberia because they were met with only sparsely populated primitive opposition. But it was a tall order for Germans to pull off such a campaign against the Soviet Union that, in 1941, had 170 million people and advanced civilization. Easier to kill a gopher than a bear. So, if the German Empire were to become permanent and last a 1000 yrs(in Hitler's prophetic dream), the German Empire had to effectively be a Big German Nation. Not so much Germans ruling over others but Germans as both rulers and ruled in the vast Eastern territories. D&T method, while effective, usually led to the conquerors being either expelled or absorbed by the larger native populations. Mongols were absorbed into non-Mongol peoples or, in time, driven out by native folks. Alexander's Macedonian and Greek rulers eventually faded into the local domains that they conquered. The Aryan Conquerors in India may have used an extreme and elaborate system of race-separation ideology to perpetuate rule over the natives permanently. But despite DNA studies showing lingering differences among the various castes, lots of Brahmins in India look dark like the natives. Over 1000 yrs, they've been absorbed far more than they'd like to admit. Libido will do that over time.
Anyway, under the policy of 'diversity' and 'tolerance', an empire can grow and flourish. Initially, the ruling people nevertheless maintain a sense of 'us' over 'them'. While the conquered 'them' are offered carrots, they are still in an inferior position vis-a-vis the conquering 'us'. But as time passes, the conquerors come to rely more on the conquered for materials and manpower. Also, among the conquered, some perform their duties so loyally that they are accepted into the conquering tribe. There have been some cases where, over time, the conquerors and conquered merged into one people. This was especially true IF the either the conquering people or conquered people(or both) had weak cultural identity. Mongols were fierce and aggressive but had a barbarian culture. As such, they could be absorbed into more complex cultures. Or when an elaborate culture conquers a weak/primitive culture, the latter joins the former. Christendom and Islamic World converted and absorbed many peoples. And long ago, a few gentile tribes were absorbed into the Jewish Tribe with a most powerful sense of culture rooted in the Covenant. The merge is usually doable IF the conquerors and conquered are of the same race despite cultural differences. Plenty of Germanic and Slavic barbarians became 'Romans' or 'Greeks'.
But when a powerful culture conquers powerful cultures, neither side is willing to be fully absorbed into the other culture. This is even truer if the peoples differ in race as well as in culture. Latin America is an interesting case. Because the natives mostly had weak cultures, they were absorbed into the conquering Latin Culture. They took on Spanish names and language. And they accepted Christianity. Now, if the natives of Central and South America were white, they might have just become ONE with the Spanish. But as they were brown, strong distinctions and separations remain between the conquerors and conquered despite the effective cultural 'latinization' of the whole continent.
At any rate, empire eventually confuses the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered. This confusion is a double-edged sword. In some ways, it facilitates further integration between conquerors and conquered. If the conquerors come to identify more with imperial glory than with the national core, then they are bound to feel a closer bond with the conquered folks who've come to serve the empire. And if the conquered folks come to share in the pride of imperial glory, they are bound to look to conquerors not so much as foreign tyrants but rightful rulers. But this confusion also leads to all kinds of anxieties, paranoia, tensions, distrust, and resentment. Also, both sides realize that there has to be a limit to the merging of the two realms because there is the real danger of losing one's identity and culture forever. Then, it is hardly surprising that most empires faded in time. Latin America is in a strange kind of limbo state. In one way, it seems like a successful and permanent merging of conquerors and conquered. In other ways, it looks like an ongoing imperial project where something BIG might happen with drastic transformations in power politics.
Where nationalism becomes most vital and vivid is when empires fall apart. Such collapse finally decides what is Core Nationalism and Expansive Imperialism. It's like separating wheat from the chaff, the gold from the sand. Core Nationalism is muscular and lean, Expansive Imperialism is fat and round. An empire is like a person with excessive fat. He has eaten too much, and it has made him bigger. He carries a lot of weight, and can push others around. BUT, all that fat also serves as a burden. There are advantages to be sure. After all, a sumo wrestler gets a lot of leverage with the fat. But, he tires easily and has to keep eating and eating to maintain his size. Now, when a fatso decides to exercise and lose weight, does he shrink to nothingness? No, he will lose the fat, but he will reach a point where he is mostly lean muscle. That is the Core Person. Without all the fat, he may look diminished and won't win something like sumo matches, but he will feel healthier and lighter. So, if one wants to know what a fatso really looks like, the fatso must lose the weight. All the flab makes the fatso look like other fatsos. They are defined by fat that covers their body. But with exercise and healthy eating, a fatso will lose weight, and then he will really look like his true self.
This also goes for empire. Empire confuses the identity of a people. The conquering people may come to identify so much with the empire that they forget what they really are at the ethnic, cultural, and territorial core. Indeed, because they've come to covet the empire so much, they may feel that loss of empire will be the end of the world, the end of everything. But not so. Losing the empire finally reveals the Core Essence of the People and Culture. It is not total loss but loss of Imperial fat in exchange of re-emergence of the National musculature.
So, when the British lost their empire, they had their core in Great Britain. It still remained. After the French lost their empire, they had Core France, the land to which the French colonialists returned. When the Turks lost the Ottoman Empire, they no longer ruled over Arabs and Balkan folks, but they had the National Core in what is now Turkey. When the Japanese Empire collapsed in Continental Asia, there was still Core Japan. Austrians lost the empire, but they still had the Austrian Core. Russians lost the Soviet Empire but still have Core National Russia. And Germans lost their empire in WWII but still had the German national core.
And for the conquered peoples, the National Core remains even under Imperial Waters. Polish people and civilization were long submerged under Russian and Prussian Imperialism, but they remained as a steady rock that re-emerged once the empire subsided and receded from history. This was also true of the Greeks whose ethno-rock was long submerged under the Ottoman Imperial Sea.
So, true nationalism is Core Nationalism, and it reappears when a people lose the empire. They may be frightened that the loss of empire is loss of everything, but it's actually a realization of and a re-connection with the National Core. In the end, was it so tragic that the French in Indochina returned to France or the British in Kenya returned to Great Britain? Even with loss of Imperial Glory, there was National Integrity.
What is truly ominous and tragic about globalism is it is an attack on the Core itself. Apparently, it wasn't enough for the Brits and the French to lose their far-flung empires. They must lose their national cores as well. And not just them. According to PC, George Soros, and the UN, the attack on the Core must be universal. Even though Swedes and Poles didn't have overseas empires, they too must lose their cores. According to this article, even though Polish Conservatives mouth patriotic platitudes, they are collaborating with globo-homo capitalists to import tons of non-whites and spread Homomania everywhere. https://www.amren.com/features/2018/11/a-frank-assessment-of-nationalism-in-poland/ Also, rise of deracinating Pop Culture, anti-ethno-PC, and anti-life feminism have led to Child Dearth all over the Modern World. Women take jobs from men and then wonder why there aren't enough marriageable men around. It's because women took their jobs. Feminism is narrowly focused on female careerist empowerment while overlooking the fact that this leads to overall weakening of a people. While relative freedom for women was an advantage to the West, the West's greatest rise came when there was a balance between the ideal of equality and the reality of biology. Thus, Western women enjoyed more freedom and rights than women in other cultures, BUT they still performed their crucial biological functions as wives and mothers. This led to the triumph of the West. (If modern feminism had hit the West in the 18th century, there would have been no Rise of the West.) There was a sense of All-Empowerment for the entire society, and this required a complementary relationship between men and women. But materialistic feminism led to women seeing themselves as a separate and independent group apart from men. Instead of working with men to create a powerful society for all, women opted for the narrowest goals of personal/sexual entitlement. Of course, most women lost out in this order as only a handful women are going to succeed in the most glamorous fields coveted by most women addicted to celebrity and vanity. But the toxic mindset infected most women, and they lost all sense of what is GOOD FOR ALL or Mutual Empowerment. They just opted for the narrow empowerment of themselves as a separate group.
There was a time when even the loss of empire meant that a people would not lose all. Fall of empire meant that the conquered peoples regained(or conceived of) their own nationhood while the conquering peoples withdrew into their national core. Both sides got something. Liberation for the conquered, Re-connection for the conquerors. Imperialists returned home and reconnected with nation and kin... like Lawrence(of Arabia) who had enough of imperial ventures and returns home to Britain. Or the guys in THE DEER HUNTER who want to say goodbye to all that(imperialism) and return home where family and friends are. Fall of empire was like declaring bankruptcy. You lost lots of stuff, but you got to keep your core house and property. So, if you speculated in lots of bad real estate deals and got burned, you needn't lose your core home. But globalism says even the Core possession of a people/culture must be placed on the auction block or turned into something like a brothel. The culture and ideology of current UK is a whorehouse or a house-party. It is not a home where anyone would feel safe. In DUNKIRK, we see how the soldiers feel safe 'at home' as they make it across the channel. Today, London has been colonized by the Other. British Police looked the other way when girls were turned into sex slaves in Rotherham(or Brothelham). And yet, this is the the New Centrism, and anyone who calls for Core Nationalism is 'far right'... unless he happens to be an Israeli.
We are told endlessly that Global Warming will raise sea levels and submerge sea coasts all around the world. But even more alarming is the prospect of Global Swarming that may well submerge all the First World under the rising tides of Third World invasion egged on by globalist Jews.
The World Beware. White American Elites are the worst elites in the world, and all nations should be wary of the ways of such an elite. It’s a historical truth that a people are like a shapeless mass and can’t rule themselves. As the Founding Fathers knew, concentration of power may be evil but it’s a necessary evil. The power is like the watchtower. Its elevated and vaunted position allows those on top to see, hear, know, and reach more than the masses of individuals who make up the People. Imagine a village where most people are at ground level. In contrast, a few have access to the top of the tower and can see further than most people. Seeing more and knowing more, those atop the power can warn the people below of the dangers or fortunes far yonder. If an enemy tribe is coming toward the village, those atop the tower can see the threat before anyone on the ground. If a herd of deer or other prey animals appear in the horizon that can feed the village, those atop the tower can spot the good fortune before anyone on the ground.
Indeed, if not for the vision afforded by the tower, the people of the village may not even know of the herd that had passed by near the village. Also, those atop the tower can see everyone in the village, and everyone in the village can see in unison those on the top. At ground level at a gathering or rally, a villager can only see those in close proximity, and these people block all the others behind them. But from the tower, one can see the whole crowd. Those on the tower feel a sense of authority and privilege. And those below are likely to see those on top with a certain respect, even awe.
Now, those atop the tower can try to use their advantageous position for their own self-aggrandizement, and many elites have been like that through the ages. Or, they can be mindful of others in the village and use their elevation and greater reach in vision to serve the community. Thus, they become like the eyes, ears, lips, and brains of a the community that is the body. They speak to the community, they speak for the community, the listen to what the community has to say, and they plan for the community. After all, whatever special gifts those atop the tower may possess, they didn’t build the tower alone. All the community took part in laboring to erect such a tall edifice. And they surely didn’t do it just so the fortunate few could enjoy the cool breeze up above.
In the past, the American elites understood how much their good fortune depended on the people. After all, the elites alone couldn’t chop down trees, plow the fields, reap the harvests, lay down roads, build towns and cities, and etc. The fortunes of the elites relied on the labor of the masses. Of course, this was true of all societies around the world, but the ideal of the Modern West was that the elites must be mindful of those who do much of the hard work. When American economy was mainly agricultural and/or industrial, the elites understood the value of Labor and the Working Man. But as globalism changed so much of the US economy into a game of finance, high tech, and information-sharing(or intelligence-gathering), more and more of the American Labor force became obsolete, not least because (1) globalism could use cheaper foreign labor by outsourcing or mass-immigration (2) much of American Labor degraded under Union corruption, hedonism, & degeneracy(from drug use, family breakdown, feminism, declining white birthrates, and youth culture) and (3) rise of yuppie vanity & homo narcissism led to loss of respect for entire sectors of the economy as suitable only for ‘losers’ or ‘Mexicans’.
But perhaps, most crucial of all, the White American Elites came under the power of the Jewish globalists. Some might say the Jews are now the New Elites of America, but this isn't really true. While it’s true that Jews constitute the most powerful force in the US, they can’t be characterized as ‘American Elites’, no more than the British were really Indian Elites(in British ruled South Asia that once incorporated India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) or Chinese Elites(in Hong Kong) for that matter. Rather, the British Elites in India and Hong Kong were Imperial Elites who ruled over the native masses via local ‘comprador’ elites who willingly collaborated with foreign overlords for self-gain. (To be sure, there could be mass support for foreign rule IF such was deemed far saner and more productive than native rule. It appears most Chinese in Hong Kong preferred British rule to that of Mainland China ruled by madman Mao.) In a similar vein, Jewish elites in the US are not really American Elites as they’re part of a vast worldwide network of power that could be called the Empire of Judea or EOJ. Jewish overlords and elites in the US don’t feel primarily as Americans. They feel as Jews, and they feel closer to fellow Jews around the world than with fellow Americans of non-Jewish stock. Jews in NY and LA feel closer to Jews in London, Paris, and Tel Aviv than to non-Jewish Americans in Idaho, West Virginia, Utah, Iowa, Tennessee, and etc. Indeed, the very fact that Jews want to flood the US with endless immigration-invasion goes to show their outlook is global than national. Jews don’t value any population that could be deemed as Core America. Jews don’t care about the history of Core America that was white, European(non-Jewish), and Christian. If they feel any sense of connection to that America, they would try to defend and preserve it. But they not only feel no love for it but feel much hatred and resentment. For Jews, Wasps will always be associated with better-looking and taller Anglos who didn’t let their grandpas into Golf-n-Country Clubs or didn’t let their pretty shikse daughters marry Jewish boys. And Jews will always associate White Ethnics with the big Polish Catholic lunkhead who called Jewish kids ‘Christ-killer’ and maybe stole some lunch money from nerdy neurotic kids named Isaac.
Of course, Jews see Mexicans as just losers who should pick tomatoes and shut up. Jews do prize blacks to the extent that blacks are lucrative in sports and music, two industries controlled by Jews, but Jews don’t worry too much about the Negroes because most Negroes can’t rise very high, even with ‘affirmative action’ wind behind their backs. (The main black threat to Jews is that Jewish girls are creating a new ‘covenant’ centered around their vaginas on the basis of ‘what does my pooter want’, and for many Jewish girls, it’s big Negro dong. So, perhaps, Jewish power will really be brought down by black dongs. As Jewish girls turn into wild skanks chasing after Negro dongs, Jewish boys will go with more Asian women, and their kids will be born with mellow yellow genes that are lacking in the chutzpah that's been so integral to Jewish power. After all, intelligence alone without the rocket boosters of pushiness lacks motivation to go very far. Indeed, consider the fall of the Episcopalians who had the intelligence but not the pushy drive to have it all and crush all competition.)
Jews never really became Americans. They never assimilated into the Core America as founded and developed by Anglo-Americans. It was too ‘gentile’ and too ‘Christian’ for the Jews with their strong individual egos and ethnocentric identity. Indeed, if later whites from Eastern and Southern parts of Europe came with sense of ethnicity, Jews came with a sense of ethnocentrism. Ethnicity can dissolve into the Larger Identity of a nation, but ethnocentrism resists being absorbed into something else. So, if most white ethnic groups were digested into White Anglo-America, Jews remained apart as a people and culture. If white Christians had long ago adopted a religion that arose in the Near East, Jews have always had a direct cultural and genetic link with the Near East. If whites adopted a heretical variant of Judaism, Jews founded a community 1500 yrs before Christ. As far as Jews were concerned, Christianity was the biggest ‘cultural appropriation’ of all time. It is a Stolen Religion as far as Jews are concerned. (It is no wonder than Martin Bernal the Jewish scholar goes even further and says that even the pagan core of Western Civilization was stolen from Africa and Near East in his book ‘Black Athena’, which was originally titled ‘African Athena’.)
Also, if whites have genetic roots in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews have been half-European and half-Semitic. So, Jews have always been somewhat ‘Zeligish’ and dualistic about their racial identity. They were both whites and Semites, a perception shared by Jews and all-whites alike. Then, it is not surprising that Jews didn’t feel like assimilating like other white ethnic groups in the US. Granted, some Jews did become racially and culturally mixed with whites. They Anglo-ized their names and took on Wasp manners and attitudes. But as more and more Jews arrived, especially from Eastern Europe, a distinct Immigrant-Jewish-Identity formed that overtook the earlier mode of Jewishness that leaned more toward assimilation. Yet, Jews knew they couldn’t get very far with mere isolation in their own ghettos. To rise in wealth and power, they had to work with whites and peoples around the world. So, Jews developed a powerful ethnocentric core and an adaptive cosmopolitan shell. For a time, certain Jewish scholars were especially fascinated with the Japanese who seemed to handle modernity in a similar way: Acting Western with foreigners but keeping it very Japanese at home and within their own community. But if Japanese could remain meaningfully Japanese only in Japan, Jews managed this even outside as minorities in other nations. After all, Japanese-Americans are utterly deracinated and deculturalized; they are cucky-san like Francis Fukuyama. Paradoxically, Jewish ethno-centrism strengthened Jewish cosmopolitanism and vice versa. Because cosmopolitanism tends to weaken and erase identity and culture, secular Jews felt they had to make an extra-effort to preserve and pass down their Jewishness. (In a truly inspired scene in A SERIOUS MAN by the Coen Brothers, it’s the Jewish ritual that keeps the community together and the culture intact because, without it, the formative culture for the children would be TV shows, drugs, rock music, and etc. Despite all such deracinating and degenerative forces, the father manages to pass down something ethnic, cultural, and spiritual through the ritual of the Bar Mitzvah.) And because Jews were so ethno-centric, they had to make an extra effort to be ‘liberal’ and ‘open-minded’ with other peoples. Because Jews needed both modes for success and power(and sometimes for survival) and because the modes were opposites, Jews had to work against ethnocentrism for cosmopolitanism(in dealing with goyim) and work against cosmopolitanism for ethnocentrism(in their own hearts). Granted, Jews eventually managed to persuade a lot of Americans that Jewishness-Zionism-Israel is as American as Apple Pie. Therefore, Jews can now be openly ethnocentric and cosmopolitan at the same time. But how long can this serious contradiction last?
To better understand the Jew, consider The Fable of the Gulping Hippo. Whatever the Gulping Hippo eats turns into the Hippo. This shouldn’t surprise us as this is true of all of organisms. When we eat carrots, we don't turn into carrots, e.g. our fingers sprout into carrots and our skin turns orange. When we eat beef or fish, we don’t turn cow-like or fish-like. We can eat 100 fish over several months, but we remain human. We don’t develop gills or scales or want to live in water. We can eat lots of steaks, but we won’t suddenly go ‘moo’ like cows or grow horns or develop an appetite for hay. Instead, whatever we eat turns into us. The proteins and vitamins are broken down and absorbed into our body. They become digested and processed into our bodily systems. And it’s the same with the Gulping Hippo. Whatever the Hippo eats turns into it. Now, this Gulping Hippo is an enviable beast. It is big and strong. And other creatures admire the Hippo so much that they want to be part of it. So, one day, the Gulping Hippo tells the other creatures that they are welcome to enter its mouth to its stomach. The Hippo’s melting-pot stomach will digest all of them and turn them into parts of the hippo. Other creatures like this idea of becoming one with the hippo. So, when the Gulping Hippo opens its mouth wide, other animals come onboard. Rabbits, badgers, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, lizards, frogs, skunks, opossums, gophers, ducks, sparrows, and etc. all head into the Hippo’s mouth. The Hippo chomps on all of them and gulps them down. Its stomach processes and digests them, and they are absorbed by the hippo’s body. So, it doesn’t matter how many kinds of animals the hippo eats. It remains hippo while growing larger. Just because the hippo ate a dozen rabbits doesn’t make it rabbity. Just because the hippo ate a bear doesn’t make it a bear. To be sure, there is one creature the hippo has failed to digest all these years, and it’s a gorilla. Yes, sometime back, the Hippo had this idea of swallowing a gorilla thinking the ghastly ape would be nutritious, but indigestible simian has been stuck in the digestive tract since. But the Gulping Hippo has been able to eat other creatures and process them in its melting-pot-stomach into nutrients for its body. So, Hippo eats all sorts of creatures and uses them as nutritious building blocks to grow bigger and stronger as a hippo.
But one day, the Hippo came upon the hook worm. Hippo thought, "this doesn’t look very tasty", but the hookworm told the Hippo, "You should eat me. I would be most happy to be processed by your melting-pot-stomach and become a part of you... just like all the other creatures." But the Hippo eyed the hookworm and thought, "But this fella looks rather odd." The hookworm asked the Hippo why it’s so afraid. After all, the hookworm is smaller than other creatures that the hippo ate, such as racoons, rabbits, owls, wombats, gophers, bears, and hogs. I mean, what is a tiny hookworm? Is the big and mighty hippo too chicken to try a little hookworm? Thus assured, the Hippo decides to swallow a bunch of hookworms. The hookworms went into the stomach of the hippo, but instead of being digested like earlier creatures, it sank its hooks into the stomach of the hippo and began to suck on its blood. The hippo thought the hookworms were digested and became part of the hippo, but the hookworms refused to surrender their hookworm-ness and be digested by the Hippo. Hookworms clung to their hookworminess and, if anything, felt that the Hippo existed to feed the hookworms, the best organisms in the world. The hippo began to feel strange. It felt more drained of strength. Also, it began to notice blood in its stools. Because the hippo felt weaker, it felt the need to swallow more and more creatures, but its digestion was no longer working like it used to. So, the new creatures the hippo ate were only half-digested and caused all sorts of stomach-aches. Also, the hookworms released certain viruses that traveled to the brains of the hippo and began to take over the functions. The viruses told the brains to just lay the hippo body down and not defend itself from other creatures. Until then, the hippo was a powerful beast that devoured other creatures but made sure no other creature was able to devour it. So, the hippo digested other creatures to turn them into part of hippo-nes but wouldn’t allow other animals to take a bite of the hippo. If anything, when a Japanese monkey chucked a spear at the hippo’s butt once, the hippo got so mad that it stampeded over the hapless monkey and turned it into a pancake. Indeed, the hippo’s hide was thick and tough, like a wall between Israel and West Bank. But the viruses in the Hippo’s brains whispered that it’s wrong for the hippo to be hostile to other creatures that just want to play with the hippo. The hippo should stop fighting or fending off other creatures that seem to have a taste for hippo meat. If anything, the hippo should be flattered that such creatures love hippo flesh. The hippo should be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ of the would-be-eaters-of-hippo. Also, the hookworms release certain chemicals that agitate the gorilla in the Hippo’s belly into acting wild and crazy. So, the Gulping Hippo increasingly feels weak from loss of blood to the hookworms, increasingly perturbed by some crazy-ass gorilla beating its chest, and increasingly deluded that it should stop defending itself from predators & scavengers and just lie down and rest. So, what happens? Lions, hyenas, jackals, wild dogs, leopards, weasels, fire ants, badgers, and etc. move towards the Hippo and begin to devour it like a helpless beached whale. And that’s how the Gulping Hippo died. What happened to the Hookworms? When the other creatures at the hippo’s innards, the hookworms entered their stomached and caused new havoc.
So, you understand how Jews destroyed America. Until 1965, the US mostly took in assimilate-able fellow whites. Though Southern and Eastern Europeans posed some problems, they were fellow whites and once they adopted the American Way, they were more or less like the original white Americans. They were digested into Anglo-Germanic America. But Jews were different. They remained Jewish first and American second. They didn’t see America as something to melt into. They saw America as a trove of goy treasures to be melted down into gold for Jewish pockets. If Anglos thought Jews would be digestible like Poles, Lithuanians, Slavic Russians, Greeks, French, and etc., they were dead wrong. Jews were like hookworms that resisted digestion and, if anything, sucked on the blood of the host. Also, Jews took over the Anglo-American mind and reprogrammed Core Americanism into some ‘propositional’ and ‘open borders’ ideology whereupon White America would no longer have the right or means to defend and preserve itself. Thus, America went from a strong white hippo that pushed away invaders to a hapless hippo(as beached whale) that welcomes all manner of creatures to come and devour it in the name of ‘diversity’. (Whites have been told that Diversity is good because of More Restaurants, but the real menu of globalism is white nations fed to non-whites of the world who are steered into white nations by Jewish globalists.)
The Hippo once used to devour digestible creatures to make itself bigger and stronger. The creatures were digested to add to Hippo-ness. But now, the hippo is devoured by others to become parts of other creatures. It’s like the American Southwest is now being devoured by Mexicans to make it more Mexican. And parts of Minnesota and Maine are now being devoured by Somalians to make them more like Somalia. This is what happens when you swallow Jewish hookworms.
In the Current US, the white elites are not only useless but dangerous as a template for the rest of the world. White elites no longer exist to represent, lead, serve, and defend the white masses. They no longer play the Moses-role and David-role for whites. As power and means are concentrated in the elites, a people cannot do anything without them. It’s like a military cannot function without hierarchy and chain of command. A good army has generals who remain loyal to their own side and care about the men. If generals just go off the play golf and tell the soldiers to fight on their own, the army will lose. Individual soldiers may be tough, but they cannot coordinate battle plans as individuals. They need leaders and chain of command that allows for larger strategy, communication, coordination, and logistics. Take the film SEVEN SAMURAI. The seven swordsmen on their own cannot defend the village from 40 bandits, some of whom have guns. The battle will ultimately have to depend on the peasants learning to fight and showing courage. So, why do the peasants need the samurai so much? Because the peasants, though numerous, don’t know anything about organization, leadership, fighting, and strategy. So, in hiring samurai, they hired elites to lead them. In the Old Testament, the Jews are initially without kings. But as their numbers swell and their enemies multiply, Jews are in need of more organization and strategy. They need kings and ruling elites. This is why a people cannot do without elites. It’s like a headless chicken. And today, white people are like a headless chicken. Jews took over America, but they feel no great unity with white people. Indeed, Jews see themselves as globalist supremacist masters. If they feel any real love for any nation, it is Israel. If anything, Jews are hellbent on destroying Europe with massive African and Muslim immigration-invasion. Only Israel is given Pass-Over rights from the plague of Afro-Islamo Mass Invasion, just like only Jewish sons were protected from God’s Wrath when Moses returned to Egypt.
White elites are no longer the ruling class in America. Many of them still have lots of wealth, but they morally cuck out to Jews, blacks, and Diversity because of the change in the Official Narrative that made whites mainly responsible, indeed ‘guilty’, for the ‘sins’ and problems of America. Jews not only have wealth and power to out-match those of white elites but they occupy the ‘sacerdotal’ positions of society. As the Holocaust People, they strut around and sermonize as if each and every Jew is the new messiah. If white elites are cursed with the sin of ‘white guilt’, it means their wealth and advantages are morally illegitimate due to ‘crimes’ of their ancestors or their ‘white privilege’. Therefore, they mustn’t be proud or positive about their identity, heritage, and culture. Since white consciousness is out of the question, white elites cannot be the leaders of white people or the white race. If anything, they must cut ties to fellow whites on the political and cultural level. To justify their white wealth despite the burden of ‘white guilt’, they can use their power and wealth to lend aid or support only to non-whites. It’s like Bill Gates Foundation offers NOTHING to whites, no matter how poor, needy, and lost they are.
If white elites don’t particularly want to do favors for blacks, browns, or Diversity, they can partially redeem themselves by sucking up to the Jewish Globalist Overlords of the Empire of Judea, of which the US is now a colony. How things have changed. There was a time when white elites ruled the US, felt positive about whiteness, and represented, led, and defended white Americans(from foreign threats and from the tougher and stronger blacks). But today, white elites don’t rule the US, feel negative about whiteness, snub & insult fellow white brethren, only offer comfort to blacks & non-whites, and suck up to Jews(and even homos).
Such being the status of the White Elites in the US, The Way of the American White Elites is the most terrible template for national elites of any nation. Take Turkey. Suppose Turks decide to follow the American White Elite Way. Suppose Turks allow Jews or some minority to gain dominant power in Turkey. Suppose Turks allow this new elite to emphasize only the darkest and most tragic aspects of Turkish history and instill Turkish elites with guilt and shame about being Turk. So, no matter how much wealth and privilege a Turk gains, he feels shame and rejects the idea that Turkish elites should defend Turkishness and represent/defend fellow Turks in the middle and bottom. So, there is no unity and connection Turkish elites and masses. If anything, Turkish elites they must care more about non-Turks like the Kurds and even welcome massive immigration-invasion of non-Turks into Turkey with the hope of turning Turks into a minority in their own nation. And the Turkish elites shower praise and adoration on the non-Turks while heaping abuse on Turkish patriots who call for the demographic, cultural, and territorial preservation of Turkey. Indeed, the patriots are caricatured as the 'far right'. And, most of all, the Turkish elites don’t see themselves as the rulers of Turkey but cuck-collaborators to the globo-minority overlords who’ve gained real power in Turkey through control of finance, media, entertainment, education, vice industries, and much else. And the Turkish elites allow the globo-minority elites to replace Islam with Homomania and to teach kids from a young age that nothing is more sacred in the world than the homo anus, the Negro booty-and-dong, and Jewish soul. Well, what would happen to Turkey in a matter of decades? The total fading of a civilization from history, that’s what.
Now, let’s apply the White American Elite Template to Vietnam. What would happen to that country if the Vietnamese Elites were to emulate White American Elites? They would allow a foreign globalist elite to take the real power in Vietnam. This minority would take over Vietnamese banking, media, academia, and government(by buying up all the whore politicians). And this minority will change the Narrative and instill Vietnamese with ‘yellow guilt’. Feeling guilt and shame, the Vietnamese elites would no longer believe in the feasibility of promoting Vietnamese pride or self-respect. Indeed, Vietnamese identity and consciousness would be seen as ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘ugly’, and ‘reactionary’. So, even though Vietnamese can still get rich and gain elite status, the Viet elites can no longer feel pride in their identity or feel a sense of unity and solidarity with their own people. Indeed, the elites come to see the Vietnamese masses as ‘deplorables’ for clinging to their Vietnamese identity. And then, the Vietnamese elites believe their own ‘deplorable’ people must be replaced by Diversity from all over the world. Since Vietnamese-ness is associated with ‘guilt’, the only redemption is for Vietnam to De-Vietnamize itself. And Vietnamese elites must see themselves as ‘global citizens’ than as Vietnamese patriots and leaders. They no longer represent, serve, and defend their own people. They only care about their own wealth and privilege that, under the New Narrative, can be morally justified ONLY BY the Viet support of mass immigration-invasion and Homomania. The Vietnamese masses feel lost as there is no longer an elite to lead them. And many of them come under PC brainwashing as the elites, taking their cue from globalist overlords, replace patriotic education with PC, anti-national self-hatred, and Homomania. How long would Vietnam last as a nation? Not long.
Indeed, if any nation’s elites follow in the footsteps of the white American elites(who are putty in the hands of Jews), it will spell doom for their nation. There are lots of great things about America, but by far the worst element of Current America is the Way of the White Elites. It is the worst kind of Elite Behavior in the world, but it has become the template for nearly all Western European nations and even possibly nations like Japan that remain under the thumb of the US. Whatever may be wrong with China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, they still have national elites who feel a direct connection to their own people, feel pride and self-respect about their identity and culture, and believe the main duty of the national elites is to serve and defend their own people. Typical members of the US elites are Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, Bill Gates, John Brennan, Mitt Romney, Jeff Bezos, Andrew Cuomo, Anderson Cooper(the Pooper), and etc. Now, what do all such goy white elites have in common? They feel no positivity about whiteness or European-ness. They have no connection with their own race and culture. They suck up to Jewish globalist overlords. Their definition of ‘American’ has more to do with ‘New Americans to shop for from around the world’ than with Historic White Americans who founded and built the nation. And they care more about Homomania as new religion than about Christianity. And they repeat the mantra, ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’ to justify their total abandonment of their own race and ethnic kin. Of course, they are all zealously committed to Israel being a Jewish state, but then, such hypocrisy is to be expected from decadent, degenerate, corrupted, and craven elites who, having lost moral legitimacy in terms of identity, believe they can keep their loot only by baptizing their whiteness in a tub of PC and Diversity.
It is precisely because the White American Elites got so useless that Jews thought they won for all time. Jews figured that the white elites would cuck out to Jews. And the white masses, being no longer represented and defended by white elites, would lose heart, lose their minds, lose their senses, become addicted to drugs, race-mix with Negroes, and be replaced by endless tides of Diversity that would make any united humanity against Jews nearly impossible. Indeed, Jewish globalist elites believe that the ONLY thing standing between Jews and total-eternal power is the white majority. Even if most white Americans weren't anti-Jewish, there is the possibility that they could be, especially as Jews get richer, nastier, and more supremacist. With Jewish power in hyper-drive, the ONLY guarantee for permanent Jewish supremacy is Diversity because a people divided along ethnic and cultural lines cannot come together to form a united bloc. This is why Jews also pushed Diversity on Europe. But Donald Trump won.
Now, Trump may very well fail in the end, and Jews may get what they want. But what Trump and the Alt Right represented was the awakening realization that the White American Elites are utterly useless to White People, many of whom are hungry for a true elite that can inspire and lead white people into Emancipation from the Tyranny of the Empire of Judea.
This is why Jews are so committed to stamping out the Alt Right and destroying Donald Trump anyway they can. Jews fear the emergence of a Real White Elite that believes in leading and defending white people. Such White Unity would mean the end of Jewish Supremacism because white head would serve the white body and white body would serve the white head. Mind and body would be one. In order for Jews to maintain their supremacism, they must make sure that the white mind serves the Jewish super-mind and that the white body has no white mind to lead it, thereby growing weak and dying.
Jews fear that Trump is secretly using Putinism as his personal template. What is the Putinist template? It is that Putin as son of Russia and leader of Russians must put the interest of his people, culture, and land above all else. Such nationalism is threatening to Jewish globalist supremacism that says all nations exist to primarily to serve Jews as the superior god-like race.
A simple children's game can easily demonstrate the ideal conditions for World Peace: More Homogeneity or More Diversity? To find the answer, just get yourself a World Map.
The game is played thus:
Take a good look at Europe on the map. Now, erase all national borders until all of Europe is one landmass without divisions. Then, redraw national borders to either...
(1) Maximize homogeneity
or
(2) Maximize diversity.
You can draw borders around where the bulk of Polish people live to maximize Polish Homogeneity OR you can draw borders so that what is now Poland is broken up into 5 parts, each of which is included with OTHER nations that are also made diverse.
If you go for Maximizing Homogeneity, your newly drawn Poland will be mostly Polish.
But if you go for Maximizing Diversity, your nation will include a part of Poland, part of Germany, part of Hungary, part of Czech Rep, part of Ukraine. Polish people, instead of having a nation in which they are the solid super-majority, will become like the Kurdish people who are scattered among other nations.
You might do the same with Germany until there is no single Germany in which most Germans are situated. Instead, Germany would be divided into five or six parts and joined with other nations made up of diverse peoples, not unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Now, which will be more socially peaceful, culturally meaningful, and politically more stable? A Poland where Polish people and culture are maximally homogenized or an entity where Polish people are divided and included as minorities in six other nations(in which no people are a majority)?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Polish people with a nation of their own are likely to feel far more content, secure, and happy than if Polish nation is dissolved and if Polish people are divided and included as minorities into a bunch of nations filled with diversity of Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovenians, Croatians, etc.
A nation may gain something by having minorities, but it’s always good to have a super-majority who define the identity, character, culture, and heritage of a nation and people. After all, don’t we pity the Kurds because they don’t have a nation in which they are the solid majority and can feel at home? Instead, they are scattered in nations like Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. As a minority in each country, they always feel oppressed or marginalized. And other people look upon them with suspicion and hostility. Indeed, let’s play this game in the Middle East where much of the problem stems from maps(drawn by Western Imperialists) that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Was that a good idea? Well, just ask the Kurds who are a thorn on the side of every nation in which they constitute a sizable minority and to whom every nation seems like a boot pressed upon their face.
Anyway, let's suppose we are back in 1918 after World War I. Suppose we have the chance to draw borders in the Middle East to create new nation-states. We have two choices. We can draw borders to
(1) Maximize Homogeneity in every nation
or
(2) Maximize Diversity in every nation.
Which would be the wiser option? To draw the borders on the map so as to give Kurds their own nation(or at least one where they are the overwhelming majority) OR to break up Kurdish-populated areas to be included into other nations designed for maximum diversity?
When we look at the current mess in the Middle East, the answer is pretty obvious. If the map of the Middle East had been drawn to maximize homogeneity after WWI, much of the political problems, at least pertaining to ethnic and/or sectarian conflicts, could have been avoided or at least greatly reduced. Take Iraq. If the imperialists had allowed a separate Kurdish nation, had united Sunni Arabs in Iraq with Sunnis in Syria, and if Shia Arabs in Iraq had been given their own nation, there would have been far greater stability. Instead, imperialists created nations like modern Syria, modern Iraq, modern Afghanistan, and etc. to be excessively diverse. As such, only an iron-fisted strongman could keep the peace as democratic experimentation would have led to divisions along ethnic lines.
How things might have been different if, following WWI, the Europeans had carefully surveyed the demographic reality of the entire region and drawn national maps to ensure that one particular group would be the overwhelming majority of every new nations. If Kurds in what is now Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and maybe even Turkey(if Turkish resistance could have been overcome) would have been given a nation of their own, they would be far happier and securer. They would be causing far less trouble to their neighbors and vice versa.
Now, let’s play this game in crazy-quilt region of Southeast Asia. Suppose we erase the current map and draw new borders to either
(1) Maximize Homogeneity
or
(2) Maximize Diversity.
Would it be better to draw maps to create a maximally homogeneous nation for Vietnamese, a maximally homogeneous nation for Cambodians, maximally homogeneous nation for Laotians, maximally homogeneous nation for Thais, maximally homogeneous nation for Burmese, OR would it be better to draw arbitrary borders so that one nation(shaped like a longitudinal snake) is created that is demographically 1/5 Vietnamese, 1/5 Cambodia, 1/5 Thai, 1/5 Burmese, etc.
Which would be the wiser option? A nation that is as homogeneous as possible for each people OR a bunch of nations that is made of maximally diverse populations?
Would it be better for Vietnamese to have Vietnam, Cambodians to have Cambodia, Thais to have Thailand, Laotians to have Laos, and etc., OR would it better for there to be several nations in which every group is a minority? So, instead of the Vietnamese having a nation to call their own, Vietnamese people would be dispersed, like Kurds, among other nations filled with diversity?
We can also play this game with Northeast Asia. Currently, Korea is divided in half because the US, after Japanese defeat, split the nation with the Soviet Empire. If European imperialists forced different peoples into a single nation in the Middle East and Africa, Americans divided one people into two peoples in Korea.
But suppose there is a chance for great change on the peninsula. What would make more sense? To erase the border between North Korea and South Korea and form one nation composed of people of shared ethnos, language, and history... OR to join North Korea with Manchuria and to join South Korea with Japan? If we want to maximize homogeneity, North Korea and South Korea should merge. But if we want to maximize Diversity, North Korea should be added to Manchuria and South Korea should be added to Japan(like Ireland used to be joined to Great Britain). What would be better? To maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity?
What does history tell us? I think even a child would figure this out. Maximizing Homogeneity wherever possible has been the best formula for peace within nation and with other nations. The threat to world peace usually happens when nationalism is violated in favor of imperialism. Imperialism causes diversity by invading other nations or by turning one’s nation into some cosmopolitan center welcome to all... in which case foreigners arrive to take advantage and eventually take over demographically, which is exactly what has happened in many cities and towns in France, UK, Sweden, and Germany.
Finally, let’s play this game with Israel and neighboring nations. Suppose we erase all existing borders and draw new ones. We can draw borders to maximize homogeneity or to maximize diversity for each people. Now, what would be better? To draw borders to maximize, say, Jewish homogeneity in Israel or to break up Israel into three parts and include each with other geo-political entities for the purpose of more diversity?
Now, suppose northern third of Israel is joined with Lebanon and parts of Syria. The middle third of Israel is joined with Jordan and a part of Saudi Arabia. And the southern third of Israel is joined with a part of Egypt and a part of Libya.
So, would it be better to draw maps to maximize Homogeneity of Jews within a nation to call their own OR to divide up Israel and Jews(like Kurds) and turn them into minorities in diverse nations?
Now, isn’t the main problem facing Israel due to diversity caused by Occupation of West Bank?
The answer is SO OBVIOUS, but Jewish globalist elites pressure the entire world to maximize diversity(except for Israel where Jews support JEWS-ONLY immigration to maximize homogeneity). Why do Jews give such bad advice when it’s bad for gentile nations? Because it is good for the designs of Jewish Globalist Supremacism. When nations turn overly diverse, it’s easier for Jews to manipulate in divide-and-conquer fashion. Also, a diverse nation hardly has any useful nationalism. Because the various groups don’t trust one another, they tend not to unite as ONE PEOPLE but forge alliances with foreigners and imperialists to gain an advantage.
This is why Jews find homos so useful. Because homos feel alienated in many nations, they will gladly collaborate with World Jewry that showers them with money and favors. As such, homos around the world have effectively become the proxies of Jewish supremacism.
This is why truly independent and autonomous nations like Russia, Iran, China, and now Turkey do NOT allow the US(the primary tool of Judea or World Jewry) to force Homomania on them. Turkey used to allow ‘gay pride’ parades but finally stood up to World Jewry and said NO. But puppet-whore nations of the US, such as Germany-UK-Italy-Japan-Mexico-Ukraine-S. Korea-Taiwan-UK-etc. all put on massive Homomania festivals. If Uncle Samowicz tell them they better, they better.
Jews know that a patriotic and unified people can stand together against Jewish infiltration. That’s why Jews do everything to weaken and dilute gentile national identity. Jews do this by spreading Homomania that says Minority Privilege must take precedence over Majority Values. Jews also use Afromania to make people all over the world addicted to rap music, black sports, and jungle fever. Afromania destroys the manhood of non-black gentiles around the world because black rappers sing louder, black athletes got more muscle, and black hustlers got bigger dongs.
And of course, Jews try to promote Holocaustianity as a neo-religion all over the world so that every people will feel sorry and ‘guilty’ about Jews. And then, once a nation’s identity and patriotism have been weakened, Jews use their immense power of media, academia, and finance to brainwash the gentile elites into believing that DIVERSITY is not only a great boon but a moral necessity.
The result is something like the disastrous experiment taking place in Sweden, a nation where hideous feminists rule, where men are castrated cucks, and where endless streams of invaders are ‘welcomed’ as adding more wonderful Diversity to the nation. Well, goodbye to Sweden. With Jews, You Lose.
Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History was not marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profound changes in its forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.
Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’ and 'liberal', supposedly the quintessential attributes of the West? Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And huge swaths of what had been Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. If a people-and-culture are defined by a set of ideas, are they no longer that people-and-culture if the ideas were to change? If we say the samurai system and ethos are the indispensable essence of what it means to be Japanese, then are we to assume that the Japanese stopped being Japanese once they abandoned the samurai order and embarked on the path of Westernization? While it is true that samurai culture and mindset left a huge imprint on Japanese history, isn't the core essence of Japanese-ness the story of Japanese people in their homeland? Likewise, while it's true that political democracy & individualism originated and came to fruition in the West, the core essence of the West goes far deeper than any philosophy or set of ideals. More than anything, it's about the people, the land, and their sense of history REGARDLESS of whatever ideas or values they may have espoused. Thus, barbarian Vikings were no less a part of the West than Republican Romans. And Spanish living under autocratic Franco were no less part of the West than Swedes living under Social-Democracy. France was just as much a part of West under monarchy as under revolutionary populist ideals. So, the notion of distilling the entirety of the Western Experience into a bottle of 'democracy' is rather glib and shallow.
Also, there is no need to fetishize democracy. The historical lesson of democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, has often led to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.
For democracy to thrive and ensure survival of the civilization it serves, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that are now prone to spouting such sentiments such as “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” In Iran, Israel, and Turkey, the democratic institutions serve, respectively, Iran-ness, Jewishness, and Turkishness. Democracy serves than dissolves nationalism. (A fascist-democracy allows liberal freedoms and free elections BUT enshrines the core fascist themes into the Constitution whose primary function is to secure the survival and well-being of a particular ethnos on a specific territory justified by a certain narrative. The danger of autocracies is the power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few that grow increasingly paternalistic and corrupt. The danger of democracies is the people become fractured into atomized individuals succumbing to appetites and alienation, thus allowing cynical elites to gain plutocratic power behind the scenes. In contrast, a fascist-democracy provides direction & meaning to freedoms that ultimately go to preserving the ethnos and mythos. Thus, people do enjoy freedoms and choices as individuals but are inculcated from cradle to find meaning as organic members of a larger community of blood-and-soil. Too many people tend to see politics in terms of right-wing aristocracy vs left-wing democracy, but democracy can be made to serve nationalism via fascism, which also allows for compromise between capitalism and socialism.)
America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom bound to powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. A democracy without fascist themes to keep it loyal to a people & culture will eventually dissipate because an idea serving an idea(instead of something specific and tangible) will grow weak and decadent. In time, the people are made to value the idea more than the realness of their own existence as ethnos and culture upon a territory. Thus, French people no longer believe their political system exists to defend and preserve the French nation. Instead, the French people and nation now exist to serve the Idea that, in a state of abstraction, becomes universal and is no longer specifically bound to the national interests of France as blood-and-soil. (While the cosmopolitan ideal of the French Enlightenment is not a new one, its corrosive impact had been tempered in the past by nationalism, traditionalism, and chauvinism that favored the French over their colonial subjects who, furthermore, had little chance of moving to France. Today, it's so easy for millions of non-whites to invade white nations every year. What had been the privilege of the affluent has become the tangible dream of countless mobs in the Third World. The practice of cosmopolitan universalism went from rich & educated white Europeans traveling to exotic places to millions of Africans and Muslims arriving in France and UK to shake their booties to rap and shake down whitey for free gibs.)
Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a proud Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ for all of humanity that may want to migrate to Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.
That is precisely what is happening in the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if current trends are left unchecked, the future of Europe will be doom and demise.
A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people & culture of a nation.
A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population that has been demoralized and deracinated by PC. If some native people do remain idealistic and passionate in a decadent-democracy, it's only in welcoming racial and national suicide in the name of serving the ideas of 'democracy' and 'openness'... and 'diversity', another essential 'Western Value' recently discovered or invented by PC. It goes to show that 'Western Values' are really dictated by whomever wields the power to control the narrative. Deracinators or 'Deracists' are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.
