Commentary on "2020s: 'American Century' Finished, World Is Now Multipolar (With Prof. Anthony Hall)" by Kevin Barrett

https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/2019/12/2020s-hall/

Decline of the US empire? No, US is still the sole superpower. More importantly, the real power isn’t ‘American’ but Jewish Supremacist. US is the main aircraft carrier and money bag of the Empire of Judea(EOJ), and the tentacles of EOJ stretch across many nations in North America, Europe, South America, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, esp South Africa.

If anything, the ‘Americanization’ of the world — which means falling under control of Jewish influence — still gathers pace around the world.

Even when nations supposedly oppose globalism in the name of 'populist globalism', all they do is invite more Diversity and suck up to Jews. Look at Brexit. Leaving the EU has led the UK to take in more darkies and suck up to Jews even more under Boris the Spider Johnson. Clever Jews hedge their bets and have puppets on both sides. So, no matter which side wins, Jews get what they want. Even Donald Trump, though loathed by most Jews, does little but suck up to EOJ. He even works with his Jewish masters to shut down free speech critical of Israel and Jewish supremacism. It's 'muh holocaust' or 'muh gay' all the time. And given that Jews are pushing Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), the US as sole superpower is turning into a Soul Superpower at least when it comes to its 'cultural capital' that is mostly about rap music and black-dominated sports.

Kevin Barrett's Reply:

The US can no longer get what it wants. It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it. It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest. It wanted Iran, the “7th country in 5 years” destroyed (or “regime changed”) by 2006. It wanted Assad out. It wanted North Korea to give up its nukes. It wanted Turkey to stop working with Russia and give up the S-400. It wanted Pakistan to stop tilting toward China. It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier. It wanted Chinese economic growth, and the technological and military power it buys, to flatline. And so on.

Meanwhile the other poles of the multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran have let the US spend itself into a corner. The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants. The US ability to dictate terms to the world is over.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available. America’s blood is almost gone. So they will diversify their bloodsucking, and are in fact already doing so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The US can no longer get what it wants.

But the US never got everything it wanted. During the Cold War, it lost Cuba. And even its successes in Latin America smeared US reputation as it had to support 'right-wing death squads'. US pulled out of Vietnam. US power was at its zenith with the fall of Soviet Empire, but by the end of the 20th century, Vladimir Putin and nationalists were regaining power in Russia. And the Middle East was mostly intact except for Iraq that had been crushed in the Gulf War. (Still, Hussein was in power until 2003.) So, it’s misleading to say the World Order went from US getting everything to US not getting everything. The US never got everything.

It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it

But Venezuela is on shaky legs and is far weaker than in the Bush II years when Hugo Chavez was snubbing his nose. Chavez deserves praise as a nationalist, but his version of socialism was deeply flawed as it relied on high oil prices and patronage machine politics. Once oil prices plummeted, so did the economy. The regime in power is weaker than ever and just holding on. Also, US empire pushed back against the Latin National Left with considerable success. Ecuador is now in hands of US stooges. Just ask Julian Assange. Brazil is ruled by pro-Zionist Bolsanaro. Bolivia is now ruled by pro-US junta-backed ‘democracy’. Cuba, though independent, signed onto globo-homo nonsense.

It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest.

Maybe, maybe not. In a way, the Taliban threat is a useful excuse to continue the US occupation. If the Taliban had really been eradicated, US would no longer have a valid reason to stay. US wants to occupy Afghanistan, not let it go. So, as long as the US has the Taliban Excuse, it stays and gets what it wants, thus encircling both Russia and Iran.

As for Iraq, it was a disaster, but that was good for the Empire of Judea(that rules the US) in a way. After all, a stable democracy in Iraq might still have turned out to be nationalist and pro-Arabist. It’s possible that once the Jewish-run US realized that the Shia-led regime in Iraq would lean toward Iran, it secretly armed and aided Sunni insurgents to attack and subvert the government. Make Arabs fight Arabs. Play both sides. To the extent that new Iraq had been a never-ending story of Arabs killing Arabs, the Empire of Judea loves it. After all, it created the exact same conditions in Libya and Syria. So, in that sense, the ‘disaster’ of Iraq turned out to be a useful formula, a handy template, in dealing with other 'rogue' Arab nations. Don’t invade and turn them into democracies. Just arm and fund certain ‘moderate rebel’ factions and set them loose to turn the Middle East upside down. While Israel is peaceful and prosperous, look at the horrible conditions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Total hell on earth. It looks like ‘failure’ but is actually a success to the extent that mayhem among Arabs means more power for Zionists. And Jewish-run US pulled it off with help from treacherous Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

As for Iran, it is reeling more than ever from economic sanctions. Given that Iran is a huge nation, it’s unlikely that the US wants a full-blown war. Rather, it uses financial terrorism and other means to undermine Iran, and they've been very successful. US didn’t topple Assad but got the next best thing. An utterly ruined Syria where US continues to occupy and steal oil. As for Pakistan leaning closer to China, that is the consequence of US growing closer to India, the much bigger prize. Though India is too big for the US to push around, it’s been working with US as bulwark against China-Pakistan. To be sure, the Hindus are clever and play both sides.

It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier.

The Ukronazis did win. They are still in power in alliance with Judeo-Nazis. Also, the energy war is just beginning. With the shale revolution, the US aims to export tons of liquid gas to the EU. As for China, who knows what will happen. It’s debt is 3x its GDP. Very troubling.

The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.

But even now, nothing comes close to the power of the dollar. And Chinese economy depends so much on export to the US. In that sense, the US has China by the balls. China relies far more on the US market than the other way around. Also, US military didn’t engage in Yemen. In Afghanistan, it is there to occupy and continues to do so.

So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants.

But the US is still the #1 destination for smart people around the world. Concentration of brain power will determine much of the future. They are coming to NY, LA, and San Fran to serve the US in its high-tech domination. Immigration is mass treason(except for Jews who control what it means to be 'Pro-American', which today is invariably Pro-Jewish-Supremacist-and-Zionist). Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, and etc. come to the US to make money and to serve the Empire of Judea, often against their own kind. Palestinians in the US pay taxes that go to support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available.

The problem is Jews are para-hosts. Yes, Jewish power is parasitic and sucks blood, as in the 2008 bank bailouts. But Jewish Smarts do create lots of new enterprise and money, and goyim(esp politicians) suck on Jewish money as craven dependents. Jews are not like the Sicilian-Americans in GOODFELLAS who are purely parasitic or like Gypsies who only steal. Jews do a lot of bad shit but are also at the front-line of creating the new world of technology and markets. Thus, too many goyim have grown dependent on Jewish money-making. They suck the blood of Jews who suck on the blood of goyim. Jews suck but are also sucked upon. Thus, they are more than parasites. They also serve as hosts, or parahosts.

Why is Jewish Power so Obsessed about Donald Trump & Russia? It's a Matter of Jewish Globalist Supremacism vs Gentile Nationalist Sovereignty

Remember the news of the execution of the Czar and his family in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO? The old man(played by Ralph Richardson) wonders why the Bolsheviks had to take such measure. Why kill the deposed man and his entire family? And Zhivago explains that the Bolsheviks did it send a clear message that ‘there is no going back’. Russia was then in the throes of the Civil War between the Reds and the Whites. Reds held the cities whereas Whites held the countryside. But the Reds had mass support as well since so many Russians had gotten tired of the disaster of WWI and expected more food and freedom from the Reds. To the masses, the Whites represented the Old World of privilege. Still, the Whites had considerable support among conservatives, clergy, traditionalists, and moderates who grew alarmed by Red violence.

Today, the globalists see the World in terms of a Grand Struggle. It is between Shlomo-Homo Globalism and Nationalism. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages.

Globalism’s power derives from the US, the lone super-power that is in neo-imperialist footing. As the US is controlled by Jews, globalism is essentially a Jewish project. Given globalism’s aggression and interference, many nations ought to be opposed to it, and indeed many are, and even many that are on-board have second thoughts about it.
Then, why does globalism seem so omnipotent around the world? One is bribery. As the US is the richest nation and controls world finance, it can offer bribes and sweet deals to elites around the world that comply with the globo-homo program. So, if the US promises sweet deals to nations that cave to homomania, they often do.
Also, even nations that cling to national sovereignty go along, at least halfway, with the globalist project since their wealth depends on global trade. China is a good example. China has a genuinely independent government(unlike Japan), but it relies on the globalist system of trade as devised by the US and EU. Also, despite all the problems of the US and EU, those parts of the world still have the best-managed, most innovative, and most productive economies. The problem of BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nation is there is too much corruption, incompetence, and inefficiency among them.

Also, because the US media dominate world information and because US academia train so many elites of other nations, many elites become mental-colonized by globalist PC. Most elites around the world aren’t particularly bright or original. So, when they come to the US to study, they soak up all the dogma & cliches and repeat them like robots. Some do it sincerely, some do it opportunistically to belong to the globo-Elysium Club.

But globalism also has big weaknesses. Ironically, its great power is also its Achilles Heel. It is now so powerful and all-pervasive around the world that ‘globalism’ has negative connotations. Also, even in the metropole of globalism, there are many who feel that it isn’t good for the world or for most Americans. It’s only good for the elites and upper classes centered around few key cities. Also, there have been rising populist tensions in the EU. European Union began as a grand project for Europeans Only. But over time, globalism remade it into what is now effectively a European-African-Muslim Union. Globalism says that Europeans must welcome replacism by ‘New Europeans’ from the Third World. If a European nation wants to preserve its borders and identity, it is now demeaned as ‘far right’, ‘extreme’, and ‘white supremacist’ by globalism. Betrayal is the New Patriotism. Traitors are hailed as the New Patriots(or 'Patraitors'). Due to globo-shlomo-homo power, betrayal has become the central fact of the Modern World, not as vice but as virtue. What a twisted world we live in. Naturally, in order for Jews to have control over whites, whites must be encouraged to betray their own identity and interests in favor of obeying and serving Jews. The white race has become one Big Rat that squeals on white patriots in the delusion that race-betrayal(especially to appease Jews) is the highest virtue. While Jews practice omerta among themselves, whites have been conditioned to inform on other whites who won't get with the the globo-homo program.
Nevertheless, more and more people are waking up to the fact that globalism isn’t about all peoples around the world gaining equal recognition and value but all peoples coming under the same set of ‘values’ such as homomania and same narrow expressions of culture, such as rap music and Hollywood comic book franchise movies. Also, it's about all the world groveling at the feet of Jews(and homos).

Given all the problems of globalism and its elite-centrism, why would so many ordinary people support the globalist project? Among non-whites, there is ONE REASON: the chance to emigrate to richer white nations. If that option wasn't available, they would oppose globalism as a threat to their national sovereignty. But with the bait of immigration-to-the-West, non-white masses are more than willing to work with globalist elites to move to white nations, live off white wealth, and hump white women(or marry and have kids with white men). For sure, Muslims would have NO REASON to support globalism that is about Wars for Israel, spread of homomania, and US aggression. So, why do so many Muslims go along? Because they are obsessed with the dream of moving to the West. They know that Western Nationalists oppose immigration whereas Western globalists promote it. So, for material self-interest, they collaborate with globalists, even Zionist ones. And globalist elites know this. They know that mass support for globalism around the world will diminish UNLESS non-white masses can be enticed with the chance of moving to the West. That is why 95% of Muslims in France voted for Macron. They may hate Western policies against the Muslim World. They may despise Homomania. But the fact is Macron wants more immigration-invasion whereas LePen wants to slow it down or even end it.

Okay, we can now understand why Western/Jewish elites and non-white masses go with globalism. But why would white masses in white nations support globalism when it’s so anti-white? The fact that Macron got 65% of the vote means that he had majority support from whites as well. Also, 56% of young people voted for Macron. Why would so many white masses support globalism when it will demographically displace them? Why do so many whites choose to be 'patraitors' than patriots? Why do they think being a traitor is the 'new patriotism'? Well, many white masses were raised on PC education and Pop Culture. So, they’ve been made to sincerely believe that white identity and interests are evil. Also, Pop Culture has normalized Diversity, so that any idea of a White Europe or White Nation now seems wrong. The New Europe MUST BE Diverse. Also, the Western Left is based on virtue-signaling and feeling holier-than-thou. Due to dominance of PC, many white masses have been made to feel that the ONLY way they can feel morally justified and superior is by hugging Diversity and hating ‘white racism’. They've become addicted to the drug of self-righteous vanity. Today, even the desire of white nations to remain white is deemed ‘racist’.

Even white conservatives have been put on the moral defensive by PC’s diversity-mongering. So, the most that white conservatives can do is call for ‘civic nationalism’ and patriotic diversity. Morally disadvantaged, the Western Right can only play defense and can never be on the offensive. If indeed the consensus says Diversity is a wonderful thing, anyone who disagrees is automatically relegated to moral inferiority. Since even the Conservatives have chanted the mantra of ‘diversity is our strength’ over and over, they’ve fallen into a moral trap. If diversity is so good, how can they call for limits on immigration that stem the tide of wonderful diversity? Also, since the end of WWII, the reigning narrative has been that there is nothing worse than ‘white racism’. So, even white masses who are deeply anxious about Diversity feel morally unclean if they were to express their views. According to Official PC, any desire on the part of whites to maintain a white community is a ‘far right’ and ‘racist’.

Globalism is essentially a War between Jewish elites & their collaborator comprador elites AND white masses of traditional white nations. Jews have targeted such nations since bulk of Jewish wealth and power are concentrated there. Even though Jewish Power is a worldwide phenomenon, its nerve center is still in the West. Without that control of White Nations, Jewish power around the world in Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America would be shaky. So, Jewish control of the West is key to control of the Rest. And in order for Jews to control the West, whereupon Jewish-globalist interests must always trump white-nationalist-interests, the white folks of the West must be taught that THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Just like the Reds killed the Czar and his family to send a message to Whites that there is no going back, Jewish-Globalists want to send a demoralizing message to white nationalists/populists that there is no going back: White identity, white interests, and white power are OVER forever. Whites must serve Jews.
Now, one might argue that Jews could be dominant forces in the West purely on meritocracy without diversity. After all, following WWII, whites rejected antisemitism and became supportive of Jews, even aiding Zionists in the creation of Israel. And Jews gained rapid success in EU and especially in the US since the 60s, even gaining elite power. So, why would Jews need Diversity?
It’s because Jews fear that the Holocaust guilt-trip will eventually wear off. Jews fear that increasing Jewish power will lead to excessive corruption and abuses, and over time, whites will grow angry and become ‘antisemitic’ once again. The Saxon will learn to hate again. To prevent such, Jews need Diversity so that the divided and contentious bunch of gentiles won’t be able to unite against Jewish Power(no matter how arrogantly or abusively it behaves); due to chutzpah and the nature of Jewish personality, Jews know they can’t resist being overzealous in their power-grabbing and power-mongering; so, ‘antisemitism’ is most likely to return, indeed even for valid and justifiable reasons; so, if such a day were to come, the only way to secure Jewish Power is to have diverse goyim be so angry with one another that they won’t be able to unite against Jewish Domination.

Diversity is an effective way to weaken and destroy white identity politics. If masses of whites are taught from a young age that they must serve Diversity above all, it means whites must put white interests in the back-burner while favoring Diversity. Now, whites serving Diversity may not always align with whites serving Jewish interests. We see this with the BDS movement where some whites support Diversity(that of Palestinians) against Jewish-Zionist power. British Jews are furious that Jeremy Corbyn's base in the Labour Party sides with Palestinians against Zionism.
Nevertheless, Cult of Diversity means that whites must always put non-white interests before white interests, and that suppresses the chance of White Power, the only power that Jews fear as the potential challenge to Jewish domination in the West.

How does Russia factor into this? Russia was on the path toward being just another part of the Jewish Empire. A huge carcass for globo-weasels to feast on. Indeed, Jews came so very close. And if Jews had prevailed, their power would have been unbreakable. Just think. Jews control the US that controls the EU. Russia is a vast land mass with immense resources. If Jews gain control of that as well, they got it made forever. Also, control of Russia means control of Central Asia and part of the Middle East as “Russia’s sphere of influence”.
But Russia slipped out of Jewish grasp(just like the Rhine maidens from the clutches of Alberich in DAS RHEINGOLD).

To be sure, it’s still not game over. Russia still has powerful globalist-elements. And even though Putin rolled back globalists, he needs them to run much of the economy since they have the connections and knowledge. So, the future of Russia is, as yet, unsure. Still, there has been a revival of Russian nationalism that puts Russian identity and interests at the center of Russian politics. Also, Russian nationalism isn’t apologetic like the national politics of so many Western nations. I mean, why does Canada and Ireland have Black History Months when they had few blacks in their nations? Afromania, like Homomania, is a cultural imperialist tool of the Jews. Jews are trying to make ALL WHITE NATIONS celebrate Diversity over National Identity and Degeneracy over Decency as the New Normal of Morality. Canada and Ireland have become just tools of Zionist-US empire.
But Russia won’t be having ‘gay pride month’ and ‘black history month’ anytime soon. While Russia isn’t overtly racial in its nationalism, it does have a proud and unapologetic sense of national pride and heritage. Russians don’t believe that Russians exist primarily to serve non-Russians, which is in contrast to the Western PC Ideal that whites exist mainly to serve non-whites: White lands exist to take in tons of non-white immigrants. White wombs exist to make black babies. White minds exist to serve globalism. White soldiers exist to fight Wars for Israel. White Death exists to make room for non-white bodies and make profits for Big Pharma run by Jews who peddle opioids to the millions.

In the Global-Civil-War, Russia still resists the Zio-Globalist hegemony of US and its vassal entity of the EU. What Jews fear most is that the Russian Example may spread and inspire other white nations to put national interest at the center of their ideology, politics, culture, and conviction. It will mean each native population of European nations putting their own people, culture, and land above others. If white gentiles begin to feel this way, they may not only push out the Muslims and Africans… but may come to see Jewish elites in their midst as outsiders also.
Most importantly, the die has already been cast to the point where it’s difficult for Jews to reverse their position. Jewish globalists have thrown their lot so much on the side of globalism and cult of Diversity that it’s now a game of WIN or LOSE. Sometimes, when you go ALL IN, you can no longer moderate your position. It becomes a zero-sum game of Win All or Lose All.
It’s like Hitler could moderate his relations with Stalin prior to Operation Barbarossa. It was an uneasy alliance between Germany and USSR, but there was peace and things could be worked out by compromise based on mutual respect and recognition of the other’s legitimacy. But once Hitler went all in and invaded Russia in June of 1941, it was WIN or LOSE. The die was cast.
There was a time when Jews had been more cautious, gently pushing for diversity but also being mindful of white national concerns. But over time, Jews decided to throw caution to the winds and go whole hog in their War on White or WOW. Jews have gone Full Tim Wise. It was perfectly encapsulated by the Newsweek cover of the Obama Conquest over the White Race.

The Jewish-Supremacist Message to the White Race: "We out-hustled you and used mass-immigration-invasion and Diversity to destroy White Power and Prestige forever." When Jews spit on whites with such contempt, it is truly amazing that so many whites, including conservatives, suck up to Jews.

So, all this stuff about Russia-collusion and Russia-hacking is baloney. Jews don’t believe in any of it. So, why are they peddling such nonsense? It’s all part of the Global-vs-National War in which Jews see Russia as the most dangerous model of white national sovereignty. And Brexit and election of Trump got Jews very worried.

Now, why should Jews worry about the rise of nationalism when Jews are doing just fine in Russia-gone-nationalist? After all, even though Jews are a small minority in Russia, they are better-off than all other groups and still control up to 20% of its wealth. So why? It's because Jews want supremacism, not just privilege and wealth. Jews feel that ONLY SUPREMACISM can guarantee Jewish power and wealth forever. After all, Russia is a nation where Jewish power and wealth can be taken away if indeed Putin decided to throw in his lot with ultra-nationalists with anti-Jewish bent. So, Jewish riches in Russia depend on the magnanimity and Machiavellian caution of Putin(who fears repercussions of Jewish globalist power if he were to move against Jews). The fact that Putin was able to bring down Khodorovsky means that, theoretically at least, he can bring down any Jewish oligarch who gets too out of hand. So, rich Jews in Russia feel more vulnerable than the rich Jews in the US who are protected by the entire network of power from Wall Street to legal courts to Deep State. Jews have Putin-like power x 1000 in the US. They are untouchable. Even with the election of a nationalist-populist president, Trump has been hemmed in on all sides by Jewish power and its Deep State agents.

But Trump is a savvy and unpredictable player, and there’s no telling what he might really do. He’s not like the pliable puppet that Rubio or Jeb Bush would have been. Trump likes to play the role of Lord of Chaos, and Jews fear that he may have some cards up his sleeve.
Anyway, if Trump comes to an understanding with Russia and forges good ties, it means NATO will weaken. And that means America's control over EU will weaken as well, as NATO will be perceived as obsolete and irrelevant. Decreased US hegemony over EU could mean the breakup of EU or the rise of nationalism in the absence of US domination(in service of the Empire of Judea or EOJ). And then, the globalist project may be threatened with the emergence of politics that are more nation-centric. When people of a nation put nationalist interest above globalist interest, it means they will favor native majority interest over minority interests such as those of Jews whose world power is really more reliant on global networking than national roots and foundations.

This is what all this Russia Stuff is about. No Jew believes in all this stuff about hacking or collusion. The Jewish-controlled Mass Media just keep putting it out there so as to vilify Russia. If Russia is cast as the Grand Villain, it will be difficult for Trump to do anything constructive in improving relations. He will be denounced as COLLUDING with the Enemy. So, this hysteria is not about what Trump or Russia might or might not have done. It’s about preventing what they MIGHT DO as friendly nations. It is to rig the game so that US cannot have friendly ties with Russia.

But then, this trick should be familiar to the American Right that used to castigate ANY attempt by Democrats toward friendlier ties with the USSR as ‘going easy on communism’. And when Reagan finally decided to work for peace with Gorbachev, there were plenty of Cold Warriors who did everything to derail the effort by accusing Reagan of being senile, weak, or stupid in trusting the Evil Empire.

It’s like what James-Wood-as-Haldeman says in Oliver Stone's NIXON.

EHRLICHMAN:
Excuse me … Are you talking about
recognizing China, Mr. President?
That would cost us our strongest
support.

NIXON:
No … I can do this because I’ve
spent my whole career building anti
Communist credentials.

HALDEMAN:
If Johnson or Kennedy tried it, they’d
have crucified them, and rightfully
so!

MITCHELL:
It’s damned risky, Mr. President. Why
don’t we wait till the second term?

Anyway, Jews are looking for the KILL-THE-CZAR moment with Trump to send the message that There Is No Going Back. They want to do something so powerful and shocking so that there is no chance of Trump working with Russia on a friendly basis and changing the status quo of hostility. As Jewish Power put all the eggs in the globalist basket, any chance that Russian nationalism might inspire other nationalism in white nations is an alarming development to Jews(and homos who value globalism as a missionary vehicle for Homomania).
Now, there are times when Jews will support little nationalism against Big Nationalism. So, Jews supported Ukrainian nationalism against Russia, indeed even going so far as to work with Neo-Nazi elements. Though Jews hate Ukrainian nationalism too, they see it as useful for the time being against the more challenging Russian one. Also, whereas Russian nationalism is self-sufficient, Jews know that Ukrainian nationalism would collapse without US-EU support as there is no meaningful internal unity or core identity among Ukrainians. Of course, to mask the far-right characteristics of Ukrainian Nationalism, Jews urged the new government to put on a homo parade there so as to sell US involvement in Ukraine as Project-Tolerance. Today's progs will support any war if the bombs are painted in Homo Colors.

Ethno-Nationalism, if possible, is the Ideal Form of Political Organization

Polish Patriots on the March

It’s easy to demonstrate that Ethno-Nationalism is the soundest foundation for political organization. Granted, not every nation can be ethno-centric due to complexities of history. This is especially true of nations created by imperialists who mixed together various peoples and cultures through invasions and slave trade. Latin American nations didn’t rise organically from the soil of natives. Rather, they are the products of Hispanic and Portuguese invasions followed by African slave trade and mass immigration from Europe and even Asia. As such, there isn’t much meaning in what it is to be ‘Colombian’, ‘Venezuelan’, or ‘Costa Rican’. Too much of native cultures was wiped out, and too much of European identity was mixed and diluted. In the case of Indonesia, it’s essentially an end-product of Dutch colonialism. When the Dutch were finally driven out, the territories they’d held just became the nation-state of Indonesia. While Indonesia has peoples with deep cultural roots, the idea of ‘Indonesian’ is not ethno-nationalist since the nation is made of many notable and sizable ethnic groups. Islam became so important because it was one of the few glues that held diverse ethnic groups together. If most Indonesians have one thing in common, it is their faith. African nations are especially problematic. Prior to European invasion, the Dark Continent was home to literally thousands of tribes. The current African nations are NOT the organic political expressions of African themselves but the end-result of territories divided among the Europeans.

So, minus major political and demographic upheavals, ethno-nationalism simply isn’t viable in many parts of the world. The most that peoples in such nations can hope for is to get along in the spirit of tolerance, cooperation, and mutual respect in absence of genuine trust among diverse peoples.
If the people at least have share common religion, language, and/or legal code, it is generally more functional than if they’re divided even among those lines. In diverse nations, democracy usually means every group voting along ethnic lines. When this leads to recriminations and insurmountable tensions, such entities can only be held together by iron rule, which is the case in most Arab nations. Introduction of democracy in Iraq & Egypt and experimentation with reforms in Syria only led to more violence and even bloody civil wars that became easy to game by outsider powers.
Given the reality of the world, it isn’t possible to have ethno-nationalism for every people. But for those who have it, they should consider it the greatest blessing. Ethno-nationalism can be nearly homogeneous, but it can exist in a healthy form even in a diverse nation as long as it has a solid majority AND as long as the majority constitute the ruling elites. This is true of Israel where Jews are 80% of the population(which means there is a sizable Arab minority) and control the government, culture, and economy. Jewishness is secure and dominant. Also, the Arab population in Israel, though none-too-happy, tend to be peaceful because they are treated reasonably well by the Jews. (Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank are another story.) Turkey, like Israel, manages to function as an ethno-state because it is majority Turk and Turks comprise the ruling elites of the nation.

Perhaps, if Iraq had originally been ruled by the Shia population, it could have been like Israel. The main tension in Iraq owed to it being majority Shia but being ruled by the Sunni minority. Likewise, tensions in Syria owe to it being a majority Sunni Arab nation ruled by an Alawite minority. There aren’t enough Alawites in Syria for it to be an ethno-nationalist state, so the ruling elites of Syria have favored secular modernism and Iron Tolerance to ensure continued Alawite dominance over Sunnis and others. Now, would such problems exist if Syria were 100% Alawite or 100% Sunni Arab? Of course not. It just goes to show homogeneous ethno-nationalism is best for peace and stability.
But for some nations, it’s simply not an option due to accidents of history. It’s possible for a diverse nation to crack up and form more stable homogeneous nations, but it isn’t always easy to do. It’s relatively easy if one ethnic group mostly happens to be territory A while another group is mostly in territory B. Then, it can amicably separate like Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia. And some parts of Yugoslavia broke away with relative ease. But things got bloody in Bosnia because Croatians, Serbs, and Muslims were intermixed all over the territory. Even now, the problems haven't been totally resolved.

Anyway, to demonstrate why ethno-nationalism works best, consider the following examples.

Take Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. Israel is ethno-nationalist even though it has a sizable Arab population. Israel supports a solid Jewish majority, healthy natal trends for Jews, and Jewish patriotism as the soul of the nation.
Jordan is 80% Palestinian. It’s ruled by ‘Jordanians’, but they are Arabs who are racially the same as Palestinians. Indeed, the difference between ‘Jordanian’ and ‘Palestinian’ is territorial/incidental than ethnic/historical; those designations owe more to Europeans making maps than natives making tribal distinctions. At any rate, Jordan is 100% Arab nation. Lebanon is more complicated due to Shia, Sunni, and Christian divisions. Still, most of the population is Arabic. (The modern history of Lebanon is a useful illustration of how rising diversity can lead to more tensions, civil war, and interference by foreign powers. The conflicts among Christians, Sunnis, Shia, and Palestinian exiles once turned the entire nation into a bloody war zone, and many observers worried the madness would never cease, that is until Syrians moved in to restore order. Ironically, what happened to Lebanon in the 1980s replayed itself on a much larger scale in Syria itself.)
Anyway, despite the existing internal divisions of the three nations(most problematic in Lebanon), each still manages to keep order and stability within its borders. Israeli is for Israelis, Jordan is for Jordanians/Palestinians, and Lebanon is for Lebanese, be they Christian, Sunni, or Shia. Whatever problems may exist inside the three nations, they are agreed upon the borders that separate one from the other, and that is the basis for the current peace.

Now, would it improve matters IF Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan were unified into a single bigger nation? Who in his right mind would think the dynamics of politics, culture, and society of this multi-national state will work better than if the three nations had remained separate?
Jews have enough problems with the Arab minority in Israel. Would they want to deal with many more Arabs in the bigger multi-national state who will constitute a majority population over the Jews? And how will the Arabs feel about the immense wealth and influence controlled by Jews? As long as Jews are in Israel, Jewish money is Jewish business and none of Arab's business. But if Israel were to unite with Lebanon and Jordan into a single nation, disproportionate Jewish wealth will become a contentious political issue for the Arab majority that will demand a big chunk of it, just like the black majority in South Africa keep demanding a bigger share of the economic pie, much of which is still in the hands of whites. And in every election, the various groups in the Israelebajordan will just vote along racial, tribal, and sectarian lines than ponder political issues in terms of right and wrong. Indeed, such tribalism is already a problem in Israel and Lebanon. If they were to merge into one nation and then also include Jordan, tribal tensions will be exacerbated many times over. So, even if Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon are not ideal homogenous ethno-nation-states, they still have some semblance of meaningful identity and history in their current manifestations. This would be totally lost if the three nations were to merge into one in the spirit of greater Diversity and Tolerance.

Next, consider Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. All three ethno-nation-states used to be part of Indochina under French rule. Today, they are three separate nations. For the most part, they get along in peace. There used to be bloody conflicts, especially between Vietnam and Cambodia, but the wars are over, and peace prevails among the three nations. Peace is nice.

Now, who in his right mind would argue that things would improve if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were to merge into a nation called New Indochina? Of course, it will just lead to political tensions, cultural conflicts, and social friction. Vietnamese would look upon their Cambodian and Laotian co-nationals as inferior and backward, Laotians wouldn’t have much in common with Cambodians, and Cambodians would resent the domination of the Vietnamese majority. New tensions could easily flare up, like between Uighurs and invasive Han Chinese in Xianjiang. Things would be much better if Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia remained separate. Then, each people can feel secure in their own nationhood, respect each other as neighbors, and trade with one another.

Next, consider Yugoslavia. What was the catalyst for its breakup into separate nations? Because other ethnic groups resented the Serbian-dominant central government in Belgrade. Also, the idea of Yugoslavia had been imposed on the people there by bigger powers. Granted, some of the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia were similar to one another, but like the division between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, historical resentments made things difficult among some groups, especially between Serbians and Croatians, who with the backing of Germans, had massacred 250,000 Serbians in WWII. As for the Muslims, they were converts who'd collaborated with Turks during Ottoman rule, and this was bound to lead to bad blood. As for Kosovo, it transformed from the cradle of Serbian civilization to Muslim territory when lots of Albanians were allowed to migrate there under Ottoman rule. So, the lesson of Yugoslavian/Balkan history is diversity is one big headache, especially if it’s imposed on a people by foreign domination. But then, most of Diversity in the world is due to imperialism.
By the way, where did WWI originate? Of course, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that stifled ethno-national aspirations of peoples who wanted to be free of Imperial Diversity.

Next, we all know Czechs and Slovaks decided to go separate ways. Thus, Czechoslovakia amicably divided into Czech Republic and Slovakia, and both nations seem to be happy as homogeneous ethno-nation-states. Again, it illustrates that the ethno-nation-state is the most ideal form of political organization in terms of cohesion, unity, and stability.

For the next thought experiment, consider Japan, Korea, and Manchuria(now part of China but, for the sake of argument, considered separately here). Japan and Korea are ethno-nation-states. Manchuria is part of China that is essentially a Han ethno-nation-state. Now, who in his right mind would argue that things will be better if Manchuria, Korea, and Japan were to ditch their ethno-nation-state models and merge into a single multi-national entity called New Asia? Would politics run smoother in New Asia made up of Manchurians, Koreans, and Japanese as co-nationals? Would social trust go up? Would there be more national unity and solidarity? Would the peoples of New Asia become more civic-minded and more responsible citizens? Historical experience tells us that the experiment will be a disaster.

After all, who bemoans the passing of the Soviet Empire, the biggest multi-national-state that ever existed? Upon its collapse, ethno-nationalism became the template for all the liberated peoples: Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Moldovans, Armenians, Azerbaijans, Georgians, and etc. And these peoples don’t want to revert to the Soviet multi-national model.

Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union was welcomed by the West. The emancipation and emergence of ethno-nation-states from the rubble of communism were seen as a good thing.

Then, just how did ethno-nationalism become such a dirty word? It was because Jewish globalists gained dominance in the US and wanted hegemony over the world. From the globo-hegemonic perspective, patriotic ethno-nationalism is the toughest barrier against globalist takeover. So, while ethno-nationalism was an effective, indeed invaluable, tool in the weakening of the USSR and Yugoslavia, it came to be problematic as an obstacle to Anglo-Zionist globalist imperialism. Consider the ethno-nationalist determination of Poland and Hungary that defies the globalist entity that is the EU. Globalists hate those two nations that operate on the principle of ethno-nationalism to keep what is demographically, culturally, and territorially theirs.

An empire will exploit the nationalism, nascent or deep-rooted, of a certain people against a rival empire or great power. It’s like, even as globalists denounce the ethno-nationalism of Poland and Hungary, they gleefully support the ethno-nationalism of Ukrainians(even among Neo-Nazis) as an effective weapon against Russia. But at the same time, globalists seek to weaken nationalism among Ukrainians in relation to the West. Similarly, the Japanese imperialists encouraged Manchurian separatism & nationalism against the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans, but they also weakened it in relation to Japanese interests. ‘Emperor’ Puyi was used as a puppet-patriot, or puppatriot.

The world would have been so much better if the US and EU hadn’t embarked on Diversity. The great opportunity in the Golden Age of Nationalism was lost due to change in American and European immigration policy. After WWII, nationalism became vogue either as the dream of every people(living under imperialist rule) OR as safe haven for expelled imperialists. So, Algerians, Vietnamese, Kenyans, and Cubans struggled for national independence from imperialism and achieved their goals. And with the fall of empires, Europeans returned to their mother countries. Imperial powers were reduced to nation-states once again. French empire was gone and there was only the French nation. British empire was gone and there was only the British nation. Fall of empires meant that the world would be composed of sovereign & independent nations. In time, Africans, Asians, and Arabs regained ownership and control over their own territories, some more soundly conceived and organized than others. And having lost their empires, the Brits, French, Dutch, and other Europeans had nowhere to go but back to their motherlands that welcomed their blood kin with open arms. It was truly the Golden Age of Nationalism, and almost all peoples around the world were optimistic in their patriotism.

And even though the US and USSR locked horns as new empires, both upheld the ideal of nationalism and condemned the other side as the ‘real imperialist’. If ever they admitted to presiding over an empire, it was deemed a necessary evil to stave off the hegemonic ambitions of the Other power that was deemed far worse. Indeed, both empires claimed to lend support to peoples around the world for the sake of national liberation from the Other imperialist power. So, the Soviets backed Vietnamese patriots against the French and American imperialists. And the US condemned Soviet imperialist crushing of Hungarian, Polish, and Czechoslovakian ethno-national aspirations.

But what messed up the ideal of universal nationalism, the hope of national sovereignty for every people? Immigration and globalism. If Europe and the US had kept their gates shut to non-whites, then non-whites would have remained patriotic and invested their smarts & energies toward developing their own nations. Everyone from the educated elites to the laboring masses would have had no choice but to come together as one people and struggle to make his nation better. But once the EU and US offered the bait of immigration and instant-material-improvement, too many non-whites from top to bottom couldn’t resist the temptation to neglect challenges at home and hop on the first train, boat, or plane to move permanently to the West. This had a deeply corrosive and corrupting effect on non-white nations. And it also had a terrible effect on the West as white folks began to be replaced in their own territories and even lose civil liberties on account of PC police deeming any anti-Diversity voice as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. The New Disorder corrupted everything.

The fall of the USSR was the last hurrah for the dream of universal nationalism. As Soviet Union dissolved, it brought about the emancipation not only of non-Russian republics but of Warsaw Pact nations that had been occupied by Soviet troops. This was a great time in history but unfortunately short-lived.

It didn’t take long for globalists to swoop down like vultures and spread their hegemony over newly liberated nations. In the name of offering advice and providing aid, the Anglo-Zionist globalists took over entire economies and bought up the national media and politicians.
For globalists, nationalism had been useful as an indispensable weapon in destabilizing and dissolving the USSR. But once the Soviet Empire was gone, the globalists did everything possible to retard the emergence of truly independent nations. They eyed the weak emerging nations as their pawns in the game of global hegemony. Globalists saw the new nations as akin to drowsy animals coming out of hibernation: poor, weak, hungry, and disoriented. What an opportune moment to gain control over them before they gain their footing. What an easy way to turn them into debt slaves to the Jewish globalist bankers.

Mass immigration, cult of Diversity, and neo-imperialist hegemonism destroyed what could have been. Just think of how Third World nations might have done much better from top to bottom IF the West had remained in nationalist mode and blocked easy entry to would-be immigrants. Then, European nations and the US would have remained in better shape with national unity and sense of purpose. And Third World nations would have been ruled by patriotic elites whose main objective would have been to make their own nations great instead of dropping everything to run off to the West to live the good life or rub shoulders with the globo-jetset like the loathsome Fareed Zakaria.