What Happens When the Weak-of-Survival Are Favored over the Strong-of-Survival? The Western Conundrum under Jewish Supremacism.

Suppose there are organisms in a certain environment. They compete with other organisms and even face the invasion by foreign organisms. Within these native organisms, there are those that react strongly to threats and act accordingly. They fight or build defenses. And then, there are those that are passive, weak, or even welcoming of rivals or invaders. Over time, what will happen? The Law of Survival will weed out the weak members as they'll be conquered and devoured by rivals or invaders. Meanwhile, the strong members will survive with their tenacity and fighting spirit. In time, the organisms will be defined by the survivors with the spirit of warriors. That way, the organisms will remain strong.

But what if a different set of dynamics takes hold of this environment? Suppose there is a Power that coddles and protects the weak-willed members of the organism while hampering the strong-willed members that are exposed to constant attacks and invasions. The weak-willed survive because they don't have to fight under the protection of the Power. In contrast, the strong-willed come under ceaseless pressure. Furthermore, they are prevented by the Power from using all means at their disposal to counter the attacks and invasions. What will happen over time? The strong-willed will wither, fade, and eventually be forced to cower before the enemy. After all, even the strongest bear or biggest bull can eventually be brought down by a pack of wolves; even a giant lizard succumbs to a massive killer ant attack. Meanwhile, the weak-willed members survive and even thrive... but as pathetic puppets and minions of the Power that protects them(and subverted the defensive capability of the defeated strong-willed members).

Imagine an environment with lots of chimps. Among them, there are strong-willed chimps and weak-willed chimps. Strong-willed chimps are vigilant, always on the lookout, and ready to fight for territory, females, and food. Weak-willed chimps, on the other hand, are passive and kindly toward outsiders, be they rival chimps or dangerous animals(such as leopards). Now, when crisis breaks out, the strong-will chimps will prioritize survival and go into fight-or-flight mode. Fight those that can be defeated, take flight from the stronger, and set up a wall of defense. In contrast, the weak-willed members will be slower to flee from danger. They may even move toward danger as a 'friend'. They'll act like the dufus scientist in the 1950s sci-fi horror THE THING, a naive brainiac who seeks to commune with and 'understand' the fearsome and ruthless creature from another planet. Over time, as the weak-willed chimps will be weeded out by murderous enemy chimps and predators, the chimp community will have more strong-willed members.
But suppose a Power takes over the chimp community. It creates a well-stocked sanctuary for the weak-willed chimps that thus become favored in the game of existence. Despite possessing traits disadvantageous for survival, they are favored and coddled by the Power. The strong-willed chimps get no such protection and are therefore disadvantaged in survival. They must fight and struggle to survive, and tough as they are, some are destroyed or devoured by rival chimps and predators. But there is worse. The Power decides to make things more difficult for the strong-willed apes. Their fangs are ground down so their bites are far less effective. Also, they are supplied with narcotics, and many succumb to addiction. Under such organizing principles, the weak-willed members survive(but essentially as chattel dependent on the protection/mercy of the Power) while the strong-willed members dwindle in number and eventually become destroyed.

In a way, the favoring of the weak-willed over the strong-willed is the story of civilization. It is also a strategy of power. It can be advantageous to a people if they control the terms of 'domestication', but it can be disadvantageous(and eventually fatal) if the terms are controlled by another group.

There are parallels between humans and dogs, though some human groups and certain dog breeds became more domesticated than others. The Golden Retriever became more domesticated than the Alaskan Husky that, despite living with man, still came under tremendous natural pressures in freezing climates and in proximity with dangerous predators such as polar bears and wolves. Dogs are weaker and smaller than wolves, their ancestors. They are also weaker-willed and more prone to trust and be friendly with other organisms, especially humans. As such, humans favored and protected dogs. But humans also owned dogs as property, as pets and servants. Thus, even though countless dogs led far safer and happier lives in the protective human realm than wolves did in the wild, they were at the mercy of their human masters. But humans didn't merely favor dogs over wolves but made a concerted effort to make things difficult and often deadly for the wolves. Therefore, even though wolves have greater survival skills than dogs if both were placed in the same wilderness — indeed, it's likely that most, even all, dogs will be destroyed in the wild — , the Power of Man has made it so that weak-willed dogs have far greater chance of survival than wolves in the wild(that has been limited to wilderness preserves). The interference of the Power made it so that the wolf's natural advantage became a disadvantage whereas the natural disadvantage of the dog became an advantage under Man. After all, mankind naturally prefers the trusting, submissive, and friendly dog to the ferocious and proud wolf. Dogs have done better under humans than in the wild but at the loss of all pride, autonomy, and independence. Still, as they are animals, pride doesn't matter much to them. But what about people who've lost pride and independence?

But then, can real pride and independence exist in civilization? After all, if people, as truly free individuals, decided to do as they like, civilization would fall apart. Imagine a world run over by Alexes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Despite all the talk of freedom and individualism, the main reason why modern civilization holds together and continues is because most or majority of the people support or serve the hierarchy and adhere to the 'values' and 'narratives' pushed by the Power. Also, the Power enforces the same sets of laws, language, and lore over the vast populace. Under communism in the Soviet Union, the law was Marxist-Leninist. The language of the empire was Russian. And all children were raised on the lore of communist saints and heroes. There's been far more freedom in the West, but the system cannot be sustained unless enough people submit to the existing Power Structure. For most people in the West, there is a measure of freedom in their personal lives but hardly any freedom or means to change the workings of the existing power structure. Only a handful of people with the means to enter the inner sanctums of power can make a real difference. Also, even personal choices are shaped, even dictated, by a handful of big players. Most movies are made by Hollywood, or Movie Inc. People choose from what is offered to them by mega-corporations, just like voters choose from a bunch of politicians vetted by the ruling power, i.e. people vote for puppets, not leaders. People may select from various media outlets that create the impression of choice, but most of media are controlled by a handful of Jewish oligarchs. People may choose the kind of music they like, but pop trends are dominated by a few entertainment oligopolies. There was talk of how the internet would unleash an era of citizen journalism and alternative views, but the biggest platforms are dominated by Zionist Jews who shut down what they deem as 'hate speech'. Jewish oligarchs at Google also manipulate algorithms so that Jew-run news are favored in search results over voices critical of Jewish Supremacism. Therefore, what is called 'free press' and 'free speech' are highly proscribed and controlled in the Free West. Indeed, paradoxically enough, people in a democracy might be even more clueless as to what's really happening because the conceit of 'liberty' and 'freedom' blinds them to the fact that they aren't so free. At least, people in Iran and China know their freedoms are restricted by the State. In the West, many are still under the delusion of living in a 'liberal democracy' when, if anything, they are minions of a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. Labels can fool a lot of people. It's like the 'fat-free' label that fools so many people who don't realize that the fat has been replaced by more sugars. Same with 'progress' and 'conservative'. So much of what is nowadays labeled as 'progressive' or 'conservative' is anything but. So-called 'progressive' Democrats are totally in cahoots with Wall Street that push globo-homo to replace May Day with Gay Day. And so-called 'conservative' Republicans are now into chanting 'gay marriage and trannies-in-washrooms are conservative values.' How the world loves a label than the reality.

In a way, this loss of true freedom and independence is the price we all paid for civilization. A civilization can be more free or less free, but when push comes to shove, it must be about most or the great majority submitting to the power, the status quo. Those in power may change — American Power went from Wasp Rule to Jewish Rule — , but regardless of who are on top, most people must go along. So, Russia went from the people obeying the Czars to obeying the Commissars to obeying the oligarchs. And most Germans went from obeying the Kaiser to obeying the Weimar Republic to obeying the Nazis to obeying the bureaucrats in West Germany or East Germany. Even if many people are cynical about power and disrespect the ruling elites, they've no choice but to go through the daily motion of working for the system. In other words, even the disobedient find they've no choice but to obey to make a living.
And even when the people do rise up and overthrow the existing system, as in the case of Shah's Iran, the only way civilization can continue is if most people support or comply with the new order. Civilization cannot tolerate too many wolves. It needs lots of dogs. As for controlling the power, it usually goes to the weasels. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM illustrated how the banishment of humans only led to the rise of Pig Tyranny. But then, as bad as the pigs are, can the animals govern themselves? Besides domestication means to become part of a system, an order based on organizational principles. It is then the nature of domesticated organisms to long for the iron hand, albeit so-called Liberal Democracy learned to cover it with a velvet glove. As individuals, we can only be so free. After all, we don't want to live in a world of chaos where everyone, as an independent maverick, makes up his or her own rules. This is so many manifestations of 'rebellion' and 'difference' in a 'liberal democracy' are manufactured as a chimera by the Power. Have the 'rebels' conform to officially tolerated or approved forms of 'rebellion', like cheering loudly at Rock concerts, piercing one's nose, or turning one's hair green, all of which are harmless to the Power(while harmful to the pride of resistance). All these 'differences' lead to new conformist communities than truly independent turns of mind and spirit. It's like the Power's idea of 'dark web dissident right' turned out to be Zionists like Ben Shapiro & Dave Rubin and shills of Zionists like Jordan Peterson. But then, even if dissident rightists were to come to power, wouldn't they prop up their favored Norms and Sacraments as the governing principle in the new order?

Civilization must favor the mild-willed over the strong-willed. While weak-will is too sappy, strong-will is too contentious. While society gains something by having some strong-willed leaders and alphas, most people must be less-strong-willed if people are to get along and go along. (Also, if two civilizations are defined by mild-mannered-ness, they may find ways to co-exist and cooperate than remain locked in terms of conflict. Mild-willed outlooks can serve as roads and bridges between civilizations.)

If everyone were strong-willed, it'd be an endless battle of egos. Therefore, most people must be mild-willed, somewhere between weak-will and strong-will. And the meritocratic system is geared to favor mild-willed over strong-willed, that is unless the strong-willed happen to be particularly gifted in intellect, creativity, or leadership qualities. After all, what is required to do well in school, gain credentials, and find good jobs? One must be patient and diligent. One must be reasonably obedient to teachers and authority figures. Despite the American mythos of the cool rebel, most people who succeed play by the rules. No wonder women and Asians are favored in the current order. Both are more mild-willed than white males who tend to be a bit more adventurous and cantankerous in spirit.
Obama certainly understood who's boss(the Jews) and did as told to be handpicked to be president, or cuck-in-chief of the Jews. One reason why Jews can't stand Donald Trump is the way he became president. He howled too much like a wolf than acted the well-heeled canine in a dog-show. Though a total dog to Jews in substance, he was wolf in style, and the Jewish Masters of America took this very badly, and the whole Russian Collusion Hoax and other nonsense were a means to punish the Bad Doggy.

Anyway, precisely because civilization favors the mild-willed over the strong-willed for most of its managerial positions, there is the real danger of a survival-deficit in elite ranks of society. Consider nations like Sweden. Well-ordered and well-run, peaceful and prosperous Sweden elevated mild-willed individuals to upper levels of government and institutions. Indeed, its military is run by a bunch of mild-willed women who did the homework and did as told in their student days. So, is it any surprise that the Swedish state is so soulless, gutless, and bland? Its managerial class may be well-educated, diligent, and competent on the technical level, but they lack patriotic passion, survival instinct, and requisite ruthlessness toward potential threats and enemies. If anything, it is most 'triggered' by the emergence of strong-willed Swedes who see what is happening and demand that something drastic be done to stop the invasion and great replacement.

Since individuals can't be truly free and independent within a civilization, the only way for a people to be free is as a collective. While Me-the-Person can only be so free within the Order, We-the-People can be free from the control of Other Peoples. It's like Asian Indians gained independence by rising up against British overlords and expelling them. The Vietnamese gained national liberation by resisting French Colonialism and then American Neo-Imperialism. And it was as a collective that Russians pushed back against Napoleonic France in the 19th century and Nazi Germany in the 20th century. Freedom for the Motherland couldn't have been won by Russians as individual wolves. They had to cooperate and fight as Russian dogs in defense of the Order.

While ideally the freedom of we-the-people should expand the freedom of me-the-person within the Order, it hasn't always been so. Textbook examples are Tokugawa Japan, Red China, Castro's Cuba, Islamic Iran, and North Korea. Though politically independent and relatively free of foreign influence, their suppression of me-the-person either intensified or hardly eased despite the autonomy. The reason was either for the survival of the Order or survival of the elites. In certain cases, the Order had to suppress considerations of me-the-person because it was under threat and at a great political-economic-military disadvantage. After all, patriotism and willingness to die were essential among the Vietnamese IF Americans were to be driven out. With excessive freedom of me-the-person, too many Viets might choose not to fight or even join with the other side as collaborators. In Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS, David Sumner(Dustin Hoffman) decides he must force his wife to obey him if they are to defend the house from marauders. She is forbidden from collaborating with the Other side. She is forced to choose we-the-people over me-the-person despite her temptation otherwise.

Castro's Cuba also had to be repressive in order to survive. As the US had so much more money, it could have bought off so many Cubans to do the bidding of US interests. Indeed, Cuba had essentially been a CIA-mafia-Jewish-run plantation/casino before Castro led an army of spartan patriots to take power. But, of course, the downside of repression in favor of we-the-people over me-the-person has been downright Orwellian. The system threw the baby out with the bathwater in its purge of turncoats, traitors, spies, and collaborators. Worse, over time, the invocation of we-the-people can become an excuse to perpetuate a system of we-the-elites.
This is why a system has to find a balance between me-the-person and we-the-people. One thing for sure, history has shown time and time again that an order that is independent of foreign tyranny can be rife with domestic tyranny.
While all systems must maintain order with some degree of repression and control, some take this to extreme measures due to radical ideology, excessive paranoia, or just plain greed of rulers who stingily hog all the power and privilege. As profoundly different as North Korea and the US are in just about every way, if they have anything in common, it's that both are ruled by elites who will do ANYTHING to maintain their supremacist or absolute grip on power. Even though North Korea seems like a fossilized hermit kingdom whereas the US seems a dynamic country constantly reinventing itself, both are essentially governed by the principle of elite-stasis. In other words, the reason why Jews are trying to make America so different is to keep same the power equilibrium, i.e. Jewish Supremacism must define American Power. As Jews are a minority-elite, they fear that stability in America will eventually lead to people realizing they're ruled by Jews. For that reason, Jews stir up the impression of constant upheaval and transformation to misdirect the American Gaze from the one true constant in American Power Politics: JEWS RULE, JEWS GET RICHER, JEWS EXPAND THEIR CONTROLS.

Anyway, if civilization ordains that people must be servile dogs than defiant wolves, at the very least human-dogs can be ruled by their own kind than by another kind. In other words, English dogs should be ruled by English masters, Japanese dogs should be ruled by Japanese masters, German dogs should be ruled by German masters, Italian dogs should be ruled by Italian masters, Russian dogs should be ruled by Russian masters, Iranian dogs should be ruled by Iranian masters, Jewish dogs should be ruled by Jewish masters(though, to be sure, every Jew feels as a master than dog), and etc. After all, there is greater likelihood that master A will feel greater affection and sense of obligation for dogs A, and master B will for dogs B. Granted, it may not always be so. Master A could be cruel and abusive of Dogs A, and it's possible Master B has more sympathy and heart for Dogs A. But generally, rulers of Nation A will have more feelings for the people of Nation A than for the peoples of Nation B, C, D, E, F, etc. Do Jewish rulers in Israel have more feelings for Jewish people or the Arab people, the Palestinians?
Now, one may point to white elites who seem to care just as much, if not more, for non-whites as for whites, but his anomaly is the result of Jewish conquest of the white mind/soul. Jews made it anathema among white elites to care about fellow whites because they want white elites to primarily serve and obey Jews. In other words, to convince white elites to favor the Jewish Other over the White Brother, Jews indoctrinated white elites(and even many among the white masses) that there are few things as evil in the world as whites caring for whites. It's NOT OKAY to be white. Another problem with elites of one nation excessively caring for other peoples than for their own is they will end up ill-serving both. After all, it is a full-time job to govern and take care of a nation. A national elite that tries to save the world as well as govern its own people is like a dog that loses the bone in his mouth for the one reflected in the water. It's like a parent who tries to take care of all the kids in the neighborhood. He'll just fail with all the children, including his own. Also, it makes the elites of other nations lazy and corrupt. Suppose if the elites of Nation B came to depend on elites of Nation A to provide food and aid for the people of Nation B. Why would the elites of Nation B clean up their own act when Nation A is providing Nation B with free stuff? And why would the people of Nation B try to replace the existing elites when they get by on handouts from Nation A?

While all of us must be more dogs than wolves within civilization, the ideal should be for the dogs and masters to be of the same identity. English masters for English dogs. That way, even if civilized man cannot be truly free and independent like a wild wolf, he can still be part of a people that are free and independent of rule by other peoples. The problem with the current West is that white folks are not only dogs of civilization — a necessary condition for social order — but dogs of a foreign master, the Jews. Worse, Jews are not even good masters over the Other. Jews look upon goyim as mere cattle, commodities, or cuck-dogs. The way Jews look upon goyim is far more contemptuous than how British Imperialists looked upon Hindus and Africans. At the very least, the Christian element of Western Civilization reminded whites that non-whites are also precious children of God. In contrast, Jews look upon goyim as barely human. Jews believe a single Jewish life is worth more than a million goy lives. Just Ask the Palestinians! Under Jewish rule, whites don't even have the freedom, pride, and power of We-the-People. They've been reduced to We-the-Cucks.

The black African threat to Europe makes things much worse. Blacks are barely domesticated as dogs; they are more like wild dogs, almost like wolves. As such, a sane West will do everything to protect European mild-willed dogs from African wild dogs. But three factors are forestalling this most necessary course of action. (1) Jewish globalist supremacists who control (((Western))) media and academia have elevated Negroes to god-like status. So many whites worship MLK and Mandela more than their own national/racial heroes, even over God and Jesus. And Jewish Power vilified 'racism' as the worst of all sins, and 'racism' is deemed most wicked when harboring negative feelings about blacks. Political Correctness demands that whites must love and honor blacks NO MATTER WHAT blacks do. (2) Even though blacks have thug supremacy over weaker whites and cause havoc in white nations, the fact remains Europe is rich while Africa is poor. Therefore, many Europeans still have this image of themselves as all-powerful and of blacks as helpless/harmless children. Thus, they fail to grasp the threat posed by black thugs on Western Civilization. (3) Even though civilization did wonders for non-black mankind, it also turned robust human-wolves into less impressive human-dogs. Though civilization can be maintained only by human-dogs, there is still the wolfish element in human-dogs that hankers for wolf-like glory and excitement. Because blacks are more impressive in sports, dancing, hollering, and fist-shaking, many white dogs are in state of awe of the wild black dawg that seems so badass.

The result is that the Current West not only favors mild-willed white dogs(those who go-along to get-along) over the strong-willed white dogs(those with the most survival instincts and fight/flight reflexes, problematic in peace time but essential in times of crisis) but also favors wild black dogs over strong-willed white dogs. This fatal alliance of mild-willed white dogs(and weak-willed white dogs) with wild black dogs against strong-willed white dogs will be the lethal formula that will bring down the West. In times of crisis, the strong-willed dogs must come to the fore to defend the order. In such times, the mild-willed dogs must look to the strong-willed dogs. (However, beware of the ultra-strong-willed dogs like Adolf Hitler. While Hitler's strong-will led Germany in its recovery of lost lands and resurgence in pride, he wasn't content with German affairs and embarked on wolf-attacks on OTHER nations to create a Greater Germanic Empire. This is why strong-will must be limited by Universal Nationalism — respect other nations as you expect them to respect your nation — and humanism that reminds people of their all-too-fragile humanity. Fascism elevated man to mythic hero while communism reduced man to a unit of History. In World War II, the German ubermensch rediscovered their humanity in defeat and humiliation. And the story of communism is the danger of sacrificing human lives as so many units in the service of History.)

Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:

Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.

In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.

So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.

Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.

I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.

And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.

The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.

The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.

Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

White American Elites represent the Worst Template for All the World — The Fable of the Gulping Hippo — When Elites no longer lead the Masses of their own kind, it’s Game Over for that People... unless Another Elite rises to represent, defend, and lead the Masses to Independence and Sovereignty

The Fable of the Gulping Hippo

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.

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.