The Most Important Fact of Post-Cold-War Globalist Hegemony is that Jewish Power won the INVISIBLE WAR

When we think of wars, we usually think of military conflicts. The US has been involved in many of those and won most of them. Even when it lost, the other side suffered far greater harm than the US. It’s been said the US lost the Vietnam War, but when we consider the respective damages suffered by both nations, there is simply no comparison. The Vietnamese forced the US to give up South Vietnam but suffered most of the losses. It was nearly a Pyrrhic Victory as the US proper remained untouched(except by anti-war protests) whereas Vietnam had to rebuild nearly everything up from scratch. Think of Dragline(George Kennedy)'s 'loss' to Paul Newman's character in COOL HAND LUKE. Dragline walks away, but Luke got all the lumps. Many argue that the US lost in Iraq too, but then, who'd be the winner? It certainly wasn't the Iraqis who were rocked not only by the invasion but by ensuing civil strife that tore the nation apart(and continues to haunt them to this day). The other great 'war' of the 20th century was known as the 'Cold War' where the US and USSR managed not to confront each other directly, mainly out of fear of World War III that might even include nuclear weapons. Thus, the Cold War was considered a war of nerves than of arms. Still, both sides used proxies who died in the millions and for whom the 'cold war' was anything but a game of bluff and brinkmanship.

Anyway, there is a kind of war no less crucial than military wars(and far more consequential than 'cold wars'). It might be called the Invisible War. Beginning in the Sixties and especially following the end of the Cold War, the Power within the US was largely determined by the outcome of an Invisible War. It was this War, more than the Cold War and its end, that shaped the future of America and the World, much of which is but a political, economic, and cultural colony of the US-as-lone superpower. USSR had once been a hegemon and global player in both hard and soft power, but ultimately it failed to win the hearts & minds, eyes & ears, (and/or the loins and groins) of the masses of the world who could see that the 'Free World' was winning in Food and Feels. So, once the Soviet system collapsed(or was collapsed from within by wanna-be oligarchs who wanted to profit from being part of the World Order), the question was which group would get to shape America’s lone-superpower agenda for the entire world? Controlling America is like having a machine gun in a room where others have sticks or, at most, pistols.

The outcome of the Invisible War mattered a great deal especially because the US came to be ethnically & racially diverse. Victory of one group over the other could alter the 'racial' character of the US agenda. All nations experience Invisible Wars among various groups contending for dominance, but in a homogeneous nation, the dominant race-and-culture remains in charge regardless as to which side wins. Suppose there are various factions vying for power in China. Whichever wins, China would be controlled by Chinese, and its policy vis-a-vis the rest of the world would be Sino-centric. But imagine if the invisible war(of jockeying for power) in China were fought among Chinese and various non-Chinese groups. Perchance, if a non-Chinese group gained top power in China, it could fundamentally change the nature of China's place in the world because it'd likely use China to serve its own tribal interests than what is good for most Chinese people. In a way, China was trapped in such condition under the rule of Manchu dynasties whose relation to China was ambiguous. In some ways, they were part of Chinese civilization, but they also regarded the Chinese as their subjects, and that partly explains why, when threatened by Western Imperialism, they feared the awakening of Chinese Nationalism as much as they feared foreign aggression — Chinese nationalist uprising to do away with the 'foreign devils' might just as well sweep aside the Manchu ruling elites as well.
Likewise, the reason why so much hung in the balance in Russia of the 1990s and 2000s was because the success or failure of Putinism would decide whether Russia would remain sovereign or fall into the clutches of Jewish-supremacist globalists. (It was perhaps a shock for many Russians to realize the full extent to which American Jews had consolidated power during the Cold War, indeed even to the point of dictating their agenda to the once-great Wasps reduced to pushovers of the Chutzpah Clan.) Though a tiny minority in Russia, the Jews with their higher IQ, radical will, & support from World Jewry almost managed to wrest total control of the Russian nation. Had the Jews gained total dominance, the Russian state wouldn't have served the Russian people but would have been exploited, manipulated, and abused simply to maximize (the mostly extractive)Jewish Power around the world.

When America was mostly white and Anglo-ruled(and Anglo-Americanized even among non-Anglo white ethnics, most of whom were Christian and traced their roots back to Europe), the outcome of the Invisible War(among various factions of Anglo-American and/or Anglo-Americanized white gentile groups) had far less dire consequences regardless of which side won. In the end, it was one bunch of Anglo-Americans or Anglo-Americanized gentile whites or another bunch of the more-or-less the same. Liberal or Conservative, American Interests remained essentially white-and-Anglo-centric, and this was more-or-less just because the US for most of its history was overwhelmingly white and Christian. (It's like the aftermath of the Civil War when, once the dust settled, America was still ruled by white Christian gentiles who, in sympathy with their defeated racial brethren in the South, didn't throw them to the wolves or apes of ghastly black power.) Thus, the white elites were representative of their racial masses, and the masses were supportive of their racial elites.
And on this basis, the entire world knew what American Power was really about — an expansive Anglo-centrism — and adjusted their positions accordingly when dealing with America. This arrangement was good for white American elites, white American masses, and nations around the world. Good or bad, right or wrong, the world understood WHO ruled America and WHAT Americanism was about in terms of its reach, promise, limitation, and hypocrisy(which is inherent to any system in the absence of real world utopias). For most of US history, the only major groups vying for power were white Northern-European Protestants, or Wasps. Even when waves of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe added new groups in the contest of power, most of them were rapidly Anglo-Americanized and deferred to Wasp Power as deserving to rule for historical, cultural, and meritocratic reasons. Given the relatively poor governance and entrenched levels of corruption in the nations and kingdoms whence they came, they couldn't help but be impressed by the New Nation created by Anglo-Americans out of the vast wilderness.

But something fundamentally changed since the 1960s, a period when the Invisible War was no longer about white gentiles vs white gentiles(thus ensuring white gentile rule no matter which side won) but came down to enervating Wasps vs energizing Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn’t a simple 'turf war' between racial/ethnic/religious groups like the ones between, say, the Italian mafia and the Irish machine. The lines were NOT clearly drawn in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, values, discourse, and culture, and that means your side could be seduced and recruited to serve the other side. You could be colonized by the ideas, narratives, and values of the enemy camp(posing as the friend to all). In such conflict, the winners tend to be the ones who are more energetic, creative, ruthless, and cunning in the fields of media, academia, propaganda, advertising, arts & culture, and of course, finance(as lots of money are needed to fund think tanks and lavish prizes on the willing).
The crucial problem for whites wasn't simply that Jews were more energetic and big-minded than Wasps(known for moderation, pragmatism, and empiricist caution) in the field of ideas and culture but that White Liberals were more creative and energetic than White Conservatives. Given the numerical advantage, whites could have held Jewish Power at bay IF white liberals and white conservatives had combined their power and resources. White Liberal decision in the 20th century served as the linchpin of America's destiny. Would they offer their considerable intellectual and creative talents in a racial alliance with white conservatives, OR would they side with the sneaky Jews who speciously espoused that they were not out for Jewish Power but for universal justice for all, a noble cause worthy of commitment by White Liberals so eager to do the right thing? If Jews had been honest about their agenda, their blatant tribalism would have given offense to white liberals who therefore might have sided with white conservatives to check Jewish power seeking supremacy and hegemony(not unlike the Nazis). But Jews hid their tribalism, or they white-washed it as a means to honor their tragic history as poor innocent helpless little victims. White liberals fell for the bait and threw their lot with the Jews, and there was no way that white conservatives, lacking in spark and creativity, could have fended off the combined power of Jews and White Liberals.
Also, if in times past, even victorious white liberals regarded white conservatives as their racial brethren and favored them over the Other, the victorious Jews(who edged out others in the coalition) pressed upon white liberals to hate, despise, and hold in contempt the incorrigible white conservatives who are either stupid rubes, unimaginative bigots, or crytpo-nazis. Then, it is not surprising that, over time, more and more Wasps went over to the Jewish camps as allies, servants, and finally cucks. As Jewish ideas came to dominate over White Liberal ones, not least because white liberals were also tainted with 'white guilt' that undermined their moral legitimacy — indeed, white liberal pride is mostly about how it feels more self-loathing about being white than white conservatives do, i.e., "We weep harder when we read TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD" — , the Jewish/White Liberal relationship essentially became one of teacher and student, moral master and moral slave, spiritual pimp and new age prostitute. Most Liberal Wasps pitifully came under the domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures followed suit and were mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but conversion.

Ultimately, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and that's why they've been able to push an agenda that's been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, deranged feminism, Afromania, and Jungle Fever that promotes ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs).

It is a strange agenda, of course. At its core, it is undeniably tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as ‘western values’, ‘human rights’, or ‘universal principles’, all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning and implication to serve an agenda that, more often than not, aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations. But then, just like Stalinism and George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM illustrated so powerfully, the Power can shape truth to be just about anything, not least because most people are craven cowards, malleable lunkheads whose brains are clay in Jewish hands, or opportunists who will go with the strong horse(and thirty pieces of silver).
This ‘universal values’ requires the US(and that means ALL OF US who contribute to American Power) to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here, especially if they are to demographically replace white Americans(and even black Americans). It’s seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power and all those who serve it, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core: "Is it good for Jews?" or better yet, "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?"

How did the Boomers, the Counterculture and Peace Generation, produce So Many Warmongering Nihilists?

First off, the Boomer generation was not of a single mind or attitude. If anything, polls show that close to half or more of the boomers in the 60s and 70s were Conservative/Patriotic. Many supported the Vietnam War and voted for Nixon. And the majority of Boomers were not into the Drug Culture or crazy about Sexual Revolution. The majority wouldn't have attended Woodstock even if they could have. And yet, the most iconic images of the 1960s are associated with the Counterculture, Hippies, Antiwar Movement, Drug Culture, Youth Rebellion, and/or Radical Politics. It just goes to show that society is reflective less of the ‘silent majority’ than of Vocal Minority. While it’s true that the loudest voices and splashiest personalities could be speaking in the name of the People — this phenomenon is called Populism — , it is often the case that certain elements of the minority(ethnic, religious, commercial, or ideological) speak much louder than the majority that happens to be content, complacent, apathetic, clueless, bored & tired, and/or passive(even timid). Some may regard this is as politically sound as it allows some degree of balance of power between the majority and minority, i.e. since the majority have the advantage of volume, the minority deserves the advantage of voice.
For those who subscribe to such a view, Populism is most ‘unfair’ and ‘dangerous’ because it gives the majority both the power of volume and voice. To many Jews, Donald Trump is dangerous precisely because he is the Vocal Leader of the Voluminous Majority(though white numbers are fast declining as share of the overall US population).
If capitalists and leftist radicals have one thing in common, it is an hostility to populism. Capitalist entrepreneurs(especially the big ones) are vastly outnumbered by disgruntled workers and dissatisfied consumers, and so, it is in their interest to control the means of information to maintain some kind of balance. No wonder then that all the Big Media are owned by oligarchic powers like Gail Wynand(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). And even though Charles Foster Kane began as a millionaire populist, his empire eventually grows more cynical and elitist.
Though communists spoke of People Power and Social Justice, the fact is the majority of workers in most nations never wanted communism. As such, the radical left constituted an ideological minority in most societies. What they lacked in numbers, they hoped to gain with vociferousness. The Left had to shout louder, march harder, and make a bigger nuisance of itself to get people’s attention. They had to crank up the noise to be heard. And of course, Jews have favored both the elite commercial class(especially the Advertisers) and the Radical Left because both, in their own way, waged war on the Great Majority. And Jews also did everything possible to suppress Populism of both Right and Left. Nationalist Populism could mean a real challenge to Jewish Power. And Leftist Populism could mean strong opposition to Jewish capitalist elites. Thus, Jews have favored both elitist Right and elitist Left. In America, the elitist Right doesn’t speak for the People. It speaks for ‘low taxes’ and ‘liberty’ so that the rich can grow richer. And the elitist Left has, over the years, increasingly altered Progressivism from a broad movement to a fractured movements of various identities fired up by radical intellectual(often pseudo-intellectual in character) theories that have no hope of making much sense to most people. And even when a certain ideology gains support of the great majority, the effect is to favor minority-over-majority interests: Majority of Americans support Zionism and Homomania, but this isn’t Populism because it’s about the Majority being manipulated and goaded into supporting Minority Privilege and Supremacism.

Anyway, the Boomers who gained the most Power were those on the Left. There were several reasons for this. Jews, the most intelligent and ambitious group in the US, were overwhelmingly on the Left. Having Jews on your side in competition for Elite Power was like a sports team having blacks. Jews had increasing presence in media, academia, finance, and law. Another reason was that the American Consensus since the Great Depression was leftist-liberal for decades after WWII. Granted, what passed for leftism and liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s was different from their manifestations later, especially beginning in the 1960s, but a kind of proto-End-of-History outlook had set in during the FDR yrs and after World War II. Incredibly, FDR was elected four times, and even after Conservatives regained the presidency with Eisenhower, Congress was solidly in Democratic hands until the 1990s. With expanding federal power and vast government projects that came to be associated with social betterment, economic justice, necessary regulation(to prevent another Great Depression), and America’s role as World’s reluctant but necessary policeman, there was no going back to the Conservative or Classic Liberal ideal of ‘small government’. Even Dwight Eisenhower expanded government, which grew bigger still under Richard Nixon beginning in 1969. So, no matter which Party won the Presidency, the ideas of Keynes and Galbraith were deemed essential. Even though the Boomers rebelled against much of traditional Liberalism and Orthodox Leftism, the leftists among them were regarded more favorably by the Older Liberal Establishment. Even though moderate Liberals may have had more in common with moderate Conservatives, they tended to lean more to the Left than side with the center-Right. Part of this had to do with Leftists being more committed and passionate(even if delusional and foolish), a fact that made Liberals feel morally inferior due to their ‘bourgeois’ preference for moderation and compromise than total commitment to (the cult of)Justice.

Another reason why the Leftist Boomers were advantaged was due to the WWII Narrative and problem of Race in America. The main villains of the war were deemed as the ‘far right’: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. The Allies were Liberal Democracies and Soviet Union. Also, Japan was no ordinary enemy but one that ambushed the US navy at Pearl Harbor. And Nazi Germany wasn’t just an authoritarian power(as in WWI) but an evil empire led by a psychopath under whom some of the most ghastly crimes-against-humanity had been perpetrated(especially against Jews). This gave a huge moral boost to the Left in the US, even more so in Europe. Granted, the Cold War and anti-communism aided the Right, but the Soviet Union wasn’t recklessly aggressive like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For one thing, the Soviet empire was already vast, and they last thing they needed was more land. Also, communism’s role in the Third World was morally ambiguous. On the one hand, it meant another part of the world falling under Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship, but on the other hand, it meant the hope of National Liberation & resistance against European Imperialism or American ‘Neo-Imperialism’. Thus, Cuba and Vietnam turned out to be a net moral negative for the US. Fidel Castro, for all his tyrannical whims, was seen as the proud Latino who’d stood up to Yankee-CIA-mafia imperialism. Anti-communism also led the US to support or even install(via CIA dirty tricks) brutal right-wing regimes that used any-means-necessary(even 'death squads') against ruthless radical insurgencies. US alliance with Shah of Iran and right-wing juntas in Latin America sullied its image around the world, not least among the influential intelligentsia.
And the Vietnamese came to be seen around the world as martyrs who stood up to US militarism. Also, many anti-communists were generally intellectually inferior to the thinkers and activists on the Left, and the media-and-military complex eventually found a way to bring down Joe McCarthy. Soon thereafter, Jews and Liberals in the media spun an elaborate hyperbolic Narrative that made those suspected of communist-espionage-or-sympathy as the prima donna victims of the ‘Red Scare’. This was especially important to Jews as their kind were disproportionately involved in spying for the Soviet Union and spreading radical leftist propaganda via media, academia, and government. To discourage any honest probe into Jewish role in radical politics, Jewish Narrative cooked up a wild hysteria about how the US under HUAC and Joe McCarthy had been rabidly and virulently hallucinating about communists-under-every-bed. By focusing the Narrative on the most ludicrous examples of Red Scare, Jews gave the false impression that the bulk of anti-communism had to do with paranoid fantasies when, in fact, there had been incredible amounts of pro-communist espionage and activity especially under FDR. (Not that FDR himself was pro-communist, but he was naive about Stalin and many people around him were either sympathetic to communism or even had ties with the USSR.) Another reason the Leftist Boomers were favored had to do with the Race Issue that came to the fore under Eisenhower and then totally exploded in the 1960s, especially under Lyndon B. Johnson. Billed as the Civil Rights Movement, it became the defining Moral Issue of the Decade(and thereafter). There was no denying the history of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and of course, blacks bore the brunt of it because they were by far the most numerous minority. On the black issue, the Left was totally committed, and Liberals very much committed. On the Right, the attitudes ranged from moderate support to outright hostility. Granted, by the ‘Right’, it wasn’t necessarily a Republican vs Democratic affair because many Republicans back then were ‘moderate’ Eastern Establishment types and many Democrats were Southern Dixiecrats who were hostile to ending Segregation and granting blacks more rights. Even though the Left’s position on the Civil Rights Movement was either naive or cynical — the Left often supported any cause or movement that might subvert the nation, thereby preparing the US for the eventual Revolution — , it was presented as a coherent and forceful argument: Equal Rights for blacks. Against this, the Right could only mutter about State’s Rights, which was a weak moral argument because it basically meant States could deny certain people Constitutional Rights on the basis of race. There was a compelling argument against Racial Integration and Attempted Equality between whites and blacks — BAMMAMA Factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular and More Aggressive, thereby a threat to the physical and psychological well-being of whites — , but excessive White Male Pride prevented the white race from spelling out the understandable fear that Southern Whites had of blacks. Failing to address that fact, all confrontations between whites and blacks, especially in the South, was framed in terms of helpless innocent blacks asking for justice versus white ‘racists’ and ‘rednecks’ who just liked to call people ‘nigger’ and act like hooligans in front of the TV camera.

There was also the fact of Youth Culture, and even though much of this was just hedonism and not strictly political, it gave boost to the Liberals and Left because it was seen as part of the broader rebellion against The Man and The Order. Even though elderly Leftists were confused and even offended by 60s Youth Rebels(who seemed to indulge in the crass narcissism, hedonism, and materialism of Capitalist Consumerist culture), the Middle Finger of the Youth Movement was bound to offend the conservative elements of society more. Even though many of the key Rock figures of the 1960s weren’t particularly political or ideological, their neo-Romantic Dionysian immersion in revelry and ‘liberation’ endeared them more to the Left, which explains why the Left, far more than the Right, was so eager to recruit singers and other celebrities into the Movement. As with the English Romantics of the 19th century, the Boomer Dionysians were, in some ways, reactionary at least in the ecological back-to-nature sense. They were appalled by the excessive industrialization, materialization, and ‘plasticization’ of society. And as the war in Vietnam dragged on, the Antiwar forces gained greater traction and sympathy. Though originally a Democratic Party war, it came to be seen as Nixon’s right-wing military-industrial slaughter, especially as the war expanded into Cambodia and Laos in a big way. Though boomers were split 50/50 on the Vietnam War for most of its duration, the Antiwar forces gained greater validity as the war seemed unwinnable, America ‘war crimes’ sullied its image around the world(not least among its European allies), and men like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara came to be lionized even among Liberals as ‘freedom fighters’. (It is no wonder that Conservatives were so eager to re-fight the War in the Reagan 80s, not least with movies like RAMBO, HANOI HILTON, GARDENS OF STONE, HAMBURGER HILL, and UNCOMMON VALOR. John Milius’ RED DAWN even imagined American boys as the New Viet Cong resisting Soviet Occupation of the US. But then, the Leftist Boomers got the best of the Narrative when Oliver Stone appeared on the scene with PLATOON, followed up by BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. At the very least, Stone had been there, which couldn’t be said of Conservative revisionists who’d sat out the war with college deferments or strings pulled by their parents.)

Anyway, in the War of Boomers, the Left-Boomers won decisively over the Right-Boomers. In the end, men like Bill Clinton seemed far more impressive than people like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. Sure, Billy Boy Clinton turned out to be one sleazy slimeball, but he was a true political visionary with the foresight and skills necessary to turn the Order upside down. That said, most politicians of both Parties are pieces of turds, hardly impressive material. Where the Left-Boomers really won the war against Right-boomers were in academia, media, entertainment, and law. Those institutions not only create, shape, and control the Big Ideas but the Idols and Icons. Academia, Media-Entertainment, and Law constitute the church of secularism. Control those and you end up controlling even your enemies or at least their children. Consider the children of George W. Bush and how they’re all for ‘gay marriage’. Why? Because even if they grew up under an Evangelical father, they were bombarded with pro-homo Pop Culture(that idolizes homos and trannies) and were educated in elite institutions where over 95% of the professors are PC scribes and priests. If PC won’t get you, it will get your children who are impressionable when they enter school and easily made addicted to Pop Culture. Take someone like Bill Gates who grew up mostly apolitical and only cared about technology and geeky stuff. Why did he turn ‘leftist’? Because the media that he relies on for information is controlled by globalist Jews.
Even if we were to suppose that many business majors in the 60s and 70s were on the Right(and pro-capitalist), business only teaches people how to make money. It doesn’t teach people about the higher meaning of life or true path to justice. Capitalism is essentially about how to maximize profits. So, even if many ‘rightist’ pro-market types were to succeed in business, they must seek moral and spiritual meaning elsewhere. In the past, they might have belonged to a Church or an ethnic community, i.e. Irish Catholics who cared about their own kin and culture. But in a deracinating, de-spiritualizing, and atomizing America, there was no longer a traditional faith or community to hold onto. So, where was one to find the higher meaning? And this is where the academia-media-law complex came to constitute the new holy trinity. Since Liberals and Leftists controlled most of it, even the successful ‘rightists’ and their children were bound to be gradually molded into the ‘leftist’ way of thinking. Is it any wonder that so many on the Right don’t question the basic assumptions of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’ but accept them as legitimate and then try to argue that the Other Side comprise the ‘real racists’, ‘real sexists’, and even ‘real homophobes’? (Supposedly, the Liberals are the ‘real homophobes’ since they welcome Muslims who might throw men who boof off the roof.)

But on the other hand, it is almost pointless to speak of the triumphant Left because what passes for the ‘left’ today bears hardly any resemblance of the Left of yesteryear, even of the 60s and 70s. There’s a common gripe on the Right that American Conservatives merely trail American Liberals by ten to twenty years, but it is worth asking if the Left has gotten more leftist or less leftist? Didn’t the Left abandon socialism? Didn’t the Left abandon the Working Class? Didn’t the Left welcome the Deep State, militarism, capitalism, consumerism, Wall Street, gambling, culture of narcissism, ‘xenophobic’ paranoia(about Russia especially), and etc.? So, even as the Right seems to be following in the footsteps of the Left, the Left seems to have been following in the footsteps of the Right. Clinton reached out to Wall Street, Trump reached out to the Working Class. What is going on here? In this sense, even though the Left-Boomers won, the leftist idealism that had fired up their youth seems to have evaporated over the years, leaving only a naked greed for power, prestige, and privilege.

On the one hand, it is clear that the Left-Boomers, as they grew older, became more jaded about values & meanings and came to care only for power and status. In the end, they came to understand the true nature of power. It is always an elite thing, and you have to know the right people and have to be in the right places. Nothing else matters... if you want to be where the action is. In LOST IN AMERICA, a Jewish guy decides to give up his yuppie job and see rural and small-town America. He wants to Touch Indians and meet with regular folks. What he finds outside the Big Cities is just a lot of boredom, mediocrity, and stasis. In the end, being one of the regular people means working as a crossing-guard. He decides to return to the Big City where the action is. Where the ONLY ACTION that counts is. It was said that Hillary Clinton grew impatient and insulting when she passed through some Nowhere-ville. She didn’t see the point of appealing to such losers who had nothing to offer her but some piddling votes. She wanted to shake hands with the Powerful and the Connected.

In INSIDE LLEYWN DAVIS, the lead character is a folk singer, an artist who is supposed to be about the People, especially in folksy small towns and rural America. But his act is strictly an urban-bohemian affair. He knows who’s who in NY and Chicago but feels totally like an outsider and alien in the rural and small-town areas between those two great cities. And when the folkie joint finally presents a bonafide act from bumble-ville, he spews insults at the performer to the point of making her flee the stage in tears, unwittingly angering her husband who returns to punch him in the nose like George Bailey got in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE for having said mean things to a school teacher.

Anyway, the point is it would be foolish to think that the Triumph of the Left means true victory of Classic Leftism or even radical Boomer Leftism. Classic Leftism of Communism died with the Fall of the Soviet Union and with China & Vietnam’s shift to capitalism and market economy. And the New Deal Leftism also lost out to Free Trade and Globalism that came to be embraced by the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Even Bruce Springsteen, the supposed voice of Blue Collar America, came to perform mainly for yuppies and yap mostly about homos and trannies. When we say the Left-Boomers won, we mean as individuals and personalities, not as ideologues. In the end, their ideological conviction proved to be weak or shallow. What really mattered was their lust for power, and it didn’t matter how they got it as long as they got it. Because they began on the Left, they kept the ideological moniker, but their current political positions have almost nothing in common with what they’d once stood for as young idealists. In a way, their lives have been one of betrayal of ideals and dreams. But in another way, all the themes of the 1960s were actually in keeping with the spirit of unfettered power-lust that had defined the American Experience for a long time. It was a repackaging and a re-branding than a rejection of what was both the best and worst of Americanism.

Consider one of the big slogans of the 1960s. We were told it was all about Love. All You Need Is Love. Make Love, Not War. So, Love = Peace, and a Generation committed to Love would oppose the Generation made by War. Even if WWII was the Good War, it was the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex. Also, the pride of having won the Good War led to this idea that the American Way is the right way all around the world. Because War had been ‘good’ and necessary in WWII, there was the idea that War is the solution for all problems. Especially when it was reported that PATTON was the favorite movie of Richard Nixon, the Commander-in-Chief of the war in Vietnam, the idea crystallized that the conflict was between Love & Peace and War & Imperialism. So, the hope was that the Generation of Love would grow up to be different from the earlier generation whose mentality had been formed by Militarist Mentality of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, CATCH-22, and M*A*S*H mocked the War State Mentality of the Older Generation.

And yet, was Love really the answer? Isn’t love a passion? Isn’t passion violent by nature? Also, even if we were to define ‘love’ as selfless & generous as opposed to ‘lust’ that is defined as selfish & wanton, is there a clear line between love and lust, especially when it involves boys and girls? Take THE GRADUATE, the most popular of all Boomer movies. It is about lust and love. Lust makes Benjamin Braddock act irresponsibly, having sex with the wife of his father’s law partner. Surely, surrendering oneself to sexual passions is hardly a way for peace and harmony. Next, Braddock goes into Love mode, and he goes totally insane, so much so that he lies, trespasses, and pulls all sorts of tricks to finally go Tony Montana and crash a wedding and run off with the (married)bride. It was sold as entertainment, but if one thinks about it, Braddock’s Quest for Love was mad, pathological, and violent. Braddock didn’t shoot up the wedding like some kids are doing at schools these days, but the mentality wasn't all that different. After all, Elliot Rodgers and other ‘Incels’ seem to be killing out of Love(or lack of it, which goes to show that Love isn’t ‘fair’, ‘democratic’, or ‘inclusive’). Anyway, it was Elaine or Bust for Braddock. He had to have her or else. He was willing to go to any length. Thus, the theme of Love in THE GRADUATE is a lot darker than might have been assumed. Love can be blind or blinding. Its ‘purity’ of passion makes one believe anything is justified in its quest.

Then, is it surprising that the Boomers who believed in the Power of Love ended up as such warmongering lunatics? Their idea seems to be that anything is justified IF they do it out of LOVE. So, if they want to invade or destroy any nation, just invoke some love of justice, democracy, or some humanitarian values. Want to restart the ‘cold war’ with Russia? Invoke the Love of Homos. How dare Russia remain cold and frigid to the ‘rainbow’ Love colors of Homomania?
Let’s consider some other Love-themes Boomer-favorites of the 60s. BONNIE & CLYDE came out in the same year as THE GRADUATE, and its message was that the gangster duo is justified in their mayhem across the ‘fruited plains’ because... they Love each other. Well, there you go. Love justifies everything? Want to justify ‘gay marriage’ and wage total war on morality and decency? Just say that homos want to get married out of Love. GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER was also made in the same year. In it, a ghastly Negro wants to wage racial-sexual war and colonize the womb of a white woman. He enters the scene yapping, "Where da white women at?", but this act of racial-sexual war is supposed to be Okay because... he be Loving a white ho. Another big favorite among the Boomers was Franco Zeffirelli’s version of ROMEO AND JULIET. It too was sold as a redemptive story of Love, but then Shakespeare, being a true artist, knew better. The story is ostensibly about the power of love between two young babes from families that hate one another. On one level, the lovers are inspiring, and their love redeeming of the bad blood between two families. On the other hand, love makes them totally blind and even mad. They are so mad with Love that they put its interest before all else, ensnaring so many people into complications that even lead to deaths of two men, followed by suicides of the two lovers. So maybe, Love isn’t a cure for all problems after all. Even though the two families were divided by blind hate, things hardly got better with blind love between the kids.

And indeed, US foreign policy got most messed up when America fell in blind love with certain peoples. Its blind love for Jews has led to supporting Wars for Israel and Oppression of Palestinians. Universal Love is impossible. The couple love Elsa the lioness in BORN FREE, but that means setting it free to kill warthogs and other creatures. If you love a deer, you want to kill coyotes that might hunt it. If you love a coyote, you will want it to hunt deer to survive. If you love your cat, other animals will have to die to feed it. When Lawrence falls in love with Arabs, it means he must learn to hate Turks. Sadly, it is when Joe Buck(in MIDNIGHT COWBOY) tries to save his beloved friend Ratso that he turns to violence that ends up killing a man, one of the few decent people he met in NY. Likewise, whenever the US has fallen in love with a certain people, the blind love also led to blind hate. America’s love for Jews has blinded it to its mad hate for Palestinians, an innocent people. Worse, whenever US wants to destroy a nation, it can invoke Love as the reason. So, why did the US mess up the Middle East? Oh yeah, out of Love, to bring ‘liberal democracy’ to all those ‘ragheads’ yearning to be free. Why should the US subvert the Iranian regime? Because Americans, being full of Love, want to liberate all those poor wonderful Iranians from an evil regime.
Love also produces blindspots. America’s delusional love for Magic Negroes has blinded it to the truly wretched way of Real Negroes. It’s like the blind love in FAREWELL MY LOVELY. The love for the noir bitch blinds men to how wicked she is. Love not only blinds but spoils the object of love. Catherine in JULES AND JIM is showered with love by men, and she turns into a self-centered bitch. Jews are addicted to being Loved by dimwit goyim and seethe with rage at anyone who won’t show the Love. Antisemitism used to mean Hatred for Jews, but nowadays, it means Not Loving Jews, Not Trusting Jews, Not Obeying Jews. Excessive Love for Jews has spoiled them like the excessive mother’s love that spoiled the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.

LOVE STORY(followed by OLIVER’S STORY) showed how Love could lead to emptiness and bitterness. Not only does Love create an unfortunate rift between father and son in LOVE STORY but Jenny eventually dies of leukemia, and Oliver is left feeling empty and bitter for the rest of his life. Applied to politics, such emotions mean wounded bitterness among those who don’t get things their way. We saw this in the loss of Hillary Clinton. Her supporters didn’t just react like their candidate lost an election but as if the object of their love was murdered. And the delirious fans of Obama were in Love with him. Imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had lost in 2008 or 2012. We wouldn’t be human without the capacity for Love, but Love is not some bright shining thing but a passion with as much darkness as radiance, as shown in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the kid-robot’s undying love for ‘mommy’ turns into something brooding and grotesque... as is the sickly lesbian love in MULHOLLAND DR.
And this is why the story of Jesus Christ is so troubled. How do you Love humanity that is divided among so many tribes? If you love the Jews, you must hate the enemies of Jews. If you love the Romans, you must hate the enemies of Romans. If you love the Persians, you must hate the enemies of Persians. If you love the Celts, you must hate the enemies of Celts. Also, if you love your family and kin, you must put their interests above those of others. Love binds one to a certain person, certain group, a certain tribe. Love necessarily makes you hate those who threaten the object of one’s love. Jesus wanted to transcend all that and love all of mankind, but how is this done? Christians believe He found the answer. Non-Christians believe He was seriously deluded, even mad.

Anyway, given the true dynamics of Love, it couldn’t be the formula for peace and harmony in the New Order. If anything, the Boomers who came of age in the Summer of Love developed impassioned blindspots of their own. Worse, once the romanticism of love faded over the years, there was only lust. Billy Boy Clinton embodied this side of Boomerism all too well: Lust for power, lust for women, lust for money, lust for privilege. In this sense, Philip Roth’s PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, which was more about lust than love, became more prophetic than THE GRADUATE. We ended up in the Age of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneiderman, and Donald Trump, the president who once paid a trashy porn performer to have sex with him. Love can be a positive force, but it can also be blinding, impulsive, stupid, neurotic, and enraged. Weinstein forced himself on those who wouldn’t give into him. He was one more Jew who wouldn’t take No for an answer. Not to give into his ‘love’ was like being an ‘Anti-Semite’ who won’t love Jews. It’s not enough Not-to-Hate Jews in our age. You must Love Jews like Winston Smith learned to Love Big Brother. And when Weinstein raped women, the fault was with them for resisting his Love. But this is Boomer US foreign policy in a nutshell. You see, the US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation that is full of Love, and if it wants to invade or interfere with any nation, it has every right to do so because it is all about Love. The fault is with the nation that says NO to US intervention. How dare it say NO to America as the Don Juan of the World?

Incidentally, if THE GRADUATE was about the mad romanticism of Love, the biggest franchise of the 1960s, the 007 James Bond movies, was about the Nihilism of Love. 007 is so smooth, cool, and handsome that he has the license to do just about anything. The Bond series may have had a special appeal to the more Conservative types(despite the sexual licentiousness), but again, Love, far from being an agent for peace and harmony, is a prize and trophy of power and mastery. You must kill and win to get the ladies.

And of course, the Vietnam War wasn’t just about US soldiers killing tons of ‘gooks’ but humping millions of ‘gookettes’. It was as much about making Love as well as War in Southeast Asia. In a way, the open Libido of the Boomer generation made it more uninhibited in its aggression. The Freudian-Frankfurt theory that American aggression was the result of pent-up sexual frustration never made much sense. While it’s true that Nixon was sexually conservative, Lyndon B. Johnson was a major Mr. Rhinestone Cowboy when it came to donging and whoring around. And Billy Boy Clinton’s many philandering didn’t stop him from moving NATO up to Russia’s borders or instigating the War on Serbia. And Donald Trump, who loves to talk belligerently and is now raising tensions with Iran, sure humped lots of women throughout his life. We should know from the examples of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan that ‘healthy libido’ is hardly a preventive cure from excessive war-making. If anything, through most of history, wars were usually about ‘get the womenfolk’ as well as ‘get the land and loot’. In SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, it shows how womenfolk have a dual effect on the fellers: they both barbarize and civilize menfolk. Upon seeing womenfolk, menfolk go ‘boing’ and want to act like Chechen bandits and run off with women-as-trophies. But then, it is the duty of womenfolk to teach menfolk some manners and not eat like pigs when served stew and biscuits. (Of course, today's women are often just as barbaric as the men.)

One of the themes of Americanism was the unfettered reach of going all the way, having it all, and living the dream. The sheer immensity of the wilderness to be tamed filled Americans with over-sized ambitions. The positive side of this was the spirit of adventure, enterprise, and experiment. The downside was the obnoxious and infantile sense that it is so very unjust if things don’t go one’s way. And this was made worse when radical Jewish psychology infected Americanism. Jewish radicalism made American reform-style socialism far nastier. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy radicalized American individualism to the point of near-psychosis where the hero of THE FOUNTAINHEAD in effect becomes a terrorist and blows up an entire Housing Project out of his purist insistence that it be his way or the highway. And Love-American-Style became something gross. It’s like what Tony Montana says in SCARFACE: "This town is like a big fat pussy just waiting to get fuc*ed." He sure read Americanism correctly, especially in the trashy city of Miami.

And in THE GRADUATE and THE HEARTBREAK KID, we see this infantile Americanism(mixed with Jewish neurosis) that must have it his way or it’s the highway.
So, not only was Love NOT the answer but Love-American-Style, outsized and vulgar, wasn’t going to save the world as the Boomer generation took over the seats of power. Their idea of making love to the world was to rape it with their crude, ugly, and infantile agenda of New World Order that was far more sinister than one envisioned by the WWII generation.

Another big thing among the Boomers was, of course, Rock culture. Like Love, indeed along with Love, Rock Culture was supposed to promote youthful idealism, freedom, and liberation. And even justice and truth. After all, while the military was training young people to be killers with guns, Rock culture was encouraging young ones to be free and have fun with guitars and drums. Better to be at Monterey or Woodstock grooving to Rock music than to be in the jungles of Vietnam killing people you don’t even know. While the military was about repression, discipline, hardship, and death, Rock Culture was about liberation, openness, ease, and life. And while warmongers made the "Ballad of the Green Beret" a hit, the Antiwar crowd was more likely to dance and get all funky with Santana and Sly & the Family Stone. Besides, plenty of Rockers sang against the War. John Lennon sang "Give Peace a Chance". Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Fortunate Son" and "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" The Animals sang, "Sky Pilot". HAIR the musical was blatantly antiwar. Antiwar politics divided the world between old men like LBJ and Nixon in business suits AND young people in colorful dress and into Rock music. The idea was that repressed traditional men in government took out their aggressions by waging war on other nations. In contrast, young counterculture people who let it all hang out were at peace with themselves and nature, therefore, they had no reason to blow up some other part of the world to feel good about themselves.

And yet, the Vietnam War(and American militarism) and Rock Culture had something in common. They were both predicated on powerlust. After all, what was the main appeal of Rock n Roll? It was about the animal aggression of conquest and domination. Elvis, channeling the Negroes, turned white girls into willing sex slaves of the King of Rock n Roll. At his concerts, young girls peed their pants to his music. Elvis was the middleman performer between the Negro dong and their white poons. As the White Negro, he made possible in musical fantasy what was forbidden in life. (Of course, there is no more need for white sexual middlemen between Mandingo and white girls because we now live in Age of Rap and pornification of culture, whereby white girls are celebrated for going with Negroes.) So, Rock n Roll exploded on the scene as a form of sexual-imperialism. It was the music of the burn-and-slash rape-and-pillage. Boys loved it because a part of them wanted to play the pirate. And girls loved it because, as so many Romance novels show, women fantasize about rape by pirates and bandits. So, Rock n Roll expressed animal drives and urges. It was a form of Jungle Imperialism, along with Negro takeover of sports. Even though Muhammad Ali came to be admired as an idol of resistance and social justice, the only reason he became famous was because he beat up other men and called himself the ‘greatest’. Sports is a form of war. It’s about domination, conquest, and humiliation. It is about beating up other men and humping lots of women. This could happen within the race or across races. In the US, as black men won in sports, it meant they defeated and humiliated white men into cuckdom and claimed and conquered white women. Because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination, the release of wild Negro energies(and their channeling by white performers) was justified and even romanticized as a form of moral advancement and historical redress. But apart from such contextualization, the influence of Negro sports and Negro music was to spread aggression, thuggery, domination, and war-lust. Even though Jimi Hendrix is considered as part of Counterculture, the fact is his music goes well together with footage of the Vietnam War. Some may argue that his music was a dark commentary on the crisis of the times, but the sheer violence of his music runs parallel to the violence meted out on Vietnam. Its effect is utterly different from sober folk songs of the early 1960s that protested War and militarism. Even if Hendrix and Santana were sympathetic to the Antiwar crowd, the fact is their music unleashed violent energies of mayhem and domination. Their music worked like demon possession like in THE EXORCIST. Consider Steppenwolf's music to the footage of the Vietnam War.

And even though CCR’s song "Fortunate Son" condemns the hypocrisy of the warmongers, its energies aren’t much different from the aggression of soldiers. It is militant and furious in its anti-war stance, so much so that it makes aggression sound fun and thrilling. In the end, the real appeal of the song is less its message than it sheer fury. If one didn’t know English, one might almost believe it’s a pro-war song about how "we should go there and kill all them gooks." Message is often buried or overwhelmed by the music in a song. Take "Born in the USA" that many people heard as a patriotic anthem of the Reagan Decade when, in terms of lyrics, it was a bitter commentary on how the System invokes patriotism to make young men go fight in wars that serve no purpose. Springsteen made this very point, but he too was deluded because when you play a song like that before 50,000 people with a big-ass Negro Clarence blowing into a saxophone, it essentially functions as a celebratory anthem. Again, if you didn’t know the lyrics, it would sound like an aggressive and violent gung-ho pro-war patriotic song. Just as Sam Peckinpah was deluded when he claimed the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was meant to be anti-violence, Springsteen was fooling himself when he thought irony could work with a song like "Born in the USA", especially when played in concert in a crowd of tens of thousands along with other songs like "Born to Run", "Sherry Darling", and "Bobby Jean".

It is then no wonder that the Rock Generation grew up to be powerlusting nihilists and killers. And it is no wonder that "Rock the Casbah" became the anthem of the US military as it blasted Baghdad to smithereens. And let’s also remember that Rock Culture wasn’t only part of the Antiwar movement. The US military allowed tons of Pop Culture to enter into Vietnam. US soldiers were encouraged to have fun when not fighting. Away from the jungle, they were into Rock music, sex, drugs, and all that stuff. It’s no wonder that "The End", "Satisfaction" and "Suzie Q" go so well together with the war images in APOCALYPSE NOW. Rock music is about domination and release of animal drives. In essence, it is closer to hunter-warrior outlook than saint-sage mindset. When one listens to Hendrix’s version of "All Along the Watchtower", one gets the impression of a psychedelic tiger lurking in the jungle to pounce on an ox. When one listens to "Gimme Shelter", it sounds like how cool it’d be to napalm entire villages. Sure, there are lyrics about ‘love’ and all that, but the music itself, especially with a Negress howling like a gorilla in heat, is totally wild and crazy.
And despite Punk music’s supposed ‘political consciousness’ and Rap music’s ‘social commentary’, both were essentially war music of derelicts, bandits, and thugs. They were barbarian hunter music or savage warrior music. A song like "Fight the Power" pretends to be a call for justice, but the music is really about, "Gonna whup your ass, honkey" and "Where da white women at?!"

Then, it is no wonder that Rock music, which was billed as the sound of happy liberation and youthful idealism of peace, became so useful to the Boomer Warmongers who, with a military filled with kids steeped in Rock warrior-hunter culture, were more than willing to Hendrixize and Clash-ize entire nations with Shock and Awe. It is telling that the music video for "Rock the Casbah" shows an Arab and a Jew sharing a ride and raking in all the money and goodies. How prophetic in an idiot-savant way. Today, we have Israel allied with the Saudis messing up the entire region with the full backing of the US that has Elvis-as-President in Donald Trump who has, among his fans, Kanye West who’s been admonished by Jay-Z who supported Hillary Clinton, the badass bitch who done wasted Libya, sheeeeiiiiit.

US Policy of Regime Change around the World has been Destructive — One Regime Change that the US & the World must pursue is Deposing Judeo-Nazis from American Power

We’ve all heard of how certain regimes must be deposed or changed by American Might. The US acts like Judge Dredd around the world, deciding which regimes can stay, which must go. There is no moral consistency in the judgement by the US. The very ‘human rights violations’ that the US invokes to denounce an ‘evil regime’ are practiced, even to a greater extent, by an ally of the US or even by the US itself, a nation that resorted to Torture during the War on Terror(that, soon enough, morphed into War with Terror against secular modern Arab governments). Or, the US will declare a certain nation as a grave threat to world peace. Iran, we are told, is dangerous because it has a Nuclear Program. Never mind Iran never developed nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel is reported to have 200 to 300 warheads. Also, Israel was created through massive pogroms against the native population, the Palestinians who are still living under Occupation. And yet, American politicians cheer and praise Israel 24/7 and pledge to shower more money on the Judeo-Nazi Empire.

Given such lack of moral and/or ideological consistency, the US position on ‘regime change’ makes little sense except as power trip, power game, out-of-control militarism, and nihilism of Tribal Power(mainly that of Jews). All people who seek power want to flex their muscles, and the world arena is a convenient outlet for those pent-up energies. After all, even the killing of an odd black thug in an American city can lead to outrage, riots, investigation, and endless lawsuits. But if the US state uses drones to kill scores of Muslims in Pakistan, no one gives a damn. No one cares about US military gunning down people in Somalia. And despite all the rhetoric in the US about the 'evil nazis', the State Department can even recruit Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. So, whatever the US government cannot do IN the US, they can do all over the world. Foreign Policy is like the Wild Wild West of American Power. What isn’t allowed IN the US is allowed ABROAD, especially the Third World. One thing for sure, Muslims Lives Matter NOT.

During the Vietnam War, there were some on the Left who drew parallels between social injustice in American History & Home-Front AND the horrors unfolding in Vietnam. But most war coverage has been sanitized since then. One reason is the major involvements since the Gulf War have essentially been Wars for Israel. So, the Jew-run media have found it conducive to their tribal interests to suppress much of the bad news from abroad. Jews certainly don’t want Americans to feel sympathy for Muslims and Arabs as the victims of US neo-imperialism directed by Jewish Globalists. During the Vietnam War, the yellows were compared with American Indians(as facing ‘genocide’ at the hands of whites) or even with Jews in WWII. Muhammad Ali became famous by saying he had no reason to fight the Viet Cong since they never called him no ‘nigger’. Even though the war in Iraq turned very badly, much more so than the War in Vietnam at least in the discrepancy between expectation and reality, the news coverage(though increasingly sour) didn’t reach the sheer skepticism and disgust that engulfed the media in the late 60s and early 70s.
If anything, a bigger strike against Bush was the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina despite the fact that it was essentially a natural disaster of winds, flood, and Negro jungle-jivery. The fact that Bush’s reputation could be hurt more by domestic crisis than a foreign one(that was much more dire and costly in life & limb and of course ordered by the Bush & Cheney regime) goes to show that American Power is constrained in the US in the way that it isn’t abroad.

Of course, some might argue that the US isn’t really a democracy but an oligarchy where the elites pull all sorts of dirty tricks via Deep State, Media, finance, and law. Even so, the US government cannot kill bushels of people in the US like it routinely does abroad. Even if the Deep State plays it dirty inside the US, it cannot do what it does in places like Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and etc. And this explains why so many pathological power-lusting looneys are drawn to the State Department, a Center for the License to Kill. Granted, the psychos in the State Department cannot just hate and destroy ANY nation. No one would dare say anything critical of Israel, for instance. Imagine the US government forcing sanctions on Israel that killed up to 500,000 children and a US official saying it was ‘worth it’ like Madeleine Albright once said of Iraqi kids. There's no chance of such happening because the Jewish CHECKMATE on power in the US is so total.
So, the psychos in the Deep State cannot wreak havoc on just any nation around the world. They have to get orders from the Top Elites who are Jews, and of course, the main targets of hostility are usually those nations/peoples that happen to be HATED by Israel and World Jewry. So, John Bolton, Samantha Power, and such ilk all foam at the mouth about certain nations targeted by Jews. They are essentially like a house-dog that must behave in the house before the master and mustn’t bite the kids and house cat even if they harass it all day and night. After all, the master ordered it to be nice to kids and the cat... no matter what. So, US officials can’t do much about nasty blacks in the US. Numinous Negroes are forgiven no matter what they do. And there isn’t much US officials can do about illegal invaders. And there’s nothing they can do about bad corrupt Jews. So, their pent-up energies must be directed outwards. A dog that can’t do much in the house can be led to hunt rabbits and other creatures with great fury. All its frustrations in serving the master and being nice to the kids and cat are taken out on rabbits and other creatures targeted for mauling and death. Likewise, US officials find an outlet for their pent-up fury in nations hated by Jews. Jews allow them to run wild and free in the destruction of certain nations hated by Israel, and the officials and generals just can’t get enough. Finally, in destroying other nations(hated by Jews), they can feel ‘powerful’... just like a dog finally feels like a master-in-its-own-right by chasing, mauling, and killing rabbits.

If some governments are nicer at home but brutal abroad, other nations are the opposite. Because of Rule of Law and Rights in the US, there is only so much the US government can do to American citizens. Of course, many in the government would love to get tough and destroy us. And when it comes to the Alt Right, there’s been green light within the Deep State, Media, and Finance to shut it all down even by trampling on Constitutional Rights. Even so, they can't just haul Alt Right people into prison and have them shot. They can't order a Drone Strike on Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor. They can’t even do what Woodrow Wilson did to German-Americans during WWI and what FDR did to Japanese-in-America during WWII. But in the name of fighting Terror, the US government can order drone strikes on any number of Muslims. And in the name of opposing Evil Regimes, the US government can arm and support Terrorists(even those affiliated with the killers who pulled 9/11) in places like Libya and Syria.


Some other nations are the exact opposite of the US when it comes to abuse-of-power and state violence. As brazen tyrannies, they can do just about anything at home but must be sensitive when dealing with other nations. Hussein’s Iraq, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and Kim’s North Korea were such nations. Domestically in the absence of Rule of Law, the rulers could, on a whim, abuse their power and treat people like slaves or dogs. They could even use poison gas and kill scores of people, as Hussein did against Kurds. But their power rarely extends beyond national borders and, in dealing with other nations, must be mindful of international agreements and protocols. Lacking superpower status, they can’t push the world around like the US routinely does, and so, the pathological power-lust of their rulers lords over the helpless minions at home.

Anyway, no single nation is the World or represents the dreams of the World. And whatever injustices may exist within, the nation has no business terrorizing the rest of the world. Now, some nations may claim to be superior, especially in being ‘indispensable’ or ‘exceptional’, and therefore implying the moral right to intervene in or even invade other nations to spreads ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, and ‘end of tyranny’. Even if some nations are morally and socially more advanced than others, no nation is perfect and, furthermore, it’s a bad habit(and precedence) for a nation to use naked aggression against other nations in the name of justice. After all, given the brutal history of humanity, every nation has grievances and its own justifications for power. So, if the world establishes a norm whereby any ‘superior’ nation can meddle or invade some other nation deemed morally inferior, it will be a world of endless wars, even world wars.

However, to the extent that the US tirelessly yammers about the need for REGIME CHANGE all over the world, maybe the world needs to make the US get a taste of its own medicine. The good people of America and all the people that aspire to be free should call for Regime Change in the Most Powerful and Most Evil nation on Earth. The US is now the most evil nation on Earth because of (1) its power makes it most dangerous (2) its values are corrupt and decadent (3) its neo-missionary themes are depraved, savage, and/or infantile and (4) its global interests & agenda serves a very narrow group of Tribal Supremacists & their venal allies. Now, power alone doesn’t make a nation evil. The fact of American Power could make the US one of the better nations in the world. A nation that uses its power to do good. Though critics of American Imperialism always had a point, the fact is American Imperialism did a lot of good around the world in the 20th century, or at the very least, it compensated every bad thing with a good thing. And during the Cold War, the dirty tricks of the CIA may have prevented something worse: Communist takeover. Pinochet has blood on his hands, but maybe Chile did better under his right-wing government. Anti-Imperialists like Abby Martin do some good work, but they have this Manichean view of history as Evil West/America vs everyone else(especially non-whites) as saintly victims. But much of history was really more about bad vs bad, or more enlightened bad vs backward bad. There was once a time when US power, for all its faults and betrayals, still offered something better for many peoples around the world than competing empires or native tyrants did. But such view is no longer tenable as the ruling elites are now Jewish Globalists who utterly lack the element of magnanimity of Anglo elites and idealism of Jewish Leftists of yesteryear. Today’s Jewish Globalists are totally about Jewish Supremacist Tribal Power. They are Judeo-Nazis who are capable of ANYTHING to get what they want.
Also, US popular culture back then meant stuff like John Wayne movies and more mature entertainment. And in morality, it was essentially a Christian nation. One doesn’t have to be a believer to respect Christianity as a great religion with moral seriousness. Also, the US was a more literary and sober nation back then. And Jazz, though racy, wasn’t depraved like rap would later be. And even upon the legalization of pornographic cinema, it was understood there was a clear line between mainstream culture and seedy ‘red light district’ vice. But what is American Culture these days? It is not just individual rights for homosexuals but Gay Rites, Homomania, and Queertianity as Satanic-Jewish-christianity or SJC. Incredibly, Jewish power has replaced Christianity with Homomania as the New-christanity. Homos who claimed to be secular and libertarian in struggling for individual rights took over institutions(with the support of Jews) and are now indoctrinating young children to worship Homos and Trannies as holy peoples. And many parents are so spiritually hollow and morally vapid that they sincerely think they are raising kids properly by immersing them in homo-rainbow-mania. We are living in an Age when Boys Scouts, once a Christian and moral institution, is all about praising and celebrating homo buggery and tranny penis-lopping. Homo celebration is related to mainstreaming of pornography. Invariably, every ‘clean cut’ and ‘innocent’ Disney star grows up to be a slut or skank. And what passes for ‘wholesome’ today simply means road-to-skankdom. Now, it’s been said prostitution is the oldest profession, so skankdom is nothing new. What is alarmingly new is the Normalization of Sluttony(slut gluttony) and Skankdom as the New Conscience. Not only are young girls encouraged to act like sluts but to take moral, ideological, and even intellectual pride in it. It’s pussy this, pussy that, pussy everything. Want to protest Trump? Yammer about how you’re a ‘nasty’ whore and go ‘pussy, pussy, pussy’. But then, this is a nation where gambling is no longer seen as a vice but as a means to wash away 'historical sins' related to Indians. As for Negroes, they are utterly depraved with reversion to savagery. The American Negro used to be morally inspiring to the world. Given the history of slavery and racial discrimination, much of the world sympathized with the Civil Rights Movement and its struggles for equality and justice. But since then, Negro antics in the US have turned into celebration of thuggery, shameless fuc*-dancing, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh twerking-ass booty’, megalomania(about how blacks be superior and better that all other races in just about EVERYTHING... sheeeeeeiiiit), endless Hate Hoaxes, parasitism, and sheer obnoxiousness. But one of the main themes of current American Globalist Cultural Imperialism is that filthy rappers are prophets and poets. This is what happens with the Cult of ‘Raciality’ or Ethnicity. Because of the cult of eternal victimhood around blacks, even their filthiest and rottenest behaviors and manners are valorized as uplifting and inspirational. (We even have Conservatives wetting their pants about the insane Kanye West be a ‘role model’ and shit now that he’s wearing a MAGA hat.)

Current American intellectual culture, mass entertainment, and neo-spirituality(endless nonsense about Holy Homos and Noble Negroes, or Numinous Negroes) spread little but garbage around the world. It’s mostly junk. Not only is American militarism murderous, its cultural imperialism is demented. How such a people could pat themselves on the back and brag about their lone superpower being the ‘indispensable’ and ‘exceptional’ nation on Earth is truly astounding in delusion and retardation. When so many Americans sincerely believe they are ‘more evolved’ than the much of the world because they have ‘gay marriage’, one wonders just how a nation could become this insane. In the past, Americans may have tolerated or defended some degree of decadence and degeneracy as the price of freedom and tolerance — at least people back then knew the difference between good and bad — , but today, they are most proud of manifestations of their decadence and degeneracy. So many people believe themselves to be socially, morally, intellectually, and spiritually ‘more evolved’ because they have their kids attend sessions where trannies read pro-‘gay’ children’s stories to them. The US is fortunate for its Land and Legacy because, if not for such advantages, it would sink like a stone with its increasingly trashy and demoralizing values. When a society moralizes institutionally that which is most demoralizing intuitively, things begin to fall apart because the people, from top to bottom, have lost the sense of the fundamentals of right and wrong.

And much of this sickness owes to Jewish Minority Supremacism. Jews, as the ruling minority elites, have been SO INSISTENT on the majority non-Jews serving the Tribe that they even went so far as to insist that majority of straight folks bend over to sexual deviants, perverts, and freaks. It would have been one thing for sexual deviants and freaks to have the freedom to do their thing, but that wasn’t good enough for Jews and Homos, two groups that had in common the boundless lust for vanity, narcissism, neurosis, paranoia, and persecution complex(along with persecution sadism).

If any nation needs Regime Change, it is the US, and it would be good for EVERYONE... except for Jewish Supremacists and Homomaniacs. Indeed, it will even be better for most Jews who might finally learn to be a Normal People than a Neurotic One. As long as Jewish supremacists, by hook or by crook, insist on Complete Control of the US(and thereby most of the world), it will be bad for Americans and non-Americans, not least because Jews, as nasty ‘mixers’, will keep goading non-Jews to hate and even kill one another. The Jewish-run US government talks endlessly about how Regime Change is necessary to liberate peoples around the world from tyrannical governments, but are American people free? No, American people are under the oligarchic control of Jewish supremacists with ethno-monopoly of media, academia, finance, law & courts, and the Deep State. As such, their so-called Democracy is really a sham. Even after Donald Trump won a historic victory, he’s been helpless to improve relations around the world. So much of his foreign policy is a continuation of Obama policies that were a continuation of Bush policies and so on.
Indeed, if one asks what the various top agendas of the US have in common, the one sure factor is JEWS WANT THEM: Anti-Russian hatred, anti-Iranian hatred, unconditional support of Israel & utter disregard for Palestinians, Homomania, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), Afromania, Anti-white vitriol & insistence on White Submissivism, Trashy Feminism, Pornification of Mainstream Culture, Wars for Israel, Mass Invasion & Replacement of White Population in US, Canada, & EU, and etc. All these matters may not have much in common with one another, BUT they’ve all been pushed most vociferously by the Jews.

Just imagine a World in which the US, the most powerful nation on Earth, is NOT controlled by Jewish supremacist globalists. Suppose Jews in America were Normal and just learned to get along with others instead of trying to lord over them. Not only would the US be a much nicer, healthier, and saner place for Americans but it wouldn’t be messing up the world(and bring about the destruction of millions of lives) at the behest of the vile and venal Jewish supremacist agenda. Just imagine US & World History since the end of the Cold War IF America had not been taken over by the Jewish Globalist Regime. US and EU would likely have developed sound relations with post-communist Russia. But thanks to Jews, Russia was financially raped, thus setting the grounds for tensions later. Even without Jewish power, there might have been the Gulf War, but there might have been rapprochement between US and Hussein once the dust settled. But because Jews ran America, Iraq was not allowed to develop again, and so many civilians died as the result of sanctions. Also, the Israeli-Palestinian problem might have been resolved if the US didn’t lean only to one side, an inevitability in a nation where most politicians are whores of Jewish power that controls most think-tanks, media, academia, banks, and etc. US and Iran would have patched things up long ago on a live-and-let-live basis. US would not be foaming at the mouth about Iran as a nuclear threat to the world. And even the problem with North Korea might have been resolved had it not been for Jewish fears of North Korea as trading partners with nations hated by Israel. Without Jewish domination of media, academia, and courts, homos and trannies would likely have the freedom to do their thing, but they would not have been hailed and near-worshiped as neo-saints and neo-angels. And the idea of bakers being fined and destroyed because they refused to bake degenerate ‘gay wedding’ cakes would not be a thing. Also, American feminism would be saner without the Jewish neurotic element of late that is all about Slut Pride and ‘my pussy’.

Without Jewish control of so many industries and institutions, there is no doubt the US would be a much better place. Sure, there would still be lots of bad things, but the good things would have the confidence and power to push against them. But under Jewish supremacist control, the good things have been restrained and even forbidden to resist and push against bad things. Given that the #1 Rule of America became "Obey, appease, and never displease Jews", even most Conservatives were silent on the Homo Agenda. The main reason was they were afraid of offending Jews. Jews or no Jews, the battle between good and bad is eternal, but the good can usually win because society has more innately good people than bad ones(at least among whites as there seems to be more bad blacks than good blacks in any society). The reason why the Jewish elites have been so dangerous is that they, as corrupt and venal referees of Power, have generally tipped the balance for the bad against the good.

Liberation of Americans from Jewish Supremacism would also be a great boon to the world. There would be no ‘new cold war’ with Russia. The Media would not be endless Hate News against Russia, Iran, Syria, Hungary, Poland, White folks, Straight Men, Christianity, Courage, and the Truth. Look at most of the troubles the US got involved around the World since the Cold War, and they are related to Jewish supremacist power. As Andrew Bacevich noted in one of his books, the US was almost never involved militarily in the Middle East and North Africa during the Cold War — Lebanon and attack on Libya under Reagan were minor exceptions — , but following the end of the Cold War, almost all US wars have been involved with Muslims, Arabs, and others in Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa, especially against nations hated by Jews. And when US was not attacking them with bombs, it was crippling them with sanctions. And why? Why was there all the hype about ‘new hitlers’ and ‘Munich’ and ‘appeasement’? We know why. It’s because Jews want to hype us dummies into supporting more confrontations and wars for Israel. Jews sure are great projectors. They bitch about ‘appeasement’, but the world is now as it is because the craven non-Jewish elites and politicians of the EU and the US, the most powerful nation on Earth, have been doing little else but appeasing Judeo-Nazis, the real New Hitlers.

How may this Regime Change of Jewish Supremacists be realized in the US? That is a topic for another day, but what sane person would disagree that the ONE REGIME CHANGE that will surely benefit the entire world would be the fall of the evil Judeo-Nazi Regime? It may be a daunting task, but everything starts small. The removal of the Judeo-Nazi regime must be done. The problem is not Jewish success or even power per se. The problem is Jewish supremacist power that has reached Nazi-like levels of pathology, megalomania, bloodthirst, and utter disregard for so many lives, even those of women and children. And THAT CANNOT STAND.

A Response to Eric Margolis’ Denunciation of Ken Burns’ THE VIETNAM WAR Documentary

For Eric Margolis’ article, click: THE VIETNAM NIGHTMARE – AGAIN

I don’t think Ken Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who were involved in the conflict. Sure, there were warmongers, profiteers, and egomaniacs. And paranoids.

But Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Now, Eisenhower could be aloof or angry. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But they were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for the military brass, well, what would one expect? They were educated, trained, and prepared all their lives to think of the world in terms of team sports. They were trained to fight and win, not to think of higher matters or deeper truths. Sure, West Point and Annapolis educated bright students who learned history and ideas, but it all came down to one thing: Fighting and Winning. As for the CIA, it is a sinister organization by design — an agency of necessary evil — , but then, let’s keep in mind that Soviets had a worthy counterpart in the KGB. Let’s remember Soviets infiltrated FDR’s government and stole a lot of secrets and planted a lot of subversives. Soviets even got the Bomb during the Truman era. Also, Soviets ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted dissent in their own empire. And EVERY nation has its own version of the CIA. If CIA did more damage, it was because powerful nations just have more means to do so.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if it was on the verge of being united under a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. After all, the US didn’t intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved in Vietnam was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino Theory is thought to have been ‘debunked’, it certainly made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed it. So did Mao, which is why China, though poor and backward, sent aid to rebel groups all over the world. Soviets believed that a sign of US weakness could spark revolutions all over the Third World that equated capitalism with imperialism. Che Guevara certainly believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would start a wildfire of anti-Yanqui revolutions all over Latin America and then eventually spread to the US as well. Che really believed this, which is why he spent some time in the Congo and later died in a failed insurgency in Bolivia.

Also, at least in part, the Domino Theory did come true. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind that the communist victory in Malaysia was prevented only by ruthless British strategy of hurling huge numbers of people into concentration camps and hamlets.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be on the wane, not least because of social conflicts and cultural decay that defined much of the 60s and early 70s. Americans threw in the towel after losing ‘only’ 58,000 men. The outside world got the impression that Americans no longer had the resolve to impose their hegemony on the world. If a ragtag army in Cuba could defy Uncle Sam in the early 60s and if guerrilla troops in Vietnam could defeat the greatest technological power, maybe America lost its warrior soul as the result of excessive freedom, pleasure, and individualism. It seemed like dejavu of Pax Romana's decline, what with a populace that was no longer respectful of authority and no longer willing to make sacrifices.

Not only communists were emboldened by American troubles(and ultimate 'defeat') in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was inspired in part by Vietnam(though it ignited as a silly scuffle about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was a World Power. French troubles in Algeria weren't all that surprising as France was an empire in decline. French defeat was a setback for a European power, not a World Power.

So, after the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat Goliath anywhere in the world. The Shah regime in Iran fell, and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened to roll in the tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador and Guatemala. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Salvador Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by CIA-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It certainly blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn’t all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics… at least in perception. Ironically, the Vietnam example inspired the US and the Mujahadeen to pull off something similar in Afghanistan against the Soviet Empire.

In the end, communism wasn’t defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn’t sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa was a constant drain, like flushing money down a toilet. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. As Eastern European nations were limited in natural resources, their economies had to rely on manufacturing, which meant Soviet industry had to be suppressed. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster in economic terms. Maoism was hell on earth.
Some might argue communism failed because Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of neutral nations willing to do business with communist nations — India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets — , the real reason for the failure of communism was it just doesn’t work.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina — brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia — and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam eventually made the switch to market economics, it’s clear that US was on the right side of history at least on basic economic theory.

Also, the Vietnam conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, occupying the southern half, dropping bombs, and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they sought to impose Stalinism on the entire nation when, in fact, many people didn’t want it. After all, more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? Because there’s something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone, and there are so many things you aren’t allowed to do. It’s a system where you can’t do so many things and are told to do lots of things that make little sense.

Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory… just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way in the Pacific War instead of calling it quits to save lives. Also, many atrocities were carried out by the communists as well. The massacre in Hue, for instance. In war, all sides do horrible things.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn’t have intervened in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided. There is no getting around the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot who devoted his life to gaining independence for his people. Even though communism was an unfortunate choice, his formative years were defined by a world in which the great empires were capitalist while the Soviet Union lent a hand, symbolic or material, to Third World peoples yearning to gain independence.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for a b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, perhaps his rather sympathetic take on Cold Warriors reflects the neo-hegemonic worldview of globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the dissemination of agendas favored by people like CucKen Burns: Homomania, Afromania, feminism, Diversity, and EOJ(or Empire of Judea). Today’s progs want the world to become neo-Americanized because America itself has been remade into a giant globo-experiment. We now live in a Metropolar World.
Indeed, in today’s Vietnam, as journalist Linh Dinh had duly noted, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet communists had fought for patriotism and national sovereignty, it could be that the new Western ‘progressives’ now almost feel as though the US was on the right side of history all along.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make Joe McCarthy blush? They all seem to have learned to love the empire. Their ilk are now in the commanding heights of all institutions and industries. So, US imperialism now means the spread of more proggery all over the world.

Vietnam War as Metaphor for Civil War in the West - Why Globalists Need Immigrants as Mercenaries against White National Liberators

If one side in a civil war cannot win without massive foreign support, it is a sign of fatal weakness.

Take the Vietnam War.
All North Vietnamese soldiers were Vietnamese.
In contrast, South Vietnam relied on massive US troop presence and even South Korean troops to prop up its regime and system. North Vietnam had the decisive advantage. Its military was manned by proud patriots. South Vietnam was decadent and under neo-imperialist hegemony. It lacked conviction and cared only for pleasure & profits, the bulk of it going to the Chinese minority. So, not many in the South were willing to fight and die for what the system stood for. The South relied on (what were essentially)mercenary forces from the US and South Korea.

US soldiers had no idea why they were in South Vietnam. They were told something about stopping evil communism and all that. But Americans didn’t care about the Vietnamese(who, in turn, didn’t care much about Americans) and grew cynical. They had low morale and had to be bribed with R&R to keep fighting. They were given generous rations to drink, party, and bang whores.
And S. Koreans served as a mercenary force that received equal pay as the Americans. But without US money, South Korea had no reason or will to fight. In contrast, North Vietnamese were fighting for nation and pride. They had a sense of value beyond money and materialism.

North had the will, cohesion, and conviction on its own. Even though it received extensive aid from USSR and China, it did all its own fighting. In contrast, the South had no will and no pride. It could only be propped up by outside mercenary forces. On its own, South was doomed, and indeed the North soon prevailed over the South once the US left.

Similar dynamics is at play in the crisis now engulfing the West. There is a civil war of sorts between globalist whites and nationalist whites. In some white nations, the nationalist whites have an advantage over the globalist whites. Nationalist whites tend to have a sense of roots and identity. They feel a powerful connection to the land beneath their feet. (This is evident in Poland and Hungary.) They are more likely to have a sense of core morality. They are more likely to have national, racial, and cultural pride. As such, they have a sense of meaning, direction, and power in being what they are and being with others like themselves.
In contrast, globalist whites(despite their education and affluence) tend to be decadent, demoralized(except in the virtue-signaling of self-loathing, what with their moral pride being predicated upon racial suicide), directionless, rootless, and spineless(again, except in denouncing their own race). With such negativity, they are bound to comprise the minority of whites in any healthy nation where whites have woken up to what’s really at stake. Besides, most people aren’t ethno-masochists.

The reason why some white nations abnormally have more globalist whites than nationalist whites is because the elite institutions are controlled by globalist Jews and their cuck-collaborators who spread PC and Homo-?egro pop culture to whites from cradle.
But if white national consciousness were given a chance, it is bound to grow and expand because people like to feel good about their own kind. It’s like many Vietnamese had been resigned to French imperialism, BUT once the nationalist flame got going, it could hardly be contained and eventually spread like a wildfire.

Just like the South Vietnamese regime felt it had no chance without foreign mercenaries, globalist whites(who are really unwitting shills of Jewish globalists) are beginning to feel that they have no chance without foreign mercenaries of Diversity or non-white ‘immigrants’. These are immigrant-mercenaries or ‘immercenaries’ in the sense that their ONLY commitment to the West is materialistic. They have no concern for western identity, culture, or history. They just come to the West for money and materialism. For those goodies, they are willing to destroy nationalist whites… just like South Korean mercenaries were willing to kill tons of Vietnamese patriots for $$$ in the Vietnam War.

If not for Immercenaries, Virginia would still be a Red State. It was non-white immercenaries who flipped California into a blue state. Indeed, many states would be Republican if not for the Immercenary Factor. (To be sure, GOP has been mostly useless as all politicians in the US are controlled by Jews.)

Granted, there is one crucial difference between the US and Divided Vietnam during the war. The nationalist Viets had a solid base in the North. So, the Viet Cong soldiers fighting in the South could rely on solid support from the North that was wholly independent of US imperialism.
In contrast, all of the US is like South Vietnam. All of it is occupied by the GLOB. All the federal & state governments, all the institutions, all the industries. So, White National Liberationists(a more accurate term than ‘white nationalists’) are like Viet Cong but without the backing of a solid base of power. In North Vietnam, all the institutions were controlled by patriots. So, the Viet Cong could at least rely on hardcore nationalist North Vietnam in their war with South Vietnam then under neo-imperialist US hegemony.
In contrast, the Alt Right and Nationalist Whites have no such backing. Some see Russia as the support system of nationalist whites, but Russia is non-interventionist(despite all the Jewish hysteria and cooked-up paranoia) and, being an imperial-nation in its own right, not so keen on ethno-nationalism that might upset Muslim minorities.

Still, once true nationalism replaces cuck-conservatism, White National Liberationists will be more passionate and committed than the globalist whites whose main passions are ridiculous homo-worship, Negro-worship, servility to Zionists, and racial self-hatred.
In the end, a people who love their own kind have advantage over those who hate their own kind. This is why globalist whites everywhere fear that they cannot win in the long run against nationalist whites. They can win ONLY with non-white immigrants as mercenaries who side with globalist whites PURELY for $$$ and materialism. After all, what is the main reason why immigrants come to the US? Principles? Ideals? No, they come for $$$.

If the only means of politics will continue to be elections, the globalist whites may well prevail because immercenaries, as ‘new citizens’ eager for $$$, will keep coming and vote for globalism. All of America and even EU could end up like California.
But if it comes to a shooting war, nationalist whites will be like the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. They will have something to live for, kill for, die for. They won’t be fighting for money.
In contrast, the immercenaries will take up arms only for money. As for globalist whites, what is their great cause? Racial suicide. Is that something that people are willing to die for? Suicidalists may welcome their own demise, but they are not willing to die for it.