How Might the US end the sanctions against Cuba while satisfying the Cuban-American community in Florida? — Cuba's tragedy was choosing Communism than Fascism against US Gangster-Capitalism and CIA deep state shenanigans

https://www.unz.com/freed/a-sadistic-foreign-policy/

It makes little sense to blame Joe Biden(or his predecessors) for America's outdated Cold-War-era policy toward Cuba(but then, the crazy US seems to insist on Russia as the bogeyman in a 'new cold war'). Biden is just a senile puppet of the Jews. Indeed, he is perfect exemplar of what has become of the White Goy Elites. They are little pimps serving the Jewish mafia dons. This latest Cuban business is all about Florida. Donald Trump won Florida decisively in 2020 because he played on the Cuban vote. Apparently, Obama's semi-conciliatory policy toward Cuba rubbed off badly on many Cubanos. As Florida is a key swing state, it's mostly a matter of electoral politics. True, Cuba, as an ally of Venezuela, which in turn has warm relations with Iran, has upset many Jewish hegemonists who cannot tolerate anything that defies, directly or indirectly, Zion.

What is to be done about this? Cold War is long over, and US should stop with the sanctions against Cuba. But both political parties play to the Cuban-American vote which is most decisive in Florida. Is there any viable solution? I think there is, something akin to the Indian Casino Policy. Casinos were allowed to proliferate all across the fruited plains on the basis of their reparatory benefit to Indians. Personally, I think it was a bad idea to expand casinos as gambling is theft and invariably Jews will skim off the casinos as the 'Injuns' are too ill-educated and backward to run the daily operations, but that's neither here nor there.
Anyway, there might be a way to sweeten the bitter pill of ending the anti-Cuban sanctions for Cuban-Americans. How about, for the next fifty years, all the (or at least 50% of) business between US and Cuba must be through the Cuban-American community? Lots of money to be made by Cuban-Americans, and 'greed' alone might persuade the Cubans in Florida to take the deal. Just like Indians got a sweet deal with the casinos, give Cuban-Americans an extra-sweet deal in the prospect of ending sanctions. All or much of the selling to Cuba must be done through Cuban-American businesses. And Cuban goods must be brought to the US via Cuban-American owned companies. That might be a win-win for both those who want the sanctions to end and the Cuban-American community that figures to cash in on doing business with the devil.
It could be called THE WILD BUNCH solution. In one scene, the young Mexican bandit Angel refuses to go along on the train heist but changes his mind on condition that he could take one case of rifles and one case of ammo. Angel did it for his village at the cost of his share of gold, but gold is what usually mints the deal. It's like the guy in STATE AND MAIN. Jews gave him money, and he just goes along.

Cornel West says that most of his black colleagues failed to back him because they are afraid of Jews. He'd be closer to the mark in telling them, "Jews gave you money." If not Jews, then super-rich oligeeks like Jeff Bezos in cahoots with Zionists. He gave $100 million to Vance Jones the 'communist'. You can bet Jones won't make much fuss about super-capitalism or Zionism; he will just spout off about those 'white supremacist' truckers and opioid-addicts. If commerce can buy commies, it sure can buy Cubanos in America into accepting the end of sanctions on Cuba. For all their principled protestation against Castroite Tyranny and Communist Evil, they will sing another tune when ending-sanctions comes to mean mucho dinero for the Cuban-American community. Mormons want to invest in Cuba? They have to go through the Cuban-American community. Jews want to invest in Cuba? They need Cuban-American contacts. Hindus and Chinese-Americans want to invest in Cuba? Call you local Cubano. (Of course, Jews will be one exception. More than Cubans, they own Florida and there's no way Cuban-Americans are going to say NO to anything Jews demand.)

While the continuation of sanctions after the Cold War made little sense, the Left hasn't made much sense either. On the one hand, they say US and capitalism are all about exploitation and piggery. If so, shouldn't Communist Cuba be blessed for not having economic relations with the capitalist Yanqui US? And yet, the very communistas or socialistas, who condemn the US and capitalism, argue for economic ties and trade between Cuba and the capitalist US. Why is this? It seems capitalism works a helluva lot better than communism or radical socialism. And even social-democracy needs a vital capitalist base that produces goods and wealth that can sustain a degree of socialism. Communism was bound to fail because it's like City Hall running everything. Imagine if your city hall or town hall had to run all the hotels, restaurants, health clubs, boutiques, markets, auto-shops, drug stores, computer stores, electronics services, and etc. There's no way it would be efficient.

Granted, it's understandable why Cuba turned against capitalism. Its variant in Cuba was associated with old oligarchy, the mafia, CIA shenanigans, Jewish bankers, and all-around US-meddling. Cuba was turned into something like Disney Land for the hedonists, degenerates, hoodlums, goons, and imperialists. In that, Fidel Castro and his men did achieve something heroic. And it's understandable why Cuban Independence couldn't allow 'liberal democracy' and 'free trade'. So-called Liberal Democracy is really rule by money. US-funded or US-associated Cubans(as puppets) would have gained control of all media and institutions, and the 'democratic' politicians would have been shills like Marco Rubio. The Yeltsin-Russia of the 1990s was proof that 'liberal democracy' is bound to fail when rich and powerful foreign forces meddle in domestic affairs. Russians weren't allowed to develop and shape their own democracy but had to live under one imposed by World Jewry that protected Jewish gangsterism and fostered Russian cuck-compradors. To this day, Vladimir Putin hasn't done enough to remove this poison. (Jewish media always play up sensational stories about Russia poisoning this person or that person, but Jewish Power poisons entire nations with financial blood-sucking, globo-homo degeneracy, and socio-cultural destabilization.)To the extent that Fidel Castro created an independent Cuba, he did good for his country.

Where he failed was in adopting communism than fascism. Now, given the negative connotations of the term, it wouldn't have made sense to call any system 'fascist'. But one can have fascism with a different name. Look at current Israel, Russia, and China. They are closest to the fascist model. Israel and Russia are democracies but, especially in Israel, there is a higher principle than mere 'liberality' or 'individualism'. The core political theme of Israel is Jewishness, Jewish state, Jewish identity, Jewish culture, Jewish unity, Jewish survival, and Jewish power. Where Zionism went wrong was it turned imperialist and morphed into Yinon-ism, but Zionism, at least as a limited nationalism, is far more viable than the so-called 'liberal democratic' model of the US, Canada, and EU, now in disarray because its central emphasis on 'individuality' and 'liberality' prevent those systems from emphasizing the core themes of ethnos, territory, and heritage — with the rise of Political Correctness, 'Wokeness', and Censchwarzship, the so-called Liberal West is even losing freedoms and rights once associated with individual liberty and conscience. (The only racial/cultural identity and nationalism that white people are allowed to express is their gushing and undying support for Jewish People and Israel.) Another problem with 'liberal democracy' is the super-rich end up controlling everything. Worse, as businessmen tend to be shallow/hollow, they come under the influence of rasputin-like charlatans. Look at the US today. Consider the super-rich hollow/shallow jerks like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the like. Sure, they are smart people but have nothing on their minds but making money. So, to burnish their credentials as Good, Committed, and Important People, they consult the 'leading' 'intellectuals' and 'activists' who are either crazy, cynical, delusional, and/or opportunistic. (If Jewish-controlled media promote Kendi X as the guru of the moment, all these rich fools are slobbering all over him and the like. Jews do control the gods.)

Then, 'woke capital' makes perfect sense. These shallow rich people are smart enough to make money but shallow/hollow about everything else. Out of fear, anxiety, and/or desire for approval, they latch onto the latest fads and fashions foisted by the 'intellectual' class ensconced in the elite institutions of media and academia, both of which are controlled by Jews. To be sure, in a paradoxical way, the current West is profoundly ultra-nationalist precisely because it is so extremely anti-nationalist, i.e. in the interest of "Is it good for Jews"-based ultra-nationalism, all vestiges of white nationalism must be expunged. Jews suppress nationalism among whites not as a general anti-nationalist principle but to bolster and secure their own nationalism-imperialism, much like the British suppressed Indian Nationalism to maintain British national-imperialist rule over India.

This is why a secure and healthy system must be fascist. Mao Zedong was nutty in many ways, but he was sensible about how Politics must command Economics. As a young man, he'd seen how so many business-minded Chinese were willing to sell out their nation for personal profits in association with imperialists. He didn't want China to become one big Hong Kong. And Castro understood this as well as he grew up in a Cuba dominated by US gangster-capitalism. What the capitalists couldn't do in the US(which has some rules and regulations), they did in Cuba as if the island-nation was little more than one big Red-Light District for Ugly Americans.
Where both Mao and Castro failed was in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of working to develop national capital, they waged total war on capital and enterprise, thus depriving their nations of incentives and innovations necessary for a modern economy. But China since Deng's reforms understood this. It followed in the footsteps of Japan and the so-called Asian Tigers, and then, Vietnam followed as well. Though China and Vietnam lagged behind in economic growth, they had one advantage. They created systems where Political Power would control Economic Power, whereas Japan and the 'Asian Tigers'(especially with the advent of 'liberal democracy') became all about corporate dominance. Just like shallow/hollow business class of the West, the ones in Japan now promote jungle fever and ones in Taiwan & South Korea promote tranny craziness and globo-homo nonsense. Businessmen are soulless and, if allowed to rule, will just take cues from charlatans drawn from the so-called 'intellectual' class. (What passes for intellectualism in a world defined by Popular Culture is mostly junk. Idolatry over Ideology.) And in our post-religious age where so many are hungry for spiritual meaning, the cult of vanity and narcissism(especially of Negroes and Homos) is provided for the pop-culture and political-correctness addled masses. Fascism provides a Moses-like prophetic figure to counter-balance the excessive influence of the Golden-Calfers. How the history of Cuba could have been different if Castro had chosen a fascist than a communist path. He could have had a far healthier economy with elements of capitalism and socialism, both bound to nationalism and sovereignty.

Of course, there is the black problem in Cuba. Though no one wants to live in a police state, Cuba has done better with its black problem because blacks have a tendency to abuse freedom and go wild. While a police state suppresses a lot of good freedom, it also clamps down on bad freedom, and so, the black problem never got to the level of Brazil or Venezuela. Still, Cuba suffers from TMB or Too-Many-Blacks, and the liberalization of society may turn parts of like the favelos of Brazil or the hellholes of South Africa & Haiti.

Timcast IRL - Pentagon Report Shows World May Be Heading Toward Nuclear WAR w/Darren Beattie

The Crisis of Power and Moral Authority in the West? What is to be done when Whites got the Power but No Moral Authority while Blacks got the Moral Authority but No Power?

The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary on "Elite White Privilege"(by Audacious Epigone) & the Jewish Strategy of Power by Elite Control and Demographic Manipulation

https://www.unz.com/anepigone/elite-white-privilege/

http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm

The Mandate for Palestine was a dress rehearsal for something much bigger.

Mandate for the West(and then the Rest).

Mandate for Palestine led to eventual Jewish demographic takeover of Palestine to be reconstituted as Israel, the Jewish state, the only part of the world deserving of national identity and right of territory. Jews are mono-nationalist. Only their nationalism is true nationalism. All other nationalisms are false and must be dissolved. Jews denounce on poly-nationalism like Jewish monotheism reviled all pagan idols as false gods.

Mandate for the West is to eventually replace native-whites(in Europe) and founder-whites(in North America & Australia) with masses of non-whites. How does this benefit Jews? Diversity will make cohesive nationalism impossible in white nations. Diversity will create cracks and fissures, and Jewish elites get to pit various sides against one another while taking the lion share of the prize.
Imagine a nation as a Spartan military unit. United and strong, standing together with shields and spears. Very difficult for outsider-enemy to penetrate the phalanx. But imagine a rag-tag bunch of troops of diversity. They would never stand and fight together. As they push each other, cracks form among them, allowing for easy penetration by the enemy.

Mandate for the West thus favors Jewish power in the long run.

Finally, there is Mandate for the Rest. As non-whites flock to the West(the Metropole), they take on PC ideology and globo-homo POZ and export them back to their home countries. In time, even the nations of their origin turn globo-homo and worship diversity. They too allow massive immigration-invasion, and diversity leads to divisions and cracks, and Jewish power can penetrate, exploit the differences, and take over. After Europe, it will be smaller East Asian nations that will fall, esp Japan, S Korea, and Taiwan as yellow dogs are most imitative of the West as model.

Jews think big. With prophetic minds, they look ahead to their grand chess plan for the world.

Audacious Epigone: If the new populations view them as especially egregious examples of the old population and the old population views them as traitorous backstabbers, I’m not sure that works out particularly well for them in the end.

It works out because 'new populations' are diverse. Even if they come to envy and resent Jews, they will be at loggerheads with one another. Browns, yellows, and blacks don't see eye to eye. Neither do Chinese and Hindus. And even among browns, there are so many gradations of identity and color(flimsily held together only by shared resentment of higher-achieving 'gringo' or 'yanqui'). Puerto Ricans don't have much in common with Indios from Guatemala. So, they will be more divided among their own kind than against Jews. Also, as Jews are on top and will remain there due to higher IQ, non-Jews know they must suck up to Jews to gain access into the uber-sphere. Besides, Jews can exploit the 'new people vs old people' dichotomy indefinitely as immigration-invasion is to be endless. So, even as new people settle and evolve into old people, there will be ever more new peoples.

As for old people, Jews only need the collaboration of the elites. Masses don't count for beans UNLESS there is a massive populist revolt with pitchforks(which is rare in history like asteroids hitting the earth). The fact is white elites are willing to sell their souls to Jews for financial gains and on insta-moral grounds. If you're a white cuck and serve Jewish Power, there are lots of prizes. Paul Ryan will make a killing as a lobbyist. Also, as Jews are the Eternally Holy People of Shoah, white cuck elites feel 'cleansed' and 'baptized' by rubbing shoulders with Jews, especially as the Jewish-controlled media and academia made whites out to be uniquely tainted by history. As the result, whites need atonement and salvation, and one quick way to get it is by sucking up to holy People of Shoah. "Look, I got some Jew Magic on me!" Since white elites suck up to Jews more than the white masses do, it creates the impression of 'good whites' at the top and 'bad deplorable whites' on the bottom. This has the effect of making 'good white elites' serve Jews than represent 'bad white people', who Jews say must be replaced. It divides whites along class lines.

Mass-Immigration-Invasion of non-whites is the final nail in the Jewish Strategy for Total Power.
Jews had the unique potential of rapidly gaining the dominant position in the US. Now, how could they when they were only 2% of the population? I mean there was no chance that the Jewish 2% of US could elect a Jewish president. The Irish had the numbers to take over many big cities. Jews didn't. Even in NY, they are like 20% of the population. Jews gained power not by elections but by taking over elite institutions. Only they could have done this due to combination of high IQ, chutzpah, and big think. Also, they could pass as whites, which made it more acceptable to the white majority(than if Asians tried it, but then Asians lack chutzpah and are less intelligent than Jews). So, Jews used the bypass method of power. Just gain control of elites, and you gain control of society. Selection than election. With Jewish control of media, law firm, finance, entertainment, vice industries, real estate, and etc, they could buy off any politician of either political party. Also, with control of media, they could smear and destroy anyone. And, Jews spread the notion of 'antisemitism' that says anyone who notices nefarious Jewish influence is a 'nazi' while anyone who serves Jews 24/7 is the most wonderful goy. Since the Shoah Narrative made Jews out to be holy and since flattering Jews could be rewarded with blessings of approval from the holiest people, it became De Rigueur for whites to roll over before Jews for pats on the head. So, everyone in power became cucks to Jews.

But Jews still felt nervous because having elite power alone doesn't secure permanence. This was evident in the history of the British Empire. The Brits gained control of non-white territories by bullying and buying off the local elites. So, if the Brits could control their puppet leaders in Asia, Africa, and Middle East, they had control of all the territories and all the populace as most people are sheeple. BUT, there was the chance that a real national leader might arise and challenge the cuck-collaborators and the Empire. Such a leader may rouse up the masses... like what happened in Cuba. The US had TOTAL control of most of the political and economic big-shots in Cuba. By scheming with the cream at the top, US could effectively milk all of Cuba. But Fidel Castro and others came along and they led the national masses to victory against the Cuba elites... and this spelled doom for American influence as well because US had put all its eggs in the elite-basket. Once the Cuban elites fell, US influence was gone as well.

This is why Jews aren't content with elite power alone. If white masses reject the current white elites, they also reject Jewish power that is mainly attached to white elites than to white masses. At least in the past when US was ruled by white Christians, there was a connection between white Christian rulers and white Christian masses. But will white Christians, for the long haul, accept Jewish rulers? For the time being, it seems whites are pro-Jewish and support Israel, but could this last indefinitely, esp when there's mounting evidence of vile and nasty Jewish behavior in so many sectors, not least against whites who, besides, are often berated by (((fellow whites)))? What if white masses lose confidence in their own leaders as a bunch of 'cuck-collaborators' and long for an American Castro or Putin? This is why Jews hated Donald Trump with such virulence(even though he turned out to be just another cucky-wuck). Trump ran on America First that implicitly said a white guy like him should reconnect with and protect the traditional (white) American nation. Jews called Trump 'literally Hitler', and even though that is hysterical, there is a kernel of truth to the notion that Trump is figuratively Hitler. After all, there was the nationalist element in Hitlerism that called for unity of German elites and German masses(a good idea before the pathological nut decided to shift into imperialist mode). Hitler was a bad example of it, but there is nothing more effective against imperialism than national unity between leaders and masses. US went from empire to colony of empire. During the Cold War, it was USSR empire vs US empire. After the Cold War, US became a colony of an even bigger empire: Empire of Judea with networks all across US, Canada, Latin America, EU, Russia, Israel, and etc. So, EOJ(Empire of Judea) wants the white elites to serve the empire -- like British expected Hong Kong elites to serve the British Empire than represent Chinese nationalism -- than reconnect with their own kind.

The way Jews see it, AS LONG AS there is a white majority in the US, there is a 'chance', even if a slim one, that white elites and white masses may unite against the Jews. Or, a new white elite will arise(like Castro and others did in Cuba) to reject the cuck-elites. (Alt Right had this chance, but idiot Richard Spencer allied with neo-Nazi morons and yammered endlessly about a need for Faustian white neo-imperialist supremacism.) Jews believe that securing elite power isn't enough. If white elites stop collaborating with Jews or if they are rejected by white masses who demand a new white elite that is actually responsive to white needs, Jewish elite power will fail like American power in Cuba. As the existing cuck-elite falls, so will its master and sponsor.

So, Jews feel that they must secure demographic power as well. But how can they when there's no way Jews can be the majority of any nation except Israel? This is where Diversity enters the picture. Jews know from the Austro-Hungarian Empire that Diversity can be useful to Jews. Recall that most groups in that empire distrusted and even hated Jews.... but they also hated one another and were thus unable to unite against Jewish power and influence. Diversity means Jews can pit whites vs blacks, whites vs yellows, whites vs Hindus, whites vs Muslims, whites vs browns, blacks vs browns, blacks vs yellows, blacks vs hindus, blacks vs Muslims, browns vs yellows, browns vs Hindus, browns vs Muslims, etc. Sure, there is some POC talk about unity of non-whites against whites/Jews, but it's mostly empty noise because non-whites don't see eye-to-eye on many subjects... such as Affirmative Action.

Imagine the NY Giants playing a team made up of players of various teams. All the Giants are playing for their side against their opposing team. In contrast, the diverse players of the other team, while playing against the Giants, are also playing against one another, which makes it impossible for them to form a cohesive team. Giants have a huge advantage.

Jews are masters at splitting the goyim between elites and masses. Jews did this with whites and can do it to ANY goy group. White elites like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Beta O'Dork do NOTHING for whites. Their main priority is being part of the Privilege Club, and so, they suck up to Jews.
The same can be done with ANY group. Notice how Hindu- and Chinese-American elites in the US are total suck-ass dogs of Jewish Power. Once they've been let into the Power Club, their main priority is to BELONG(be an insider), and that means sucking up to Jews while snubbing their own people. Look at Fareed Zakaria. This non-white brownie has been let into the Power Club, and he beats the drums for Wars for Israel. The one time he praised Trump was when missiles were fired into Syria.

Commentary on "John Wayne Did Nothing Wrong"(by Jim Goad)

https://www.takimag.com/article/john-wayne-did-nothing-wrong/

Judging by today’s crazy standards on ‘gender’ issues, just about every actor, artist, director, and etc. in the not-too-distant past was a ‘homophobe’ and definitely a ‘transphobe’. Or, more accurately, 'homo-disdainer' and 'trans-ridiculer'. Even 90% of Liberals in the 60s thought homosexuality was deeply problematic. Even most Liberal publications dared not to broach the subject. Psychology department was convinced homosexuality is a mental disorder. Susan Sontag's piece on Camp was controversial(even in an ultra-liberal magazine like PARTISAN REVIEW) because it discussed homosexuality. So, there was nothing strange about what John Wayne said on that issue.

As for Wayne’s ‘white supremacist’ view that blacks need to undergo further civilizational process before fully partaking of democracy, is it really all that outrageous? After all, how is it all that different from Samuel Huntington's theory that Third World nations would do better to undergo process of modernization under iron-fisted Enlightened Autocrats before gradually transforming into functional democracies? If anything, even many Liberal political scholars came to the same conclusion. Many social scientists and political scholars came to believe that sudden democratization can actually do more harm than good among peoples who are as yet culturally and economically unprepared to take on burdens of electoral politics(that can only work with rule of law and civic responsibility). Such dictator-supremacist theory became quite vogue in political science departments. That is why many came to appreciate Deng over Gorbachev following the implosion of the Soviet Union. Deng maintained Party supremacy and worked on economic development, whereas Gorbachev favored political reforms. Russia did even worse in the 90s when it fully went ‘liberal democratic’ without the institutions and attitudes necessary for a functional liberal democracy. And after the Rwandan disaster, the West enthusiastically supported the iron-fisted autocrat that kept tight order in that troubled nation.
Denial of democracy in such nations doesn’t seem to bother Westerners. Indeed, Obama aided Egyptian military against democracy headed by Muslim Brotherhood. The idea was that Military supremacism was better than democracy in a nation that was, as yet, not ready for democracy and freedom. Also, after the debacles of Iraq and Libya, many(on both left and right) came to the conclusion that some nations are better off under the supremacism of an Iron-fisted leader than with experiments in ‘liberal democracy’. While democracy may be ideal for modern nations, not all nations and peoples have the values, habits, knowledge, and developmental levels to make democracy work. They just aren't cut out for it. In such cases, iron rule is often preferable to democracy. Indeed, that was precisely why Fidel Castro’s Cuba got favorable press from American Progressives during the Cold War. They admitted he was a dictator and that Cuban politics was about One-Party Supremacy, but they also emphasized that Cubans were better off under a tough ruler than many people in willy-nilly Latin American democracies where ‘leaders’ are are little more than shills of transnational corporations and organized crime. It’s oft-been duly noted that blacks in Cuba lived healthier lives than blacks in freer Latin American nations(and even in the US).

So, John Wayne’s views were along similar lines. There was not ONE America but TWO Americas. White America was sufficiently advanced for full democracy, but blacks had yet to attain full civilizational outlook to function properly in a free and democratic society. They had to undergo a process of modernization, not unlike peoples in pre-democratic developing nations, before they could take part in democracy.
Granted, this line of argument was somewhat disingenuous because whites had had lots of time to civilize blacks since the end of the Civil War but mainly used political muscle to keep blacks down and marginalized. But then, as we’ve witnessed since the 1960s, even with best intentions of progressive whites, liberated blacks tend to use their freedom to act wild and destructive than sound and constructive. With blacks, you can’t win. If you keep them in line with an iron hand, you are the oppressor. But if you give them freedom, they run wild and degrade society.
Indeed, even Wayne’s civilize-the-blacks idea wouldn’t have worked in the long run because black problems are less cultural than biological. Blacks evolved in Africa over 100,000s of years to be warriors, hunters, and jivers. With freedom, even civilized blacks eventually revert to their ugabugery.

Now, there may have been another reason why Wayne argued for denying blacks full freedom. Though he didn’t say it, he surely noticed that blacks are more muscular, more macho, and got bigger dongs. As a famous tough guy, he couldn’t honestly say, “We white guys will lose our manhood and our white women to the muscular and bigger-donged Negroes if we give them full freedom.” He had too much pride. But in fact, his ‘white supremacism’ was really a crutch against the threat of black supremacism. The 1970s movie MANDINGO with Ken Norton shows that black men are tougher than white guys, and white women get jungle fever the moment their eyes set upon some big Negro with more muscle and bigger dong. So, biology is black supremacist when it comes to raw manhood. Nature favors black manhood over white manhood in the thumping-and-humping department. But Wayne, like most white men of his period, had too much pride to speak honestly and say, “What I’m really freaked out is about black supremacism over us white guys. Did you see Woody Strode? I’m a big strong guy, but he’s twice as muscled and probably has a dong twice the size as mine. And that’s why we need segregation cuz integration will mean black supremacist manhood turning us white guys into a bunch of wussy white boy cucks.”

But it would have been better for the white race and the truth if he had said as much. All stable and lasting orders are based on truth, not fantasy.

Zionism vs Afrikanerism as Political Philosophy of Labor — How the Ideology of National Labor eventually trumps the Expediency of Global Labor — Mind and Body in Man and Nation

Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.

What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?

Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.

In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.

National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.

When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.

In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.

East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)

At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.

Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween.
https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.

A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.

Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.

American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.

Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.