How the World Went from Universal Nationalism to Universal Imperialism, and the Hidden Empire of Judea

 

Nationalism is the best defense against imperialism.

Nationalism means a people minding their own business. It means having national sovereignty and respecting the sovereignties of other nations.

Imperialism, in contrast, means trampling on the rights and independence of other nations.

If National Socialism had remained in nationalist mode, it wouldn’t have disrupted the world order. But it went into imperialist mode and trampled on and violated the rights of self-determination and self-rule among other nations.

Initially, Japan modernized for nationalist reasons. Threatened by British and American imperialism, it emulated Western science & technology to defend the homeland.
But it went from nationalism to imperialism upon the realization that the great powers were conquering and dividing the world among themselves. In order for Japan to compete and command the respect of other great powers, it too entered the imperial game. Furthermore, the UK and US, two imperialist powers, welcomed Japan into the imperialist club as a counterbalance to expanding Russia and unstable China.

Prior to the emergence of modern nationalism, much of the world had been divided among the great powers with little regard for established borders. Indeed, it had been so since time immemorial. Power and might decide the boundaries and limits of power. So, Persians conquered and laid claim to huge swaths of territory, even areas inhabited mostly by non-Persians. Same with the Romans, Mongols, Russians, Ottomans, and the Western European empires. There was no established principle in the world that insisted on a Basic Right of security, ownership, independence, and self-rule. Jews did have the concept of the Covenant and Holy Land(promised to them by God), but this ‘right’ meant nothing to the greater empires that dwarfed the Jews.

Security could only be assured by might. There was no universal ideal or international law agreed upon by all the peoples of the world. And no global institution existed to enforce higher principles. For most of history, peoples were too busy conquering, defending, adventuring, or discovering to think in terms of universal political morality for all humanity. If a kingdom or state was sufficiently powerful and ambitious, it could embark on invasions and control of more territory. It was about grabbing more and more until met by an equal or greater force or exhausted of resources.

But then, there was the rise of modern nationalism in Britain, France, the US, then followed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Modern nationalism was a noble development insofar as it obligated the national elites to represent, serve, and defend the national people AND ignited the nascent idea that a nation had a RIGHT to land, security, and independence. Nationalism made national autonomy a right in terms of ideals and principles. Indeed, the main theme of the American Revolution was the idea of the colonists right to break away from the British Empire and establish a free and independent nation-as-republic. Even kings and noblemen who’d resisted the French Revolution and defeated Napoleon eventually adopted the nationalist model as a means to modernize and unite the populace, who went from being subjects of monarchs to the ‘free people’ represented by monarchs.

However, due to the long legacy of imperialism(stretching back to the beginning of history itself) and the relative backwardness around the world, modern nationalism inherited the ambition for empire-building. This led to a contradiction. Even as nationalism defended the homeland from other nations and empires, it sought to expand its own imperial base.
So, Japanese nationalism went from defending Core Japan to conquering and claiming other lands that were non-Japanese. Earlier, the British had gone from securing an Island Nation-Kingdom to conquering other territories that would eventually constitute a gigantic world empire. Though a nation born of independence from the British Empire, the US went from creating a new nation out of the wilderness in the New World to searching overseas for imperial domination, especially after the defeat of the Spanish Empire.

Western Imperialist expansion was hardly unique as most of the non-West was no stranger to the imperial mode of constant invasions and counter-invasions. The non-West however lacked the nationalist ideal of (1) elites-and-peoples bound by historical and cultural covenant(which would have made foreign invasions more difficult) and (2) the political principle of the rightness of national autonomy and self-determination. Their political philosophy was essentially might-is-right. When the Brits invaded the territories of what came to be known as ‘India’, they merely usurped dominance from the Muslim Mughals.

But, World War I and especially World War II dealt a serious blow to the imperialist model. Nazi imperialism and Japanese imperialism, following the second world conflict, were not only defeated at huge cost but denounced as epitomes of evil. Also, it wasn’t long before almost all Third World folks demanded their own national independence, waged wars of liberation, and eventually expelled the European imperialists(sometimes with moral support from the US or the material support of the Soviets). And the Vietnamese fought a long hard battle to drive the US from what had once been ‘Indochina’.
Granted, much of the Third World demand for national independence was possible only as the byproduct of global transformation by the European powers that, via modern communication & transportation, as well as archaeology and education of the local elites, instilled a new consciousness among the non-West of a larger sense of collective identity, unity, and pride. In many cases, the very ‘nations’ seeking independence were the creations of Western Imperialism, such as Indonesia, much of the Middle East, and all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

With the end of WWII, there was the gold standard of Universal Nationalism. The new consensus was that EVERY people deserved to have a safe and secure homeland. Such an ideal had been expounded by Woodrow Wilson following World War I, but it didn’t go far because the Great European powers weren’t about to abandon their empires, without which they’d lose their great power status as their homelands were limited in territory, resources, and population.
And as the West set the template, Japan was determined to have an empire too. This all came crashing down after the horrors of WWII in which Europeans themselves suffered the ignominy of imperialist domination and rule under Nazi Germany(followed by Eastern Europeans under Soviet domination, though in a way, Western Europeans, though freer and richer, fell under US hegemony, which lasts to this day and, following the end of the Cold War, expanded to the borders of Russia.)

Due to the Imperialist Legacy, modern nationalism developed as nationalism + imperialism for some nations. If some European nations were content to remain and defend their own territories, others had embarked on imperial ventures long before the rise of nationalism. Thus, French nationalism inherited the French empire and valued it as a source of prestige and power. This was a system of ‘Nationalism for me, but not for thee’. The modern British and French were proud nationalists at home but sought to suppress and crush nationalist consciousness in their subject peoples though, contradictorily, their extensive archaeological studies of other cultures led to a reawakening of historical memory and pride among the locals. Consider Angkor Wat in Cambodia and the Pyramids of Egypt.

But with the eventual fall of empires following WWII, the new template was “Nationalism for me and for thee.” Let each and every nation, big or small, powerful or weak, rich or poor, be free and independent. And this was to be a moral right. In the New Order, the richest, biggest, and most powerful nation had no right to conquer and claim a small, weak and poor nation. At the very least, as a matter of principle, even the biggest nation and smallest nation were equal in its universal right to national self-determination. After all, there was a reason why the world body of international law came to be known as the United Nations than United Empires. And the Cold War provided some degree of protection for the weaker nations, e.g. the Cuban Revolution couldn’t have survived without Soviet support, and the Southeast Asian nations leaned to the US for protection against subversion from Red China, while North Vietnam relied on the support of the USSR and China to fend off American Neo-Imperialism. And as long as the Soviet Union existed as the other superpower, the US thought twice about getting entangled in the Middle East.

In the post-WWII era, many progressives and liberals were supportive of the national liberation struggles in Vietnam, Algeria, and Cuba for independence and autonomy. And when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, it was the last draw for many Western Leftists who denounced it as a communist form of imperialism.

Still, the US and USSR towered over the world as the two great empires. Of course, neither admitted that its version of world domination was imperialistic. Soviets insisted their hegemony was about the brotherhood of man under communist ideology. And the US claimed to serve as the defender of the Free World.
And, if their apologists did detect elements of imperialism in the US or Soviet world order, they argued it was different from the Bad Old Imperialism. It was imperialism-as-necessary-evil against either Communist Tyranny or Capitalist Exploitation. So, even if Pax Americana was an empire, it was a noble containment strategy against the insatiable fanaticism of communism. Or, the Soviet empire was praised for lending support to peoples around the world seeking independence from the exploitation by Western capitalism(via ‘neo-imperialism’). At any rate, the assumption was that the justification for imperialism-as-necessary-evil would fade once the Evil Empire(communist or capitalist) finally vanished from the world.

Eventually, the Cold War did end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of nations no longer under the Soviet-Russian yoke: Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and etc. It appeared that universal nationalism came to prevail over Soviet Imperialism. Russians(under the supervision of Jewish globalist carpetbaggers) now ruled over Russia, not over other peoples with their national autonomies restored.

With the end of the Cold War, many people, Americans and non-Americans alike, hoped that the US empire would wind down as well. After all, the Imperial Uncle Sam had been justified on grounds of containing and, if possible, rolling back the Soviet empire. With no more Soviet Empire, what need would there be for the US empire?

Maybe just maybe, the US empire could have come to an end, and America would have returned to the nationalist mode: The US minds its own business, and other nations mind their own business, and, as good neighbors, all nations trade with one another, share ideas, and communicate. Fences make for good neighbors. And, bridges among nations are supposed to facilitate the transport of ideas and goods, not to allow for mass migration and neo-colonization.

But three developments kept the US in the imperial game.

1. The US got filled with the hubris of End of History. Having won the Cold War, the American elites thought the American Way was the only way. In terms of political philosophy, mass culture, economic theory, and military prowess, the idea was that America, as the ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, has the right to ‘lead’ and ‘defend’ the world. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” My way or the highway.

2. The West’s cult of mass immigration as not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative resulted in all-out mass invasions of white nations by the Third World. This had a profound impact on world consciousness as nonwhites, who’d previously demanded and fought for nationalism and independence, came to devalue nationalism in favor of a new kind of imperialism, a globo-mutual-imperialism. As nonwhites figured it is so much easier to have a good life by moving to the West than by working as patriots to reform and develop their own nations, they effectively became champions of demographic imperialism and mass-colonization. The West was given carte blanche to militarily occupy, financially dominate, and culturally influence most of the world in exchange for opening its borders to the whole world, thereby allowing the children of non-white immigrants to rise up and attain status and stake in the US-led world order.

Once, like Fareed Zakaria or Nikki Haley, they gained elite positions in the West, they became cheerleaders for the globo-imperialist warmongering against non-white peoples. After WWII, peoples in the Third World sympathized with one another in what they regarded as a common struggle against White Imperialism. But in the Age of Globalist Empire, nonwhites who rose up the ranks in the West came to function as servitors of the Zionist-controlled Empire against non-white nations. Having been groomed & appropriated by the West(that serves the Empire of Zion) and flush with status & privilege, the likes of Haley and Zakaria are more than happy to cheer on the bombing of nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and etc.

As for the EU, by some estimates Brussels is already one-third Muslim and is expected to become majority non-white in a few decades. As nonwhites settled in the West, they identified neither with their nations-of-origin or with white Westerners. Many came to exist in an ideological limbo of globalism, a kind of Universal Imperialism.
Take Francis Fukuyama, the man who announced the triumph of ‘liberal democracy’ as the End of History. He’s no longer Japanese in any meaningful sense, but he’s not part of the White West either. He resides in the lala-land-of-the-mind called End-of-Historia. And Amy Chua feels as a member of what she calls the ‘supergroup’.

Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist Western nations became so pro-immigration was their subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, imperialism once spread diversity around the world (permanently in Latin America), and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity. Algerians and Vietnam eventually rejected and resisted the Diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians did everything they could to stem the flow of Invasive Diversity of Zionist colonizers. And Tibetans certainly aren’t happy about the mass-migratory Diversity of Han Chinese who keep flooding into Tibet.
Anyway, by welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of having imposed Diversity on subject territories that could not say NO to the well-armed European colonizers and their collaborators… like Hindus who followed in the heels of British Imperialists into Africa and Southeast Asia. Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.

3. Another reason why the US empire grew bigger and more aggressive was because Jews became the new ruling elites of America. Why did this matter? Because Jewish power is essentially and intrinsically imperialist. As Jews are a minority elite in the US, they don’t identify with most Americans who are seen as dumb and filthy goyim, the untermensch. Jews regard themselves as superior to goyim and mainly identify with other Jews in other nations. So, from the perspective of Jewish supremacists, gentile nationalism is feared and loathed as independence and autonomy from Jewish Hegemony, just like the British Imperialists regarded the nascent nationalism among the American colonists as a threat to British Imperialist hegemony. Jews fear and loathe gentile nationalism as an hindrance to Jewish globalist networking for Jewish supremacist hegemony. After all, if goyim put their own people and culture first and foremost, their nation would take precedence over Israel and Jewish interests.

Jews are like the British imperialists who feared the rise of nationalist consciousness in Third World nations. The British elites didn’t feel an affinity with the native majority in any of the subject domains. Their affinity was with the Mother Country and to the network of British Imperialists around the world. British Imperial power could sustain itself only by making the subject peoples mainly ‘identify’ with British Imperial prestige than with local national concerns.

Kenyan nationalism meant Kenyans asserting authority against the British rulers. It meant Kenyans should defend and serve their black identity in their own nation than the global ambitions of the British imperialists. Indian nationalism meant the brown people of the subcontinent demanding self-rule & self-determination and, furthermore, asking the Brits to leave. As Gandhi said:

If the British were about ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’(or imperialist-nationalism), Gandhi was about universal nationalism, or ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’. The British feared universal nationalism as a viral threat to their own brand of imperialism, one in which only the British had national independence as well as imperial pride. After all, if every non-white domain(or Ireland for that matter) of the British Empire insisted on national autonomy, how could British hegemony be sustained?

Today, Jews think and act like the British imperialists. Most Jews don’t feel a shared sense of identity, history, or destiny with gentile nationals in the US, Canada, Poland, France, UK, Germany, Brazil, and etc. To Jewish minorities(elites or otherwise) in such nations, most of the people are just seen as replaceable and interchangeable filthy goy untermensch. To sustain Jewish supremacism, Jews suppress goy nationalism. Consider how David Brooks and William Kristol are obsessed with keeping Israel as a Jewish ethno-state BUT they’d love to see whites in Europe, US, and Canada reduced to minorities in their lands of their ancestors. And hideous Jewish supremacists like Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin think gentiles exist as cannon fodders in the endless Wars for Israel. To Jews, goyim are little more than cattle. Jews look upon gentiles like ruling pigs look upon other barn creatures in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM.

Jews now practice Imperialist Nationalism of ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’. So, Jews say all Western nations must support Israel as a JEWISH STATE but also insist that white gentile nations must abandon nationalism(even one that says ‘for me and for thee’) because gentiles exist to serve Jewish power first and foremost. Jews don’t want gentile nationalism to come between Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism.
Also, Jews push for Mass Invasion(aka ‘immigration’) to turn the native white majority populations into minorities in their own nations. That way, Jews can control the native majority by guilt-baiting them with accusations of ‘racism’ for being insufficiently ‘welcoming’ of non-white mass invaders and leeches. And as the nation grows ever more diverse, Jewish Imperial elites hope to play divide-and-rule by pitting nonwhites against whites, whites against nonwhites, nonwhites against nonwhites(as they are racially diverse), and whites against whites(as they’re ideologically divided).

This is why Jews fear being ‘gandhi-ed’ out of the West. Indeed, what would happen if white folks woke up and told the Jewish supremacist-imperialists, “It’s time you left”? What if whites decided on mass civil disobedience against Jewish Power? Say NO to the Wars for Zion. Goycott Jewish Hollywood, Goycott Jewish media, Goycott Jewish-run businesses that are hostile to whites, Goycott Jewish Casinos. No to Zion. Time to tear down the Zion Curtain. That would surely make the Jews sweat. As the Hindus(against Brits), blacks(against Segregation), and National Socialists(against Jews) proved, boycotting businesses can be very effective. Palestinians are leading the way with BDS. Of course, Jews use Economic Warfare all the time. Consider how Jews use the West to sanction Iran and Russia. Consider how MAGA types have been debanked and deplatformed and hit with endless lawfare. Donald Trump is being stripped of all his wealth. (Of course, the sad sack of shit is still bending over to take it up his arse from the Zionic dong.)

As it stands, Jewish imperialism is far more insidious and dangerous than British imperialism. At the very least, British Imperialism, like the French or Spanish kind, was OUT IN THE OPEN. It wasn’t denied. If anything, the British made a splashy pageant of it 24/7. Brits were singing anthems about how Britain rules one third of the globe. So, there was NO DOUBT as to the nature of the British Empire.

In contrast, Judea is a Hidden Empire. Even though the biggest power in the world is the Jewish Global Network — most US politicians, academics, media people, and etc. are agents or shills of Zion — , Jewish power uses goy countries as fronts to carry out its vile deeds. So, even though the Power of Zion was behind the war on Syria, Westerners have been led to believe the US and EU are only trying to get rid of Assad as the ‘butcher of Syria’ and gasser-of-children. Jewish supremacists are craven but cunning arseholes who use their vast capital to manipulate, bribe, and threaten OTHERS to do the fighting and dying.

It was very different in the Age of the British Empire. Everyone knew the British were in command of using their proxies and subjects to further British Imperial interest. So, even when Brits recruited and ordered Indian, African, and Arab troops to fight in wars, no one would have thought India, Kenya, or Arabia were leading the charge. Everyone would have known that those non-white forces were doing the bidding of the British.
But, because the Empire of Judea is a Hidden Empire, so many people fall for the charade that ‘liberal democratic’ Western nations have freely chosen to wage these Wars for Human Rights, which are really the Wars for the Hidden Empire of Zion. The UK and France are essentially vassal nations of the US that is a vassal whore of the Empire of Judea.

The problem with MAGA was never nationalism. If the US had chosen the nationalist path — what Pat Buchanan called ‘republic, not an empire’ — after the end of the Cold War, the world would be a safer and better place. Just think. Suddenly, the Soviet Union was gone, and Russia was no longer a threat and sought political and economic cooperation with the world. If Anglo-Americans or WASPs had kept the power, maybe something could have been worked out.
But Jews were rapidly gaining elite dominance in the US in the 80s and 90s. And Jewish attitude toward Russians was hardly different from their attitude toward white Americans: Both are mere cattle, replaceable and interchangeable.
To Judeo-Nazis, white Russians and white Americans are filthy goyim, or untermensch, more akin to dogs, horses, cattle.

So, the hope of Russia’s transition from communism to a market economy was wasted. Jewish globalists held the reins of ‘reform’ in Russia and economically plundered the nation in the 1990s. Also, Billy Boy Clinton, a shill of Jewish globalists, pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders.
Jews figured, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” Jews exploited the End of the Cold War for their own nefarious interests. Instead of having the US empire retreat with the fall of the Soviet empire, Jews took advantage of America-as-sole-superpower to consolidate control over the EU and Russia. Thus, European nations soon became mere vassal-states in a few generations. Also, clever Jews manipulated the vanity of warriors like John McCain and ‘thinkers’ like Samantha Powers into believing that they, as redemptive gentile leaders of the ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, were entitled to the right of Enlightened Empire Building to remake the whole world in their image.

Of course, Jewish directed the power of the US mostly toward Jewish-Supremacist agendas, which is why most of US aggression has been directed at the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine(or Pale of Settlement). Consider how Jewish power directed the US to use sanctions, invasions, and even the support for Jihadi terrorists to undermine stability in the Middle East, all for the supremacist interests of Israeli hegemony. Jews, in their perversity, even went so far as to strike up an alliance with sub-Nazi forces in Ukraine as battering ram against Russia.

Donald Trump in 2016 ran on nationalism that promised to end or severely limit American ventures overseas. Prior to his administration, the US had already been the imperialist wrecker of Iraq, Libya, Syria(where CIA aided Al Qaeda, the very people who were accused of carrying out 9/11), and the recruiter of Neo-Nazi elements to pull off a coup in Ukraine.
Trump sounded good during the campaign, but the Deep State circled him like sharks and forced his hand to do the bidding of the Empire of Judea instead of focusing on the problems at home, like the broken southern border.

Globalist ‘humanitarians’ say the rich and powerful US shouldn’t be so self-absorbed and instead help other nations. But their idea of ‘humanitarian’ intervention mostly comes down to destroying nations hated by Jews. And the bulk of US foreign aid is more money for Israel to keep on crushing Palestinians and destabilizing the Middle East with threats and attacks.

Jews hate the idea of American nationalism because it means the goy sheeple of the US will no longer go baaaaah and support Wars for Zion. Also, the theme of American Nationalism would be, “American leaders must do what is good for MOST Americans(most of whom are not Jewish).” Jews hate the notion because Jews feel zero affinity with goy Americans. Jews want the bulk of American resources and energy to be channeled toward sustaining the globalist hegemony of Jewish Power. The mentality of Jews isn’t much different from that of an absolute monarch. The king expects the people to serve him, not vice versa. The Jewish 2% expects the gentile 98% to serve them, not vice versa.

The world needs universal nationalism more than ever. Nationalism for Me and for Thee. But as long as Jewish power rules the West, it remains difficult. Jews fear gentile nationalism because it undermines the neo-imperial globalist Jewish hegemony of the US.

To better understand the Jewish mindset as a microcosm, consider the Israel-Palestine conflict. How nice it’d be if Jews went for ‘Nationalism for Me and for Thee’ with their Palestinian neighbors. Jews would have Israel as their homeland, and Palestinians would have the West Bank as their homeland. But nope, Jewish power summons the support of the West to crush Palestinian nationalism while maximizing their own nationalism with massive walls and military violence. It is a form of Imperialist Nationalism: ‘Nationalism for Me but not for Thee.’ So unjust.

‘Nationalism for Me but not for Thee’ is like the logic of American Slavery, which was ‘Freedom for Me but not for Thee.’ Abolitionists began to ask, if white folks should be free, why not blacks too?
Likewise, if Israel has the right to be free and independent as a Jewish state, why doesn’t Hungary have the right to be free and independent as a Hungarian nation? Sorosian Jews call upon the West to praise and support Zionist nationalism but then pressure the EU to sanction and destroy Hungary for having chosen national survival and self-determination.

We know why things are so. Because Jews seek to maximize their own tribal power, they seek to weaken the ethno-national power of all other peoples who will then be coerced to serve Jewish globalist hegemony.

Anyway, how depressing that Trump, who ran on nationalism and an end to globo-imperialism of US interventionism, was pressured by the Deep State Zionists and Military Industrial Complex to continue with the same old same old, which is sucking up to Jewish Supremacists.
The US continues to occupy much of desperate Syria. The US accuses Russia of meddling in Western affairs — who can forget the Russia Collusion Hoax? — and harboring aggressive global ambitions when, in fact, the Jewish-controlled US is the #1 meddler in other national elections and the invader & destroyer of Iraq & Libya and an enabler of terrorists in Syria and Ukraine. When will this madness ever end?

The US is like India under the British. Sikh Indians joined in all the British Wars. When the British fought in Africa, Middle East, WWI, and WWII, Indian soldiers served under ‘queen and country’ that wasn’t their own. Indians had no agency. The US is under Jewish imperialism & cuck to Jewish wars. A jewel in the crown for the Jews. White Americans are now the Sikh Men of the West.

Anyway, the overall arc of history is as follows.

1. Imperialism. The mighty dominate and rule over all others. Might is right.

2. National Imperialism. The right of one’s own nation to be safe and secure from invasions but no such rights granted to other peoples. Example: Japan defended itself from other empires but advanced into China. ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee.’

3. Universal Nationalism. The right of each nation/people/culture to be free and independent. Nationalism for all peoples of the world as the core basis for international cooperation. It is the Template that emerged from the ashes of WWII and the end of European and Japanese empires. ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’.

4. Universal Imperialism. The right of great powers to militarily, financially, and culturally invade and transform other nations: Drop bombs, take over banks, bribe politicians, and spread Homomania as the new crusading faith. In turn, the great powers must welcome vast demographic invasions by the rest of the world. ‘Imperialism for me and for thee.’ It’s great for Jews who control Western banks and whore politicians of the US & EU and who seek to use increased Diversity in the West to play divide-and-rule among goyim.
We see this dynamic playing out between the EU and the Middle East. The EU supports the Zionist-US invasions of the Middle East and then welcomes millions of Muslim ‘refugees’ displaced by those invasions. The EU becomes demographically invaded in turn.

Boomer cucks did immeasurable harm to the US, the West, and whites by cucking to Jews and Israel and ceding all power and moral authority to the Jews. Had white boomers been more adversarial and pushed back against Jewish Supremacism, the Jewish supremacist cancer wouldn’t have spread so fast and far. Sadly, instead of atoning for their epic error in judgment, the boomer cucks are doubling down on their cuckage to Israel in the latest bloodbath in the Holy Land.

How things might change if white people took inspiration from the Palestinians.
Palestinians are weak and small in number but full of fight and courage. Whites are big and powerful in number but filled with craven brown-nosing cuckery.
If Palestinian Defiance were combined with White Potential, Jews would be finished.
Palestinians cannot beat the Jews. But, whites with the Palestinian spirit could beat the Jews. If whites grew defiant and stood up to Jews and finally realized that Zion is their enemy, Jews would lose white support, and then Jewish Power would be over. Jewish Power must feed on white submission and support. If whites were to wake up and say NO MORE to Jewish Wars in Ukraine and Middle East, Jewish terror and tyranny would fade from the world that could enter a new golden age.
Palestinians are weak politically and militarily but they do have something priceless: truth and courage. They know Jews are their enemy and have the guts to fight even after Jews pound them again and again. Whites are potentially the most powerful people on Earth but have fallen in grace in the US and EU because they cravenly cuck to Jews, their main tormentors. Just imagine the promise of Palestinian Guts + White Potential? If whites thought and acted like Palestinians, Jewish Power would be kaput sooner than later.
What have whites gained by sucking up to Jews? Whites may have thought Jews would be nice to them if whites aided and abetted the Jewish destruction of Palestine. But what happened? Whites only fed the beast of Jewish greed, supremacism, and hubris, and Jews are now looking to push WHITE NAKBA to diversify the West itself so that goyim can be divided-and-ruled. White Cucking to Jews since WWII has been the biggest tragedy of Western Civilization. Learn from the Palestinians. White Intifada against White Nakba.

White Dumbness vis-a-vis Jews and White Weakness vis-a-vis Blacks — Need for White Race-ist Unity — Whites must be like Asian Indians if they're to avoid the Fate of American Indians

https://buchanan.org/blog/the-new-systemic-racism-that-is-coming-138889

A commenter asked in reply to the Patrick J. Buchanan article:

"I still don’t get how all this happened… Whites aren’t dumb or weak… Where did it all go wrong?"

'Dumb' and 'weak' are relative terms. In relation to whom and what?

If Jews never came to the US, whites would still be on top and would be setting the narrative and agenda. Sure, there would be liberal whites, but they would be in balance with conservative whites. Both liberalism and conservatism have value, and one provided reform and novelty while the other provided stability and continuity, sense of heritage and roots. But Jews came along and used their power to tip the scale in favor of Liberalism. Thus, white liberalism came to be severed from white conservatism. (American History went from reconciliation and mutual respect between Northern whites and Southern whites following the Civil War to such condemnation of white identity & the American South that even white Southerners now do nothing to defend their heritage from feral blacks and PC radicals egged on by Jews who, at the same time, demand that white Southerners support Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. Dixie Chicks just calling themselves Chicks is typical of total Southern cuckery to Jews and the mob.) Liberalism without roots finds itself adrift. Liberals may bitch about conservatism, but liberalism without conservatism is like trees severed from roots. After all, liberalism is an outlook, and it needs a vantage point, i.e. it has to be liberal on a conservative foundation. Liberalism is like the sails on a boat, which would be like conservatism. Without the boat, the sails are useless. Or liberalism is like wings on a plane.Without the main body, the wings are useless.
Therefore, when white liberalism was severed from white conservatism, it had to serve another root-foundation, and this is where Jews made it serve Jewish Power aided and abetted by Jungle Fever/Faith & eventually Globo-Homo. As for white conservatism, it faced difficult times because Jews and their white liberal cucks said whiteness is problematic, then bad, then evil. So, white conservatism could no longer preserve white pride. For white conservatism to be viable, it had to drop the 'white' and just be conservative. Conservative about what? For some, conservatism merely meant conserving wealth(property values) or, paradoxically, the engine for change. (Consider David French whose idea of 'conservatism' is preserving the social forces that led to drag-queen story hour. In other words, American Conservatism = Conservation of forces that bring about the most rapid change.) But conservatism must conserve something other than 'muh money'. If whiteness is no longer worth preserving because of 'white guilt', then white conservatism, having dropped the 'white', had to serve another identity and culture, and again Jews made whites serve Jewish identity that was deemed noble because of Holy Holocaust Cult and its great heritage. If white liberals became subservient to Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish victim-hood, white conservatives became reverent of Jews mainly on the basis of Jewish heritage — Paul Johnson, one of the premier cuckservatives of the Cold War era, often made the case that Judaism is essentially conservative and so, Jews will eventually come around to the political right; the fool overlooked the fact that Jewish 'conservatism' is about maximizing Jewish Power by any means necessary, even by pushing deracinating liberalism on whites, which explains why so-called Neocons worked with Jewish Liberals to undermine white identity and pride. The Neo-Con-Federacy alliance didn't last long. White Southerners supported Zionists, but Zionists took a big dump on white 'racism', just like Apartheid South African support of Zionism didn't prevent most Jews from reviling white-ruled South Africa as the worst thing possible. At any rate, adopting Jewish Identity as the main theme of American Conservatism was bound to be devastating to white conservatism because the main villains of the Shoah were 'white supremacists'(though, to be sure, Nazi Germans were 'Aryanists' whose greatest crimes were against other whites, especially Slavs and Jews, if counted as 'white'). Jewish victim-narrative essentially blames whites and Christians for everything.

Now, Jews could pull this off because they are smarter than whites by one standard deviation. But what about Episcopalians whose IQs are comparable to Jews? Their religion was weak, they were more about class & privilege than blood-spirituality(or ethno-religious identity of Jews), and over time, their values just became bloodlessly following the latest fashion among trendy elites. Also, Jews have stronger and pushier personalities than Episcopalians who would rather lose a fight against feisty Jews than get down and dirty. Jews were especially effective in subverting white power because of their passive/aggressive nature. If Jews were ONLY aggressive, whites would have told them to screw off. But Jews would approach whites with sappy eyes and plead for sympathy for Anne Frank and 'muh holocaust'; and whites, out of Christian magnanimity and conscience, ceded to Jews the notion that the Holocaust was the greatest evil in world history and therefore ANY negative aspersion about Jews is 'antisemitic', therefore akin to Nazism. Whites thought they were being nice to poor pitiful Jews, but Jews were planting a moral trap underneath the white ass, especially as the history of 'antisemitism' was mainly a white European/Christian thing. Once that premise was accepted as part of Official White Morality, it meant that Jews could dump on whites all they want but whites better not dump on Jews in kind because it'd be so awful and hurt the feelings of those poor pitiful boo-boo-baby Jews. Fast-forward to today, and NYT & other Jewish-run media dump on whites endlessly but whites dare not say anything back in kind to Jews. Jews dredge up all the dark past about white history, but whites dare not do the same about Jews. If anything, both white 'liberals' and 'conservatives' compete with one another on who is more pro-Jewish. Jews kick white ass, but whites are eager to kiss Jewish ass. Kick-Ass-Kiss-Ass is the dynamics between Jews and whites. And of course, to consolidate white cuckery and submission, Jews also pushed the Noble Negro cult to guilt-bait whites for all eternity. So, Jewish-run NYT and other media outlets feature black and yellow bitches dumping on white women as abettors of white male terrorism against blacks, but white men say nothing about how countless white women had been robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks. Tally up the numbers of white women robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks, and it far dwarfs the number of black thugs lynched by white mobs in a hundred years. But white men, 'lib' and 'con', are a bunch of maggoty wussy boys.
But then, there's another reason white men don't defend white women. Too many white women, being mental clay in Jewish hands, are into white self-loathing and anti-white hysteria as virtue-signaling. Indeed, consider how most of these 'Karens' who are denounced by Ugabundas and Skankishas happen to be urban 'liberal' proggy bitches. To many on the dissident right, there is a certain schadenfreude in watching these insipid whores get their just desserts, a taste of their own medicine. These deracinated slutty lowlife white traitor bitches watch TV shows and movies where white female characters go with Negro men and where white men are presented as creeps or dorks, and their worldview conforms to Jewish Hollywood propaganda. But when they are confronted with black thuggery and vileness, the first thing they do is CALL THE WHITE POLICE. Now, one may ask why did their parents raise such insipid kids? Because white parenting, especially beginning with the boomers, was 'anti-racist', but a people are finished without race-ism. Jews are race-conscious and gain in power. Blacks mess up everything but still gain in power because they are race-conscious. Whites lose and lose because they lost their race-ism. As boomer parents think there is nothing worse than 'racism', they raised their kids to worship Fartin Poother Bling. And these kids grew up to madonna the muddy skank and rap music and sexting each other photos of Negro dongs. And all they heard in schools is 'white racism', 'white supremacism', 'evil of antisemitism', 'evil of homophobia', and etc. But on some subconscious level, they grew up feeling uncomfortable because it's not natural to hate your own kind. It's no wonder the 'gay' stuff spread like wildfire among whites, even with 'conservatives', because it's like the last expression of 'whiteness'. And it's no wonder that blacks eventually caught onto this and are insisting on making June the month of Homeys than Homos. Sheeeeeeiiiit, Juneteenth be da thang.
BLM and LGBT marching together is funny as hell because, despite the outward show of solidarity, they are expressions of opposing trends. BLM is about blacks doing as they please with roughhouse reparations of looting and burning, whereas Globo-Homo is about gentrification and yuppie-regeneration of the 'inner-city', code-word for parts of the town plagued with black crime and violence. Granted, there is a connection between blackness and homo-ness as plenty of white 'gay' buns crave black dongs — the butt-cucks — , but generally speaking, homo community caters to high-earners and the fancy-pants crowd than to hood rats.

Now, the 'weak' part. Again, it's relative. Without Jews and blacks, whites would be on top of the world in the West. Mentally, whites are strong against all groups except Jews. Some may say yellows have IQ comparable or even slightly higher than whites, but the difference isn't all that notable. Also, as yellows happen to be docile and dog-like, they are incapable of gaining power and authority as a minority. Chinese are successful minorities in Southeast Asia but in a precarious than prestigious position — it's no wonder Chinese would rather settle in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the US where they face less animus and violence from the majority. If recently yellows are berating at and bitching about whiteness, it's only because they are dutiful and servile dogs of the prevailing ideology set by elite Jews. They are following orders as good little boys and girls.
So, only Jews could make whites seem 'weak' of mind. Jews have noticeably higher IQ, strong identity rooted in blood & spirituality, and pushy personalities, along with sneaky passive/aggressive strategy. The only other people who make whites look weak are, of course, the Negroes, especially as American Culture is mainly about pop music and sports. Rock music has black roots, but moreover, blatantly black rap overtook rock as the most popular musical form, and what is rap about the thuggish cult of black aggression? Also, Americans worship sports, and who dominate? Blacks do. NFL culture is rather odd in its current configuration, and it's no wonder that it is in a state of crisis. Most players are black, and the game is getting even blacker. These black guys rose up the ranks by thumping white guys in high school and college, and they hump tons of white women. BUT, the majority of the fans are white males, and many white male fans of football happen to be 'conservative'. So, you have a game that is mostly about Democratic black guys dominating the field and humping white women that is cheered on largely by white males, the majority of whom are 'conservative'. White male 'conservatives' have 'evolved' to the 'anti-racist' position along the lines of, "Look, we cheer for you awesome black guys, and you whupped our pathetic white butts and you can hump my wife and marry my daughter, but please oh please, show some respect to the red, white, & blue and stand during the national anthem." That's Rush Limbaugh 'conservatism'. But black players feel differently. They feel, "Sheeeeeeeiiiiit, we be badass mofos who be da kangs of dis here sports, and we done whup fa**oty white boys and hump white girls, and dem white boys in da stands just a bunch of punkass pussies who be begging fo' our autographs while dey's girlfriends be lustin' after our dic*s." Yep, that is how black players see the game, and why not? Suppose Germans were taken as slaves to Japan, and suppose they came to dominate the sports by beating up scrawny yellow Japanese men and were humping the yellow girls. Would these Teutonic giants feel any respect for yellow dorks begging for their autographs? Would they pay respect to the Japanese anthem and identity for long? No, they would be feeling, "We be Vikangz".
For better or worse, sports is at least 1/2 of American culture and identity. So, who dominates sports comes to shape the image of America. Without blacks, whites would dominate sports in the US, and the racial-national perception would be very different. Indeed, look at the harm done to French identity and pride as the result of black domination. Sure, the white French pretend they are all beyond race and that Frenchness has no color, but blacks notice color. They know they are kicking white French ass and France is being Africanized.

Now, one may argue that white people as a unity are more powerful than any other. After all, white imperialists took over all of Africa at one time. British fleet defeated China in two Opium Wars. Spanish took over all of what is now Latin America. This is true, but white power depends on unity of identity, and that means race-ism. Without white race-ism, there can be no white unity. Then, whites can only compete as individuals, and then they will lose mentally to Jews with higher IQ & nimbler verbal skills and lose to blacks who are more muscular and athletic. This is why 'anti-racism' is the most fatal thing to happen to whites. But with white unity, whites could easily push back against Jewish Power. And whites as a unity can kick black ass. In the movie ZULU, each black warrior is more muscular and faster than whites, but whites work as a disciplined team and mow down the savanna bunners with awesome race-ist efficiency. This is why only race-ism can save the white race or any race. This is why any white person who uses the term 'racist' as epithet is part of the problem and hardly better than fools who yammer "Democrats are the real racists."

Ultimately, the great tragedy of American History is that American Indians didn't have the personality and wiliness of Asian Indians. American Indians were a stoned-faced stone-age people who put up a fight against men with guns and wagons, then later trains. They had no hope of military victory. They fought bravely and have been honored as such, but their defeat was a foregone conclusion, and following their surrender, they just remained on Reservations and lived on bacon, tobacco, and firewater. They were 'dumb' like the big 'Injun' in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.
But imagine if American Indians were more like Asian Indians. After a few setbacks with fighting the white men, they would have put down the bows & arrows and try to deal with whites with words & wit. After all, white folks were far less likely to shoot a people who are always talking and balking than shooting off arrows or hurling tomahawks. Through incessant talk, the hindu-like American Indians might have wore down the white men on the matter of immigration. A compromise might have been reached where white Christian immigration is okay to a certain point, but come on, let's leave something for the Indians. And then, the hindu-like American Indians might even have convinced whites to send the blacks back to Africa on account of America being the land of the Indians, not of the Africans who have their own gigantic continent to themselves. Hindu-like American Indians might have argued incessantly, "Look, you white people come here and take so much. But, you built stuff and we Indians benefit too. But why did you bring all those blacks? It's bad enough we lost this land to you whites but should we lose it to blacks as well?" And hindu-like American Indians might have gotten better deals from whites with contracts. The real American Indians just trusted the white man, smoked the peace pipe, and went back to their teepees... only to discover that Pale Face was just fooling them. But hindu-like American Indians surely would have pressed upon whites to keep the word. "Look, we remember you people buying Manhattan with bead necklace. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, and no shame on me this time."

In DELIRIOUS, Eddie Murphy says you got to SING to get the girls. In SEVEN BEAUTIES, Pasqualino says, "More you pee, more you live." In our world, the more you talk, the more power you got. Even when they try to silence you, you have to keep talking and talking and talking. You have to join the conversation but not on their terms because PC is all about them talking while your side only listens or chants along or barks according to orders.




It's been observed by some that whites are like the NEW American Indians. Then, the lesson whites must learn from the fate of American Indians is that whites must act like Asian Indians to survive. American History could have been very different if American Indians fought less and talked more. Indeed, one reason why white folks in the South lent a certain ear to blacks was because the Negroes were always talking, like Jim in HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It's like the white massuh played by Chuck Connors in ROOTS has a fondness for Chicken George who always be talking. Frederick Douglas was full of talk, and of course, Fartin' Poother Bling was nothing without talk. And, you don't even need a boombox voice. Gandhi sounded like a geek, but he talked and talked and drove the British nuts like Groucho Marx with the Wasp characters.

It's incredible that Jews of all people hold such a vaunted MORAL position in the American Narrative. After all, if any people experienced something like 'genocide' and destruction on American soil, it was the American Indians, all the more tragic because they have roots here going back eons, tens of thousands of years. And yet, there is the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. than one commemorating the 'American Holocaust' of the Red Man. And even though mass immigration did in the Indians, the Statue of Liberty as symbol of immigration is so highly prized and celebrated. Also, the US has been nothing but a blessing for Jews. They didn't face the kind of discrimination they did in the Old World, and furthermore, Jews took part in slavery/slave trade and sold supplies to whites who rubbed out the Indians. So, Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust'. And yet, Jews hold the high moral ground in America. Why? They never stopped talking. In the end, talk determines 'truth'. If Bob did wrong to John, but if Bob does all the talking while John sulks and sits in the corner, everyone will go with Bob's word. He sets the narrative. It's like the scene in GOODFELLAS where Martin Scorsese's mother tells a joke about a man who never says anything.



How did Christianity became a great religion? The Early Christians faced persecution, but they never stopped talking and eventually caught the ears of some powerful and influential folks. In the end, it wasn't a case of "meek shall inherit the Earth" but "speak shall inherit the Earth". And this is why white Americans, as they face a demise similar to that of the American Indians, must not make the same mistake. Instead of being like the noble but 'dumb' Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, they must be like Asian-Indians who never shut up. They must be like Babu(of THE SIMPSONS) or Ben Kingsley as Gandhi who's always talking and talking, even when he's sent to jail time and time again. To reiterate this point, white Americans should speak with a Hindu accent. Doing so will remind them that, unless they keep gabbing like Hindus, they will end up like the Red Man.
Whites should start with the topic of creating the white leagues in sports on the basis that white athletic inferiority needs is own space from blacks who make it virtually impossible for any other race to play, especially certain positions. So, let blacks have NBA and NFL, but let there be the white leagues. And why not? Blacks got their own chess tournaments as they can't compete with Jews. Now, the Powers-that-be will say NO, but whites should still keep talking and never drop the issue and should re-package it in so many ways. After all, the US has said NO to reparations-for-blacks so many times, but it's still on the menu because blacks never stop talking about it. (Whites should demand Realization among blacks. Realization over reparations. What would this Realization be? That, even though blacks got less than whites in the US, they got so much from contact with whites than they would have on their own if left alone in their own savagery of bongo drums and chucking spears at hippos. Sure, the argument of the Realization would be condemned as 'racist', but one must never stop talking. Even if the other side says NO, you keep making your case and drive home the point. It's like even a brick wall eventually breaks if you keep picking at it. In those prison movies, inmates eventually make a hole with a spoon. Why? They never give up picking at the wall. Words wear down the opposition only if you must keep on talking.) If whites give up on certain issues and stop talking, they lose. Even if there are setbacks, one must keep talking. Like 'gay marriage' for instance. Don't just accept it as 'the law of the land' but keep talking against it. Chip away at it bit by bit by bit. If the power of words made the Roman Empire eventually succumb to Christianity, the religion of pesty Jewish heretics, it can do wonders for whites in the long run but only if they keep talking. If the idea of White Leagues is rejected and banned, should whites give up on the idea? No, they should keep pushing for it with new arguments. Did homos and Jews give up on 'gay marriage' when the courts initially said NO? No, they pushed on. Meanwhile, American cuckservatives began to say NOTHING in opposition. When one side talks while the other side remains mute, the talkers win. So-called 'culture war' was really a game of Culture Words, and Jews and the 'left' talked more. In contrast, the 'conservatives' said close to nothing or took orders from Jews and merely said, "Muh Israel" and "Democrats are the real racists", thereby undermining the need for race-ism among whites.

Say the word and you will be free. There's a song by the Bangles, "Walk like an Egyptian", but the real lesson is "Talk like an Asian-Indian". And use their dotty accent to always remind yourself that if you don't keep talking, you will end up like the American Indians. In a way, it's ironic that American Conservatism is in such sad state despite having dominated Talk Radio. They sure did a lot of talking... but about what? 'Muh Israel', inanities about 'Feminazis', cheerleading for more Middle East Wars, Russia-bashing, Chicom-bashing, and 'Democrats are the real racists'. In other words, total BS and nothing about real issues, real truths, and real needs. White folks need to speak the truth of HBD in hindu accent. Talk truth, not nonsense.