The so-called Left yammers on and on about 'white privilege' while many on the 'right' deny it exists. It's more accurate to say White Privilege does exist but as a function of White Submission than of White Supremacism. After all, if indeed the entirety of white race had a solid supremacist position over all other races, there would be no need for White Privilege. Who needs privilege when you got supremacist power over others? Even though White Supremacism is racially defined, it is at least universalist within the white race, i.e. all whites, smart or dumb, rich or poor, share in their superiority & supremacy over or security & safety from other peoples, groups, and races. So, even though some whites would be socially and/or economically privileged over other whites, ALL whites would be universal in their superiority over or security from other races. There would be no White Privilege because ALL whites would share in the dominance. It would be universalist within the particularity of the white race.
The term 'privilege' connotes something more than domination or shared power/position. It implies 'exceptionality' limited to a few. Thus, if something is broadly shared by the entire population, it doesn't qualify as privilege EVEN IF another group is broadly kept in a subservient position. So, if society is made up 50/50 of People A and People B and if ALL members of People A have superiority over all members of People B, it can be called Power but not Privilege. Power unites, Privilege divides. Power for People A would unite all of them, from rich to poor. In contrast, Privilege for People A would mean only select members of the group would enjoy special advantages or exemptions from burdens shared by the rest. If indeed People A had Power over People B, privilege would matter more among People B as some of them would seek favors that would advantage them over most of their kind who must keep within the subservient position. In the American South, a white man, no matter how poor, could not be enslaved. This fact united him with other whites. Rich or poor, whites could not be slaves. This was not a privilege but the power of rights that applied to all whites. In contrast, privilege mattered a great deal to blacks because any black could be enslaved. So, for a black man to be a free man, that was a matter of privilege. Without such privilege, he was like all the other 'ni**ers'. And there was a privilege system even among the black slaves: the House Negroes and the Field Ni**ers. While both groups were slaves, the former got access to the massuh's house, ate better, enjoyed more petty freedoms, and got more access to good stuff. Because, by and large, blacks had a subservient position to whites in the American South, privilege was a very important thing for blacks as individuals. Since they could not gain power, freedom(as a right), and full spectrum of rights as a People, they could only hope to gain advantages as individuals of privilege. Such privileges exempted them from the lot faced by most of their kind.
Fast Forward to today, and we can argue that White Privilege is indeed a real phenomenon but not in the way that 'left'(as controlled by Jewish Supremacists) would have us believe. According to the Official Narrative, ALL whites enjoy this thing called 'white privilege'. But if something is universal among whites, it's not a privilege but a power. But where do you see any such? Whites are divided as 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. Denied the identity of race/heritage/culture, whites seek meaning only through ideology of 'libertarian individualist conservatism' vs 'radical collectivist progressivism' OR idolatry(or 'idology' as fusion of ideology and idolatry) for the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. White elites disdain the white hoi polloi, and increasingly the white masses hate the white elites. Also, the Official Dogma of New Jewish-ruled America says that Whiteness is at best problematic and at worst downright evil. Whiteness is the Mark of Cain, a human stain, and the original sin of creation(not unlike Nation of Islam's theory about how whites were grafted from the black race). Whites must feel guilt, whites must atone, whites must feel shame, whites must surrender their lands, whites must surrender their jobs & wealth, whites must kneel & sob, white wombs must be sexually colonized by blacks, white soldiers must fight, kill, and die for Jewish Supremacist crusades, and etc. In other words, whites must live for the Other, not for their own kind. White Power is evil. White Unity is cursed. White Identity is wicked. White Anything is suspect. Then, there is nothing to unite whites together. There is no intra-universality among whites that binds them together against the Other. Indeed, whites must especially cuck and apologize because they still happen to be the richest people in the world, mostly the result of past White Evil, Greed, Rottenness, and Wickedness. And of course, White 'liberals' and progs are onboard with such worldview, not least because they were raised by the 2 PC's: Pop Culture and Political Correctness dominated by Jews — over the years, Pop Culture and Advertising have become overly politicized by capitalist elites trained by 'cultural marxists' in colleges who spread the notion of 'cultural hegemony'; as these elites no longer believe in communism, they use the capitalist means of marketing to spread the 'idology' of Jew-worship, homo-worship, Negro-worship, and Diversity Cult. (Some radicals and blacks say 'white liberalism' is also a form of white supremacism, and there is a kernel of truth in the claim in that 'white liberalism' could only arise from a state of white supremacism. It was the supremacist position of whites that made some whites drop their guard, grow more generous & conscientious, be less tribal & warlike, and be more critical of their own kind. They could risk such magnanimity because they took white power, security, wealth, and well-being for granted, even as a permanent state of being. Indeed, is it any wonder that some of the biggest virtue-signaling 'white liberal' types tend to live in nice areas with plenty of money and security? If a whole bunch of black savages were coming to rape and pillage them, they would change their tune sooner than later. So, even as 'white liberalism' denounces white supremacism, it exists only as a product of white domination over other races. Whites gained such power and success that a large portion of them could drop their natural guard, ignore their tribal instincts, and put on do-goody airs toward the Other that was seen as helpless children. It's like humans in a state of nature do not feel generous toward animals that are seen as rivals; it was only when modern man gained absolute supremacist dominion over the natural world that humans began to wax poetic about fauna and flora as something that needs protection. Environmentalism is the product of human supremacism over nature. Living in the state of nature, mankind's main worry would be to survive other animals than to help them survive the impact of humans.)
Because whiteness is now so degraded and demeaned, there is no advantage to white identity, white unity, and white continuity as building blocks for white power. In the American West, all whites united to fight the Indians and conquer/settle the lands. In 19th century South Africa, whites of all kinds banded together against blacks. (Back then, whites easily made up 50% of the sparsely populated region.) It was about White Power, not white privilege. All whites of different stripes and backgrounds were united in their identity and purpose. Even though they created social orders in which whites had advantages and rights over others, the rules applied universally to all whites. Whites didn't need privilege because they insisted on the unity of power. It's much the same among Jews in Israel and West Bank. Jews don't need special privileges because they got the power. ALL Jews are favored over ALL Arabs. If anything, it is the Arabs who rely on special privileges(granted by Jewish Supremacists) if they are to avoid the fate of most Palestinians. It's like some Chinese and Hindus collaborated with the British Imperialists for special privileges. Whereas all whites belonged to the dominant race and had their rights secured under the Imperial Law, Hindus and Chinese needed special privileges to enjoy better positions in the Order.
Given the current reality where whiteness is as reviled as Jewishness was in National Socialist Germany, whites better rely on privileges to have it so good. Whereas blackness, Jewishness, and homo-ness are innately holy according to the New Order, whiteness is fake, vile, venal, ugly, hideous, and evil. As whiteness sucks so bad, it can hardly be used as an organizing principle, unifying force, matter of dignity, or point of pride. In other words, 'white' is the 'new ni**er'. Since being white is a great moral, historical, political, social, and spiritual disadvantage, it makes no sense to aspire toward White Power that might unite all whites as one race with shared destiny. In other words, there can be no intra-universal truth to whiteness. The ONLY THING all whites must share is guilt and shame about whiteness. When it comes to celebration, it must be about homos; when it comes to awe & fever, it must be for blacks; when it comes to reverence & obedience, it must be for Jews. In such an Order where whiteness is just a ticket to hell, white individuals need privileges more than ever as exemptions from collective punishment. White Privilege is like buying indulgences, once a common practice in the Catholic Church. So, in that sense, we do live in a world of White Privilege. This privilege doesn't apply to all whites as privilege can never be universal, not even intra-universal. Privilege always applies to select individuals or a small inner-group, not to an entire population, even if it is generally advantaged over another population. For example, there were dirt-poor white farmers in the American South who were materially worse off than House Negroes on big plantations. The advantage they had over blacks was not a matter of privilege but power.
Back then, white power mattered. Today, nothing is excoriated more than the notion of whiteness + power or whiteness + identity. It's NOT okay to be white. When power is disallowed, privilege is the only game in town. If your people have been condemned as a whole, then forget about Power. Just seek privilege as a white individual, or as an individual virtue-signaler who is eager to secure one's privilege by ho-de-do-ing that you are working oh-so-very-hard to expunge yourself of the evils of 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. Then, it's no surprise that today's white elites are all about privilege, not power. When it comes to power, they recognize Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness as the only identities/qualities deserving of it. Whiteness deserves no power, and white lands and white wombs must surrender to the Other. Still, white individuals want success and money, and since they can no longer rely on White Power, they must go for White Privilege, an advantage that, far from applying to all whites, applies ONLY TO those whites who can afford to pay indulgences to the 'woke' extortion industries. So, all those multi-national corporations, including Chick-Fil-A(now more like Dic*-Fill-Ass), go out of their way to appease the Wokextortionists or Woktortionists to gain favor as good House Honkeys or Corpo-Cucks. Jeff Bezos and Jack Dorsey are super-duper-rich, but they don't have white power. Just white privilege. Of course, they don't care as long as they got theirs and the approval of their 'moral superiors' made up of Jews, blacks, and homos. They are happy honkucks.
Still, the crucial point is what they got is privilege, not power. They got privilege by cuck-collaborating with the real power of Jews, blacks, and homos. This state of affairs illustrates how power isn't just about money but about prestige. A House Negro could be far better off than some Po' White Trash, but the latter was a free man who could take his freedom for granted. No matter how poor and 'trashy' he may be, he couldn't be enslaved by the richest white plantation owner. But even the fanciest House Negro eating well and living in the Massuh's Mansion could lose his privileges overnight and be sent to pick cotton. So, even when the House Negro is materially well-off, he wasn't free and actually had less power than even the lowest Po' White Trash. In a way, the likes of Tim Cook and Bill Gates understand this. They are mega-rich and got more money than they could ever hope to spend, but they got no power because they are white. They can pour tons of money into various ventures and causes but never for the power of their race. If anything, to keep their privileges, they must pour vast sums into causes that do harm to whites while expanding the power of Jews, Negroes, and Homos.
So, we are indeed living in the Age of White Privilege. When Power is banned, all you can strive for is privilege.
In Tucker Carlson's monologue, he mentions Mitt Romney and his role at Bane Financial. Romney's job was to maximize the profits for the upper echelon by making the bottom fall out for the masses of lower-level workers. Globalism comes with a price. It has its sacrificial lambs. It's not win-win for everyone. Given the costs of globalism, why do the elites promote it? Don't they fear losing out? No, they don't. Why would they harbor such fears when it is THEY THEMSELVES who get to call the shots on how globalism shall transform and remake the world? They are obviously going to rig the project so that THEY get the lion's share of the globo-meat while everyone else gets bones and scraps ground into worthless sausage. So, when the globo-cow is slaughtered, the prime rib and filet mignon go to the likes of Romney and the bigger sharks whom he serves. They don't pay the costs of globalism. If anything, they reap the biggest rewards of globalism while everyone from middle class to below not only get less but bear most of the costs.
Now, would people like Romney support globalism if WE ORDINARY FOLKS got to rig the program in such a way that people like us reap most of the rewards while people like Romney have to bear most of the cost? Of course not. Now, in a hypothetical world of noble-minded people, those with power & privilege would think in terms of the Common Good and arrange things so that the sacrifices are shared by all sectors of society(and rewards are shared likewise too). But the sort of people who rise to the top are generally not the most ethical and morally inspired. Things are even worse because the most powerful people, the Jewish elites, tend to see the goy masses as the potential enemy than fellow brethren. But even white elites are also useless in a deracinated world that denigrates nationalism. Nationalism applies pressure on the elites to see fellow countrymen as national brethren. This is even truer if nationalism is combined with race-ism. There was an especially strong bond between white elites and white masses in past America & past Europe because both the elites and the masses were of the same race(and even ethnicity). Still, even as Americanism dropped race-ism, there was still nationalism to maintain the semblance of unity of American elites with American masses. But globalism did away with nationalism as well, and that means that the elites, as globo-homo 'citizens of the world', feel no special bond, affinity, or sense of obligation to the American People. And history and heritage no longer matter. Who cares if your people have relatively deeper roots in America? Globalism says your kind is no more American than the latest immigrant-invaders who just got off the boat or plane. Indeed, the globo-homo elites even idealize people who haven't even left their own nations(for America) as More-American-than-American. So, if there are millions of Muslims, Africans, Asians, and Meso-Americans who dream of coming to the US, they are more deserving of the attention(and adoration) from the globo-homo elites than already-existing Americans are. Indeed, having roots in America makes you 'less American' according to the globo-homo formula. Especially if you're white, having historical roots in America means your blood is tainted with 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. So, your roots are not a point of pride but shame and guilt. So, your kind is even less deserving of status as American citizens than the newcomers who come 'guilt-free' as blank-slate Americans on whom the globo-homo script can be inscribed(and enshrined). (And yet, the call for the World to come to the US implies a supremacist mindset that the America is better than the rest of the world. Why else would globalists tell non-whites in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Middle East to drop whatever they're doing and permanently depart from their own homelands, cultures, and peoples to become 'Americans' and start all over in the New World? It's a strange contradiction. On the one hand, the history of America is said to be evil and ugly. And yet, for some reason, all that evil and ugliness created such a great and wonderful nation[that is superior to all] that peoples all over the world should reject their own nations, peoples, and cultures to come to America to become New Americans.) Of course, historical guilt is dumped only on white goyim -- never mind that Jewish immigrants also took part in slave trade, benefited from 'white privilege', and participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians. Blacks and American Indians are allowed to feel moral pride on the basis of their roots in American History. But even that does little to protect them from endless waves of immigration-invasion. Blacks with American roots are not favored over new African immigrants whose ancestors had captured and sold blacks into bondage in the era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. And the Indians have NO SAY in whether further immigration-invasion is a good thing. Even as PC pretends to care about indigenous peoples and cultures, it totally ignores the fact that mass-immigration and ensuing Diversity did much to wipe out the indigenous peoples and cultures. At this point in history, most Jewish-Americans have considerable roots in America that goes back at least 100 yrs or more. They too have become Historical-Americans, but the cultist nostalgia about Ellis Island forever tags Jews as 'Immigrant-Americans', indeed as if they 'spiritually' get off the boat every year as dreamy-eyed newcomers. Jews act as if fresh immigrant-invaders keeping alive the Jewish Dream of Immigration. (It's similar to how every new generation of Jews get to 'larp' as the eternal race of Holocaust Survivors.) Given the fact of established Jewish History in America, one would think that Jews would identify more with Historic America than with America Reinvented. But the truth is, during all their time in America, most Jews never connected with White Christian America. Jews learned the language, ate the foods, appreciated the arts, and traded with goyim, BUT they never bonded with goyim as fellow brethren. When Christians say 'Judeo-Christian', it is in the hope that Jews will consider Christians as fellow countrymen. When Jews say 'Judeo-Christian', it is to dupe naive white Christians into believing that "Israel is America's greatest ally" when, if anything, Jews themselves do not and will never regard white Christians as fellow brethren.
In the end, we must ask WHO gets to decide the terms of the New Policy or New Order? While, theoretically speaking, those who get to decide may be noble-minded, generous, & even self-sacrificing and mindful of the common good than the matter of "What's in it for me?", the chances are that those placed in positions to decide who-gets-what will favor themselves, their friends and relatives, and their social circles than anyone else. Take any company that must restructure. Who gets to decide? The masses of low-level workers? No, those at the top get to decide. And invariably, the decisions favor the top executives and biggest shareholders than the masses of laborers and the little guys. Before anyone at the top loses his gig(often with super-lavish golden parachutes), thousands of workers(and their benefits and pensions) are sacrificed first. Globalism is like a sinking ship where the captain and upper crew are either the first ones to get on lifeboats or the last ones to go down with the ship. It's like DOWNFALL, the film about the last days of Hitler's regime. Hitler and his inner circle were the last to go down. To the very end, they were partying and dancing while millions of Germans had already perished or been raped. Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the elites not having 'skin in the game', but even those with skin in the game get bled or burnt last. By the time they pay the price, the little guys have been wiped out already(and far more brutally).
Hypothetically, how would the elites react IF populists were to gain control of globalism and rig the terms to serve their own mass interests at the expense of the elites? Suppose the populists decide to replace the current elites with new elites from a global pool. Replace oligarchs like Adelson and Koch Brothers with more civic-minded business leaders. And replace the crooks and goons of the current Deep State with noble-minded managerial class from other nations. Furthermore, the crooks and goons are made to face the music and sent to prison or executed. The result might be a fairer and sounder nation ruled and governed by elites with some sense of decency. Such globalism might actually have mass-populist support. Of course, the current elites will do everything to oppose it. The reason why the current elites support globalism is they totally get to call the shots in how the game is played and who wins. Why would people like Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Jeff Bezos, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Ryan, and etc. oppose globalism when THEIR KIND gets to write the rule-book of who gets to hold the most cards and reap the most rewards?
Suppose there is a pantry with lots of donuts, cookies, and candies in a school with a 100 kids. Suppose 5 kids are put in charge of the pantry, and they get to decide who gets what. They naturally favor themselves and their closest friends while leaving only crumbs and stale bread for the other kids. Would the 5 kid and their closest inner circle complain about the arrangement? They might if they're ethical, but most people aren't. And the kind of people who shoot for the top are animated by something more than intelligence and talent. They have insatiable greed, egotism, and status-obsession, like that terrible bitch Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. Maybe Hillary Clinton had some ideals as a young woman, but by the time she entered politics, the ONLY thing that mattered was power, prestige, and privilege. And maybe Mitt Romney had a bit of ethical streak as a Mormon missionary, but he just turned into an egotistical and narcissistic pig. These vile elites dream of replacing existing Americans with New Americans, but they would think twice about the globalist project if it were about replacing the Existing Elites with New Elites. Alas, the hoi polloi don't get to choose the terms and overall direction of globalism. The elites do.
Elites have wings and fly around the world to make deals to fatten themselves ever more. Most people are grounded and lack the mercurial means of the globalists. Over time, those with wings identify more with others with wings than with their own kind. Imagine there are five species of monkeys. Suppose 5% of monkeys of each species begin to sprout wings and fly around. As time passes, will these winged monkeys identify more with winged monkeys of other species or with the wingless grounded monkeys of their own species? Ideally, the winged monkeys of one species should use their special ability to gain advantage for all the monkeys of the tribe. So, the winged monkeys of Tribe A will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe A, and winged monkeys of Tribe B will use their power of flight to serve the grounded monkeys of Tribe B. And indeed, winged Jewish monkeys think and feel this way. Though Jewish globo-elites have tremendous wing power, they will not collaborate with winged goy monkeys to harm or destroy grounded Jewish monkeys in Israel or elsewhere. Rich globalist Jews care even for lower-income Orthodox Jews. Liberal Globalist Jews care for Jewish nationalists in Israel, many of whom are not rich by any means. Jews understand that there are two meanings of Justice. The legal definition that involves redress for individual wrongs or grievances. So, if Bob committed a wrong against Bill, then Justice demands that Bob offer recompense to Bill. There is this concept of justice in the Old Testament, especially in regard to intra-tribal matters. So, if a Jewish individual wrongs another, there must be compensation or punishment. Eye for an eye. But the Torah deals with a grander concept of justice, the idea that, on some basic level, a people must struggle and strive as one. While society cannot do everything for everyone, all members of the Tribe must be assured a meaningful place in society as fellow brethren(and sistren). This is why Moses tries to save every Jew from Egypt. He doesn't think in terms of rich Jews or poor Jews, privileged Jews or ordinary Jews, smart Jews or dumb Jews. At the basic level, ALL Jews deserve to be free and make it to the Promised Land as part of the Covenant. This grander concept of Justice doesn't mean freebies for lazy bums. All members must struggle and strive as individuals. But, they are still part of a racial and/or cultural community, and all members must make sure that everyone, even the lowest member, is assured the basic necessities that make for dignified existence. Neo-Fascism and Humanism allow for such concept of justice, whereas globo-libertarianism says it must be about Me and never We. Jewish globalists push libertarian mindset onto goy elites but reject it for their own Tribe. Goy Libertarianism means goy elites should only think of themselves(as successful or lucky individuals) and throw their own racial brethren to the ditch. In contrast, Jewish commitment to Tribal Justice means that even the richest Jew should care about the lowest Jew. If there are suffering Jews in some part of the world, the rich and powerful Jews should try to do something for them. Now, it's understandable why goy elites are drawn to individualism and globo-libertarianism. It means more profits for themselves since they never have to think about and be dragged down by the collective good of their own folks. White Libertarian elites have no qualms about raking in more profits by sacrificing the well-being of fellow whites. They are addicted to more money. Now, since Jewish elites also love More Money, shouldn't they throw the Jewish masses under the bus as well? Won't Jewish elites make even more money by thinking only of Me than of the We? This is less a problem with Jewish elites because there are far fewer Jews in the world than goyim. Russian elites, Chinese elites, Iranian elites, and etc. have many more people whose well-being they have to consider than Jewish elites do about Jewish masses. After all, the entire population of Jews around the world is less than 15 million. Also, as many Jews are higher-achieving than goyim, they are less in need of socio-economic support. 50% of Jews in the US make $100,000 or more. Finally, Jewish Power is such that they can make goyim foot the bill for Israel and Jewish interests. At any rate, we saw what happens to a goy nation when its elites are goaded into Libertarian Me-than-We mode in the Russia of the 1990s. Jewish globalists persuaded drunken fools like Boris Yeltsin into just turning Russia into one big casino-economy. While tens of millions of Russians fell into destitution, the oligarchs were raking in all the dough. Of course, the Jewish oligarchs still cared for fellow Jews. Even as they plundered the Russian economy, they made sure to favor and take care of their tribal brethren. In contrast, Russian oligarchs were told to just shut their hearts and minds to the suffering Russian masses. Vladimir Putin reversed some of that but nearly not enough as Russia still remains an oligarchic gangster-state.
In the current state in most Advanced Nations, the winged elite monkeys mainly identify with the winged elite monkeys of other nations than with their own grounded monkey kind. Of course, the tribalist cries of the grounded monkeys are heard by the winged monkeys, but the fact is the latter would rather fly around with winged monkeys of other tribes than be bound to the 'loser' wingless monkeys of their own kind. What is to be done to drown out the national cries of the grounded monkeys? This is where the Sea Monkeys enter the picture. Via endless migrations of grounded-monkeys across the seas all over the world, every monkey realm loses its original tribal integrity and becomes so diverse that the national cry(to winged monkeys above) gets drowned out by an increasingly confusing and contradictory babel of monkey shrieks. To be heard by winged monkeys, the grounded monkeys must cry ever louder and louder, but as their cries turn into a cacophony of clashing sounds, the diversified grounded monkeys end up screaming at one another than making intelligible sounds that reach the elite realm. So, while the diversified grounded monkeys bicker and scream at one another, the upper-realm of flying monkeys are feeling free and having the time of their lives. Of course, there is ONE special tree that is reserved for grounded Jewish monkeys only, and their cries are heard and addressed by all the winged monkeys.
Now, white globalist-libertarian elites will claim to be about the Greater We than about the Me. They will mask their radical Me-centric libertarianism with Proggy rhetoric about the Global We that transcends national borders. The gospel according to Bryan Caplan. These progo-globo elites will argue against nationalism as 'petty' and 'small'. They are oh-so-generous-and-compassionate that they care for ALL OF HUMANITY around the world. It's like globalist shill Emmanuel Macron derided 'nationalism' while redefining 'patriotism' as a form of globo-compassionate-imperialist consciousness. But such radical concept of the Mega-We fails on both the moral and pragmatic level. On the moral level, it is often a cynical rationale by the globalist elites to neglect their obligations to their national folks. Their excuse for ignoring the well-being of the nation is that they are TOO BUSY caring about all the world. It's like a negligent parent who excuses his rotten behavior by insisting that he's too busy caring for ALL THE CHILDREN of the world when, in fact, he spends most of his time and money on self-indulgence. It's invocation of abstraction to justify extraction. But EVEN IF globalists were genuinely idealistic in their dream of saving all the world, it just can't be done. Goldilocks rule sets in. History has shown, time and time again, that the nation-state is the most ideal unit for governance and collective action. Sure, nations need to trade with other nations and get along, but politics of shared purpose and governance work best within nation-states. After all, what's the point of having national leaders who neglect the national folks while busying themselves with the world affairs that either have little national relevance or do harm to the great majority of the national folk? What's the point of having national elites who tell you to your face that YOUR KIND should be replaced by New People and that your children must be brainwashed to embrace such racial suicide as the greatest good? The recent Yellow Vest protests in France prove that globalism only misled the French elites to neglect the needs of their own French Folks while providing endless favors for Jewish globalists, Afro-Islamic invaders, and insane homo-narcissists. The radically grand concept of the Mega-We intrinsic to globalism has value only as greedy cynical ploy or Utopian fantasy. For people like the Koch Brothers and Tim Cook, globalism allows them to seek out the cheapest labor to maximize their profits. It also means accelerating brain-drain from non-white to white nations so that places like San Francisco and New York will have the nerd-drones to toil away in Tech companies. And for bleeding-heart types in Sweden and Norway who, in their childish naivete, really want to SAVE THE WORLD, the concept of Globo-Mega-We fills them with neo-messianic fervor. Of course, moral vanity is a kind of emotional greed, a tendency to hog righteousness as one's special virtue. In any case, it should be obvious by now that all of Sweden's endless efforts as a Moral Superpower has come to naught. It failed to improve any corner of Africa, and taking in all those African and Muslim 'refugees' has only turned many parts of Sweden into Third World ghettos. Also, isn't it arrogant and conceited for people of one nation to believe that they are so good, so wise, so caring, and so wonderful that their Love and Compassion can magically save the rest of humanity? If people of a nation really respect the peoples of other nations, why not let them figure things out and fix their own problems?
