Showing posts with label Universal Nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universal Nationalism. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2024

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.



Saturday, August 14, 2021

Do Jews have a 'Psychistorical' Identification with Muslim Warriors as Modern Day Zealots? — Three Kinds of Power-Consciousness — Why Afghan War cannot be compared with Vietnam War — Futility of Liberalism when National Attempts at Liberty & Democracy are subverted by Jewish Globalist 'Liberal Intervention'


https://dailystormer.su/the-taliban-is-to-the-2020s-right-what-the-north-vietnamese-were-to-the-1960s-left/

I wonder if on some subconscious or 'psychistorical' level, Jews are happy to see the Taliban win. On the conscious level, of course many Jews are upset. After all, they are the New Pharaohs, the New Romans. Jews rule over the white race that manages the globalist empire dominated by the Tribe(and homos as proxies). So, naturally this side of Jewishness wants more power and control over the world. It will look upon the retreat as a setback... though I'm sure many Jews came to the realization that Afghanistan-as-base-for-regional-influence was overblown, indeed a liability than an asset, or a flat tire than a springboard. Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, and other -Stans managed pretty well to contain US power. Besides, US influence is more confusing to deal with in our day. In the past, it was well-understood that American Authority was mostly white and Christian. Today, US power is Jewish and globo-homo(and Jews have done everything to shame and hollow out white/Christian America), but Jews won't admit their power and outsized influence and instead maintain the charade that US, as an 'exceptional' nation, stands for the universal aspirations of all peoples. So, you have a Jewish-centric US foreign policy that claims to speak for the world. None of this makes any sense to those on the ground, especially in a profoundly Islamic country like Afghanistan. US ventures in Afghanistan are like time travel into another era. Afghanistan stands for recalcitrant medievalism or something even more backward — indeed, plenty of ancient civilizations were more sophisticated and advanced than much of Afghan society today — , whereas US stands for futurism that has gone very wrong — with all the money and might, what Americans value most are Jewish supremacism, homo vanity, tranny nuttery, black thuggery, and an ass tattoo; a world of gluttony and sluttony pretending to be a beacon of light unto the world; yeah, the lights of Las Vegas.

At any rate, even though Jews are the New Romans, their historical narrative had them as the underdogs, the guerrillas, the David(against Goliath), the Zealots, and etc. So, even as Jewish elites worked with and financed the great European and American empires, something in Jewishness also rooted for the rebels and the resistance(which may partly explain the Jewish pro-Confederacy stance). Jews regarded the Castroites and Viet Cong as the New Zealots resisting the US as the New Roman Empire. And even though Israel had overwhelming advantage in the Six Day War, the Jewish Narrative had the beleaguered Neo-Israelites fighting the New Pharaoh Nasser against all odds.
So, perhaps even modern secular 'liberal' Jews are, on some 'psychistorical' level, identifying with Muslim radicals and fundamentalists who resisted the US as the New Rome(even though Jews are the new overlords). Despite all the Jewish vs Muslim animus, the fact is the ragtag Muslim 'terrorists' and Jihadists are rather like the Jewish Zealots of the Ancient World. Jews, more than most people, resisted the Romans, and today, the biggest resisters against the New Rome are the Muslims. (The other mighty resisters against the Roman Empire were the Germanics. In a way, one could argue that Old Rome was destroyed by the double whammy of Jewish or Judeo-derived spiritual power and Germanic physical power. Christianity wiped away paganism, and Germanic barbarians sacked Rome. No wonder the biggest tensions flared up in Europe when Jewish Semites and Germanic Aryans came into co-existence in heightened acceleration of modernity. The two peoples most responsible for the demise of Old Rome and the rise of New Europe. Jews know about the power of the Aryans and went about using all their means — moral, ideological, sensual, demographic — to neuter Aryan power.)

Of course, it's good for Jewish Power that arch-Muslim nations tend to remain backward, therefore less of a threat to modern Israel. No wonder US Jews and Israel have been chummier with theocratic Saudis than with Arab modernizers like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad. For all the Neocon BS about how the West should spread secular 'liberal' values in the Middle East, Jews have generally supported the most extreme Muslim radicals against secular modernizers in the Middle East and North Africa. Jews prefer the Arabs to be Muslim and Weak than Modern and Strong. Jews especially hate Iran because it managed to be Modern, Muslim, and Strong. An Islamic order is harder to penetrate with subversive globalist anti-values, yet reactionary Islam holds it back from progress and advancement. When a nation goes Modern, it is far easier to subvert from the outside. Secular Turkey came under considerable influence of Globo-Homo. But could a nation choose modernity and make progress while upholding Muslim values to fend off Western globo-homo degeneracy? Erdogan's Islamic Turkey has been moving in this direction. And Iran is Islamic and advanced in nuclear technology. This is why Jews hate Iran and are now working to destroy Turkey.

NEOCONS RAMP UP REGIME CHANGE EFFORTS IN TURKEY

Paradoxically, the biggest enemy of liberalism around the world is Western 'liberal interventionism'(directed by Jews). Something like National Liberalism would be a good thing. Suppose post-communist Russia embarked on its own path of freedom and liberty to decide what is good for the country. Unfortunately, whenever a nation moves from authoritarianism to freedom, Jewish-US empire uses NGO's and free markets to penetrate and take over institutions(through bribery) and the media(for degenerate propaganda purposes). The kind of liberty that comes to be favored is treachery among the national elites(as they become addicted to bribes from the US empire) and degenerate hedonism among the masses, especially the youth(as the media under Jewish control spew out little but Afromania, Jungle Fever, Hollywood trash, and globo-homo sickness). So, instead of the hope of National Liberalism, the result is Global Tyranny. Against Global Tyranny, the only remedy is National Autocracy. The problem with 'Western Liberalism' is it won't tolerate any other kind of liberalism. Only its conception of 'democracy' is acceptable. If another nation chooses a unique path through its own democracy, it is condemned by the Jewish-run media as 'anti-democratic'. So, Jews decry Viktor Orban of Hungary as an 'autocrat' even as they use whore politicians and bureaucrats to persecute American patriots and violate the rights of someone like Nick Fuentes. And of course, Israel is hailed as a great democracy even though its policies are many times more ultra-right than that of Hungary or the rather cucky Poland.

The Taliban remains the overwhelming and obvious power, due to the massive support they have from the population.

No, most Afghanis are indifferent. They tolerate and accept the Taliban because it's the only viable power around... in the absence of Americans. Most people are like Zhivago(minus the poeticism) than Strelnikov. They just want to live than change the world or grab power. Same goes for most Afghanis.

This is an interesting account by someone who served in the war.

AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART I
AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART II

According to the lying Jew media and Jew Pentagon, Osama was killed a decade ago... since then, “the mission” (as it is falsely called) has clearly been related to explicitly liberal, leftist goals. The latest and current narrative is that the troops are defending women’s rights, and generally trying to turn the country into a degenerate cesspit of feminism and faggotry.

True, the deep state and media sometimes babble about "women's rights" and the like, but the actual government that the US supported has been pretty hardline Islamist, if only to win the hearts and minds of the people. And US knew it would be crazy to push something like globo-homo in a place like Afghanistan. Likewise, US doesn't insist on globohomo among the Saudis. Globo-homo is for the cucked, deracinated, apathetic, soulless, and/or confused political colonies of the Jewish-run US empire: EU of course but also large swaths of Latin America and parts of East Asia — unlike Muslims and Hindus with a powerful spiritual tradition, East Asians tend to be ideological(due to Confucian influence), and that means they are more attuned to social ideas than spiritual truths. Also, the two spiritual systems in the Far East, Buddhism and Taoism, are passive and hardly amount to effective resistance. But Hindus have a powerful sense of the sacred and profane, which is why McDonalds will not sell beef burgers in India. And Muslims have a powerful sense of holy and unholy... unlike the shallow Mormons whose piety is customary and lack spiritual depth. Look how easily Mormons folded to globo-homo for More Money. So, given the nature of Afghan society, the US didn't push much 'woke' stuff, which is reserved mostly for white cucks and yellow dogs, the two people most receptive to Jewish Power. The US did educate some Afghani girls, and the globo-media promoted this as "women's rights", but the Afghan regime was as Islamist as the one in Saudi Arabia.

As for bung-donging boys, it seems Afghan Muslims have a local custom of doing that all on their own. Indeed, the practice is so deeply entrenched among Afghanis that US troops were ordered NOT to interfere in the barbaric custom. It goes to show you don't need globo-homo to be into bung-donging. It's like all them straight black guy who bung-dong white 'bitches' in prison.

There are three kinds of power-obsession, and they apply to Afghanistan as well.

There are the power-mad who want power for themselves. "Muh power" is their motto. They got to feel the power in their hands. They want to boss around others. Jews and blacks are this way. They got to feeeeeeeel the power. No Afghan leader in recent memory has mustered the kind of zealous will to truly unite the country and mold it into something new. No Afghan Napoleon, not even an Afghan Ataturk. Afghanistan hasn't been just a graveyard of foreign empires but of domestic political ambition. It never seems to come together. In politics, Afghanis are self-defeating as well as defeating of foreigners. When Taliban was in power prior to 9/11 and when it takes power again, the common theme will be status quo based on mutual understanding among various clans than the at-long-last unity of the nation under a great khan or mogul.

There are the mad-for-power who want to be near the powerful. They want to feel its radiance like the planets the heat of the sun. They want to serve and be approved by the power. They want to work for the boss. Dogs are like this. Dogs revere humans as the master, the source of power. White cucks are like dogs of Jews. They got to heeeeeeeel to the power of Zion. Take Chris Wray of FBI. He has a powerful position, but he's not about leadership but following orders. He appreciates that he gets to rub shoulders with powerful people and do their bidding. As Jews are his masters, he goes after 'white supremacists' who are actually whites who dare to call out on Jewish supremacism. Afghani puppet regime is made up of mad-for-power cucks, the Chris Wrays of their world. They were awestruck by US power and contented as long as Boss Uncle Sam gave them money and the orders.

There are the power-eternal who are enthralled with power as an abstract principle, spiritual or scientific. They aren't egocentric about power. They don't need to feel the power or be boss. Nor do they feel giddy with joy only as toadies to power. Rather, they see power as a kind of destiny, and their wish is to be in tune with it. For the spiritualists, the ultimate power is God and the destiny of man is God's will. This is power beyond any man's ambition. Also, mankind, even the greatest prophets, can glimpse and divine only a sliver of this power. Still, the proper thing is to be in tune with the cosmic will of God or the gods.
But power-eternals also exist in the scientific community. Take the nut-job Michio Kaku who is utterly cuckoo about power. And yet, he doesn't seem power-mad. He himself doesn't have to be the boss or have lots of money or have an army of servants washing his feet. But he isn't mad-for-power in the toady way either. Apparently, no power in our world, no matter how rich or fearsome, measures up to his vision of the ultimate power, which is nothing less than man's destiny to 'become the gods' by means of science/technology. Kaku feels that man has within him the god-gene that can unlock many more secrets of the cosmos and that will eventually catapult mankind into levels of power unfathomable to us who are still in the primitive stage of development(by cosmic standards). Kaku knows that he will die long before the dream is realized, but that's okay because he feels pride in having played a role, however small, in mankind's path to god-hood. So, he too is a kind of power-eternalist. The one advantage of the Taliban is it has a kind of power-eternal view of things. Taliban folks don't measure time in terms of impatient Western progress. They believe the foreigners will eventually depart and be forgotten because only Allah is the arbiter of what is true and just... and Allah hates Infidels who will be destroyed in time.

Most political orders are about power-mad egotists and mad-for-power toadies. US is about pushy power-mad Jews and mad-for-power toady white cucks. Granted, Jews can play the toady-role if they must as they have a long experience of sucking up to kings and noblemen of Europe who valued Jewish financial services. Jews hated playing toady to filthy goyim(especially the Christian kind as there is nothing Jews loathe more than the New Faith, which they see as theft of their own) and strategized to eventually take over as the bosses who would push the filthy goyim around.
But then, Jews also have the power-eternalist element in their cultural DNA, the sense of Grand History and the Ultimate Destiny founded upon the Covenant between God and the Jews. This eternal element of Jewish psyche balances out the petty power-madness. This is the difference between someone like Andrew Cuomo and the Jews. Cuomo the Italian-American prick can't conceive of power beyond others licking his boots. He has the mentality of a cheap mafia hood. While powerful Jews are no less loathsome, they have a grander sense of power beyond 'muh power'. Even secular Jews who don't believe in God believe in some kind of Grand History where Jews are destined to play a key or The Key role.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban.

They did destroy the Buddha statues. They did prohibit music. They have a puritanical streak, which is no good. In a way, Islam and Puritanical Christianity have something in common with Leftism. They are radically purist and tend to see the world in Manichean terms of Good vs Evil. The pagans were more tolerant of how the world really is. Paganism was more realist. According to the Greeks, their gods were good and bad, just like humans. According to Christianity and Islam, there is only one God, and He is totally good and at war with totally evil Satan. So, this divides the world neatly into holy vs unholy. Even though modern leftism developed as a secular movement at war with religion, it inherited the radical purism. Good Progress vs Evil Reaction. Smite the Old to create the New. So, even though Muslims and 'woke' nuts have little in common in terms of agenda, they are much alike in their emotional psychology.

Compare this to articles in 1974 about capitalist South Vietnam fearing the impending destruction of the free market at the hands of Ho Chi Minh and his henchmen. It is precisely the same narrative – but the reverse.

Vietnam War and Afghan War are not even remotely comparable. For one thing, the US was stationed in only half of Vietnam. The Northern part was totally ruled by the Vietnamese. In contrast, US occupied all of Afghanistan. It was tougher to fight in the jungle than in the mountains. True, Afghan mountain ranges make for tough combat, especially in the old days of the British Empire, but with air superiority the US had effective control of the entire country. Also, if Soviet airplanes and helicopters were targeted by stinger missiles, the US aircraft were mostly untouched... except when Afghans got lucky with a few bazookas.
The Vietnam Conflict was a real war until the US left. It was bloody and horrific. In contrast, the so-called Afghan War effectively wound down in 2002, so much so that US shifted its war aims to Iraq(and other countries if possible). So, since 2002, it's been an Afghan Occupation than Afghan War. In 20 yrs, US lost 2,500 soldiers. That's about 125 per year, and most of the deaths happened in the first few yrs. So, calling this "America's longest war" is a joke.

Also, unlike the Viet Cong and NVA that were formidable foes to the last day of America's withdrawal in 1973, the Taliban just waited for the Americans to leave. US wasn't pushed out by too many casualties or unpopularity of the war at home. While plenty of people protested the Iraq War, no one protested the Afghan Invasion, and when have you seen an anti-war protest about Afghanistan? US finally decided to leave because either the Occupation was becoming pointless, the regime has military plans elsewhere(maybe against Iran or China), or because the Democrats are afraid of Trumpists stealing the anti-war thunder. After all, what was most incredible about Trump's campaign in 2016 was the Anti-Neocon-War-ism, notwithstanding his very neocon-ish saber rattling at Iran.

Now, what is startling is the rapid advances of the Taliban and the sheer haplessness of the Afghan government and its military. But then, maybe it's not so surprising since the US hardly installed a real government or built a real military. The bane of installing a real government is it might have its own ideas and agendas. US wanted a pliable puppet, but the problem is puppets are usually weak. Diem of South Vietnam turned out to be more independent, and the CIA took him out. The total puppet government that followed had NO legitimacy and support whatsoever(wherever Diem did have some respect and support).
But then, the current US is plagued by the same problem, that of legitimacy. Jews rule the US and recruit shabbos goy puppets, and this accounts as to why US politicians are so weak, so pathetic, so ridiculous, and without respect. George W. Bush was a neocon puppet. Jeb Bush was even more pathetic, if that's even believable. Mitt Romney is a total cuck. Paul Ryan, what a joke. Many libby-dibs supported Obama as The Difference, but he was just a House Negro of globo-homo Jews. Many conzos supported Trump as The Difference(and he was truly hated by the Establishment), but he folded to Deep State demands and took it up his arse from the Jews just the same.
Jews insist on goy puppet weaklings but also want US democracy to have legitimacy around the world. But how can a puppet-regime be legitimate? Look at Biden. No one voted FOR Biden, just like almost no one voted FOR Hillary. They just voted against Trump as the worse evil. And with Trump's presidency having turned into one big farce, who but the biggest Maga-tards can believe in the Donald again? At most, people might vote Trump AGAINST the Democrats. As Darren Beattie of Revolver News has said, the American Regime lost its legitimacy. Most conzos look upon Republican politicians as 'RINOS', and most libby-dibs look upon Democrat politicians as sell-outs.
But unlike Afghanistan, the US is without a Taliban-like majority who are waiting in the wings to take over when the time is ripe. Too many Americans, especially the libby-dibs, are 'Telebans' whose idea of reality comes from the Jewish-controlled Tube. No wonder what is most sacred to them is BLM and globo-homo and they would never unite with other whites against the real power of Jewish Supremacism. But then, where are white patriots in the South to defend Robert E. Lee monuments? Great majority of white conzos support jungle fever and 'gay marriage'. They are just another version of the 'Teleban', which means they are mind-controlled by Jewish globalists.

The supposedly diabolical mission of the Taliban is to restore the basic order of nature in the lands of their race.

Pagans were closer to the nature of things. Greek mythology is perhaps the greatest and most poetic mapping of the human psyche. Islam and especially Christianity condemn too much that is natural and instinctual as sinful or satanic. Paganism can slide into sensual overload, but puritanism can harden into repression. Ethno-race-ist Paganism + Patriarchy is the best combination. It allows for female beauty and expression but under control of social norms and morality.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban. They are not a CIA-backed group like ISIS, so they are not drowning people in cages or engaging in cannibalism.

The big hypocrisy. The very Western bleeding hearts all weepy-poo about the 'women and daughters' in Afghanistan were utterly silent about Obama/Hillary regime's support of ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria in yet more Wars for Israel. Assad's Syria has been a modern Arab state, but the Jewish-controlled West recruited Muslim nihilists to wreak havoc and enforce Sharia law all over. It goes to show that the Western commentariat fall into two groups: Idiots who really swallow the BS narrative about "muh women's rights" and the opportunists who decry Islamism when it undermines Imperial aims but support it when it aids and abets the goals of globalist-imperialism.

Jane Fonda went to Vietnam to support the North Vietnamese, despite the fact that they were as likely to gang-rape the bitch as they were to welcome her. The North Vietnamese did not fetishize negroes, nor were they going to legalize anal sex. Their primitive conception of communism amounted to “yankee go home.” Basically, the leftists who supported the North Vietnamese were pretty much just traitors and scoundrels, who claimed that the Viet Cong shared their values as an excuse to attack America.

Don't be silly. Why would they have raped a propaganda tool? Also, back in the 60s, even most Liberals regarded homosexuality as a sin or sickness. Hollywood regularly featured villains as homo or crypto-homo. Homos were either villains or objects of mockery. There was no globo-homo back then, at least not outwardly. The most liberal politician could have been ousted by revelations of buggery.
Also, back then, even most liberals believed in nationalism. So, they supported Cuban nationalism, Vietnamese nationalism, and etc. They figured non-white nations had just as much right to be independent as white nations. The big idea back then was post-imperialist universal nationalism. Today, there is neo-imperialist globalism that is about universal anti-nationalism. Globalism says ALL nations(except Israel) should reject the bond between race and land, welcome mass migration, celebrate 'diversity', and forsake sovereignty... and make way for the Triumvirate of Jews as Holy Holocausters, Blacks as Noble Negroes, and Homos as Magic Fairies.

In retrospect, the Leftists of the 60s were more right than wrong, at least on foreign policy. And the Right also came to realize this. Charles DeGaulle ended the Algerian War, and Nixon finally ended the Vietnam War.

Personally, what I can't stand about the Taliban is aesthetics. I don't mind the rags on Arabs. It sort of looks dashing on them camel jockeys in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. 'Raghead' look is okay. But the 'towel-head' look of the Afghans? They look like they got giant donuts on their heads. It just looks stupid. Also, rag-on-head makes good sense. It protects the head from the burning sun. But the heavier head gear among Afghans must increase temperature, and that's no good for the brains. No wonder Afghanis are so dumb with cooked brains.

Everywhere on earth, the US military flies the rainbow flag, which is the symbol of pederasty.

No, it's the Jewish Victory Flag. It means, "We Jews buttfuc*ed this country and own it as our bitch." Globo-homo among homos is about 'gays' boofing each other in the ass. Globo-homo among nations means "Jewish Power made us squeal like a pig." Trump's presidency was essentially Ned Beatty in THE DELIVERANCE going 'weeeeee, weeeeee' while Sheldon 'Nuke Iran' Adelson humped him hard. 'Weeeeeeeeee.'

Frankly, as we can see in the rearview mirror, the North Vietnamese were not exactly bluepilled. But the Taliban is redpilled hard.

Back in the 60s, even most Democrats were not 'blue-pilled'. It is why Richard Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Many Democrats were appalled by the counterculture elements in their midst. A lot of Liberal Commentators from that era would not come across as hardline conservatives by today's standards.

This isn't really a victory for the Taliban. One could argue that the Viet Cong and NVA won the war because, despite horrible casualties and failure to win any major battle against the US, they fought hard to the very end of US departure. In contrast, the Taliban just hunkered down and accepted the Occupation. They hardly did any fighting and are now coming out of the woodworks because US is leaving. It's rather like rats and rain taking over a house once the people moved out.
Of course, the Taliban is winning against government troops, but the US was never serious about creating a military. It's been said a trillion or two was spent on Afghanistan, but this is misleading. No, the money was spent on the Military Industrial Complex. Most of the money was spent on US firms and institutions. They pretended to do stuff in Afghanistan but spent most of the money on themselves(while local politicians got some crumbs in the form of bribes).