Imperialism and Anti-Immigrationism are often conflated as expressions of Far Rightism, White Supremacism, and 'Racism'. But are they really?
It is fashionable in ‘progressive’ circles to denounce imperialism and to defend immigration(and even champion it as a ‘human right’). Often, the very voices that decry the baleful impact of imperialism(usually Western) are no less likely to condemn anti-immigration sentiments and policies of certain countries, usually in the West(but not always, as countries as different as South Africa and Japan have also been excoriated for their ‘xenophobia’ concerning too-many-foreigners).
The apparent assumption is that both Western pro-imperialism and Western anti-immigrationism are two sides of the same coin, usually that of White Supremacism, i.e. whites are prone to conquer and dominate non-white lands on the basis of the white-right-to-lord-over-the-darkies and whites are tempted to reject and deny nonwhite arrivals to the West on the basis that nonwhites aren’t good enough to mingle with whites.
There is also the idea that imperialism and immigration are fundamentally dissimilar in that the former denotes violent conquest and rule over foreign regions whereas the latter connotes peaceful integration of the peoples of the world.
Such confused thinking probably owes to the peculiar history of the Americas where many categories became muddled, not least by the dualistic ideology of the United States and the resulting diversity(initially more a feature of Latin America where most countries were minority-white). The American Republic was founded on the conviction that whites had the right to take the land from inferior races and to keep out inferior races from encroaching upon the land, at least in any sizable numbers. Take the land from the indigenous savages and mostly limit immigration to whites from Europe, preferably the northern parts. As for blacks, the idea was to bring them over to be subjugated as slaves.
As such, the bogeyman of ‘white supremacism’ became associated with both conquest & colonization AND immigration restriction(preventing further demographic colonization, especially from nonwhite peoples), i.e. “We’re going to keep what WE conquered and not allow OTHERS to take it from us.”
Perhaps, overview would have been otherwise had the white conquest and settlement of the Americas been a far more arduous affair, with prolonged struggles by the natives against the white colonizers. Under such conditions, the main theme of the Americas would have been one of conflict between the natives and the white colonizers/imperialists, i.e. mass immigration would have been regarded as synonymous with ‘white supremacist’ imperialism, with white invaders, militaristic and economic, coming to take the land from the natives.
However, especially due to the impact of diseases that wiped out the bulk of the indigenous populations, the white conquest was met with relatively little resistance. It was even more so in North America(minus Mexico), which was far less sparsely populated than Central and South America, and besides, the North American natives were less advanced in organization and technology than their racial cousins in the other Americas.
Conceivably, the natives of South America could have mounted a challenge against the Spanish, but the extensive race-mixing and the rapid spread of Catholicism blurred the lines between the conquerors and the conquered.
Thus, the theme of white colonizers vs ‘brown’ natives became secondary in the narrative of the Americas, whereas in all other parts of the world(with the exception of Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand), even in primitive Sub-Saharan Africa(much of which was even more backward than the original cultures of the Americas), the main theme was of the tensions between the white rulers and the ‘brown’ ruled. At best, against such native presence and resistance, whites could hope to rule over the natives, not replace them demographically. Given the reality, the issue of ‘white supremacism’ or ‘racism’ became one of white aggression vs. native defense; the ultimate objective of the anti-imperialists was to drive out the whites so that the ‘brown’ natives could reclaim sovereignty(or establish a new kind of sovereignty based on the revolutionary European concept of modern national-statism).
As whites had little chance of permanently taking over such lands for themselves by mass immigration, they hardly entertained the notion of pushing global(or worldwide) immigration on them, even though Western imperialists did enable or encourage population transfers from one part of their empire to another, e.g. the use of Asian-Indian coolies and merchants in Sub-Saharan Africa and, of course, the transfer of Jewish ‘immigrants’ and ‘colonizers’ to Palestine under British rule, a more complicated affair than most as the Jews in question, far from being mere subjects of the empire, were co-rulers alongside the Anglos.
Because of the relatively easy conquest of the Americas and the rapid fading of the white-vs.-native struggle from historical memory, as well as the demand for many more people to farm the land, man the factories, and fill up towns & cities, not only for economic growth but as bulwark against future would-be conquerors — the southwest territories would have been more difficult for the United States to claim and conquer had they been substantially populated by Mexicans and would-be-Mexican immigrants — , the a issue of ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’ came to center on immigration policy, secondary only to the problem posed by blacks, historically the most populous demographic after the whites. Immigration-ism as a ‘racism’ issue became especially potent because one of the key immigrant groups, the Jews, gained control over the main channels of socio-political discourse and coveted America as the New Promised Land for World Jewry. Indeed, the Jewish ‘right’ to emigrate to America completely eclipsed the sacred claim to the land by the American Indians, who were soon regarded as a ghost population that one could sympathize with but had no chance of resurrecting from the dead.
Significantly, the moral arguments over mass immigration coincided with the conception and identification of ‘racism’ as one of the primary evils of the world. The issue of ‘racism’ had hardly mattered for much of American History — the term was supposedly coined by Leon Trotsky after World War I — and, even in the 20th century, the matter reached fever pitch only about a decade or two after World War II. The natives of the Americas were vanquished at a time when most whites regarded them as ‘hostile savages’, indeed a time when most whites in North and South Americas deemed it proper to import millions of blacks in slave ships to pick cotton or toil in the sugar cane fields. Even following the Civil War, in which slavery was a key issue, Northern Whites preferred to patch things up with Southern Whites than go about empowering blacks in any real way. So, by the time when ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’ were emerging as real issues, the tragic fate of the ‘Native Americans’ had long been sealed, i.e. right or wrong, what was done was done and could never be undone.
As the New World was fully conquered, the main concern was the means of its development. First, the vast spaces obviously needed more people, and there were four ways to go about it. Have Anglo/Germanic peoples produce lots of babies, in which case North America might have become like Han China, a huge country with a huge more-or-less homogeneous population. But as birthrates kept declining(and finally plummeting) among the Anglo/Germanic stock in North America, the other way was to import similar folks from Europe, mainly from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries. The problem was that the northern European countries were undergoing similar demographic trends. The third option was then to allow mass immigration of the Other Europeans, e.g. the Dumb Polacks, Greasy Italians, Hairy Greeks, Wily Jews, and etc. The fourth and final choice was to open the Americas to immigration from all over the world. Granted, South America had already spearheaded efforts at a more diversified immigration if only because the countries there were less desirable destinations than the United States. Usually, those who weren’t allowed into the United States took their chances with countries like Brazil and Peru.
For a time Protestant Northern-European-Americans feared being swamped by Catholic and Other Europeans, but birthrates declined among all white ethnic groups in the US(and the decline was even steeper in Europe). With a stagnant working demographic(and for changing ideological reasons, such as feminism), women were encouraged to fill positions at work, but this further contributed to falls in marriages and birthrates.
In time, due to rising white expectations and more blacks on welfare(and/or saddled with pathologies unsuitable for the workplace), it was more difficult to fill up low-end jobs with whites alone, which justified mass migrations of browns, both legal and illegal, from south of the border.
Also, in an ever more competitive world, with even the non-West beginning to rise economically and make technological advances, the idea was the US had to be a magnet for the best and the brightest from around the world to remain ahead of the field, especially as too many smart white Americans preferred finance, law, and socio-political fields over the scientific, mathematic, and technological. Surely, a sports-obsessed culture like the United States understood the advantage of choosing the first draft picks. It’s like Charles Foster Kane stealing the top talents from a rival newspaper in CITIZEN KANE. Apparently, the US didn’t(and still doesn’t) have enough proles(from Latin America) and prodigies(mainly from Europe, Jewish-Russia, and Asia).
Because the conquest/colonization of the New World was so swift and total, the theme of ‘native folks vs new folks’ was soon relegated to the backburner, something that wouldn’t have happened in, for example, India, where the British Imperialists ruled over literally hundreds of millions of people. For all the epic tales of Cowboys and Indians, the latter was vanquished quickly enough and pushed into reservations where they became forgotten nonentities, mostly dredged up as Western movie savages whose demise at the hands of the cowboys was loudly cheered well into the ‘progressive’ 20th century.
The main divide for much of American History was between the North and the South, not least because of the black slavery issue. Of course, blacks were also newcomers as they were imported from Sub-Saharan Africa and, as such, qualified as neither conqueror-settlers nor immigrants. Even without the black issue, the North and the South would have been divided along cultural and even ‘ethnic’ lines as various stocks of Anglos, Irish, and the Germanics settled and stamped their ‘national characters’ on different parts of America.
But the black issue made it far more potent, even leading to the breakup and the bloodiest war in US history in terms of American casualties. Despite Northern victory and the preservation of the Union, a certain bitterness lingered between the North and the South, albeit ameliorated by the Northern Anglo-American reaction to mass immigration of the Other Europeans beginning in the late 19th Century.
Put off by these ‘alien’ peoples washing up on American shores, Northern Anglo-Americans began to empathize more with the racial attitudes of Southern Whites toward the blacks, which may explain why Jewish immigrants began to identify with blacks on some level: Northern and Southern Anglos against ethnic-immigrants(especially Jews) and blacks.
Until the Civil Rights Era, the South arguably had a moral edge over the North on the basis of its much romanticized tragic defeat at the hands of the Yankees(and exploitation by the Carpetbaggers) and its agrarian populism of the ‘simple folks’, often at odds with the aggressively imperialist industrial North where wealth and privilege were concentrated. But, the Civil Rights Era totally upended this socio-cultural advantage. And the triumph of the supposed Southern Strategy could only be a Pyrrhic Victory for white Southerners as, by joining the Party of Lincoln, they were conceding that Honest Abe was a great man who did the right thing.
In the long run, the North-South issue was resolved, more or less, by political realignment, Jewish Power, and black idolatry(and MLK worship). In time, the Party of Lincoln largely became a Southern Party whereas the Democratic Party, once closely associated with the South(and even the KKK), became the Black Party. Also, Jewish control over media and academia emphasized white ‘racism’ as the worst of all evils. There was a time when a Southern Segregationist like Woodrow Wilson was admired as a progressive, and the Southern romanticism of GONE WITH THE WIND led to possibly the greatest cultural event in US history. The idea was that slavery was bad and had to go, but Southern folks had honor, courage, and lots of charm. But once ‘racism’ was made the worst of all evils, American Southern Heritage became on par with the Nazis and the Holocaust. The Civil Rights Movement came to define America, and with each passing year, MLK became like a demigod, and blacks became sacred objects.
The racial sentiments of the South that had been tolerated, even indulged, became the stuff of abject horror, and in time, the younger generation of Southern whites, who came under the same academic and media influence/pressure as did the rest of the country, felt more shame than pride about their heritage. Also, in sports-obsessed America, blacks came to be idolized as college athlete-heroes, and soon enough white southern boys became a bunch of pansy cucks cheering on black athletes who dominate the fields, grab all the trophies, and run off with white cheerleaders.
Finally, mass immigration, which initially affected the coastal areas and the Midwest, began to penetrate deep into the South as well, leading to economic growth but also cultural shifts. Having no connection to or investment in Southern heritage, Asians and Latinos in the American South could easily support the removal of Confederate symbols, and why not since white Southerners themselves hardly lifted a finger to preserve or defend them? Immigrant folks may settle in the South, but they look to New York(news media capital), Los Angeles(entertainment capital), and Atlanta(black mecca) for cues as to what’s what.
At some point in American History, not least due to Jewish influence, ‘racism’ became the worst of the worst. While anti-bigotry was an essential part of American principles from the beginning — “all men are created equal” and no discrimination on the basis of ‘race, creed, or color’ — , there was also a healthy and virile sense that America was more than a set of ideas. It was the creation of a certain people of a certain civilization of a certain part of the world, without whose vision, industry, and sacrifice, none of which would have come to fruition.
So, it once seemed like a crazy idea for Europeans, especially northern ones, to have worked so hard to accomplish so much, only to offer their hard-earned rewards on a silver platter to the rest of the world(that had no role in their creation). Imagine Jews going through the trouble of creating Israel, only to hand it over to Hindus, Turks, and Chinese. That’d be retarded.
But then, we live in a world of amnesia where young ones have little or no appreciation of what their ancestors went through to build their civilizations(though there’s plenty of selective memory to emphasize past white evils). Had Europeans retained a sense of heritage, no way would they have allowed endless waves of migration to transform the very fabric of their societies; alas, the physical colonization followed the mental colonization of the European Mind by Jewish-Americanism.
The same bug, a vital determinant in the politics of ‘justice’, now infects nearly all of the modern world. Self-centered consumerist amnesia characterizes much of East Asia where young ones haven’t a care about what earlier generations had gone through to transform backward countries into rather advanced and prosperous ones. The aging or departed seniors are seen as has-been losers with zero relevance to the here-and-now that is obsessed with the latest fashions, especially revolving around sodomy in our anal-centric world. But then, much of the blame must go to the older folks who, in their obsession with the future, taught the young to look only forward and forget about the past.
The pervasive status-obsessed elitism and divisive feminism have made things worse, with educated people believing that they and their children are too good for ‘lowly’ and ‘menial’ jobs that are suited only for ‘loser’ foreigners. Ironically, such hierarchical elitists are more likely to embrace the ‘progressivism’ of ‘diversity’, if only because diversity justifies class inequality(despite the bogus talk of ‘equity’).
For much of American History, there was a sensible balance between universal values and racial continuity, especially as the excesses of one could lead to noxious results. This balance was however lost for any number of reasons, among which Jews played a key role in tipping the balance in favor of the ‘left’, even though the motives were as tribal as ideological, i.e. while there were plenty of idealistic leftist Jews committed to universal and/or egalitarian principles, other Jews(‘liberal’ or ‘neo-conservative’) sensed that white ‘racism’ must be thwarted in order for Jewish tribal-supremacism to triumph. It’s revealing that Jews never insisted on whites to treat all groups equally; rather, whites were goaded to favor Jews uber alles, e.g. whites must always favor Jews and Zion over Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians in the Middle East, and furthermore, whites must harbor animus toward groups on the Jewish hit-list, such as the Russians, Palestinians, non-compliant Arabs, Iranians, WWG(or whites-without-guilt), and lately the Chinese.
Thus, Jewish attack on white ‘racism’ was in large part to neutralize a rival, a potential obstacle to Jewish racial supremacism. By convincing whites that white identity is stained with historical sin, whites lost a sense of unity and pride. In addition, the induced sense of guilt made whites seek atonement, and Jews presented the diagnosis and treatment: Always venerate, trust, and obey the Jews; appreciate what Jews appreciate; hate what Jews hate; adore what Jews adore; revile what Jews revile. Be puppets and parrots of the Jews.
In other words, no agency for whites as it could lead to ‘antisemitism’, or attitudes or feelings at odds with Judeo-centric objectives and interests.
How else does one explain why whites in both the US and Germany(as well as the West in general) get on their knees to atone for ‘antisemitism’(that inevitably led to the Holocaust) but fully endorse the Gaza Genocide being perpetrated by Jews who spew some of the vilest supremacist rhetoric in the past fifty(if not hundred) years?
How is it that whites, who claim to have learned the great moral lesson about the evils of ‘racism’, are utterly supportive of Jewish racial supremacism and totally devoid of any sympathy for the plight of women and children being starved to death in Gaza and other parts of the Arab world?
Jewish ‘anti-racism’ was in large measure a bait-and-switch ploy, a means of impugning white racial identity in order to render whites subordinate to the authoritative sanctity of the Holy Holocaust Jews, whereby the resulting political dynamic became one of mindless white obeisance to whatever supremacist fantasies cooked up in the Zionic kitchen.
Jewish ‘anti-racist’ campaign was likely devised to target and discredit the long-reigning power and its prestige in the American mythos since the inception of the republic: The Protestant Anglo-Germanic-American elites, or the WASPs. It was a smart move, to guide and direct the ire of Diversity at where the power and privilege were most concentrated. Thus, within the framework of this Narrative, the ‘dark’ prejudices of the ‘ethnic’ white groups(especially Jews) weren’t so vilified, and there were even reminders about how the Catholic Irish and the Eye-talians were once excluded from whiteness.
It’s telling that, whereas there’s no forgiveness for any sign of transgression among the Anglo-Germanics, the various vices of the ethnic groups have been tolerated, indulged, and even sensationalized in the popular imagination(as concocted by the Jewish-run media-entertainment complex). Southern white membership in the KKK(even if peaceful) is deemed far worse than Irish or Italians belonging to criminal organizations and spilling buckets of blood. A WASP country club denying membership to Jews or other white ethnicities, let alone blacks and nonwhites, is deemed far less forgivable than Italian gangsters and the like resorting to tribal machinations for power.
Coverup of Zionist Organized Crime – David Duke
Also overlooked is the complicated history of Latin America. As useful allies against the WASPs, the horrors committed by Latin American whites have been overlooked, even forgiven or rationalized. Even though Latin America, especially Brazil, imported 10x the number of slaves destined for North America, the White Guilt narrative is almost solely fixated on the United States. Even though Latin whites ruled over the browns(who were decimated by disease and mistreatment) since the days of conquest, Latin whites and browns are bunched together as ‘people of color’, or allies of Diversity against White America.
There’s also the idea that the Latin American ‘experiment’ was redeemed through race-mixing, i.e. at least the Latinos weren’t ‘racist’ and ‘loved’ everyone, a perspective that overlooks the timeless truth of imperialism that the invading and dominant power usually ‘rapes’ the conquered; surely, the Romans, Mongols, and Turks were hardly ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’ in f***ing everything they quelled in the warpath; and the American use of Saigon as one big brothel was hardly a humanitarian mission. Besides, the main reason for Latin American race-mixing was that the Conquistadors left their women behind and had to settle for native brown women.
But, Jewish Power promoted the Hispanic fantasy that the saving grace of Latin America was the overcoming of ‘racismo’ by rendering everyone a ‘mestizo’ via blood-mixing, whereby everyone from Latin America, no matter how white or European, could identify as a ‘person-of-color’. It’s no wonder that white Hispanics benefit from Affirmative Action on account of being part of the Diversity coalition.
Ultimately, whiteness matters less than what-kind-of-white. Hispanic-white isn’t somehow white-white and can still be construed as ‘victimized’ by the white-whites. Likewise, Jewish-whites endlessly play the ‘Anti-Semitic’ card as victims of the white-whites.
Indeed, despite fascism having originated in Latin Europe and gained widespread traction in the Hispanic world(like Franco’s Spain and various Latin American countries) and despite Anglos(British and Americans) having done the most among Western countries to defeat Nazi Germany, the burden of ‘Anti-Semitic Guilt’ has largely been placed on Northern Europeans. Why is this?
Jews are far more triggered by Northern-European identity/pride, far more anxious about hostility against Jews from Northern-European-stock than from Southern-European-stock.
Why such hostility toward Anglos, both in the UK and US, when Nazi Germany might have triumphed if Anglos hadn’t thrown in their lot with the Soviets? It has less to do with historical or moral logic, more to do with power dynamics. Jews know that the Northos, or Northern European types in both Europe and the Americas, have been the most formidable and accomplished people, and therefore, even friendly-seeming Northos are more a cause for worry than nasty-acting Southos, or Southern-European types, are. After all, there are no permanent friends in racial/ethnic relations. Even Southos at their worst cannot muster the kind of power to do the damage that the Northos can. It’s like a man is more anxious with a friendly bear or lion than with a bad-tempered chihuahua or housecat. In Jewish eyes, the Anglos and Germans were like bears and lions, whereas Italians and the Spanish were like dogs and cats.
It’s also because Jews sense that they themselves are, by nature, subversive and abrasive, and therefore predestined to alienate a population sooner or later. Indeed, there was a time when the Germanic world was deemed relatively less ‘Anti-Semitic’ than other parts of Europe, but German politics awakened into National Socialism.
Of course, Jews could have prevented such an outcome by being less subversive, radical, abrasive, and aggravating, but Jewish personality has long been very much like what was projected onto Yahweh. Supremely arrogant, it cannot acknowledge its own wrongs, believes itself to be perfect and faultless, and therefore dumps all the blame on goyim. As the saying goes, “A Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”
Anyway, the main theme of the New World became not of the natives vs. the newcomers but of the newcomers vs. the newer-comers. And as white ‘racism’, especially of the Northern European expression, was deemed the worst of all sins, it wasn’t long before the immigration issue became a moral-racial issue: ‘Racist’, ‘xenophobic’, and ‘white supremacist’ whites want to shut America from the non-white world(and of course failed to take in Jewish refugees during World War II, as if US immigration policy was in cahoots with the Shoah, thereby guilty of collaboration, even if unwittingly).
Conveniently overlooked was the fact that the conquest of the Americas, the settler-colonialism, and the endless waves of immigration led to the utter defeat and/or demise of the indigenous folks. If the issue of the American Indians were ever invoked as a morality tale in the post-World-War-II setting, it was simply to highlight once again the evils of ‘white racism’(that resulted in the genocide of the natives).
In other words, American Indians and the nonwhite immigrants(and would-be-immigrants) were fellow-victims of ‘white racism’. Never mind that mass immigration from the Old World led to the erasure of the native populations in North America. Instead, we were to believe that the American Indians may find some historical justice and compensation in North America as an open destination for global immigration. But, wouldn’t the result be the American Indians doubly losing their native lands, not only to whites(and blacks) but to all peoples of the world?
After all, the mass arrival of Emma Lazarus’s favorite folks, “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore” sure didn’t do any favors for the Indians. If anything, they also took part in the colonization of North America, which meant less land for the Red natives, who became huddled into reservations, no longer able to breathe free. Similarly, the vast waves of Asian immigration to Hawaii only led to the natives being displaced not only by whites but by yellows(and some blacks as well, like the hideous Obama).
But somehow, because ‘white racism’ is the ultimate bogeyman in the West, the indigenous or native folks and the nonwhite immigrant folks(and the Jews) are supposed to feel solidarity as victim-brethren of the whites who, for their sins, must be thought-reformed through endless sessions of ‘anti-racist’ and anti-‘Anti-Semitic’ indoctrination.
The case of Palestine exposes the sheer absurdity of the conceit. Imagine Jews and Palestinians as fellow-victims of ‘white supremacists’, though movies like BEN-HUR and EXODUS focused more on Jew-White conflict than the Jew-Arab one: In BEN-HUR, the Jewish hero befriends an Arab horse-trader(much like the Jewish sprinter is coached by an half-Arab trainer in CHARIOTS OF FIRE) and the bulk of EXODUS is about Jewish-British enmity than the Jewish-Arab one. Perhaps, if Anglos themselves had largely colonized Palestine, Jewish immigrants might have made common cause with Palestinians against the whites — “We Jews and Arabs as Semitic brothers united against white ‘racist-imperialism’” — , but as all the immigrants were Jewish, there was no hiding the fact that it would finally come down to Jews vs Palestinians; if anything, the Jews effectively drove out the whites(the British) to gain a free hand against the Palestinians, even as, in their boundless chutzpah, they called on white nations to back the creation of Israel at the international level.
In the US, however, Jews could play the Diversity game against whites. Jews could blame ‘racist white supremacists’ of committing genocide on the native Indians yet also blame them for excluding certain groups as prospective immigrants. Whites got the blame for invading but also for not inviting. Never raised was the question, “If the mass arrivals of whites led to the demise of the native population, might not more immigration lead to the remaining natives losing out even more? If indeed the great historical crime of the Americas was the genocide of the natives, shouldn’t the #1 priority of the whites be the revival and restoration of the native peoples and cultures?” After all, the native folks are the ONLY people with a moral-historical claim to the land as it was taken from them. When Germany invaded Poland, it was the moral responsibility of Germany to restore Poland, not to fill it up with non-Polish settlers with zero historical claim to the land.
The Jewish message to White America was to mostly ignore the natives and to maximize the opportunities of future immigrants, especially Jews of course. Likewise with the case of Palestine, Jews discouraged any consideration of the plight of the Palestinians by emphasizing what more must be done for the precious Jews.
In regards to the US, there was this crazy idea, not least propagated by Jews, that the entire world had a moral claim to America and, furthermore, it was the moral obligation of white Americans to fulfill this grandiose proposition. Has there been anything like this in history? Just consider. When the Vietnamese resisted the French and then the Americans, it made good sense. They were Vietnamese fighting to restore sovereignty on their native soil. Vietnamese have a right to Vietnam. Same with Algerians over Algeria and Asian-Indians over India.
But imagine the Vietnamese, Algerians, and Asian-Indians making a moral claim of the right to move to Europe, Australia, Canada, or the US(or any other part of the world for that matter). It’d be absurd.
Yet, such absurdity has become the mainstream interpretation of Americanism(and neo-Europeanism, as France, for example, is now teeming with migrants from all over Africa, north and south, and the French believe it’s morally risible to deny such ‘rights’ to future would-be immigrants, migrants, and refugees). Yet, the same American and European elites strongly insist that Israel has a right to restrict immigration only to Jews to maintain its viability as a Jewish State(and as for the Palestinians who were displaced by Jewish immigration and who are now under genocidal pressures, just forget about it).
American territoriality as a moral claim is most compelling for three groups. The American Indians whose roots in the land are deep. Whether we play the semantic game of their being ‘Americans’ or not, their connection to the land is akin to one between Europeans and Europe or between Arabs and Arabia. The other moral claim belongs to the European settlers who built a whole new civilization from scratch, a project that required vision, ingenuity, and herculean effort. Without them, there is no such thing as American civilization. The white settlers and the European immigrants of the first half of the American Republic are not to be confused with latter day immigrants, especially those who came after 1965. In the creation period of American History, the newcomers didn’t merely partake of what had been built but were in the arduous process of building what wasn’t there. Then, there are the blacks who, through no fault of their own, were brought over in large numbers to slave in the fields. In the long term, this was the biggest mistake in American History, but what was done was done. (One is tempted to argue that blacks have forfeited their moral claim to the land as the result of their rampant criminality and pathologically savage modes of behavior, i.e. their true nature upon liberation has revealed a racial personality unsuited for civilized settings.)
Some others may be mentioned, like Mexican farm laborers of the Southwest and the Chinese who worked on railroads, but the main three moral claimants are the American Indians, whites, and the blacks.
While one can make an argument in favor of immigration on grounds that newcomers from all over the world will contribute to the US economy, technology, and arts/culture, it cannot be a moral argument as such peoples have zero historical claim on American territory. They’re not indigenous to it, they didn’t build it, and their ancestors weren’t forcibly brought to it. So, whatever argument that may be made, it cannot be a moral one.
But if most immigrant groups arrived in the US with a sense of appreciation, Jews arrived with a sense of neo-covenant-like entitlement and pushy insistence that soon turned into an accusation and demand. Contra the idea that the United States could be a sanctuary for the downtrodden around the world, the Jewish idea was that it MUST BE.
Of course, it wasn’t out of any Jewish sentimentality for goyim in godforsaken places but for Jewish interests alone, but it would have been unseemly back then to argue for Jews First policy, and as such, Jewish interests were laundered through universal-sounding ones.
Of course, it’s entirely different today as even the most explicitly worded Judeocentric demands take precedence over all others, with most white cuck elites competing to deliver to appease their Jewish Masters. No longer do Jews feel compelled to blend Jewish interests with those of others as a masking mechanism to throw off the ethnic scent of their objectives. Jewish interests and Zionist demands are brazenly and blatantly on display even if it means sacrificing the needs of other groups and trampling on Constitutional principles, all the more perverse given that Jews gained dominance by tirelessly invoking the Constitution as lawyers, judges, and public intellectuals.
The hollowness of purported universalist concerns among Jews was evident in the Zionist project that ran parallel to Jewish immigration to the US. The plan was for Jews to create a homeland by rendering the Palestinians homeless, a troubling prospect that hardly perturbed the bulk of Jewry around the world.
The Holocaust Narrative provided Jews with an opportunity to morally browbeat the opposition in the immigration-argument, later augmented by the Soviet refusenik brouhaha when America, ever more mindful of Jewish power and influence, went out of its way to facilitate the transfer of Soviet Jewry to Israel or the US, a convenient way to remind Jewish Power that White-Christian America had mended its ways on all things pertaining to Jews. The Holocaust-related accusation maintained that many more Jews died than necessary during World War II because countries and empires around the world, especially the US, forbade mass Jewish immigration. Therefore, Jews were trapped in Europe as a funeral pyre.
Jews also highlighted the Jewish emigres and refugees who somehow made it to the US and made significant contributions to American science and technology, even the building of the atomic bomb, i.e. had the US taken in more Jews, its science and technology would have been even more awesome.
But, even the Holocaust-laced line of argument doesn’t pass muster as it would imply that the US(and other countries) are morally bound to let in untold numbers of suffering peoples around the world. Did the US have a duty to take in millions of Ukrainians when they were being starved by the Soviets? Or what about all those Chinese suffering under Japanese invasion or later dying in the Great Leap Forward? Or all those Hindus who were dying in the Bengali famine? Or all those Cambodians being killed by the Khmer Rouge and all those Rwandans being massacred in the 1990s?
The list would be endless. While it’s good for humanity to help out one another, there’s no convincing moral case for taking in huge numbers of people suffering in another part of the world. Indeed, those countries that have committed themselves to doing so have become saddled with huge social problems. What is the state of Sweden and Ireland as supposed ‘moral superpowers’?
Just as it’s wrong to cause the forced displacement of people in another part of the world, it’s no less wrong to cause the displacement of one’s own people via mass migration. Yet, the utter craziness of the current Jewish-run West is that it actively pursues global policies that lead to mass displacements of peoples around the world and then ‘welcomes’ those peoples as ‘refugees’ and migrants, mostly to teh West. Look what NATO has done to Ukraine by provoking a war with Russia. Look what NATO has done to Libya. Look what Zionist-led US policy has done to Syria, tearing that country apart and unleashing millions of refugees who ended up in Europe. Instead of leaving Somalia alone, the US invaded and made things worse, and then idiot Scandinavian-Americans, under the influence of Jewish sham-moralists, decided to take in untold numbers of Somalis who turned Minneapolis into Minnesomalia.
As for the contributions of Jewish emigres, refugees, and immigrants to the US, the reality has been a double-edged sword as Jews have been among the main instigators of cultural subversion, moral corruption, gangsterism, gambling, pornography, anti-white propaganda, radical politics, black rage politics, sodomic degeneracy, divisive second-wave feminism, financial parasitism, foreign policy disasters, deracination & cuckery of whites, and etc. Jews may have given the US the Bomb, but they were also most instrumental in undermining White America.
Ironically, it’s come full circle, with Jews, who once excoriated White America for not having done enough to save their brethren from the Holocaust, now excoriating Americans for not doing enough to complete the genocide in Gaza(and wage more wars for Zion). Even the sanctity of the Pearl Harbor narrative has been desecrated. The idea used to be that only the vile and venal Japanese would be so lacking in honor and decency to pull off a sneak attack like the one on Pearl Harbor… but now, the US not only defends Israel’s dastardly sneak attack on Iran but joins in the perfidy with big bombs. More Jews were supposed to mean many more Oppenheimers, but the result has been more Bibi Netanyahus and Randy Fines(and their cuck goy dogs like Lindsey Graham and, yes, Donald Trump). Jews, who once reviled White Christian America for safeguarding the Bomb for itself(despite the prominent Jewish role in its invention), are now hellbent on calling the shots on who can or can’t have the Bomb. Jews are willing to destroy entire nations to maintain Israel’s Bomb monopoly in the Middle East.
In the Jewish Mind, the Red-Baiters were worse than the Rosenbergs(regarded as martyrs than as traitors by many Jews) and Kennedy shouldn’t have stood in the way between Israel and the Bomb(and if he got killed as the result, so be it). One Jewish life counts for more than a million goy lives.
According to Jewish tribal morality, someone like Jonathan Pollard is a great hero. Treason against the goy political order is justified if done in loyalty to Jewish Power, the highest conceivable good in the minds of many Jews whose primary sense of right and wrong is tribal-spiritual-supremacist than based on any abstract principle of universal justice.
What’s truly dispiriting is that so many white goyim, especially among Boomers, have acceded to this demented political morality whereby ‘goodness’ has been reduced to a dog-and-pony show of rendering one’s words and actions pleasing to Jews. Personal conscience, individual thought, and spirit of independence, once hallmarks of Protestant mentality and Enlightenment principles, have fallen by the wayside in the Jewish-controlled West where the autonomy of self-worth has been discarded in favor of collective worth premised on Jewish satisfaction. If you upset the Jews, you’re ‘bad’ even if right, and if you please the Jews, you’re ‘good’ even if wrong. Kristi Noem the puppy-killing wench is the face of White Goy values in our time. Current Western morality lacks agency and rationality as it’s essentially wedded to Jewish feelings than to any empirical and logical assessment of the real world. Even the genocide in Gaza is worth supporting if it pleases Jews, or so the white goy mind ‘thinks’, much like a dog whose sole concern is to follow, obey, and please the master with no thought of right-and-wrong. White ‘morality’ has been reduced to the level of infantilism. Just like children crave approval from adults, whites(especially Christians) crave approval from Jews; it’s as if whites are somehow deficient and incomplete on their own, thereby in constant need for Jewish validation. Christianity went from a religion emphasizing independence from Judaism to a religion stressing duty to Zionism as its main mission. No longer praying for the conversion of the Jews, they pledge total submission to the Jews(as holier than Christians). Thus, most American Christians today are really ChriZions.
Now, let’s consider the issue of immigration and imperialism. Given the selective narrative of the New World, especially the United States, there’s the tendency to ignore the connection between imperialism and immigration. Usually, the false dichotomy of violent & aggressive imperialism vs peaceful & cooperative immigration is maintained, wholly ignoring the fact that immigration, even when ‘peaceful’ and orderly, is far more transformative and profound in its impact than the standard practices of imperialism. Military invasion and occupation tend not to be permanent, and its impact usually fades once the troops are withdrawn. The Soviet Union had military installations all across Eastern Europe, but they were dissolved with the ending of the Cold War. The Soviets placed troops in countries like Poland and East Germany but didn’t facilitate mass immigration of Soviet citizens(or any other peoples) into Eastern Bloc nations. The same could be said of American withdrawal from Vietnam. However disruptive the US military presence was, there was no effort to move millions of Americans to become permanent residents of Vietnam. The case of Algeria was different as large numbers of French immigrant-settlers had colonized and settled there, at one time even constituting one-fifth of the population, a reality unacceptable to the Algerians who sensed that the Europeans in their midst were not only imperialist overlords but potential permanent mass-colonizers.
Today, the dynamic has been reversed with millions from Africa, North and Sub-Saharan, having settled in France as the ‘New French’, thus threatening to bring about a fundamental transformation of French identity, culture, and heritage.
Indeed, one merely needs to contrast the long-term impacts of the militaristic British Imperialists and ‘peaceful’ Jewish immigrants on Palestine and the Middle East in general. In time, the British military departed and restored most of the Middle East to its indigenous inhabitants. In contrast, the Jewish immigrants came to stay and, as their numbers swelled, they soon carried out wholesale displacements of the indigenous population.
Had Jewish immigration been limited in intention and by design, perhaps a peaceful resolution could have been achieved between the majority Palestinians and the minority Jews(as newcomers). But mass immigration in the modern sense(as favored by Jews) means endless movements of peoples with no end in sight. As such, Jews intended to reach a critical mass of Jewish demographics whereupon the Nakba could be realized.
For sure, there’s no limit or end to mass immigration to the West under the current ideology. Jews in the media have been gloating about how whites will become minorities in their own countries, a prospect that whites should celebrate apparently. Not only is it okay for Ireland to become, say, only 40% Irish, but it’s even better if it becomes only 10% Irish or less. Just as whites didn’t care if the native Hawaiians were reduced to only 13% of the population in their home islands, Jews don’t care if whites in the West meet a similar fate. Whites regarded American Indians and native Hawaiians as inferior peoples who deserved to be replaced by more advanced folks, and Jews feel the same way about stupid white goyim(and indeed the whites are rather stupid of late).
But, it’s not just the Jews but many people on the supposed ‘left’ and some on the supposed ‘right’ too. The ‘progressive’ types, in their fixation on the evils of ‘racism’, often conflate Western Imperialism with white opposition to mass immigration. Apparently, both attitudes are ‘racist’ and/or ‘white supremacist’ even though their modus operandi are entirely different.
After all, whereas imperialism is about the White West invading or intruding upon nonwhite countries, thereby forcing contacts(political, economic, cultural, militaristic, sexual, and etc.) between the West and the non-West, anti-immigration policies prevent or restrict interferences between the two worlds, i.e. whites don’t interfere in nonwhites worlds, and nonwhites don’t intrude upon the white world.
Granted, there was a time when there were ideological links between Western Imperialism and white opposition to nonwhite immigration. In the Age of Empire when a handful of Western Imperial powers dominated much of the world, whites bestowed upon themselves the right and the privilege to invade and colonize nonwhite worlds while, at the same time, denying similar opportunities for nonwhites to gain entry into the white world. Back then, the British had free rein to colonize parts of Asia, Africa, and the Near East, but the ‘darkies’ and ‘wogs’ were denied equal access to the West. Apparently, whites were so great that they could trample upon any part of the world, but the darkies weren’t good enough to live in the white world. Thus, both Western Imperialism and white anti-immigrationism in the Age of Empire could be construed as premised on a sense of white superiority and white privilege, i.e. “We can colonize your lands, but you can’t colonize our lands” and “We can come to your lands to lord over you as our subjects, but you can’t come to our lands to live as equal citizens.” The double-standard or hypocrisy was obvious.
But such logic cannot apply to the post-imperialist world in which nonwhite folks reclaimed their own homelands on the modern-nationalist basis that every people have a right of homeland and nationhood; besides, it’s rather odd that the very people who once ordered the whites to go back home now want to live with whites than with their own kind.
Thus, if Western Empires had to recede in order for universal nationalism to take hold, the obvious conclusion is that all nations, white or nonwhite, have a right to defend and preserve their ethnic, cultural, and historical essence along with territorial integrity. If Western Empires were willing to call it quits and recalled their colonial populations back to their homelands, there was no longer any cause to cry foul about Western hypocrisy.
The end of empires meant that whites would recognize the right of nationhood among the nonwhites, with the mutual understanding that Western nations, in post-imperialist mode, had the right to defend their own nationhood.
Indeed, among the non-imperialist European nations, this was a no-brainer. For all the talk of ‘Western Imperialism’, only a handful of European nations gained overseas empires(and it was short-lived for modern Germany). If anything, many Europeans found themselves under the thumb of other European empires, be it Russian, German, Spanish, British, or even Turkish. Irish identity politics is replete with tales of British tyranny. To this day, many Catalonians and Basques don’t consider themselves Spanish. Polish historiography is full of victim narratives under German and Russian rule. And the Eastern European nations that emerged from the Iron Curtain fully appreciated the value of nationalism(as a human right, no less), e.g. the Hungarians ask the EU why they should surrender their own country to endless waves of migrants when they’d struggled long and hard for national liberation and sovereignty?
To such Europeans, nationalism has nothing to do with racial supremacism or imperialist hypocrisy. Besides, why should Europeans welcome mass immigration when their continent has long been (densely) populated and functional as complex civilizations? America had a hunger for More People on account of its vast size and opportunities, but what would be the point of bringing in immigrants to a civilization already developed and fulfilled? If the problem is depopulation due to low birthrates, shouldn’t the solution focus on diagnosing the reasons for the infecundity? If a patient is dying, you try to cure the disease; you don’t let him die and pretend someone else can take his place as the ‘new him’.
Now, a most relevant question in our time. Does increased immigration make the West more imperialist or less imperialist? If imperialism is associated with white ‘racism’, wouldn’t the presence of more nonwhites in Western countries make them less ‘racist’, therefore less imperialist? Wouldn’t the West be governed by sentiments and loyalties other than Eurocentrism whether in the EU, UK, US, Canada, and Australia? With Western democracies representing more voices from around the world(as immigrants and newly minted citizens), one may surmise a precipitous decline in the white-dominated imperialist project.
But, it overlooks two points. The West hasn’t been led by white goyim for some time. It’s been led by Jews whom the white majorities serve and obey as the rightful master race, on the basis of either spirituality(the Chosen of God), financial power(or lots of ‘Benjamins’), guilt-cult(built on the Holocaust Narrative), and/or IQovenant(or IQ-covenant, i.e. having won the most Nobel Prizes, Jews earned the title of superior humans with the right to rule over inferior goyim).
Thus, the West isn’t about white ‘racist’ domination over the nonwhite world but about Jewish domination over all the goyim. If anything, given that most white people accepted anti-and-post-imperialism as the ideal after World War II, they would likely be unsupportive of retro-imperialist ventures by the West.
Furthermore, if whites possessed genuine agency and independence in the current world order, they would most likely favor America First, Europe First, Canada First, or Australia First, meaning “We should focus on national affairs than entangle ourselves in never-ending global crises.”
The leading proponents of globalist imperialism have been Jews, not whites, though there’s no lack of white cuck-collaborators willing to do the bidding of their Zionic masters; they follow like dogs than lead as huntsmen.
The great majority of whites have been indifferent to, baffled by, or condemnatory of all these wars in the Middle East and North Africa that, in no shape or fashion, have served the interests of white folks in the West. Why did country after country have to be destabilized, ravaged by war(often with foreign backing), torn asunder, and regime-changed, especially given that the horrors in Libya and Syria led to untold numbers of migrants and refugees to the West? Exactly what do American interests have to do with Iran? Why does the West/NATO keep provoking Russia and setting more fires that can turn into full-blown conflagrations?
Rabid Zionist hegemonism in MENA(Middle East and North Africa) and virulent anti-Russian antipathy are Jewish obsessions, and the West serves those agendas not because most whites are enthused for them but because they’ve been robbed of agency via ‘anti-racist’ indoctrination. Whites, devoid of pride and agency, feel they must do as their Jewish Masters order them, which goes to show that ‘anti-racism’ can be a potent vehicle for imperialism as well.
Precisely because Jews have suppressed whiteness as an innately ‘racist’ and ‘supremacist’ evil, there’s the false impression that the Western-dominated globalist project represents the aspirations of all of humanity, e.g. the white elites(and a considerable proportion of the white population, like the white Democrats in Minneapolis and St. Paul) welcoming the Great Replacement in service to ‘Diversity’; indeed, even white communities that want to remain mostly white are usually defensive than confident, arguing that they’re striving for more diversity, instead of defending their racial and cultural integrity. Because whites have no moral authority in the globalist order where mass immigration is the accepted convention, it’s assumed by many that Diversity, as a progressive ideal, is undermining Western Imperialism and hegemony. But, this assumes that imperialism can only go in one direction: White-against-nonwhite than nonwhite-against-white(when history is full of the latter, with the invasions by the Mongols, Moors, Turks, and etc.)
Indeed, mass immigration in and of itself is a form of imperialism, indeed the most dangerous kind, paving the way for demographic takeover and domination. If immigration isn’t stopped, the natives will eventually be outnumbered, even displaced, by the newcomers. And of course, Diversity has always been a feature of imperialism. The Roman Empire and Mongol Empire for example. Or South America made diverse via Spanish/Portuguese conquest, black slave trade, and mass immigration, i.e. Diversity was forced on the brown natives, later repeated in Hawaii where Diversity came with Imperialism. If any people know of the dangers of mass immigration, it’s the Palestinians who were displaced by the Jews(who are now finishing the process via genocide).
Some may argue that the US is setting a new model of mass immigration that precludes the domination of one people over others in favor of a generous and just sharing of power, i.e. whereas most of American History was really about white ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, universal mass immigration will diminish white domination to the point where no single group, white or nonwhite, could dictate terms for the entire country(and the entire world, given the US’s role as the lone superpower).
And if such an American-led global order still qualifies as a form of empire, it is the good kind of equal benefit to all of humanity. If imperialism of old was about one group of people invading and dominating other groups of people, the prevention of single-group domination will supposedly result in a politics of universal justice and progress. An empire of equality-of-diversity than domination-over-diversity.
But upon closer scrutiny, such an outcome hardly seems the trajectory of US-led globalism. It’s like the Olympics bring together athletes from all over the world, but some races usually dominate over others, especially in the sprints. And basketball is almost synonymous with black domination. Diversity as it unfolds in reality means not only the variety of physical shapes & colors and cultural sounds & flavors but the very real differences in talent.
Indeed, the mere fact that Jews constitute a tiny minority but rule over the white goyim in the West, especially in the US, is sure enough sign of group differences and their profound implications. If Jews can so easily lord over whites who are quite talented themselves(and the traditional majority of the US), why wouldn’t they steamroll over other groups as well?
The history of the US has exposed most immigrant groups as having weak identities, with their children readily assimilated into the ‘American Way’. As such, they almost instantly lose touch with their countries of origin(that also might be substantially ‘Americanized’ via the mass global media). Some believe this is a good thing as immigrants-as-good-patriotic-Americans should be loyal to only one country, USA-USA-USA — in other words, do away with hyphenated-Americans as we should all be just AMERICANS — , but there are two problems with this argument.
Firstly, what exactly are AMERICAN Interests if indeed America is all about ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’, the much-hyped mantras of the ruling elites(who, by the way, only care about their own power and privilege)? If America is about embodying and celebrating all the peoples and cultures of the world, what is specifically American? Surely, the old adage applies here: Something that is everything is nothing.
Secondly(and possibly even more problematic), how does it make sense for the Americanists to argue against hyphenated-American-identities while, at the same time, praising, elevating, and venerating Jews for doing exactly that? When the supposedly ‘conservative’ National Review sang paeans to the late Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist casino mogul whose great regret in life is in having served in the US military than in the Israeli one, how can these colorblind patriots(usually of the Conservatism Inc. ilk) claim to be about colorblind principles written into the Constitution?
Of course, it’s not just the Jews but homosexuals and blacks who are favored, indulged, idolized, and fetishized over all other groups. When blacks riot and attack people, do the American Media give a damn about victims of black violence? If anything, they’re too busy covering up for black pathologies by ascribing the violence to ‘teens’ and ‘youths’.
And for all the talk of Diversity, the bulk of mainstream attention goes to the so-called LGBTQ(XYZ) community with endless celebrations and sacraments of GloboHomo.
And from the current horrors in Gaza, we know what American policy is regarding Jews and Palestinians. Jews are like gods and angels whereas Palestinians are like subhuman rodents to quash with the full blessing of the US elites of both parties(even though the horror has gotten so bad that some politicians pay lip service to the suffering in Gaza albeit without naming the perpetrators).
For all the talk of anti-bigotry in New America, the neo-imperialist agendas are premised on new bigotries. Instead of ‘white supremacism’, it is now about Zionism and full-blown Jewish Supremacism(now hardly distinguishable from Nazism). And instead of Eurocentrism, there is an endless idol-worship of blackness, which is proselytized to ALL races as a matter of shared faith, indeed as if blacks are imbued with magical wonders. And for all the talk of human ‘progress’ or ‘evolution’ via campaigns against ‘homophobia’, the end-result is the imperialist deep state filled with homos working with Jews and white cuck-collaborators to infiltrate and destabilize countries, generate new crises, and wage new wars. Homos have been among the most fanatical partners-in-crime with Zion in setting fires all over the globe in the 21st century.
In essence, the ruling power of the West is the Shlomo-Homo Alliance. Homos have proven themselves to be among the most devious, ruthless, cunning, pathological, and vile imperialists around the world. Jews and homos just love the game of power, control, and domination. Jews see goyim as cattle, and homos see the world as one big butt to bugger. Jews envision a world where all goyim pay tribute to Jews as their masters, and homos anticipate a world where the ‘gay pride’ symbol is hoisted in every town square in every country as the victory flag of Sodom(as best-friends-forever with the satanic Jewish supremacists). Notice how homos and trannies went from calls for tolerance(in the name of personal liberty and individual rights) to mandatory universal approval of and praise for their lifestyles. It went from the right of men to dress up like women to forcing everyone to acknowledge them as real women at the risk of penalty for insisting a man in a wig is still a man.
Certain racial/ethnic groups have shown far greater aptitude than others, and as such, the future of the West will largely depend on what those relatively few immigrant groups want most. Take Asian-Indians, for instance. Many come with special knowledge and skills. Also, there are tons of them as India is now the most populous country in the world. Even if India were to shed 400 million people by emigration, it would still have a billion left(and a growing population).
Also, under British Imperialism, the Indian Diaspora grew into a global community, meaning that the Hindus, rather like the Jews, may owe their allegiance to their widespread ethno-global-domain than to a single country as immigration-destination. Already, Asian-Indians reportedly are the biggest property-holders in London, and hordes of them have arrived in Canada and key areas of the US. However one may feel about the Hindus, their sudden arrival in huge numbers doesn’t bode well for conventional assimilation, especially as there’s hardly anything worth assimilating to in the West where whites are self-loathing cucks who prioritize the idolization of Negroes, Homos, and Jews.
There was once a time when White America(rooted in Anglo tradition) established and enforced the standards to which all other groups aspired to be a part of, but now, whites go out of their way to show they’re properly deferential to the Other, especially blacks, homos, and Jews.
How are Hindus(or any other immigrant group) supposed to assimilate to this white model, one of pathetic cuckery? Are all new arrivals supposed to debase themselves at the altar of Jew-Negro-Homo Worship? What kind of ‘National Identity’ would that be: “We came to America with the dream of cucking to Jews, blacks, and homos like the brownnosing whites do”?
While some weak-willed immigrant groups may lower themselves to such degradation, other more astute and strong-willed groups may only pretend to(in order to be accepted into respectable circles) while playing the long-game of strategic takeover.
After all, there’s something unstable about the white majority debasing itself by sucking up to the three most destructive groups in the West. Jews with their financial parasitism, ideological lunacies, and tribal-supremacist war-mongering. Blacks with their failure in school, criminality, and infantile attitudes. Homos with their decadence and degeneracy, and worse, the inversion of their perversion into salvation. For how long can a complex civilization last with such ridiculous themes at its ideological and ‘spiritual’ core?
More likely than not, mass immigration will lead to newly ascendant groups lording over the others. Just as Jewish ascendancy not only brought down white dominance but instituted Jewish supremacism as the new global agenda of Americanism, the future rise of certain immigration groups, such as Asian-Indians, will likely lead to Indo-centric interests taking precedence over others.
Immigration to the West doesn’t in itself ensure empowerment for the arrival groups. It really comes down to which immigrant-groups have the talent and toughness to rise up the ranks and take over the power. And most immigrant groups lack such qualities. Some groups have toughness but lack talent. Some have talent but lack toughness, like anemic East Asian immigrants who mainly seek status and approval. Jews have had it best with the combination of talent, toughness(of tribal will & identity), and taboo, which discourages criticism — Americans are terrified of the charge of ‘antisemitism’, indeed even when Zionists are carrying out a genocide in Gaza. That’s what Hindus don’t have, the taboo factor. They got talent and toughness, but there’s no taboo against criticizing, mocking, and even insulting Hindus, as Vivek Ramaswamy found out when Americans of all colors and stripes dumped on him for his nerdy arrogance.
Some Hindus may be seeing the big picture and playing a long game. Others, however, seem happy to be what might be called Dyer’s Whores. In Richard Attenborough’s film GANDHI, there’s a scene where Colonel Reginald Dyer orders imperial troops(made up mostly of ‘wogs’) to shoot at Indian civilians gathered at a protest. A bloody case of a white imperialist having brown natives mowed down ruthlessly. Given India’s history and national mythology(of resistance and liberation from British Imperialism and white ‘racism’), one would think Hindus and Mindus(Muslims of Indian origin) would be the last people to egg on white/Western imperialism and war-making on ‘brown’ peoples. But it isn’t always so.
There are plenty of Hindus and Mindus who want to join the club in the West, even if it means cheering for wholesale massacres of brown peoples around the world. They might as well be cheering for Dyer in GANDHI, and, as such, they’re like Dyer’s Whores. Take Fareed Zakaria who showered praise on Donald Trump for bombing Syria. Zakaria, who’d been anti-Trump, opined that the Donald was finally being ‘the president’. Or take Nikki Haley, Dyer’s Whore prima donna, who gets orgasms over the mass slaughter of brown people in Gaza. She even autographed bombs to be dropped on brown women and children.
Such Hindus and Mindus, among the most disgusting lowlifes on Earth(on par with craven white cucks), are quite common in both political parties. Despite independence from Britain in 1947, it could be that the spirit of collaboration has become ingrained in the Asian-Indian character. Or, perhaps Hindus and Mindus now regard themselves as co-equals in the global empire, especially as they’d learned all the tricks from the Anglo Empire, the greatest the world had ever seen. In a way, the Hindus and Mindus get to have the cake and eat it too, rather like the Jews and blacks. They pose as historical victims of British tyranny and white ‘racism’, all the while taking full advantage of the imperial legacy.
In some ways, Indians regard their history under British rule as one of humiliation and exploitation. On the other hand, India was the pride of the British Empire, the Jewel in the Crown, and thus Hindus & Mindus enjoyed a rather vaunted place within the imperial hierarchy, second only to the British.
One wonders how history would have played out if the British hadn’t been so racially arrogant in their treatment of the ‘wogs’. Such race-ism was essential in order for the British elites to maintain solidarity with the British masses, who were reminded in no uncertain terms that, however much the empire valued ‘darkie’ talent and cooperation, even the lowest white Briton was more dear to God, Queen, and Country.
That said, the class-centrism of the British sometimes leaned toward favoring the upper classes among the ‘darkies’ than the lower classes among the British whites. Amidst the ambiguity, men like Gandhi were willing to be loyal servants to the empire and took up positions in Africa.
In Attenborough’s film, however, Gandhi is reminded by white privilege that his ilk, no matter how educated and useful, are to remain as lower-caste citizens within the empire. The scene was meant to give offense as a blatant example of British/white arrogance and bigotry, and yet, would history have turned out better if the empire had treated the Hindus and Mindus as equals?
Under such circumstances, men like Gandhi might not have resisted the empire or struggled for national liberation as the British Empire would have operated as an Anglo-Hindu one, rather like the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Granted, equal treatment of the Hindus and Mindus by the Anglos wouldn’t have guaranteed absence of bias and prejudice within the empire. If anything, the British would likely have recruited the most talented among their subjects as fellow imperialists to lord over the backward ones, such as black Africans.
Likewise, the ‘anti-racist’ empire of the US is selective in its practice and treatment of different peoples. The current US empire welcomes Hindus and Mindus with open arms, but the Jewish-White-Hindu alliance is increasingly targeted against the Chinese, not only those in China Proper but within the American system itself, i.e. even Chinese-Americans and legal Chinese residents in the US are regarded with suspicion and hostility.
Furthermore, the US recruits diverse talents from various nationalities/ethnicities to manage the ongoing Zionic plan for hegemony in the Middle East, or diversity must meld into a vat of cuckery to Jews. If Iranian-Americans and Arab-Americans want to be part of the empire, they better serve the Jews/Zionists in imitation of white cucks. All shades of goyim must relegate their own group interests to secondary status lest they interfere with Jewish priorities. What do Israeli-Americans and Iranian-Americans have in common? Both are urged to support Israel and revile Iran.
Universal ‘anti-racism’ is a far cry from the current Western norm, which is really selective ‘anti-racism’(which is just another form of ‘racism’) to be directed at certain countries, nationalities, and ethnic groups. Consider the amount of anti-Russian vitriol in the US, not just political but social, cultural, and historical, as if anything associated with Russianness is somehow suspect or problematic.
In general, most immigrant groups to the US just want to be part of the richest and most powerful country in the world, with little regard for political morality. The attraction is like a drug. Most countries around the world are small, weak, poor, backward, dysfunctional, and/or inconsequential. Even most prosperous countries aren’t great powers, and a good number of them are vassals of the US empire.
So, some nobody from a nothing-country can come to the US and within five short years become a member of the most powerful country in the world. It’s like a scrawny loser who routinely gets pushed around being included in the Tough Guy club. The powerless around the world suddenly get to feel The Power as immigrants in the US. Of course, most of them hardly amount to anything, but there’s the satisfactory sensation of being inside than outside the only country that really matters.
Just the mere fact of being ‘American’ is like a drug to the ‘losers’ of the world. While those born in the US may take their Americanness for granted, an advantage to be sure but nothing to obsess over, billions of nobodies around the world want ‘in’ to share in that sense of power.
In a way, they’re like wanna-be-imperialists or mini-me-imperialists. They want to join the club and be part of the aura of power and wealth, like what fans feel at a Rock concert or sports event, i.e. even if not on the stage or the field, they feel as part of a great happening.
Thus, many immigrants become willing recruits for the American Empire. Some join the military and feel oh-so-tough as the gung-ho warriors of the Lone Superpower. Imagine that: They or their parents were once stuck in some poor, weak, or irrelevant country, but they are now the modern centurions of the greatest empire the world has ever known. Thus, mass immigration bolsters the globalist imperialist hold of the Jewish-controlled US over the world.
Granted, plenty of people around the world have ambivalent feelings about the US, not least because the US/Western media complex itself has cast America in a negative light. But then, such calculated negativity could be part of a bait-and-switch strategy to convince the world of the merits of Western Democracy, i.e. unlike dictatorships and autocracies, free countries like the US allow for criticism, even condemnation, of social ills and political abuses, thereby allowing space for reform and redemption. Consider how BLM was marketed to justify the US Empire: America, saddled with conscience and guilt, shown taking the knee for the saintly martyred Negro George Floyd, thus an empire of atonement against ‘white supremacism’.
Never mind that the US is a Jewish supremacist empire and that Jewish Power pulled the BLM stunt to put MAGA-rowdy whites back in their place as obedient soldiers of Zion. In other words, BLM wasn’t really about combatting ‘white supremacism’ but about securing Jewish Supremacism against possible white racial awakening.
All the anti-American forces and voices around the world that ran with the BLM agenda got hoodwinked. If BLM was truly Anti-American, why would it have been promoted and fanned by the Deep State and the top institutions controlled by Jews? BLM was the official expression of New America as conceived by Jews, one where guilt-ridden and brow-beaten whites cave to Jewish supremacist demands. BLM was a ploy to beat down whites and force them back on the plantation/reservation as compliant flunkies of the Jewish supremacist empire. Thus, it was advantageous to the Jewish-controlled American Empire in targeting the growing segment of the white population that was growing restless and ‘uppity’ with the status quo where Jews hold all the cards. Beating down white agency and putting it back in the cage meant that Jews, with their puppet Joe Biden, would gain a free hand to wreak more havoc on the world, the war in Ukraine for example and continued war-making in the Middle East(that finally brought down Syria).
So many nonwhite suckers, both inside and outside the US, believed BLM was about solidarity for justice for all peoples against ‘racism’, but with the apotheosis of BLM worship and the Biden presidency, the deep state was engaged in more regime-change operations around the world. Also, far from the unity of blacks and nonblack minorities against the KKKops, the reality was usually about blacks attacking immigrants & their shops, along with random white people in cities.
At any rate, the mere impact of mass immigration makes the US a more important player in the global power game, especially as the empire has increasingly grown more reliant on sanctions as a control mechanism. More immigrants means a bigger market, which means more nations seeking access to US consumers. Indeed, imagine the size of today’s American Market had mass immigration(especially from nonwhite countries) not been allowed since 1965. The US population would be considerably smaller and thus would have less economic impact on the world stage. But the US population has exploded since then, mostly due to mass immigration, and more ‘Americans’ means more leverage for the ruling elites with the rest of the world. Jewish ruling elites get to decide which countries are given access to the golden goose of the global economy, which is the American consumers, and of course, the conditions are obeisance to Zion. Whether Biden or Trump, the go-to weapon of US foreign policy is sanctions(when outright invasion or effective regime change is inconvenient).
The Jewish ruling elites know all too well that the manner in which the newcomers and especially their children are assimilated relies mainly on controls over the media and academia, both in Jewish hands. The vast diversity of immigrants means no possibility of unity among them upon arrival as they are. What do Pakistani immigrants, Polish immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, and Vietnamese immigrants have in common? What ultimately unifies all such groups as ‘Americans’ depends on what they and their children consume from the media and learn in school.
Unlike Jewish immigrants to Palestine who were united in identity & purpose and acted in unison, the immigrants to the US must be processed into an ersatz unity as devised by the elites. Even Latin Americans, a prominent immigrant group, are of many nationalities and races. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans don’t see eye-to-eye; and even the innumerable Mexican migrants and Mexican-Americans are divided along racial lines, as there are many gradations within any ‘Hispanic’ group.
And then, you have the various shades of Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, South Asians, Arabs, Muslims, North Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and etc. Such lack of unity inevitably means deracination, followed by reinvention in accordance to the controllers of the media and academia.
Even so-called Identity Politics is less about a positive, deep, and profound sense of one’s race/ethnicity, culture, and heritage than about a butt-hurt resentment and victimization at the hands of ‘white supremacists’. Far from preserving and bolstering one’s own rich identity and heritage as an autonomous quality, it reduces their worth as entirely dependent on supposed white attitudes. A healthy identity would posit self-worth regardless of what white people think, but what goes by ‘identity politics’ is all about esteem in relation to white perceptions. Thus, even though ostensibly anti-white or ‘anti-racist’, it’s obsessed with how whites feel about nonwhites.
In more ways than one, Diversity becomes synonymous with dissolution. For example, if various immigrant groups are to extol Diversity as the hallmark of America as the greatest country in the world, it means diversity has precedence over one’s own identity, e.g. to an Arab-American, the cult of diversity should rank higher than Arabness and etc. It also seeds the idea that their own countries of origin, especially if less diverse than the US, are inferior for their relative lack of diversity(or at least the ‘vibrant’ kind of diversity with lots of Negroes & wily Jews, along with endless Globo-Homo celebrations).
Thus, Diversity isn’t only a weapon against White America and whiteness in general but against all identities. Worse, this post-modern idea may be exported back to the home country, and it already has transformed much of Europe where Diversity is prioritized over any European nationality. Hungary is now something of an outlier in Europe where many Swedes and Irishmen value Diversity over Swedishness in Sweden or Irishness in Ireland. And it’s spreading to the non-West as well as so many foreign elites have been trained in the West to espouse and spout the same nonsense concocted by the Jews in their grand design of deracinating the silly sucker goyim.
If Diversity is the first solvent against immigrant identities, the second is the template of White Cuckery. For all the anti-white dogma promoted by Jews, the White Model remains the most valuable instrument in the Jewish toolbox. Anti-white ideology serves mainly to recast whiteness into a useful golem for Jewish Power. Just like whites enslaved blacks precisely because black labor was indispensable in the American South, Jews castigate whiteness precisely because white submission is the keystone to Jewish supremacy. Thus, anti-white ideology is a fine art than a crude barrage of insults. Naturally, if Jews merely sling mud at whites, enraged whites will sling the mud back. The trick then is to condemn whiteness as a moral failing, indeed a betrayal of the better-angels-of-the-white-nature, therefore a prime candidate for redemption, as guided by wise Jews of course.
After all, whites still constitute the majority of America; therefore, what whites say-and-do serves as the primary model for all other groups. Once immigrant groups are melded into this goop called Diversity, they are then nudged to follow the example of whites who totally cuck to Jewish Power. Whites lead as the champion-brownnosers of the West, with their snouts snuck between the ass-cheeks of Zion, sniffing and licking in self-effacing debasement.
Whiteness serves as a dual purpose in rendering diverse immigrant groups subservient to Jewish Power. Firstly, whiteness serves as the scapegoat of ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘white supremacism’, and ‘exclusion’ that must be expunged from the American political and cultural scene. It also diverts attention from the fact that Jews are the ones in charge calling the shots. Thus, immigrant groups, instead of fixating on the abuses of Jewish Power, expend their energies hyperventilating about white ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, as if the KKK and Neo-Nazi skinheads are around every corner. Whites sure make good scarecrows.
But whiteness serves not only as the official scapegoat but as the official instructor. As champion brownnosers, whites instruct the immigrant groups and Diversity folks that the best path to atonement, redemption, and salvation is by cucking to the Jews and their darling pets, homos and blacks.
It explains why the likes of Nikki Haley are Dyer’s Whores extraordinaire. As the governor of South Carolina — why the hell did whites elect someone like her? — , she mouthed all the anti-Confederate platitudes and admonished ‘racist’ white Southerners to reject their own heritage… while simultaneously imitating the white brownnosers who cuck to World Jewry. She was obligingly anti-white in the way Jews want her ilk to be, but she was totally ‘white-cuckish’ in shamelessly shilling for Israel and Jewish Power.
Jewish grip on the media and academia ensured domination of the hearts and minds of Diversity, especially with whites serving as both scapegoats and obedient dogs. It explains the masterly Jewish manipulation not only of immigrant groups but blacks and American Indians as well.
After all, mass immigration not only threatened the white majority but the cultural standing of the American Indians and the economic prospects for blacks. More immigrants meant blacks losing out in an ever more competitive field. It was tough enough to compete with whites, but blacks had to contend with the whole world. And if the mythology of the American Indians rests on their tragedy in face of endless migrations of immigrants from Europe(and Africa as the result of the Slave Trade), how does it help the Red Man to have America be inundated with yet more and more waves of immigrants(as soft but sure invaders)?
Yet, because of whitey-as-scapegoat, both the blacks and the reds were fooled into believing they must lock arms with nonwhite Diversity from around the world against Evil Whitey. Never mind that endless immigration would steamroll over the blacks and the fragile Indian communities as well.
But then, the further irony is that all groups are directed to follow whites as instructors. Whites may be devils tainted with ‘racism’, but they’re such saints when cucking to Jews. So, all you diverse folks, be ‘white’ like Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton, total suckers of the Zionic dong.
That said, the future now seems uncertain in the US(and the West in general) due to the absence of foundational stability. The only sound basis of power in the West would be if whites ran things with pride & confidence and applied pressure on all nonwhites groups to accede to white-dominant norms. The US and Europe once had such foundations of power, with the unity of white elites and white masses setting the national standard, especially for aliens and newcomers to follow. But whites no longer constitute the main power in the West, which makes the entire edifice unstable, like when India was ruled not by the Indians but by the alien British minority overlords.
Jewish Power is immense, but it’s entirely top-down pulling the strings. Its strings currently retain mastery over the goy elites, whites and nonwhites alike, but due to the internet and rise of ‘social media’, all kinds of hitherto banned, suppressed, or misrepresented ideas, views, and narratives are beginning an audience, especially among the young who mostly ignore legacy media as moribund and compromised. Even though Jews control most of Big Tech, the inherent logic of the internet is the free flow of information and ideas and, as such, far more difficult to manage and control than traditional media where the center passes all the information to a passive audience. Whether the views and ideas were ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, both sides maintained quasi-official or approved spokesmen telling people what to think within the Overton Window(and all other ideas were dismissed as ‘extreme’ or ‘conspiracy theories’ if they were aired at all).
Jewish Power in Israel is solid. For all its problems, Israel is about Jewish elites supported by the Jewish masses, though its over-reliance on the West for support could be its undoing. In contrast, Jewish Power in the US/West relies on subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle art of the clever Jews reliably hoodwinking the dimwit goyim. It’s a power, however great, that is based on deceit, manipulation, misdirection, corruption, and blackmail. It’s built on the quicksand of lies than the cement of truth.
It relies on the goyim to keep smoking the crack pipe and remain lost in a dream-reality. The fact that many people, once awakened, become so ‘Anti-Semitic’ is proof that Jewish Power is essentially fragile or hollow at the core. It’s an Empire of Lies, as Vladimir Putin called it, though he was too cowardly to name its true nature. Those who see the truth cannot unsee what they’ve seen, and they resent anyone who tells them otherwise. “Epstein Files are a nothing-burger”, LOL. The last resort of the Jewish Power is to brand them as ‘Anti-Semites’, as if they’re clinically insane and hallucinating things as ‘conspiracy theorists’ when we should all just trust the ‘experts’.
By and large, immigrants arrive in the US to become part of the empire. They enjoy the short-cut to a sense of power as newly minted Americans. As a Costa Rican, one is a nobody. But as an ‘American’, he is a member of the Lone
Superpower. Immigrants even get to join the US military and drop bombs all over the world. What do they care, as long as the US isn’t dropping bombs on their own people or countries of origin? But then, many probably don’t care if the US does exactly that. After all, non-Americans are just a bunch of ‘losers’. There are plenty of Muslim-Americans serving in the US military who load bombs on planes to be dropped all over the Middle East. And there are plenty of immigrant types in the US media and academia cheering on the empire even as it supplies Israel with more tonnage of explosives to drop on the brown peoples of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and etc. And surely, most East Asians in the US military and government will take part in blowing up Asia if war breaks out(even at the behest of the US empire).
For an obvious example of immigration stoking America’s imperialist temptations, one needn’t look further than the case of the Soviet refusenik Émigré community that made its way to the US and Israel. Once the object of sympathy as victims of Soviet Tyranny(or the ‘Evil Empire’ as Ronald Reagan called it), they soon became some of the loudest and more deranged proponents of American neo-imperialism and NATO adventurism. Whether it’s Max Boot or Alexander Vindman, their ilk arrived on American shores not to be good citizens and grateful patriots but to goad the Lone Superpower into more wars around the world to satiate Jewish Supremacist bloodlust.
It’s been said that the American Enterprise was like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the start. A new republic birthed from resistance to British Imperialism, an experiment in governance and organization founded on independence and autonomy. But there’s the other side of Americanism, one aspiring to be the biggest empire the world had ever known. And why not? Wasn’t the US the New Rome? With its vast resources and endless potential, why should it focus only on national affairs instead of running the entire world?
The nationalist camp warned against the imperialist camp as ‘interventionist’, and the imperialist camp belittled the nationalist camp as ‘isolationist’. As things turned out, Anglo-Americans were nothing compared to the Jews when it came to hegemonism, not least because Jews hadn’t a country to call their own. To Jews, nationalism meant goyim of a particular polity uniting against the Other, which would include Jews. And even when Jews got a nation of their own in the form of Israel, it wasn’t sufficiently big and powerful to satiate their megalomania. Only on the global stage could Jews play their power game to the hilt, especially in pitting one bunch of goyim against others.
Then, it’s hardly surprising that the Jews, the people who did most to romanticize and idealize the Immigration Experience, became the biggest imperialists in US history, even eclipsing the imperialist camp among the Anglo-Americans or WASPs. Jewish ‘Immiperialists'(or immigrant-imperialists) surely occupy the driver’s seat in the so-called Anglo-Zionist alliance. The likes of Lindsey Graham get down and suck on Netanyahu, not the other way around. It’s Trump who’s bending over his Oval Office desk to be rammed in the arse by Big Bibi.
Granted, goy immigrants have also shown a propensity for ‘immiperialism’. Take the wretched Polack Zbigniew Brzezinski. While one could sympathize with his hurt feelings about his compatriots living behind the Iron Curtain, his big idea was to employ America’s own imperialist reach to wreak havoc on the Soviet Union. He didn’t care that Afghanistan was turned into rubble as a result. His brand of “Is it good for the Polacks?” was a variation of “is it good for the Jews?”
Granted, the Jewish case is far worse because Jews won’t stop at good-for-Jews but keep pushing for great-for-Jews, greater-for-Jews, greatest-for-Jews. Even though Brzezinski’s strategy was costly for the victims of the Cold War, one could argue it did contribute to the fall of communism, and most Poles(in Poland and elsewhere) were content with political independence. They wanted to be free as Poles, not rule the world as Polish-supremacists.
In contrast, the Jewish use of American Imperialism is to turn the entire world into their (g)oyster. Whereas Brzezinski urged some caution on American foreign policy after the end of the Cold War, the Jewish neocons only got started and demanded more US interventions and even wars, ostensibly for ‘spreading democracy’, ‘fighting terrorism’, or ‘defending the rules-based order’ but really to spread the tentacles of Jewish supremacism into every corner of the world.
At this moment in history, one could reasonably argue that American Imperialism would have been more restrained if not for Jewish immigration. Imagine what America’s global role after the Cold War would have been like if the Jewish Neocons(some of later-comer refusenik origin) hadn’t been around to take the reins of international affairs. Jewish ‘Immiperialism’ was the main reason for the destruction of so many lives around the world in the 21st Century.
America is like the cursed magic ring in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Many are tempted to use its power to their ends. ‘Nobodies’ and ‘losers’ from all over the world come to the US with raging resentments and want the US to settle the score against their ‘ancient’ enemies. Some explain the current Judeo-Russian War in Ukraine in that vein, i.e. Jews, with their long-held grudge, are using American Power(via its proxies) as a sledgehammer to break Russia into a thousand pieces. The US is valued not only as a sanctuary for those fleeing from poverty and/or tyranny from around the world but as an avenging angel against those who’d caused harm to ‘my people’, whoever they may be. Given so many groups come from all over the world with competing grudges(that neutralize one another), this isn’t really a problem, but when a particular group gains dominance to steer all of America’s might toward its chosen targets, then we have the dangers the world faces today.
The essence of national character goes a long way to decide the actions of a people. The essence of East Asian culture is to respect authority, seek approval from the dominant order, and serve the hierarchy. It’s no wonder that Japanese-Americans, whose ancestors had been so loyal to the Emperor and local lords, became almost instantly ‘Good Americans’ who were willing to die for Uncle Sam. Some identities are based on inner strength and pride while others are based on outer loyalty. Jews and perhaps Hindus have this inner quality and, therefore, even when they’re minorities in an alien order, their sense of who they are remains unshakeable. In contrast, it appears East Asians(and whites as well) are weaker in this inner quality and instead define their identity in terms of outer loyalty. Thus, if you relocate a Japanese person to the US, he’s likely to seek the new ‘shogun’ to serve within the American context, i.e. he tries to conform to whatever outer reality that is dominant. Such logic may explain the sudden fall of Britain. The British are essentially about class, respectability, and hierarchy. They care more about how others(of higher status and worth) think about them than what they know about themselves. So, when the British elites cucked to the Jews and imposed ‘Diversity’ as the new British value system, the British masses followed suit almost overnight and went out of their way to show that they are not ‘racist’. East Asians and whites lack an unshakeable inner core that refuses to crack under external pressure. Instead, their sense of who they are relies to a large extent on what the reigning authority expects of them. As such, they’re among the most pliable people in the Jewish-controlled West. So many white Christians care more about what rich, powerful, and supposedly holy Jews think of them than what they think of themselves, which is close to nil. Some Hindus and Mindus seem to ape whites, but perhaps they’re being like the Jews: Playing the game and feigning complicity to conceal a longer-term strategy.
Palestinian-Americans are something of an outlier among immigrant groups for an obvious reason. Unlike with most countries or peoples, the US has been utterly committed to the destruction of Palestine and the Palestinians. The US hasn’t been at war with most countries around the world. It has made threats and exerted pressures on many countries, but most of the world found a way to get along with the US as the top policeman/extortionist. Besides, there have been carrots along with the sticks in dealing with the US, which can be a bully but also a friend(and protector). And, misgivings about America have been counterbalanced by fascination with American goods and products, technological and cultural.
Even with countries entangled in wars with the US(and its proxies), there was the sense that, at the very least, the US didn’t mean to wipe the country and its people off the map. This was true even of Germany and Japan(that was nuked). Once the war was over, the US aided in their economic recovery and membership in the democratic world order. The Vietnam War was harrowing and destructive, and millions died. But again, even the Vietnamese understood that the US didn’t intend to erase Vietnam as a people, culture, and history. Rather, the US wanted to keep the southern half of Vietnam in the US camp. Even Iraqis may find it within themselves to make peace with the US. The Bush regime may have lied about WMD and invaded the country and brought lots of hardship, but things improved somewhat for the Shias and Kurds who’d been persecuted under Saddam Hussein. At a bare minimum, there was no America plan to wipe Iraq off the map or replace Iraqis with other peoples.
But, the fate of Palestine has been a different story. It was the intention of the Zionists to wipe Palestine off the map and establish the state of Israel over it, and Jewish Power secured America’s full cooperation in The Plan. Thus, American Policy cannot be spun as well-meaning but misguided, as the Vietnam or Iraqi debacle is remembered today. The US knew full well the imperialist and possibly genocidal intention of the Zionists. The campaign against Palestine cannot be rationalized as “paved with good intentions but resulting in tragedy”, as the US knew full well that the express purpose of Zionism was to wipe the indigenous population off the map.
Thus, unlike most peoples who’ve had troublesome relations with America — Filipinos, for example, with their love/hate thing for the US as bully and savior(from the Japanese) — , Palestinians really got it in the neck. And no amount of acceptance of Palestinian immigrants and refugees can undo the injustice of America’s role in the destruction of Palestine, especially as the US has never issued an apology for it.
There’s no way to spin the Palestinian tragedy in any other way, no rational excuse. It’s no wonder so much of pro-Zionist rhetoric falls back on irrational religious explanations — “God gave it to the Jews thousands of years ago!!” — or goes for total amnesia, as when the question is asked, “Do you support Israel’s right to exist?” without mentioning the obvious: Israel was built on the grave of Palestine. It’d be like building New Japan in the Philippines and then demanding that Filipinos respect the right of New Japan to exist… on Filipino land.
Appeals to irrationality and willful amnesia are what sustains the moral masquerade of the US and the West in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Indeed, consider the absolute lack of contrition or remorse among American elites when it comes to the plight of the Palestinians(who are just bundled together with the ‘terrorist’ Hamas, e.g. if Israel kills a hundred more Palestinian children with US bombs, it’s just about ‘Hamas’; it’d be like some power indiscriminately killing Jewish women & children and justifying it as war on supremacist Likud).
There were many Americans who voiced remorse over Vietnam and Iraq. Also, there have even been voices critical of American’s conduct in World War II, the Good War. Maybe the bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan weren’t justified. Maybe the Good Guys did some bad things too.
But when it comes to Palestine, the elites have been mostly silent. If anything, Zionism has usually been discussed in terms of what was owed to the Jews in the aftermath of the Holocaust than what was done to the Palestinians. Because of what happened to Jews in the heart of Europe, somehow it was a moral imperative for the US and the West to support the creation of Israel by erasing Palestine. Palestinians, who had absolutely nothing to do with World War II, ended up paying the heaviest price. It rates zero as moral logic. But then, the Zionist project predated World War II, and it had always been the plan of Jewry to grab the territory, and World War II merely served as a convenient excuse.
Due to the total lack of ambiguity in America’s support of Zionist destruction of Palestine — as far as American elites are concerned, there was no greater justice than the creation of Israel, an event more important than the birth of Christ, the founding of the American Republic, the French Revolution, and etc. — , Palestinian-Americans, more than any other people, understand how cruel, unjust, and evil the US can be. Vietnamese-Americans may lament what the US did to their country, but they can still spin the event as the Americans trying to save half of Vietnam from communist tyranny. Delusional Iraqi-Americans can rationalize the US invasion as trying to install a democracy by removing the tyrant Hussein.
But Palestine? The only plan was to wipe it off the map. Yet, the very Americans who endorsed the monstrous event project their own evil onto Iran that purportedly plans to wipe Israel off the map. It’s all a matter of who/whom that governs the morally decrepit White America. Jews are special, Palestinians are not. Jews have the right to wipe a people off the map because they’re so precious. As for the mediocre Palestinians, they need to be expelled and ‘punished’ like the American Indian savages. Such sham morality gives the lie to the conceit of moral progress in the US.
Palestinians are an outlier not because they are innately better than other groups but because they suffered like no other among all the immigrant groups in the US. Whatever misgivings the various immigrant groups may have about America, they know that the US didn’t try to wipe their people/nation off the face of the Earth. And many prefer to think about the carrots than the sticks of the US. But no amount of carrots for the Palestinian-Americans can compensate for the fact that the US aided and abetted the Jews in the total collective murder of Palestine and furthermore never expressed even an ounce of contrition. More than any other immigrant group, Palestinian-Americans know the extent of evil that the US empire can commit with the full endorsement of its ruling elites and even its often demented masses.
Otherwise, Palestinian-Americans might have been like the rest of immigrant-groups who, more often than not, partake of America’s neo-imperialist grandeur. Indeed, consider the case of Rashida Tlaib, so outspoken against America’s policy of destruction against her people but fully supportive of the Jewish Supremacist war-mongering in Ukraine that led to the deaths of over a million and half Slavic lives on both sides. When it comes to her own people, she’s horrified by the evils of Jewish-Supremacist-led US imperialism. But when the same power foments crises in other parts of the world that lead to the deaths of millions, that’s no problem as far as her ilk is concerned.
