Western Superiority was not the product of White Supremacism — Attitude vs Aptitude — The Connection between White Possession of Traits and White Properties of Power

Too often in the permitted(or imposed) discourse, white superiority and white supremacy(or white supremacism) are confused as interchangeable or as if superiority is the cause-and-effect of supremacy. In truth, one(superiority) is a condition, the other(supremacism) a contention. Many PC folks argue that the West, Europe and America, gained world hegemony and domination over other races due to the ideology of white supremacism than through the industry of white superiority. Now, supremacy and superiority are partly interlinked. It's natural for a people who gain superiority to believe they are somehow innately better than others and have a right(and/or a responsibility) to rule over them. This rule could be ruthless and exploitative or conscientious and constructive — the Others' burden or the burden for Others — , but in either case, it means dominion of one group over another.

While superiority all-too-often leads to feelings of supremacy, supremacism per se hardly guarantees superiority or domination. If anything, supremacist attitudes can lead to dissipation and downfall, as with the story of the hare that slacks off in the race with the tortoise. Or, exaggerated displays of supremacism could actually be therapeutic compensations for those plagued with inferiority-complex. (Mussolini's Italian He-Man huff-and-puff was mostly that.)
What matters is that attitude doesn't translate into aptitude. White people with all the supremacist attitudes in the world couldn't have gained domination without certain superior aptitudes resulting from genetic, cultural, historical, or material factors. In supernatural movies, 'psychic' will often determines outcomes, but reality doesn't work that way. If reality did, Germany and Japan would have prevailed in World War II, or at least fended off invasions by Allies. Nazi Germans certainly had a supremacist worldview and believed themselves to be invincible against the slovenly Slavs. Japan, though severely disadvantaged against the US in manpower and materials, felt imbued with a divine spirit that would favor its destiny. In an earlier period, the Ottoman Turks thought the divine will of Allah was on their side, and in time, nothing would stand in their way. Indeed, Muslims in general believed the whole world would be remade by Jihad in accordance to the prophecy of Muhammad. And the Chinese believed for a long time that they were fortunate people of the Middle Kingdom, the summit of civilization, wisdom, and power. Now, if indeed what-ism determines what-is, the Ottomans would have defeated Europe, and China-as-Middle-Kingdom would have been impenetrable to Western Imperialism and Japanese aggression. But no matter what the Chinese thought of themselves and others, reality led to a rude awakening. Chinese 'supremacism' or 'Sino-centrism' didn't ensure Chinese superiority.

This is why it's idiotic to fixate on White Supremacism as the cause of the Rise of the West over the Rest. If, like the Ottomans and the Chinese, white Europeans possessed the big attitude minus the big ability, the white world wouldn't have been victorious. Indeed, this has been amply demonstrated in sports. No amount of white supremacist attitudes led to white victory over blacks who possess genetic superiority in athleticism. No amount of promotion of the Great White Hope produced a white boxer who could defeat Jack Johnson. And even if the combined 2.5 billion population of Chinese and Asian-Indians were to adopt supremacist attitudes in the 100m and 200m sprints, the odds are blacks of West African descent will dominate the finals.
Now, attitude and will do matter but as accents and adjectives to the hefty nouns of power. It's like yells, spurs, and/or the whips can make the horse run faster but they can't substitute for the horse itself(or turn a weak horse into a strong one). Furthermore, their effectiveness has limits as the horse can run only so fast and for so long. The real advantage comes with the quality of the horse itself. Indeed, a mild-mannered man on a horse will win a race against a strong-willed man on a donkey. Attitude is a matter of inches, not yards. A man with supremacist confidence armed with a knife will lose to a moderate man with a sword. It's like the story of the train-that-thought-it-could. Its attitude played a role, but what really mattered was the powerful engine that could turn wish/will into reality. While it's true that potential without confidence won't get far, confidence without potential won't get anywhere. Supremacism without superiority is just talk without walk.

According to PC, modern history is as follows: One day, white folks woke up on the wrong side of the bed and began to feel 'supremacist'. And this supremacism suddenly drove white people to invent better weapons, build bigger ships, develop better medicine, advance science & technology, create new forms of arts & music, set sail to other lands, and dominate the modern world that they created. This Narrative implies that all of mankind and all of history were a stranger to supremacist attitudes BEFORE white folks, suddenly out of the blue, got to feeling awfully supremacist and decided to conquer and dominate others. Thus, whites weren't only guilty of feeling supremacist but inventing supremacism. Apparently, all of humanity were into equality, passivity, brotherly love, or peacefulness. Or just plain inertness without much in the way of Will to Power. Such historical view is like the soccer match between Greek Philosophers and German Philosophers in the Monty Python skit. All the thinkers just wander about the field, lost in thought without a clue as to what game they're in or what the ball is for. But then, suddenly a Greek philosopher has an idea to KICK THE BALL and sets off a chain reaction among the Greeks who win bigly.

Supposedly, all the world was in a slumber of pacifism or just plain lethargy until white world suddenly woke up with the will of supremacist domination, and THAT was the real catalyst for the Triumph of the West. It's all so laughable. First, as stated before, attitude doesn't ensure aptitude. Even if it was true that whites or Europeans, alone among all peoples, stumbled upon a supremacist view of the world, that in and of itself wouldn't have guaranteed anything. After all, any person can claim to be a genius, but it doesn't make him so. Any person can claim to lift a ton with his bare hands, but he's no Hercules. So, to focus so much on white attitude without investigating the whys and whats of white aptitude is to ignore essential history.

Furthermore, it's simply not true that the Rest, unlike the West, was suspended in a historical equilibrium of peacefulness, equality, harmony, or whatever. All of humanity have been at war since time immemorial. Just ask those vanquished by the Persians, Mongols, Turks, Zulus, Assyrians, Aztecs, Mughals, and various American Indian tribes in which every male was brought up to be a fierce warrior. So, supremacist attitudes have been part and parcel of the human DNA forever, and they also exist among animals in instinctive form; organisms of all kinds seek dominance. Among humans, the supremacism could be clannish, tribal, ethnic, racial, national, religious/spiritual, philosophical, or whatever. Whenever someone or some group insists 'my/our way is better than yours', he or it is setting the world up for future competition, conflicts, and even all-out wars.

One thing for sure, winners are decided less by supremacist attitude than superior aptitude. If wishes come true, Byzantium wouldn't have fallen to the Ottomans. After all, Byzantine Christians believed they belonged to the superior civilization and God was on their side. And yet, their spiritual supremacism didn't ensure protection against the Ottoman juggernaut. Of course, the Ottomans were also spiritual supremacists, but they prevailed because they had superiority in leadership, organization, manpower, and strategy. The Franco-German War of 1870-1871 was a clear example of how supremacist attitudes guarantee nothing. The French, having been the dominant power on the European Continent for as long as they could remember, didn't believe they could possibly lose to the German nation-state that had only recently coalesced into being, but German superiority in industry and military prowess led to crushing defeat for France.

Now, there have been no shortage of historians who explained as to why the West gained superiority over the Rest. Not long ago, Niall Ferguson came up with his list of 'killer apps' that pushed the West(especially Northern Europe) over the top to dominate and remold much of the world. As Ferguson pointed out, the domination wasn't merely military as, even with the fall of European empires following World War II, the Rest adopted so much from the West as the shining standard of modernity and progress. So, even as the military conquests and demographic colonization abated and came to an end, the Rest continued to be scientifically, technologically, culturally(especially in dress and manners), and ideologically 'colonized' and reshaped by the West. If indeed the only thing the West had going for it was nasty 'supremacist' and 'racist' conceits, why did the Rest adopt so much from the West, and why does it continue to do so? An honest look at reality would indicate that there was much that was indeed superior about the West that was worthy of being adopted and emulated by the Rest.

People like Ferguson are careful to note that Western Superiority had NOTHING to do with any racial/genetic advantage but, even if correct, there's no getting around the fact that the West did achieve real superiority in so many crucial spheres of power projection: Transportation, Communication, Hygiene & Medicine, Science & Technology, Political Philosophy, and even Theory of Justice(not least because even anti-white non-whites resort to Western theories, ideals, principles, and values to make their case against the West; blacks who find slavery to be evil didn't get that idea from African culture, which was more about killer apes than killer apps).

Western superiorities didn't arise from 'white supremacist' attitudes but certainly fueled them, but then, whites were far from alone in their 'guilt' in this regard. So many civilizations, upon reaching their apex, believed themselves to be innately superior to other peoples for reasons of blood, spirit, or divine providence. Given the unprecedented breakthroughs of the Modern West that surpassed all previous achievements by the greatest civilizations around the world, was it so surprising that white folks(especially in the North) came to believe they possessed some innate right-stuff generally lacking in other races? If blacks, who've contributed close to nothing in science and technology, can't help indulging in supremacist fantasies of fictional Wakanda, was it so out of line for whites who created the Modern World to feel that there was something special about themselves?
Besides, in areas where black superiority is obvious, especially in sports, no one is troubled by black confidence or even arrogance. Blacks are encouraged to feel maximum pride in black domination over other races. One thing for sure, black domination in sports is proof that supremacism isn't the same as superiority. A white guy with a supremacist attitude in the sprint is likely to lose to a humble black guy with sportsmanship. Of course, superiority can be wedded to supremacism. A black guy can be superior in the sprint and be filled with supremacist arrogance against non-blacks, but still, his victory on the track field will have owed to real superiority in muscle than supremacism in attitude.

It's similar with Jews in the brainy fields. Jews do have a superior edge in intellect and verbal skills, which naturally led to Jewish preeminence in science, medicine, finance, academia, letters, high-tech, law, and etc., and many Jews are obsessed with recording and relating how awesome and stupendous they've been as a people, culture, and community. On the basis of the Covenant, Jews have had a supremacist worldview for eons, but the Jewish Advantage hasn't merely been a matter of attitude, and this is especially true of Ashkenazi Jews who, probably through assortative(and assertive) mating, managed to elevate their IQ above goyim. (In contrast, Middle East Jews seem to have the supremacist attitude but not the superior aptitude of the Ashkenazis, the 'tribe' of Jews who managed to conquer the world by conquering the Anglo elites who'd done most to conquer the world; conquer the conquerors, and then, you don't have to conquer the world.)

Anyway, we must be careful not to confuse supremacist Jewish attitude with superior Jewish aptitude as, once again, attitude doesn't guarantee aptitude. Jews possess real talents in excess of other groups, and that accounts for Jewish dominance in certain fields. Of course, and again, pride of superiority can foster arrogance of supremacism, and current Jewish Power is undoubtedly both conscious of its superior advantages and contemptuous of goyim as inferior cattle. One thing for sure, superiority of power doesn't guarantee higher morality or commitment to principles. Both Nazis at their peak and Zios(Zionist-Imperialists) today amply demonstrated that. (But then, principles become problematic among unequals. After all, we don't have the same set of rules for adults and children, let alone for humans and apes. Within a population where most peoples and groups are more or less alike, adherence to principles is viable. But when some people are clearly more intelligent, perceptive, and capable than those of another group, principles break down because the superior group develops a low opinion of the other group that seems incapable of grasping, let alone practicing, the fundamentals of principles while the inferior group, in its envy and resentment, feels that the superior group has accrued its advantages by means foul than fair. If the superior group, out of either compassion or 'guilt', decides to compromise principles to accommodate the inferior group, it will have ceded the moral high ground, and then, the inferior group, out of stupidity or spite, will exploit the situation to further erode rule by principles. Generally, the greatest harm to principles come from those with superiority-complex and those with inferiority-complex. The superior feel the rules needlessly favor the inferior and therefore must be circumvented in favor of the superior, and the inferior feel the rules favor the superior and must be circumvented in favor of the inferior. In the current US, intellectually superior Jews subvert principles in favor of intellectually inferior blacks to erode the pride & confidence of whites to guilt-bait them into serving Jews. Jews encourage blacks to blame everything on 'white supremacism' to break the white spirit, but then Jews manipulate guilt-ridden whites to support Jewish supremacist hegemony. It's really messed up as bait-and-switch.)

In a sane world, people would freely explore the reasons as to the facts of white superiority(that catapulted the West far beyond the Rest) while warning against white supremacism(that could be dangerous not only to non-whites but to whites who, in supremacist zealotry, might turn overly aggressive, or, in supremacist smugness, might become overly complacent). And there are surely many historians who work in this vein and contribute to our understanding. But scholars and academics don't set the overall/official tone of the Narrative, though, to be sure, most Narratives are perverse simplifications of ideas derived from academia. What nuance or complexity that may have existed in the original theory is overlooked in favor of pat formula and mindless mantra. Politicians, bureaucrats, and mass media decide the Narrative that, more often than not, is history turned into mass myth for morons. Generally, scholars are either too powerless, craven, or fuddy-duddy to question the Narrative. Or, even as they disdain it as fairytale for dummies, they may broadly sympathize with its agenda either out of condescension or due to consecration. In the US, Jews control the gods and made the Negroes noble & sacred, yet blacks have failed miserably in many fields, and that has led to eggheads seeing blacks as both gods to worship and children to save. Also, if they don't play along, not only will they be smeared as 'racists' by blacks but as 'white supremacists' by Jewish Power.

In such a climate, honest and sane discussion is nearly impossible as anyone can become 'canceled' over the slightest wrong-think. After all, whites are micro-scrutinized for the slightest 'aggression'. Indeed, not only public debates but private conversations could be jeopardous for honest scholars because 'cancel culture' in media and parts of academia reward people for ratting out thought-criminals. One thing for sure, academia has taught us that intellect and erudition are hardly pillars of integrity and courage. Western intellectuals are no more likely to stand up to tyranny than intellectuals were in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. Per chance they do speak out, it's almost always in service of the prevailing Narrative. Thus, it's sham courage, much like a dog barking with the approval of the master. A person can make a show of 'courage' out of toady cravenness. It's like all those tough-talking US politicians who bark at Russia, China, and Iran are just ass-kissing tools of Jews and the Deep State. All those who 'courageously' denounce 'white supremacism' are just submissively bowing down before Jews. Would they courageously support BDS and denounce Zionist Imperialism or call out on the facts of black criminality? Fat chance. They got big mouths and cold feet. Michael Moore will never name the Jew.

The sad result of Cancel Culture and other forms of 'wokeness' is the total lack of honesty about history. Then, no wonder that White Superiority has been conflated with White Supremacism and all that it implies: All white achievements and demonstrations of civilizational superiority are products of evil and 'racist' white supremacism. Thus, even white achievements of genuine merit are deemed 'supremacist', like when Yale Medical School decided to take down pictures of great medical pioneers and scientists. Portraits of these men had been placed on the wall for their very real contributions to medicine, but honoring them simply could no longer be tolerated because they were white. Any proof of white superiority is automatically dismissed as 'white supremacism'.
In a climate where any demonstration of white/western superiority in any field is a case of 'white supremacy', we mustn't take notice of white merit, just like we mustn't take notice of black demerit(as criminals and louts) and Jewish demerit(as subversives, seditionists, radicals, fraudsters, and crooks). If you notice the good about whites, you're aiding and abetting 'white supremacism', and if you notice the bad about blacks and Jews, you're taking part in 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. The current climate is utterly ludicrous, but it's far worse than radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism would at least be sincere in its idealism. In the current order, Jewish Power is pushing sham-justice to guilt-bait whites into shame and servitude, all the better to manipulate them into supporting Jewish Supremacism. A dirty trick of bait-and-switch.

The current PC logic, if applied to Muhammad Ali, would insist his victories in the ring were the result of ego-supremacism. After all, Ali was no stranger to arrogance and announced to the world that he was 'the greatest'. Whether one characterizes Ali's attitude as colorful or contemptuous, the fact is he had the aptitude to match the attitude. It wasn't just bluster, which any boxer can dish out. Arrogance doesn't guarantee apogee, no more than supremacism ensures dominance. The walk has to back the talk. Whatever one thinks of Ali's talk, he sure had the walk. This was no less true of a far less likable boxer, Mike Tyson, a truly grotesque personality. If Ali's arrogance had a comic touch, Tyson's outrages were simply demented. Like Ali, he claimed to be the very best that no one could beat. Yet, only a fool would say Tyson's power owed to his ego-mania, ego-centrism, or ego-supremacism. At his peak, he really was the most fearsome heavyweight boxer who steamrolled the opposition. So, one mustn't conflate his very real superiority as a boxer with his ego-supremacist rhetoric. His talk didn't make him the dominant figure in heavyweight boxing in the 80s. For a time, he really was the best with unmatched power and speed. No amount of ego-supremacism in an inferior boxer could guarantee victory.

Then, it's similarly ludicrous to attribute the epic rise of the West to 'white supremacism'. If 'supremacism' leads to great power, why didn't Arabs take over the world? Armed with Islam, they sincerely believed Allah was on their side and they were justified in the Jihad against the infidel. Plenty of American Indian tribes thought they were the best and toughest warriors. With such supremacist attitudes, they should have been able to fend off Pale Face. African tribal warriors were just as convinced of their prowess as warriors and killers, but many of them ended up on slave ships.

Blaming 'white supremacism' for everything is a cheap trick to enshrine the backwardness or stagnation of non-white peoples and cultures as 'tragic victimhood' than as relative failures in global competition. There should be no great shame for any people to have fallen behind(as it happened to all peoples), and there should be no special blame for any people to have pulled ahead. There was a time when North Africa and the Near East were far ahead of Europeans, especially those in the North. So, are we to assume that the great achievements of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were the results of 'supremacist' attitudes whereas Northern Europeans lagged behind because of... 'supremacism' of the then Global South?
Perhaps, Egyptians, Libyans, Babylonians, and such folks really did believe their great achievements owed to something innately superior in them, but regardless of their attitudes, the fact is they achieved far more than Northern European folks in ancient times. Jews certainly developed a supremacist attitude, but the power of their spiritual vision cannot be attributed to tribal arrogance alone. Along with Hindus, Jews took spiritual imagination to the highest and deepest levels, and there was genuine superiority in the vision and wisdom, which explains why so many goy folks eventually adopted the God and sacred texts conceived by Jews.

In a way, PC denigration of white achievements is like antisemitic assumptions about Jewish achievements. Because Jews have often been vicious, nasty, arrogant, and contemptuous, Anti-Semites assure themselves that EVERYTHING accomplished by Jews must have been by hook or by crook. So, all Jewish achievements become suspect. Perhaps, Jews feel they are getting even with the historically 'antisemitic' West by encouraging the same kind of mindset against white achievements, i.e. whatever great or noble things whites achieved were always somehow tainted with 'white supremacism', 'racism', or 'antisemitism'(or were stolen from others). In other words, every white achievement, however astounding or beneficial to humanity, was the expression, product, partner, accomplice, enabler, or some such of White Supremacism. Whiteness is now akin to Nazi Lite, and the logic goes as follows: Werner von Braun may have been a great scientist/engineer, BUT his genius was in service to an evil ideology, therefore his genius was evil; likewise, whatever good whites may have done, it is morally questionable because it came about within the context of White Supremacy.

Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that positive white achievements were especially dangerous because they furthered and expanded the power of White Supremacism. It wasn't just the guns and bombs that tyrannized and terrorized the non-white races. Everything achieved by whites INDIRECTLY oppressed the world because it boosted the power of the white world inspired by 'white supremacism'. Medical advancements meant healthier white soldiers to invade other lands and lay waste to indigenous folks. Improved food production meant explosion of white demographics, setting off waves of white colonization of non-white territories. Better ships led to not only increased travel and trade but white domination of non-white lands via control of sea routes and formation of coastal colonies. If whiteness is indeed the foundation of evil 'white supremacism', then white achievements, however remarkable in and of themselves, are to be judged within the context of history in which whites used their advantages to gain dominance over the rest of the world.

There is surely a kernel of truth to such a worldview as it is true enough that the Power uses whatever means available to further its reach and control. Thus, nuclear science/technology in both the US and USSR could never be independent of politics. But, this has been true of all social orders, and it also applies to the spiritual realm. Has God or gods ever been neutral? Not only will both Domain A and Domain B exploit the latest technology to make better weapons but they will claim god or gods as being on their side. So, if achievements in the West were used to further Western power, how was this different from how the Mughals, the Chinese, or the Persians used their knowhow and technology?
It's an interesting topic for discussion, but hardly something the West has been uniquely guilty of. Some controversy surrounding Hayao Miyazaki's THE WIND RISES raised this very question. Should we admire the dreams and the craftsmanship of an airplane engineer because his achievements were used by the Japanese Military in acts of imperialist aggression and war? A sane person should be able to both acknowledge the real achievement and critique how it was used. After all, we can both admire the superb design of the samurai sword and despair of how it was often used. Or the Winchester 73 as a piece of brilliance and a killer of Indians. That the West and the white race often abused their great power is true enough, but that's been the timeless story of power, and the white race is no more or no less guilty than the rest. The main 'guilt' seems to be its pulling ahead of the rest and breaking through the sound barrier of history that no one had thought possible or even imagined as a possibility.

Now, what were the foundations of White Superiority? Here, we need to make a distinction between 'possession' and 'property'. For convenience sake, innate traits among whites will be called 'possessions', and external factors owned and/or controlled by whites will be called 'properties'. So, a man with higher IQ has possession of intelligence, and a man with land & weaponry has property of means. Of course, the two are interrelated as people who possess superior traits usually end up with more properties of power. (Consider what was done to Detroit by whites and blacks. Whites built it, blacks wrecked it.) Still, it isn't always the case. A people of real ability could become mired in a civilizational trap, like traditional East Asia prior to Western Imperialism or like Jewish intellectual culture prior to Emancipation and Secularization. Or, a people of ability could be situated in a harsh climate with poor soil, or they could exist in crippling isolation from the rest of the world. In contrast, a people of no special ability could be favored by fortune: Fine arable land with lots of water. And they could have warlike spirit(like the Ottoman Turks) and gain control of the inventions of other more gifted peoples. Thus, people who possess innate abilities could be severely limited in property(due to external factors), whereas a mediocre people with good fortune and warlike spirit could gain much in the way of property. Also, quality often loses to quantity. The upper classes have been brought down by mob uprisings, and talented minorities were set upon by the envious, resentful, and/or desperate majority. One hundred elite troops will lose to 10,000 mediocre troops. A tiger can be brought down by a large pack of wild dogs.

Beginning with 'possession', what innate traits favored the West over the Rest? Surely, this is the most controversial topic in our PC age, and even relatively maverick historians like Niall Ferguson don't want to go there. Instead of a single factor, it was probably a combination of traits. Some believe it owes to higher IQ among Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but then, why did East Asians lag behind though their IQs have been shown to be comparable, even slightly higher? Some have surmised that Europeans were more individualistic and innovative because of their racial personality; or European IQ is higher at the tail end.
Does this mean the white race is individualist whereas the yellow race is conformist and/or communalist? Maybe but maybe not. More likely, most whites may actually be inclined toward conformism, just like the yellows. The spread of PC and the ideological & idolatrous consensus in the current West is a testament to that. If most whites are truly individualistic, how come so many fell under the spell of PC and other officially sanctioned nuttery?
Then, what really made the difference between East and West? Rather than individualist West vs communalist East, it's more likely that the West had just enough extra individualism to set it apart. So, it wasn't as if 100 people in the West were individualist and 100 people in the East were communalist. Rather, if only 2 out of 100 people in the East were individualist, 6 out of 100 people in the West were individualist, and that provided just enough added window space to allow for more innovation and discovery. So, even though the great majority, 98 in the East and 94 in the West, were always communalist than individualist, the West had just enough MORE individually-minded folks to create just enough extra space for more freedom necessary for innovation and revolutions. But because entire civilizations are defined by their most iconic figures, many came to assume that the entire West is marked by individualism. But the actual history of the West is more often of herd-mentality, mob-mentality, and ideological conformism. In reference to Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD, it was more about the masses bound to Toohey than individuals standing tall like Howard Roark. Still, having a society where 6 out of 100 are Roarkians than merely 2 out of 100 could make all the difference. It's like 6 strikes with flint-stones than merely 2 are more likely to provide the spark that lights the tinder on fire.

Genetics cannot provide all the answers, especially as the abilities of one group may be closer to those of another group that is genetically more distant. For instance, Northern Europeans are genetically closer to Arabs than to Northeast Asians who, in turn, are closer to Southeast Asians than to Northern Europeans. And yet, in terms of IQ and ability, Japanese are closer to Germans than to Malaysians. Europeans in general are closer in ability to East Asians than with Arabs even though both Europeans and Arabs belong to the Caucasian race. Even among various groups within a single broadly defined race, different cultural-historical-geographical factors could have led to notable divergences. Burmese and Mongols are closer to one another than Burmese are to Arabs or Mongols are to Swedes, but Burmese and Arabs are better adapted to warmer weather, whereas Mongols and Swedes are better adapted to colder weather. American Indians are genetically similar to East Asians, and yet in terms of IQ, Europeans and East Asians are more comparable.
White advantage surely owes to higher IQ but also to racial personality. If blacks evolved to be wild, East Asians evolved to be mild. As such, blacks found it difficult to build complex social order, and East Asians found it difficult to break free of the order. In contrast, Caucasian genetics were somewhere between the polar opposites of Negroids and Mongoloids.

Europeans also lucked out because the core of Europe was sufficiently close to non-European civilizations(to draw inspirations from them) yet also sufficiently separated from them(to fend off attempts at wholesale invasion). In contrast, East Asia was far removed from the rest of the world and mostly developed in isolation. Thus, it drew fewer inspirations from foreign civilizations other than India, which, by the way, was more notable for spiritual contemplation than vigor in science/technology. So, while certain white advantages were possessions(innate), others were matters of properties(external) that accrued to the white world because of the 'accident' of its geographical location that was just close enough to and just closed off to the non-European world.

In the long run, Northern Europe especially gained much from the 'backfield advantage'. As it was further removed from the Cradle of Civilization, it naturally lagged behind Southern Europe that came into regular contact with North Africa and Near East. And yet, this contact also meant endless conflicts of invasions and being invaded. Over time, the endless conflicts led to more destruction than construction.
In contrast, once the civilizational formulas that originated in the South crept up North, they could develop in a world of greater security and stability. Indeed, the US had this advantage to a much greater magnitude over Europe in the 19th and 20th century. Notwithstanding the horrors of the American Civil War, the US could develop with far greater security, stability, and freedom than Europe where Great Power politics led to endless tensions and eventually to World War I and World War II. The American advantage was like that of historical Britain but on a much larger scale. Whereas UK was a small island nation(relatively speaking) separated from the Continent by a narrow channel, America was separated from the Old World by an ocean and furthermore, had limitless empty space to stretch out across for a grand experiment without interruptions of war(especially as the native Reds were easily quelled). In that sense, certain European ideas came to their fullest expression and realization in America.

If white 'possessions' are forms of superiority owned by whites regardless of their fortunes — it's like Jews will possess high IQ even if robbed of wealth and blacks will possess athletic abilities even if robbed of freedom — , white 'properties' are forms of superiority that whites are fortunate to own. Europeans were geographically fortunate, and Anglos were especially fortunate to have arrived in North America, the best land mass in the entire world. (Russians lucked out because the vast territories of Siberia were mostly unpopulated and simply there for the taking. And despite the horrors suffered by Russians at the hands of Mongols, the yellow barbarian hordes very possibly prevented China from grabbing much of Siberia. After all, the reason why the Chinese refused to expand northward was they regarded the Northern Tribes as hopeless barbarians who should be kept out with massive walls. If the Mongols weren't there, Chinese might have grown bolder and more expansive. So, even the monstrous misfortune like the Mongols proved to be a fortune for the Russians.)

One may argue that white properties shouldn't qualify as evidence of white superiority as they are external to whiteness. After all, if Bill and Bob are equal in strength but if Bill gains an advantage over Bob by wielding a rock or a stick, his superiority depends solely on an external factor. Bill isn't any stronger than Bob because he has a rock or a stick, and if the rock or stick were to end up in Bob's hand, things would be reversed. For much of modern history, the white world had the better weapons, what Omar Sharif's character calls 'guns' in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Especially since the end of World War II, non-white nations have been developing their own technologies and weapons, and what had once been the sole property of the White World now belongs to all the world.

Still, there is a connection between possession and property. Consider the opening part of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Bones and sticks are strewn everywhere. So, any ape could have picked them up to be used as weapons. But, no ape did(or even thought to) until a certain spark affected the way one particular ape(the Howard Roark of apes) began to see things. No longer were bones merely lifeless matter strewn on the ground. Dead things could be 'resurrected' like Lazarus into force & energy by living organisms. A dry bone could be an extension of an ape's arm, an idea that eventually led to mankind's building of spaceships with lifeless matter. The ape turned the bone into a property of power because he came to possess a spark, which in the film was gifted by the monolith controlled by extraterrestrials.

It's possible that the revolutions in thought and technology in Europe were purely a matter of accident, as Jared Diamond argues in GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. They could have happened to ANY people but just happened to happen in Europe because of certain factors related to geography and other external factors. But then, even accidents can indelibly alter the future course of organisms in profound ways. After all, mankind had nothing to do with the creation and formation of Earth that was an accumulation of series of cosmic 'accidents', but mankind, like all life forms, was profoundly shaped by these 'accidents' at the genetic level. Mankind didn't create the Arctics and the Tropics, the 'accidents' of geology, but the extremes of cold and hot did lead to divergences in evolution and favored certain genes at the expense of others among the various races. Even random events have deep repercussions.

Now, if the world were turned upside down by relentless series of accidents, nothing could be for certain. It's like a game of poker would be meaningless if cards were endlessly shuffled; the game is possible because it progresses in accordance to a certain logic once the cards have been shuffled.
Suppose the Earth was constantly bombarded with asteroids. Everything would be in a mad state of chaos and flux. But such major 'accidents' that fundamentally reconfigure and realign the world are rare and are usually followed by long stretches of relative stability in which the divergences set off by the Great Accident lead to long trajectories with profound implications. So, the Occident is more than an Accident. Whatever forces beyond human control led to the geographies and demographics that separated European folks from other folks, they set off far-reaching divergences that led to real differences and expressions of uniqueness among the races. And it's possible that Europeans ended up with just the right combination of higher intelligence, inspiration, individuality, and imagination to create the sparks that led to the fire of modernity. It isn't a certainty but should at least be considered, but the gods of the current order cannot tolerate any heresy.

ROOTING OUT WHITE SUPREMACY IN MATH - American Renaissance

Problems of Rush Limbaugh & the Delusions of Dittoheads — The False Dichotomy of 'Right-Wing' Capitalism vs 'Left-Wing' Socialism

Did Rush Limbaugh really make a difference?

Ironically, Limbaugh paved the way for the triumph of the New Liberals who should now be called Uberalls as they stand for Shlomo-Globo hegemony uber alles. Maybe, Limbaugh should be called a 'Limberal' given he unwittingly lent a hand to the Globerals and Uberalls in their total usurpation of power. How was Limbaugh a tool in this?

He was a total cheerleader for US corporations, 'free trade', 'private enterprise', Wall Street, Las Vegas, and money-money-money on the supposition that those are intrinsically 'conservative' forces. His was a pro-rich message though his main appeal was to the rubes. Thus, he helped create the situation of "What's the Matter with Kansas", i.e. so many American social conservatives who were have-lesses supporting policies that favored the have-mores and have-lot-mores in the mistaken belief that Big Money was on the side of Americanism.
Perhaps, Limbaugh's blind spot could be forgiven as his formative years were the Cold War when global conflict according to the US Narrative boiled down to God, Enterprise, & American Patriotism versus Godless Communism & Anti-Americanism. Also, when Rush Limbaugh was young, the face of capitalism was General Motors and good ole boys making things in factories. And the GOP was powerful in California — none other than Ronald Reagan won twice there as governor and dominated in 1980 and 1984 — , and the initial high-tech start-ups had many libertarian-leaning individuals who preferred GOP's pro-entrepreneur policies.

Limbaugh was blind, willfully or otherwise, as to how much things had changed in American Capitalism with the ascendancy of boomers(among whom Jews were especially powerful). And had he inspected matters more carefully, he would have realized that Eastern Bloc communist nations were, in more ways than one, culturally and socially more conservative than the Liberal West(that, under the power of PC, became both less conservative and less liberal, rejecting both traditional values and civil liberties in favor of the Tri-Supremacist Idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos enshrined as the Holy Three). Limbaugh clung to Cold War formulations of the Left vs Right, and his continuing influence after the Cold War turned out to be corrosive. In his twilight, he warmed to Donald Trump, but it was too little too late(and besides Trump turned out to be a clown).

In the 1990s, a boomer civil war broke out between Rush Limbaugh(and Newt Gingrich) and Billy Boy Clinton(and Jews securing their position as the new ruling elites). With the defeat of George H.W. Bush, the so-called Greatest Generation's fall from power(and grace) was swift, and the boomers, biggest generation in US history, took total power(though Clinton did appoint some of the older generation). Bob Dole was useless in 1996, and the death of Richard Nixon marked an end of an era.
According to Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his crowd represented the Radical Sixties, Socialism, and Anti-Americanism. But the real conflict wasn't about capitalism vs socialism but about trying to win over Big Capital. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats had pretty much given up on Big Labor and fixed their gaze on Wall Street, Big Tech, and other Big Money players as the main prizes. It was as if both Limbaugh and Clinton in drag were doing lap dance for Bill Gates and the like. They were both going 'me so horny, we sucky sucky long time'.
In time, Boomer Big Money went with the Democrats, something American Conservatives were reluctant to face until the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson finally began to gripe about traitorous Chamber of Commerce and 'woke capital'. But even now, so many American Conzos yap about 'socialism', 'communism', and blah blah. Right, the mega-billionaires of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Hollywood, Wall Street, and etc. are all a bunch of 'communists'. And those vain homos and trannies funded by the super-rich represent what? Leninism and Stalinism?
Bill Clinton, a sleazebag but an astute observer of human nature, understood that the rich aren't only materially greedy but morally vain and status-anxious. As long as Democratic policies were overly punitive on the wealthy, many among the rich would reluctantly stick with the stuffy-and-square GOP as the pro-business party. But once the Democratic Party became reasonably pro-business, many(even most) rich folks would come over to the Democrats(even if GOP remained more pro-business) because the Democrats control the gods and own the 'cool'. Especially with Jewish control of academia and media, the gods of the US became the Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and increasingly Holy Homos. As the Democratic Party was the home of most Jews and blacks, it held the moral high ground. And as Jewish Power made homos ever holier, the young generation increasingly went with the Democrats as the happy globo-homo party.

Of course, the GOP had given up 'racism' long ago, but why would blacks accept racial equality from the GOP when they can get racial sanctity from the Democrats? Some Jews, as 'Neocons', did join the GOP because it was even more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party, but it was a matter of inches(and besides, the Neocons were merely using the GOP without offering much in return: "I eat your lunch, and I eat my lunch."). If the Democratic Party was 200% for Israel, the GOP claimed it was 210% for Israel. It hardly made a difference. Also, despite GOP's ultra-hardline support for Israel, many American Conservatives opposed or or were at least less enthused about Jewish-favored policies in the US, such as gun-banning, more mass-immigration, anti-white rhetoric, Christianity-bashing, and promotion of globo-homo. Indeed, GOP's extreme obeisance to Israel and Zionism was really a crutch, a desperate compensation for its disfavor among most Jews. If anything, it betrayed GOP's anxiety as the party of disdain among Jews. In a sane world, those attacked by Jews should attack them back, but as Jews became holy in the US, you had to praise them and seek their approval EVEN when they attacked you. As the GOP couldn't win favor from Jews on domestic issues, it went full-steroids on Israel. GOP gushed as if Jews are the very best, and yet most Jews stuck with the Democrats. If indeed Jews are the best yet most remained with the Democratic Party, didn't it imply that Democrats are morally superior? After all, it seems a happier home for the Very Best.

Anyway, as the party of the three most 'sacralized' groups(of Jews, blacks, and homos), the Democrats had a decisive moral advantage over the GOP, and this state of affairs hasn't changed after four years of Donald Trump whose message was, "I love Negroes, even as they riot and loot! I love Jews even as they ram me in the arse! And, Trannies can use women's room at Trump Tower." Rich people love money but are also anxious about their reputation, and as the Jews/Democrats controlled the gods, most rich folks moseyed on over to the Democratic Party. Besides, it was also the party of big Hollywood stars and rock stars, thus more fashionable and 'cool'. In contrast, GOP was associated with 'racist' redneck Neo-Confederate South & 'homophobes' and Nashville hillbillies. (Its moralism came down to Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza yapping about how the Democrats are the 'real racists' because the KKK members were historically Democratic.) And when the Jew-run media made Trump and 'Deplorables' out to be Worse-than-Hitler and the new nazis, most rich folks(shallow and vain) wanted nothing to do with it. And the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney know only one trick: Try to win back the rich with even more tax cuts and other cucktivities.

Limbaugh of the Cold War mentality thought that the triumph of global capitalism was synonymous with victory for conservatism against Godless Communism and leftover radicalism from the Sixties, but the success of everything he'd championed came to mean the death knell of American Conservatism(and also of American Liberalism as the current power is anything but liberal in the traditional or even radical sense). The great irony is that Limbaugh lost precisely because he won. The Big Money that he so idolized won many times over, and its power led to censorship of conservatives, deplatforming of patriots, denial of financial services to rightists, defamation of people like him, and the rise of global-gangster-fascism(as opposed to good humanist fascism). Limbaugh and the dittoheads assumed that Big Capital was at war with Big Government, and the triumph of the former would ensure more liberty, more freedom, and more patriotism. Actually, the result was the fusion of Deep Pockets and Deep State. Also, Limbaugh and his ilk hoped that Jews could be wooed over to Conservatism because Jews are rich and GOP is 210% pro-Israel(than merely 200% that the Democrats are). They failed to realize that Jews have an agenda all their own. Jews weren't looking to pick sides but take over both parties and manipulate them to Jewish supremacist ends.

In the end(and from the beginning), Limbaugh was more style than substance, and Trump turned out to be no different. For all his maverick playacting, he cared more about money, success, fame, and celebrity than integrity and truth. Though he stood up to the GOP on occasion, he was more often than not a reliable cheerleader and whore for all its destructive policies.

Could Limbaugh have made a difference? Yes, but he missed the chance. Looking back, the most prescient presidential candidate of the last fifty years was Ross Perot whose campaign took on both the GOP and the Democratic Party as the tweedle dee and tweedle dum of globalism and 'free trade'. Though Perot was far from perfect and a rather unstable personality, he was more right than wrong about the dangers posed to American sovereignty by the rise of globalism and the New World Order. Because the GOP was more invested in 'free trade' than the Democrats back then, Perot was hit harder by the Republicans. Limbaugh, a Reagan Romantic of the Cold War mindset, joined with the GOP in mercilessly mocking not only Perot's looks and personality but his warnings and policies. Rush, the attack dog of the GOP, assured all the dittoheads across the fruited plains(soon to become tutti-fruity plains) to denounce Perot and go with George H.W. Bush, 'free trade', and New World Order policies.
Thus, Limbaugh missed the boat. Another chance came with Patrick Buchanan's remarkable speech at the 1992 GOP convention where he spoke for the common man and the American Worker threatened by globalist 'free trade'. Again, Limbaugh reliably sided with the GOP and repeated all the talking points about how Walmart and the like are the wave of the future, and the American Worker had nothing to fear and nothing to lose and had everything to gain. Or, maybe they can learn to code and become big earners in High-Tech.
And of course, 'true conservatives' know that capitalists are all such swell fellows, mostly patriots and natural conservatives(or at the very least libertarians committed to small government and liberty). They would never betray the GOP for all it has done for them with lower taxes, de-regulation, and the like. Limbaugh and dittoheads were fooling themselves.

While capitalists are surely people of talent, drive, ambition, creativity, and even vision, the world of money isn't exactly one of integrity or loyalty. As it's mainly driven by materialism and status-anxiety, loyalty and integrity are the last thing on the mind of capitalists. Capitalism is useful and productive but shouldn't be the core of any meaningful identity, ideology, or value system. Like Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER 2, "all our people are businessmen... their loyalty is based on that..." One may admire businessmen for their ability but never mistake it for integrity.

If Limbaugh had taken a nationalist-populist stance in support of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, perhaps he would have been booted off 'conservative talk radio' that, more often than not, was a propaganda wing of Zionists and the GOP, much like most of so-called MSM is little more than Ministry of Information for the Democratic Party and ADL. Still, he would have been a man of integrity, and had he overcome the obstacles with a populist message, he and his following could have served as a formidable counter-force against globalism pushed not only by the GOP but the Democrats.
But, by working with the GOP to crush people like Perot and Buchanan, Limbaugh unwittingly strengthened the future Democrats who would turn out to be the main beneficiaries of 'free trade', deregulation, Big Tech monopoly, and anarcho-oligarcho-tyrannism. Limbaugh banked on the false hope that triumph of New Capital would ensure dominance of the GOP and American Conservatism. And most dittoheads fell for the myth that the power struggle was about American Capitalism & Conservatism(and Neocons & Israel) versus International Socialism & Liberalism(and all those 'Anti-Semites' eager to throw Israel under the bus) when, in fact, the real tug-of-war between GOP and the Democratic Party was for the 'hearts and minds'(or wallets and vanity) of the rich donor class.

The sad irony is that the rich capitalist oligarchic class won bigger than ever(exactly as Limbaugh and dittoheads wished), and it was this very class(especially dominated by Zio-Globalist Jews) that waged total war on American Nationalism, the white race, Christianity, and populist-conservatism. But American Conzos learned nothing. Again with Obama's win in 2008, there was more nonsensical talk about 'socialism'! True, Obama had links with certain radical figures from the Sixties, some of them Jewish, but most of them had moved on from communism to Zionist-capitalist-supremacism. (Besides, Neocons had Trotskyite backgrounds.) Wall Street was bailed out under Obama, the puppet of the Jews, and Jews got even richer when Main Street took it up the arse. And it was Big Capital that funded globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense. It was the capitalists who promoted 'gay burgers'. And it was the capitalists at Chick-Fil-A who, despite so much support from the conservative consumers, caved under Jewish Capitalist pressure and became Dick-Fil-Ass. And while uber-capitalist banks were shutting down accounts of conservatives and rightists, some of the biggest corporations were pumping many millions, even billions, into groups like BLM and SPLC. It was super-rich Hollywood Jews and Silicon Valley Zionists who pumped record cash into Georgia to ensure Democratic Senatorial wins. Joe Biden raised record money in 2020 thanks to Big Capital and super-rich Jews. And Big Capital conspired with the Deep State and Big Media to turn 2020 into a hellhole with Covid nonsense and BLM nuttery just to punish America for having elected Trump. So, the notion that capitalism is automatically conservative was a boomer myth, a byproduct of Cold War mentality.

But the kind of 'conservatism' set by Limbaugh and dittoheads failed to see the big picture because it was stuck on framing the world in terms of capitalism = conservatism versus socialism = liberalism. What's-the-Matter-with-Kansas was a case of "What's the matter with Limby-Dim and the Dittoheads?" Now, it's true that Limbaugh's reach and influence waned in the age of the internet, but much of the talking points remained. So, Steven Crowder the chowder-head still thinks the big enemy is 'socialism'. Andrew Torba, though laudable as founder of Gab and defender of free speech, gripes about 'communism', ROTFL. (China may be ruled by the CCP, but China gave up communism long ago... or haven't they heard? CCP today is about as Maoist as the current Democrats are Pro-Confederate and Pro-Working-Class.) And so many even in the Dissident Right speak of THE LEFTISTS. Anyone with sense would have realized long ago that true leftism is deader than conservatism, though it may not seem that way on the surface as radical 'wokeness' seem to be everywhere. But it's all just labels over trivia and trifles. Jewish supremacist capitalist-Zionism hides behind the 'leftist' label to create the false impression that its side is about 'equity' and 'justice' when it's totally about supremacism, hierarchy, hegemony, and privilege. If the Democrats are really about equal justice for all, what's with all their 'Muh Israel' catechisms and submission to Zionist Jews and total support for More Wars for Zion?

Alt Right could have introduced something new, but idiot Richard Spencer and his retardo crew decided to larp as Nazis and fall into the enemy's trap, which made it even harder for Trump to try something different.

At any rate, one thing Perot got right was going beyond the stunted worldview of left vs right. The Reform Party was a third party that appealed to both rightist and leftist sentiments. Though Nazism 2.0 turned out to be insane with its imperialism and wars, Nazism 1.0 was essentially sound precisely because it combined rightism with leftism. National Socialism was about German Pride but also about the German worker, the backbone volk of the nation. Perot instinctively understood this, and free-thinking Democrats and Republicans were willing to give him a chance.
It attempted a counter-convergence against the convergence happening within both the GOP and the Democratic Party. After the end of the Cold War, the establishment elites of both parties were converging on 'free trade', globalism, the gods of PC, and total sucking up to Jews. For all the bitterness between Billy Boy Clinton and Newt Gingrich, they were totally agreed on More for Wall Street and More for Big Money. Perot's challenge envisioned a different kind of convergence. Not among the elites but among the masses. The American People, instead of being divided by and manipulated with the false dichotomy of 'left' vs 'right', would converge as a broad mass of patriots in defense of national sovereignty and economic justice. Convergence of the people against the convergence of the elites. If not for Perot's instability and the dirty tricks played by both parties(especially by the GOP), it's possible Perot could have changed the course of US history. And Limbaugh could have been part of something truly remarkable but he opted to be the lapdog of the GOP and cheered on the Walmartians.

A third party is useless if it appeals only to one side. Another 'liberal' party will merely take votes away from the Democrats, ensuring victory for the GOP, and another 'conservative' party will shave votes from the GOP, ensuring victory for the Democrats. The only chance for a Third Party is to win over disillusioned people from both sides. Also, its message must be both left and right. After all, there is much that is good about leftism(without which Western progress is inconceivable) and much that is good about rightism(without which there is no civilizational continuity and stability). Conservatism allows for tradition, caution, and continuance. Liberalism allows for novelty, experimentation, and daring. It's like how evolution works. Without mutations, organisms would have remained the same. And yet, most mutations are harmful and must be rejected. Without leftism, there is just moribund conservatism, and many civilizations grew weak and weary as a result, like Ancient Egypt and Byzantium. The West made great leaps because of the revolutionary spirit. And yet, without the stabilizing gyrational force of conservatism, leftism can turn cancerous and crazy, mistaking every novelty as the 'most evolved' truth. Imagine an organism where the mutations take over. It will turn into Elephant Man.

Looking back on 2016, it would have been better for Trump to run as a third-party candidate. Because he ran as a Republican, he was compelled to play the 'rightist', thus needlessly alienating many people with leftist inclinations. Had he run on a combination of nationalism and socialism, he could have done so much more. Of course, had he won as a third party candidate in 2016, he would have been squeezed by both parties in Congress for four grueling years, but many more Americans would have been with him. Being alone with the people isn't the worst thing, and his tragedy would have been heroic. Instead, as a sham 'rightist' in a cucked GOP, the tragedy of 2020 was a clown-show, a farce.
Two realities decide the fate of America: JEWS CONTROL THE GODS and JEWS GIVE YOU MONEY. In the end, despite all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh bowed to the Jewish-controlled gods and took their money as Talk Radio Industry was controlled by Uber-Zionists.

RUSH - AN AMERICAN ICON

Accusations of 'Antisemitism' serve as Moral Cover for Jews who act out Antisemitic Stereotypes — Blacks use 'Racism' the same way — Jewish Supremacism requires more than mere Meritocracy — The Myth of Jewish Sainthood as Jews are after Worldly Power, not Spiritual Truth(except in worship of themselves as the new god)

The monstrous Sackler Family whose pharmaceuticals led to the deaths of 100,000s of white people, but NO ONE cares in the Media run by Jews

JEWISH DIAMOND MERCHANT 'TROPES'

The Antisemitism Paradox is as follows: Jews accuse people of 'antisemitism' to get away with acting like 'antisemitic' stereotypes. There's also the 'Racism' Paradox. Blacks accuse people of 'racism' to get away with acting like 'racist' stereotypes. It's like bad people accusing others of defaming them as 'bad' in order to get away with acting bad.

While Anti-Jewish feelings and attitudes can get out of control(and even become cancerous as with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), there's no getting around the fact that broad stereotypes about certain groups are based on reality. Indeed, something like Nazism was an extreme reaction to bad Jewish behavior. The radical character of this hatred was pathological, but it was not an animus based on insane fantasies that slandered totally innocent Jews. (Furthermore, Nazi evil had much in common with Jewish evil as both were expressions of racial supremacism and arrogance.) It's like communism was an extreme and dangerous reaction to capitalism, but many of its criticism and condemnations of capitalism were justified(and even defenders of capitalism noted its problems and saw the need for reform and some measure of socialism as counter-balance.)
If the dark tragedy of extreme antisemitism, such as Nazism, was that it could only see the BAD in Jews, thereby condemning all Jews into objects deserving of hatred and even elimination, the dark tragedy of the post-WWII period has been a mindless Philosemitism that could see only the GOOD in Jews. This wouldn't have mattered if Jews were a powerless people or a middling population, but it became the most dangerous mindset in a world where Jews have amassed supremacist power over the world. An attitude of willful naivete and sappy obeisance to the most powerful people in the world is dangerous, especially when the attitude of many Jews isn't much different from their arch-enemy of history, the Nazis. Jewish Power is based on Master Race contempt for goyim, though this aspect is obfuscated by Jewish-controlled media's mantras about 'social justice'. Right, all that talk of 'equity', that must be white Jews are in an equitable position vis-a-vis goyim. Notice that even in industries and institutions where white presence/power has been slashed to smithereens, there are cries of 'too many whites', but there can never be talk of 'too many Jews' even in fields where the 2% constitute the overwhelming majority as owners, managers, or influencers.

The problem for Jews is, even as they fear 'antisemitic' stereotypes or 'tropes' that cast them in a negative light, they are committed to and obsessed with(and even addicted to) doing the things associated with 'antisemitic stereotypes/tropes'. This is because too many Jews(especially at the top) aren't content merely to be good Jews who get along on equal footing with goyim. They aren't even satisfied with the surplus wealth, privilege, and power that come via meritocracy. As Jews have higher IQ, a purely meritocratic system will ensure that Jews will attain and control more; and as all barriers to Jewish access and ascension have faded over the years, Jews have much to gain from meritocracy alone. But even that isn't enough for Jews because meritocracy, properly applied, puts a limit even on the talented. While meritocracy favors the more talented group over others, it doesn't ensure total power for the advantaged group. Jews aren't content with mere over-representation; they must have overwhelming control over key institutions and industries, which is why Jewish finance sector is propped up by Jews in the justice department and deep state. (The notion of 'too big to fail' means Jews have more cards up their sleeve than mere meritocracy. Even when they gamble and lose, they are bailed out. And even when Neocon pundits were so wrong about the Iraq War, they are favored for hiring by Jewish-run media and think-tanks. Consider that miserable worm Max Boot.) And of course, Jewish finance sector favors Jewish ventures in Big Tech and other areas. If a Jew and a goy come up with the same great idea, guess who will receive favorable financing?

And Jews want to control the icons and idols that ensure irrational emotions in favor of Jewish Agenda. Manipulation of icons means Jews get to control the gods, and then Jews can preach: Jews = Holocaust = Holiness. Yet, 'sacralization' of Jews, far from ensuring saintly Jewish behavior, has only encouraged Jewish gangster behavior. Shielded by the aura of holiness(whereby any critical view of Jewish people, power, and/or culture could be deemed 'antisemitic', thereby 'nazi'), Jews became the 'made men' of America.
It's the law of human nature that, 99 times out of 100, more exaltation leads to more execrable behavior. Why were so many princes and princesses such spoiled snotty louts? All the adulation made Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong more megalomaniacal, arrogant, and tyrannical. (No wonder the Christian Mythology of Man ascending to God-status in Heaven necessitated that He be dragged through the mud and pay the dues. But then, the mythology says Jesus was God to begin with.) When man is allowed god-status, his ego is filled up with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, which leads to hubris. Apotheosis leads to appalling behavior.

This is why saints and holy men are expected to relinquish worldly power and wealth. To gain higher spiritual worth, one must abandon material ambition in the world of man. But Jews paint themselves as the new christs on account of the Shoah Narrative, and then use their sham-holiness as moral shield to amass more wealth, privilege, and power than mankind has ever before. Thus, Jewish saintliness is a fraud. While there are surely individual Jews who, as survivors or historians, tried to derive wisdom from the tragedy, too many Jews have used the Shoah as Shoah-business or a moral license to cheat, lie, steal, and even commit mass-murders against peoples deemed as enemies or rivals of Jews.
And this is what's so frustrating about the lectures, sermons, and warnings about 'Antisemitism'. Instead of cautioning goyim about the dangers of 'antisemitic' stereotypes while, at the same time, reminding Jews not to confirm them by practice, anti-antisemitism has come down to Jews doing whatever they please(thus certifying some of the hoariest 'antisemitic' cliches) regardless of morality or decency while the rest of us must forgo any criticism of Jewish power & abuses lest it be 'antisemitic'. It's turned into a sick game of 'Heads We Win, Tails You Lose'. Thus emboldened, Jewish behavior has gotten worse and worse, culminating in the dark year of 2020 when Jewish Power paralyzed the world economy with Covid Hysteria nonsense and terrorized the Western World with BLM madness to bully the white race into shame and submission. Of course, when it comes to sheer death and mayhem, the biggest victims of Jewish Insanity have been the Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East, at least those who live under regimes that refuse to be puppet-partners of the Zionist-controlled US.

Jews and blacks are the biggest destroyers of the West with their use of moral outrage as cover for outrageous immorality. So, blacks will say there's this 'racist' stereotype of blacks as criminals, implying that anyone who notices reality is a 'racist'. And if one can't help noticing it despite the admonition, just pretend it's 'teens' or 'youths' who are doing it. And on occasion that blacks do admit the criminality, it is blamed on systemic racism or 'history of white supremacism', which means black crime is reparations-by-other-means or rightful-revenge against Evil Whitey. Of course, blacks coast on such delusions with crucial support from Jews who are experts at moral sophistry. Because of Jewish support(and use of blacks), status-aspiring blacks tend to develop a moral blind spot where Jewish Power is concerned. If blacks are indeed opposed to all forms of supremacism, they would call out on Zionism but know all-too-well that they'll be relegated to Field Ni--er status whereas those who denounce Evil Whitey but overlook Evil Jew will be awarded with House Negro status, and of course, Oprah and Obama were mega-advertisers in this regard.

At any rate, the group doing the most harm to the West from above is the Jews, and the one doing the most harm from below is the blacks. If Jewish finance won't get you, black fist will. And yet, both groups are shielded from criticism because of the taboos of 'antisemitism' and 'racism', which are designed less to suppress unthinking bigotry against Jews and blacks than to protect truly bad Jewish and black behaviors from exposure and criticism. In other words, Jews privately know they are addicted to supremacist power and ethno-arrogance; they want everything and know that they must play dirty to get it; only playing clean according to principles won't do it. That means Jews must often act like 'antisemitic' stereotypes to get what they want, and what better way to shield this behavior from scrutiny than by howling about 'antisemitism' at every turn?
Same goes with blacks. Blacks are no longer content with promises of equality and freedom. They savor being the thug and acting like dey be kangz and shi*. They love to thump people in the streets, rob & loot, rape & pillage, and howl like idiots. They are addicted to acting like crazyass ni--az. So, just like Jews with their constant alarmism over 'antisemitism', what better way to shield bad black behavior from pushback than by hollering about 'racism' at every turn?

So, neither 'antisemitism' taboo nor 'racism' taboo exists to remind us that there are good Jews along with bad Jews(as the case is with all other groups) but to silence our noticing of bad Jews and bad blacks. Normal morality would lead us to praise the good about a people while condemning the bad. So, good things done by whites deserve admiration whereas bad things done by whites are reason for condemnation. And this should apply to every group. But with Jews and blacks, normal morality doesn't apply. Even the bad things done by Jews must either be praised(as somehow 'good') or ignored. Same with blacks.
Of course, normal morality doesn't apply to whites either as even the good things they've done must come under hyper-scrutiny and somehow be spun to seem 'bad' or at least questionable or marred. It's as if Jews are observed through the telescope whereas whites through a microscope. Jews are like gods in heaven who are far above us, and we must peer through a telescope for a glimpse of their greatness. In contrast, whites are pored through a microscope for every blemish. It's like Jews as diamond merchants. They examine the diamond for the slightest flaw and emphasize it over the soundness of the diamond as a whole. We are supposed to see radiant holocaust-holiness even in a Jew covered in muck whereas note the slightest blemish(of 'micro-aggression') even in a white of great achievement. This way, even a terrible Jew seen through a telescope will seem better than a good white seen through a microscope. Whiteness is like the stained fork in the Monty Python restaurant skit. No matter how trivial, it is cause for guilt, shame, and self-annihilation. Fork politics against Folk politics.

Examples of Jews using the 'antisemitic' card to cover up actions confirming 'antisemitic' stereotypes abound. Consider Jews and Pat Buchanan. In the runup to the Gulf War in 1990, Buchanan wrote a column noting that the biggest promoters for war were Israeli Firsters whereas most of the casualties will come from whites and blacks. Abe Rosenthal of New York Times howled 'antisemitism' and accused Buchanan of Blood Libel, i.e. Buchanan suggested Jewish sacrifice of gentile blood for Jewish interests. Soon after, even William F. Buckley Jr. was piling on Pat Buchanan who, in a few years, would become persona non grata in the GOP, especially as he reversed his support of 'free trade'.

Now, what is Neocon Foreign Policy but a case of exploiting goy muscle and sacrificing goy blood for Jewish ends? If anything, Buchanan's criticism wasn't strong enough. Indeed, US foreign policy as Blood Libel has been true whether Democrats or Republicans were in control of government(as US politics is a game of who-gets-to-be-top-puppets-of-Jews). Puppet Bill Clinton appointed heartless Madeleine Albright who said it was 'worth it' to sacrifice countless Arab lives. George W. Bush and his Neocon crew waged wars in which many thousands of American soldiers were killed or wounded and countless more Arab lives were destroyed, and these conflicts were essentially Wars for Israel. And Barack Obama was no better, laying Libya and Syria to waste at the behest of Jews who gave him money.
So, Abe Rosenthal's shrieking about 'antisemitism' wasn't to prove the falsehood of 'antisemitic' stereotypes but to give moral cover to Jewish behavior that all-too-often validates those stereotypes.
It's like blacks going on a looting spree and then bitching about how it's 'racist' to stereotype blacks as robbers and looters. That the West has willingly succumbed to such foulness is a sure sign of soul-sickness at the core, not least because cancerous Jewish Power has taken over the institutions. The sheer disregard for goyim is evident in what the Sackler dynasty did to white working class by addicting them to opioids. But even the GOP, the so-called white party, was deathly silent on that matter. One worthless Negro, George Floyd, dies from drug overdose, and Jews turn him into the biggest thing since Anne Frank, but when hundreds of thousands of whites died from dangerously addictive drugs peddled by Jewish crooks, and no one cared, and of course, white working class demise continued under Trump who, to save his own skin from Jewish attacks, had little to say but 'Muh Israel'.

Abe Foxman the Jew and Joe Biden the Goy: Master and Dog

Of course, the Neocon Wars validate yet another 'antisemitic' stereotype. Not only are Jews willing to sacrifice goy blood for Jewish ends but Jews use the power of money to control goy politicians and deep state goons like so many puppets and dogs. What honest person, in this day and age, can deny that Jewish Power controls virtually all politicians in a dog-and-pony show? Even Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor, though vilified 24/7 by Jews high and low, have little to say but "Muh Israel" and "I gladly sucked Netanyahu's pud." The relationship between US politicians and Jewish donors is like that between Hollywood celebrities and Jewish moguls. If you want to be a star, you have to get on your knees, suck, and make sure to swallow. There's truth to the notion of D.C. as Hollywood for Ugly People(though Hollywood isn't exactly pretty either these days).

The 'antisemitic trope' of Jewish Money in politics leads us to another 'antisemitic trope'(that too is demonstrated as truer than false by Jewish behavior). Jews throw a lot of money around, but why are they so rich? Now, Jews are bound to be richer than other groups because they are smarter and thrive in a meritocratic system. It explains why there are so many Jewish doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, professors, and etc. But it's not Jewish doctors and lawyers who dominate money in politics. It's the billionaires and mega-billionaires. Did all those billionaire Jews on Wall Street really rake in all that cash by brilliance alone? Or is there a New Boys Network?
Worse, if the Old Boys Network dominated by Wasps could be called out(because there was no taboo against anti-Wasp sentiments and, furthermore, plenty of reform-minded whites were committed to self-criticism), the New Boys Network is a closed system because of the taboo against calling out on bad Jewish behavior(why, it'd be 'antisemitic'!) and the knee-jerk tribalism among Jews to circle the wagons against goyim. And with Jews in law firms & courts with further support from Jews in the Fed and Deep State, Wall Street Jews can play a rigged game and rake in countless billions... and if their reckless gambles were to fail, they could always count on bail-outs premised on 'Too Big To Fail', which really means 'Too Jew to be Through'.
And even legal means by which some Jews got stinking rich only validate 'antisemitic tropes' of Jews and their close association with the vice industry. Take gambling, which became cancerous and spread all over America as Jews consolidated elite power in the US(and of course, Jews have also spearheaded marijuana legalization and are positioned to dominate the business). Gambling is really mass-theft, and it has utterly degraded the 'family values' theme of the GOP that relies on Vegas money. What do Jewish casino moguls do with all that money? They turn politicians into servants of Mammon and puppets of Israel. That the GOP profusely eulogized a cretin like Sheldon Adelson illustrates how far the cancer has spread.

Another 'antisemitic' stereotype is the suspicion that Jews care more about their own kind, aka World Jewry, than about any goy-majority nation in which they are citizens. But who can deny this? Jewish behavior has been signaling this forever. Who can deny that Jews in Russia, Jews in Poland, Jews in Germany, Jews in UK, Jews in the US, Jews in Mexico, and etc. all feel closer to one another than to goy folks in the respective nations? How else can the New Cold War with Russia be explained except as a case of Russian Jews, US Jews, and World Jewry in general conspiring to gain total control of that nation, much like Jews have already done so in the US and UK?
One thing for sure, the last thing a Jew in a goy nation wants to see is goy nationalism. Now, if a Jew in Poland were indeed a Polish patriot(without 'dual loyalty'), he would welcome Polish nationalism, that is, if indeed, the 'antisemitic trope' of Jews being unpatriotic and/or treasonous is untrue. But, Jews in Poland hate Polish patriotism, and Jews in Hungary hate Hungarian nationalism. Not only do they want nothing to do with goy national pride but they seek to suppress it. Now, some Jews will say that they oppose goy nationalism because it's small-minded and potentially prejudiced. Therefore, Jews support a colorblind value system where no one is judged by the color of his skin or the label of his ethnicity, i.e. all the world must be turned into the brotherhood-of-man. Jews have especially made this argument in the US, supposedly a nation founded on universal principles of liberty and justice. Thus, even if it's true that Jews are disloyal to goy patriotism in any given nation, it's not out of wickedness or treachery(as 'Anti-Semites' charge) but out of higher idealism and humanitarian principles. But such self-justification yet proves another 'antisemitic trope', that of the two-faced weasely Jew.

After all, if American Jews were indeed committed to colorblindness and universal justice, they would reject Jewish identity & interests as they demand and expect whites to abandon white identity & interests. But the very Jews who tell whites to give up their own identity & interests in favor of universality & equality then turn around and say whites must favor Jews & Israel uber alles. It's two-faced and weasely. So, whites must give up white identity in favor of universality but then betray universality in favor of Jewish identity. It's just bait-and-switch. It's enough to drive a people schizo, and perhaps it explains why so many white people today seem to be totally nutsoid. Under the spell of Jews, their minds are filled with an unresolvable contradiction but must carry on as if it all makes sense because the 'antisemitism' taboo is too powerful. After all, if you question Jews, you must be a 'Nazi', and there's nothing worse than that. In a nation where even Donald Trump and white conservatives(who are much-abused and constantly mocked by Jews) go out of their way to bleat 'Muh Israel', questioning Jewish Power is simply out of the question. In a way, white conzos who are being destroyed by Jews are like the victims of Stalin. Even as the latter were sent to the Gulag or condemned for execution, they continued to believe in Stalin and sang praises to him... to their last breath.

So, if we examine the Jewish con-game, it goes as follows. Jews say Goy Nationalism is bad. Jews say Universalism is good. So, Goyim give up their own nationalism in favor of universalism. But then, Jews say goy must favor Jewish Identity-Politics(or Jewish Idolatry) over universalism. Why? Because... it's the 'patriotic' thing to do. In other words, American Patriotism is fundamentally about sucking up to Jews. Imagine that. The trick is really to make goyim reject their own identity to favor Jewish identity. But then, precisely because Jews fear that some goyim might catch on to the BS, they use media, academia, and whore politicians to fool the masses that praising Jews and supporting Israel are the highest form of patriotism.
Now, why would the case of a goy people of a goy majority nation championing Israel, a foreign nation, be the highest expression of patriotism? Since when is the celebration of the Other a matter of 'true patriotism'? After all, patriotism is about Our People and Our Nation, not Those People and Their Nation(or Empire). Imagine British Imperialists telling Hindus in India that the highest form of Indian patriotism is allegiance to England and the British Empire. Sadly, the collaborator elites can be bought with money and/or threatened with disgrace/destruction, and the masses are just dumb enough to fall under mantric sway. When something is said over and over and over by authorities of both 'left' and 'right', it just becomes one of those New Normals that no one really thinks about. Jews toy with the goy as if they are god messing with Job.

Some members of the Italian Mafia once tried to pull the same stunt that Jews have pulled over America. To protect Mafia or Cosa Nostra activities from scrutiny and criticism, they fronted Italian-American 'civil rights' organizations that complained it was prejudiced against Italian-Americans to cast light on organized crime within the community. So, exposing the mafia or Italian-American criminality was tantamount to defamation against the Italian-American community as a whole. But, this shtickolini was really to protect those very criminal activities from investigation. But just like the Rosato Brothers and Pantengeli were small potatoes to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2, the Italian-Americans didn't have the mental sparks, financial firepower, tribal unity(as family loyalty divided the Italian-Americans into warring clans), and spiritual inspiration(such as Shoah Business that proved to be invaluable to Jews as moral shield and cudgel) to gain power over America, especially by ousting Wasps from the top position.

IT'S NOT THE RUSSIANS OR CHINESE; WHO HAS TOTAL SUPREMACY OVER AMERICA

Empire vs Alliance: The World Significance of Jewish-controlled US Empire at odds with the Alliance of Sovereign Nations, especially Russia, China, and Iran — Why Europe became more servile to an America taken over by Jewish Supremacist Power

The key difference in the current global affairs is it comes down to Empire vs Alliance.

On one side, there is the US empire and the countries under its iron wing. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are mere puppets of this empire in the East. And EU is the puppet in the West. The empire has only one power center. The advantage of this arrangement is the concentration of power and easily understood command structure. US and its 'partners' are like Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War. There is a clear chain of command. US gives the orders, the rest follows.
If the rest was less willing to follow Donald Trump, it was because the Deep State had the real power and Trump was regarded as a nuisance(soon to be gotten rid of by means fair and foul). Of great significance is that American power isn't only military, monetary, material, 'mammonic', and market-oriented but moral(and spiritual), especially because Jews control the gods. All of the empire are united in worship of the same gods: The icons, idols, & narratives of the Jews, blacks, homos, and 'diversity/inclusivity'(as defined by Jews, of course, as Israel is allowed to be ultra-nationalist and even supremacist).
Western Europe was less reverential to the US when the latter was ruled by Anglo-Americans, aka Wasps. While Wasps had pride, power, and prestige, they didn't go around making themselves out to be holy saint-victims innately possessed of sanctity. They represented earthly power and could be challenged and expected to be. So, even though Europeans were subordinate to Anglo-American Power for military, monetary, and material reasons, they didn't feel morally(or spiritually) inferior to White Americans; indeed, the Ugly American(which usually meant White Christian American) tropes were common in Europe among all classes.
Sure, America bailed out Europe after WWII and defended it from the USSR, but it was seen as morally marred by the history of 'genocide'(of the American Indians), slavery, 'racism', and neo-imperialism. Indeed, Anti-Americanism was vogue among Europeans during the Vietnam War when the US was lambasted as the New Nazi-like power. Anglo-Americans were giants but not gods; they were supremely powerful but not sacred. Sanctity was bestowed upon the seemingly pitiable Jews.

During the Cold War, Europeans didn't think too much of the sacralization of Jews. After all, WWII & the Shoah and exodus to Israel(and America) had greatly reduced the number of Jews in Europe. Thus, special sympathy for Jews seemed mostly a matter of sentiment, a luxury that Europeans could afford. And besides, the two great empires, US and USSR, following WWII were ruled by white goyim, and no one thought Jews would come to control either. Western Europe spearheaded the sacralization of Jews at a time when the Jewish Community seemed an object of pity. And White Americans also shared in this sacralization without foreseeing the future of Jewish Power in America.
When a powerless people are sacralized, it may be indulgent and naive, but it can't do much harm if they remain powerless. Sucking down to the powerless, as opposed to sucking up to the powerful, can't do much harm. After all, American Indians were sort-of-sacralized in the 60s, but it was inconsequential as Indians lacked to means to gain power. We could sacralize Eskimos or Australian Aborigines, but it'd come to nothing as those people will never amass power.

But, when whites in Europe and US sacralized Jews at their moment of weakness, they utterly lacked foresight as to future consequences. If you take pity on a little baby bunny, at most it will grow into a harmless rabbit. But if you dote on a tiger cub, it will grow into a giant predator. Jews with their higher IQ, pushy personality, vengeful memory, and covenant-based supremacism, had the potential of (re)gaining tremendous power and taking control of the West. When Europeans sacralized Jews as helpless Holocaust Survivors. And they thought the US, the master over Europe for the foreseeable future, would be ruled by Anglo-Americans or White-Christian Americans. As long as the US-as-lone-superpower was ruled by white Christians, Europeans could hold their own in terms of moral discourse and argument. While Europeans felt a certain degree of gratitude toward White Americans, they felt zero guilt toward them.
But because Europeans had sacralized Jews as a race of saint-victims(premised on heavy European guilt as mass-murderers or collaborators in the mass murder), they were poorly position to say NO to American Power were Jews to becoming the ruling elites of the US. Wasps were giants but not gods, but Jews came to control the gods. As Europeans chose to worship Jews as an eternally tragic and holy people, they felt compelled to cave to whatever gods controlled by the Jews. Saying NO to Jewish demands was a no-no, tantamount to heresy. If Jews said 'You celebrate Diversity', Europeans said 'We celebrate Diversity'. If Jews said 'You Cuck to Negroes', Europeans said 'We Cuck to Negroes'. If Jews said, 'You bend over to globo-homo', Europeans said 'We bend over to globo-homo'.

Plans for Holocaust memorial next to UK parliament

Jewish-controlled US has infinitely more power over the EU than Anglo-America ever did during the Cold War. Jews are deemed holy whereas Anglo-Americans never were. Europe in the Cold War had to shine Anglo-America's shoes, but EU today has to kiss the Jewish-America's toes, just like cucky whites grovel at the feet of blacks and wash them. In this sense, the so-called 'free world' is really like a theocracy. The US empire of old ruled by White Christians was admired and feared for its money and military, or earthly matters. But US empire ruled by Jews is obeyed as the new Vatican. "Oh holy Jews, please tell us what gods to worship next." If Jews say, "Men with wigs are women", the cucks in US and EU fall all over themselves to recite the catechism of "Men are women". There is a kind of quasi-spiritual unity in the empire as all are expected to worship the same gods. They got homo parades in Japan, BLM marches in S. Korea, and pro-empire Poles are totally into globo-homo and Great Replacement for Poland. Winning plaudits and approval from divine Jews, holy homos, and noble Negroes is their highest sense of good.

The disadvantage of the current Empire is that the puppet states, while servile and pliable, lack any real sense of innate pride and purpose. They are like mercenaries or puppets always taking orders or looking over their shoulders with no internal sense of worth. They are parrots than patriots. And even though Jews control the gods, the current idols are more of fashion and fancy than substance and meaning. Indeed, if Jew-run US were to vanish overnight, so many minions in the Empire would be completely lost as they utterly lack agency as individuals and pride as sovereign nationals. They would be like TV sets that no longer receive the signals. Instead of pulling up moisture from the roots, they grab vibes from the air.

On the other side, there is the Alliance. Russia and China are independent and sovereign. Russia doesn't own China, China doesn't own Russia. They are allies out of common interests and mutual understanding. Far weaker is Iran, but it too is no puppet. It has an independent government with its own course of action. Iran chooses to work with Russia and China out of shared interests, not out of servility. Russia doesn't tell China what to do, China doesn't tell Russia what to do, Russia doesn't tell Iran what to do, China doesn't tell Iran what to do, Iran doesn't tell Russia what to do, Iran doesn't tell China what to do. Rather, they understand they face similar challenges and coordinate efforts. There is real strength in this as each nation has its pride and sovereignty. The weakness, however, is the three nations can never be as united as the empire with its single command center.

Not only are Russia, China, and Iran(and nations like Venezuela) independent in government, military, and monetary policy but they control their own gods. Russian government has its own gods centered on Russian history & culture, China has its own gods rooted in Chinese history & CCP mythos, Iran has its own gods based on Islam & Persian history. Venezuela has its own narrative of the Bolivarian Revolution. They are truly diverse in the proper meaning of the word. Not only diverse as different races but in values and narratives, and they respect the right of others to have their own gods. China doesn't tell Russia to revere Confucius and Mao, and Russia doesn't tell China to build Orthodox Churches or monuments to Alexander Nevsky.

In contrast, the US empire requires all its puppets to bow down to Globo-Jewgromo, or globalist worship of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Indeed, all countries within the empire must elevate Jews, Negroes, Homos, and Foreigners/Immigrants above their own people, culture, and history. Whether it's France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, or whatever, the Globo-Shlomo Empire demands that they suppress nativism(in favor of invasivism), national pride, & unity-heritage-memory, and instead favor foreigners/immigrants, celebrate the minority homos, adulate the Negro, and remember the Holocaust. In a broad sense, the Alliance is 'polytheist' as each nation has control over its own gods, whereas the Empire is 'monotheist' as all within the empire are required to worship the gods controlled by Jews.

Janus-like India is the big outlier in this. On the one hand, it plays along with the US empire, especially in its stance against China. But when push comes to shove, it often chooses an independent path that is unthinkable for Japan or Germany, even for France and UK. Another outlier is nations like Hungary. Though part of EU, it insists on nationalism and its own cultural values.

Nations that side with the Alliance are accepted as sovereign nations. In contrast, nations that join the empire(or have been forced into it) must cuck to Jews, wave the homo flag, hail the Negro, and welcome the Great Replacement.

The biggest problem for the empire is it's an empire-empire, which makes everything far more complicated. In the past, most of America was White Christian, and American Empire reflected White Christian power, pride, and values. White men were tough, hardy, proud, and ready to fight. Today, the US is controlled by Jews, i.e. white christians are totally cucked to Zion. On the one hand, Jews need whites to be hardy managers and soldiers for the Empire, but on the other, Jews need whites to be guilt-ridden toadies without white pride. Jews both weaken whiteness and expect it to carry the burden of empire. It's like castrating someone and then adding more load on his back.
Still, white christians are found at all levels of the US empire, and to a naive outsider it may still seem as if the US is a White Christian Power. After all, Joe Biden is said to be a catholic. But in truth, all these whites are hapless and sappy cucks to Jews.

Also, unlike White Christian American elites of old, Jews don't primarily identify as American but Jewish, i.e. they feel closer to World Jewry than to goy Americans. Thus, Jewish Power that rules the US isn't really American but Zionist and supra-nationalist. So, the American Empire serves a bigger empire, the Empire of Judea or EOJ.
And yet, because the US pretends to be a 'liberal democracy' and a protector of the 'free world', white cuck christians must pretend they are animated by 'human rights', 'democratic principles', and 'muh constitution' when, in fact, their only modus operandi is "Will it please the Jews and win me more pokemon points for being such a good cucky-wuck?" Also, as part of the so-called 'free world', the satellite nations in Asia and EU must also carry on with the pretense that they are free & independent and happily & willingly embracing globo-homo when, if anything, they are puppet-democracies where the elites have little choice but to follow the Washington Line(just like International Communism once obeyed the Moscow Line) and promote decadence, degeneracy, and 'diversity' on their own peoples. While the Jew-run US doesn't usually send in tanks like the Soviets did with Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, it has ways to destroy the reputation, stability, and marketability of any satellite nation by coordinated efforts of media and finance. Furthermore, as so many young ones in satellite nations were either educated in the US and/or brainwashed the 'Western Media', they are more than willing to collaborate with the Empire against their own nation and people.

BIDEN WHITE HOUSE CONFUSION WITH IRAN AND CHINA POLICY