https://www.unz.com/ldinh/heart-of-darkness-germany/
After Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar made an obvious point about Jewish power influencing American foreign policies, she was forced, by that same Jewish power, to recant, thus confirming, to all those who can still think, the awful influence of Jewish power.
ROTFL. Same happened with Chuck Hagel hearing. It was as hilarious as it was humiliating.
Maybe Jewish Power figures, paradoxically enough, that it will be ‘noticed’ LESS if it is brazenly out in the open. After awhile, people may just get ‘used to it’, even endeared to it as the New Normal. Imagine you have a spacious room, but suppose a bomb drops from the sky, falls through the roof, and sits in the room without exploding. You are told there is nothing that can be done about it. Indeed, trying to remove the bomb may set it off and then kaboom! So, you must accept its presence and work around it. Day in and day out, you grow accustomed to it, and it becomes regarded as part of the room. You hardly notice it because it’s always there. After awhile, you get so used to it that you can’t imagine your room without it. Eventually, if someone says there is a nasty bomb in your room, you get all triggered and denounce him for casting negative aspersions toward something that is so essential to what makes the room so special.
Maybe when something is made so ubiquitous, people not only get used to it but inured and 'habitualized' to it, indeed to the point where the they cannot conceive of normality without it. It’s like the changes in a society's response to the building of a dam that profoundly transforms the environment. There is the initial shock and disgust, the sense that it is a crime against nature, what with the flooding destroying so many plants and animals. But over time, a new flora and fauna grow around the water, and people become accustomed to the new reality. The dam, which had been denounced, has become essential to the new reality. People now defend it and oppose destroying the dam to restore the original landscape.
Or consider the pre-modern Chinese who were forced to wear queues(aka pigtails) as a sign of submission to the Manchu invaders. The draconian policy was to humiliate and subjugate the Chinese. But over time, Chinese got so used to the queues as a part of their image and style that, when the moment finally arrived to cut them off in defiance to the waning Manchus, many Chinese felt hesitant. As queues had become a part of Chinese culture for generations, many felt trepidation about discarding the 'tradition'.
Well, it now seems like all these White Cucks of Zion in the US have become accustomed to wearing their Jew-queues or Jueues.
There are no scientific or even documentary proofs of the Holocaust, so the six million figure is just as much nonsense as the human skin lampshades and human fat soap.
There are lots of lies and fabrications and tall tales about the Holocaust. And 6 million figure is almost certainly false. But there are mountains of evidence that Germans committed mass killings, esp in the Eastern Front, and many victims were Jews(though most were killed by bullets than gas). David Cole is probably right that around 3 million Jews were killed. So, while Jewish Power has grown corrupt and crazy of late, there is no sense denying the reality. It’s like Chinese may yet grow arrogant and dangerous, but there is no sense belittling Japanese atrocities in China that were all-too-real(though often exaggerated in sensationalist accounts of the Nanking Massacre).
Linh Dinh should be careful about pushing in the other direction too far. After all, he’s Vietnamese, member of the Tribe that was butchered in millions by US war machine. If the US, which stood for democracy and freedom, could commit industrial slaughter on such a massive scale, imagine what the Nazi War Machine would have been capable of in the East. Nazis were brazenly ethno-supremacist and felt justified in expending countless Slavic and Jewish lives to fulfill their dream of empire. So, the mass killings of Jews and Slavs were no myth. If Holocaust is a total myth, then Slavocaust must be too. In fact, Nazis committed both on a massive scale in the East.
The great irony is that Jewish globalist imperialists have become a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Their attitude is hardly distinguishable from that of historical Nazis. They believe any number of Arab, Muslim, Iranian, and white Christian lives should be sacrificed to actualize the dream of the 1000 yr Judeo-Reich. Just look at the state of Ukraine and Middle East because of the influence of Judeo-Nazism. Entire areas look like Poland during WWII. Or consider the white death by Opioids(peddled by the sinister Sackler Family), which is reminiscent of the impact of the Jewish monopoly of opium trade in China.
For several years, I’ve posted reports from a German friend, describing his country in crisis, so below is his latest. Burdened by Holocaust guilts, Germans are shamed into accepting millions of refugees, many of whom are Muslims fleeing from wars triggered by Jewish power.
Germany was reasonably sane until the end of the Cold War. For example, it still had blood-based citizenship. And there was moderate pride in having overcome its dark past. Also, West Germany was much praised as a model for all of Europe, not least for East Germany that lagged under Soviet rule.
As long as the Soviet Union remained a threat, there was a limit to guilt-baiting Germany and spreading the ‘poz’ to weaken Europe in general. Europe had to remain moderately stable and secure to keep the Soviets at bay. But once the Soviet Empire collapsed, a new set of priorities came into play(as devised by New World Order).
At the same time, a most profound shift in the reins-of-power was finalized in the US, the boss over Europe. The US went from Anglo-elite rule to Jewish-elite rule. Why was this significant? Even though Anglo-America and Germany had fought bitterly in World War II, white Christian-Americans and white Christian-Germans were willing to bury the hatchet and work together for a better future for both sides. A movie like ENEMY BELOW(where Germans are portrayed as men than monsters) would be unthinkable today(when hysterical Jews label ANYTHING as 'nazi' or 'far right').
Vengeful Jews resented the rapprochement between White America and Germany following the war, but they couldn’t do anything about it because the top power back then was with the Wasps. In those days, even Liberal Wasps were more conservative than Conservatives today(who embrace ‘gay marriage’ and all forms of sappy cuckery). Indeed, nationalism was seen generally as a good thing during most of the Cold War. Both the new right and new left defended nationalism against imperialism. Soviets and the Left supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against the US empire, and in turn the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Empire. And both the US and USSR sought to win hearts and minds in the Third World by supporting nationalism against fading European imperialism. Also, following WWII, much of Europe, both West and East, was reordered along nationalist lines, sometimes involving mass relocation of peoples, such as expulsion of Ost-Germans from Poland and other places. Such policies led to greater homogeneity and national consciousness. As for Imperial European nations like France, Great Britain, and Netherlands, the loss of empire left them with nothing but nationalism.
Even if there developed a school of thought that saw nationalism as deeply problematic, the fact is both US and USSR were fine with moderate nationalism around the world. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the triumph of the US as the sole superpower, mindsets began to change. The change owed especially to the Jewish takeover of the US. Perhaps if Wasps had retained power and kept Jews at bay, the US would have been more accommodating of other nations and systems. But with Jews at the helm, the lone superpower went into hyperdrive against all nationalisms(except that of Israel of course). Granted, Jewish-ruled US cynically supported particular nationalisms for political opportunism: Stoking ethnic hatreds in Yugoslavia, inciting anti-Russian animus in Georgia and Ukraine.
The reason for Jewish eagerness to weaken goy nationalism had to do with the nature of Jewish Power. Jews have very little national power. Their power is essentially globo-hegemonic: More about Jewish networking around the world than about unity of national elites and national masses. People say Israel is so powerful, but its influence depends utterly on the far greater power and wealth of Jews in US, EU, Russia, Latin America, and etc. It is globo-Jewish networking and coordination of power that favors Israel for special treatment.
Now, if Jews had a gigantic nation of their own, they might be more tolerant of nationalism as a general principle. Suppose Israel or some Jewish-majority nation were the size of Russia, China, or India. Or even Iran. Jews might feel secure in their impressive national power of great land mass, abundant natural resources, and large population. But the only national power that Jews have is Israel. Israel is an advanced affluent nation but ain’t much on its own. It’s like Britain as a GREAT POWER depended on its imperial expanse. Without the empire, Great Britain could be well-off and a nice nation but NOT a great WORLD power. In contrast, the US, China, or Russia can be great powers even without control of foreign territory. They have land, population, and resources all on their own. Because Jewish World Power depends on networking and maintaining control of key goy-majority nations and peoples, it must declaw and neuter them of nationalism(that may well awaken goy identity and interests against those of Jews). Now, Jews, as a Normal People, could have it pretty good without imperialist hegemony over other nations, BUT Jews are now addicted to supremacism(just like Brits got and Japanese were once addicted to empire). It’s like the ring in LORD OF THE RINGS. Once one tastes power, it’s hard to let go. Just like Germany-as-normal-nation was too humdrum for the Nazis, Jews-as-normal-people is too boring for Jewish globo-supremacists who must have it all.
The triumph of Jewish Supremacist power is why the world really began to change after the Cold War. With control of media, finance, academia, law, and deep state, Jews pushed the New Globalist Narrative on all the world. (Globalism differed from internationalism, which was about sovereign nations respecting and cooperating with one another. Globalism demanded the surrender of national sovereignty for all nations except Israel.)
We know about the fall of the Soviet Union but no less monumental was the fall of Wasp rule in the US around the same time. Ethic Coups took place in both US and Russia in the 90s. Because of the Rule of Law in the more stable US, Jews were able to manage the takeover more smoothly and efficiently over here. In contrast, the relative lack of Rule of Law in Russia was both a great boon and bane for Jews. It made for a great opportunity to steal and rob over thereas fast as possible in the decade of Shock Doctrine or Shylock Doctrine. Jews could steal more and faster in Russia of 90s than anywhere else in the world. But precisely because Russia was without Rule of Law, Vladimir Putin and FSB national-gangsters could move against Jewish globo-gangsters in the style of THE GODFATHER. Just like Adolf Hitler chewed more than he could swallow in the invasion of Russia, overeager Jews tried to swallow all of Russia in one big gulp but ended up puking all over(just like Cronus in his plan to devour his children).
Still, Jews checkmated for total power in the US and its puppet EU. As most white people lack prophetic will, they rely on the Official Power for permission on what is what. Jews are like adults and big-thinkers. Whites are like children and students. (Whites are to Jews what Asians are to whites. Mental Dogs.) Also, because the West had elevated Shoah into a secular faith, white people came to look upon Jews as sages, saints, and wisemen. For most of post-war period, such philosemitic sentimentality was less harmful because Jews didn’t have dominance over US and EU. It’s like we can be sentimental about American Indians as ‘noble savages’ without negative consequences because Indians do not and will never have control over us. But by the time the Cold War ended, Jews had amassed immense power and grown arrogant & megalomaniacal. They were the new supremacist-imperialists. But because whites had been indoctrinated with Holocaust Cult for couple of decades, they absorbed every Jewish word as the holiest wisdom or most brilliant insight. Of course, devious Jews were only too happy to oblige goy expectations(though originally concocted by the Jew-run media) and role-play as wisemen and sages and tragic victims. But in fact, George Soros and others of his kind weren’t trying to spread human rights and progress. They were trying to mentally, politically, and financially enslave goyim so that the globo-homo supremacists could rule over them-as-sheeple. But because whites had become enamored of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, they earnestly lent their ear to every Jewish advice, no matter how ridiculous.
And Jews didn’t just direct agenda this at Germany but at ALL goy nations. Consider how the UK(the proud victor in WWII) is just as far gone as Germany and for similar reasons. London is now majority non-white, and its upcoming ‘conservative’ candidate for mayor is a black guy running against the current Muslim, the Pakistani Sadiq Khan. There is no greater sin in the UK than 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. Sweden and Norway had NOTHING to do with WWII -- if anything, Norway was occupied by Germany -- , but they are just as far as suicidal and self-loathing as Germany. Or, if there is pride, it is about demonstrating virtue via national/racial suicide. Indeed, Jews rigged the Narrative so that all of Europe is deemed more-or-less equally responsible of WWII and Shoah. If Germans must lose their nation to atone for WWII, others must lose their nations to demonstrate they are morally superior to Germans. In any case, both Germans and other Europeans must prove that they are oh-so-good in the eyes of Jews. Moral logic and values flow from the main premise, and the current premise is, "Holocaust is the greatest crime of all time, Holocaust = 'racism', and 'racism' = 'xenophobia'. So, if you oppose mass migration-invasion, you are 'xenophobic' = 'racist' = Nazi = pro-Holocaust." Unless Europeans reject this insane premise, they are a cooked goose in the Jewish pot.
Because smaller powers usually follow the lead of bigger ones, what happens in US and UK & Germany shapes what happens in smaller European nations as well. In some ways, Sweden is even more far gone than Germany.
The fact that Jews target all goy nations — victim nations along with villain nations of WWII — goes to show that the real Jewish motive is not about War Guilt or the Holocaust. It is about Jewish Supremacist takeover and control. Poland was invaded in WWII, and its resistance heroes were nationalist. So, one might think its national consciousness would be praised and be associated with anti-Nazism. But nope, Jews say even moderate nationalism in Poland and its desire to remain Polish are ‘neo-nazi’ and ‘far right’.
Also, Jewish globo-homo pressures on Japan and South Korea are the same even though Japan was aggressor nation and Korea was ‘aggressed’ nation. The same Globo-Homo propaganda is pushed on both nations, and the result is young peoples there now consider nationalism and homogeneity to be vile notions, which is one reason why Japan and South Korea are going the way of suicidal Ireland. When the US was Anglo-Christian-ruled, moderate nationalist feelings in Europe and Asia were tolerated and even encouraged. White American Christian elites thought, “We have America, Russians have Russia, Germans have Germany, Japanese have Japan, etc.” Each people have a base nation of their own. Such formula was deemed ideal for most of the world. But Jews think differently. Even though Jews rule the US, they don’t feel, “We have America” because, after all, 98% of Americans are goyim. Jews can’t really own America because they feel no connection to goyim. Jews can only rule as elites. In contrast, when the white elites ruled, they felt a bond with the white masses. So, the unity of white elites and white masses led to a sense of national ownership, and whites respected similar sentiments in other nations. But Jews in the US only see themselves as ruling over the filthy goyim. Jewish elites feel connection not with goy masses but with fellow Jewish elites around the world. Jews fear goy nationalism because it might reignite the idea that the goy elites of a nation are supposed to represent, defend, and serve their own people… like what the Jewish elites do in Israel and what Viktor Orban is calling for in Hungary. Now, Jews are totally on-board with such arrangement in Israel but revile it in Hungary. Why? Because if national goy elites primarily connect with national goy masses, they won’t serve the super-globo-elites(the Jews). It’s like the political dynamics of Vietnam under French rule. French imperialists suppressed the idea of Vietnamese elites bonding with Vietnamese masses. They demanded that the comprador Vietnamese serve the Franco-super-elites of the great French Empire. To drive a wedge between goy elites and goy masses, Jews push for Diversity. As the US and Germany turn more diverse, the white elites are pressured to care about ALL peoples than about white people. Thus, the bond between white elites and white masses is severed. (And since it is impossible for white elites to bond with ALL the masses, they just choose to serve the Jewish elites above them.)
With Jewish rule over the US, the New Message is all goy nations must forsake nationalism, promote diversity, welcome mass immigration, and etc, the kind of crazy stuff rejected by Israel. Look how globo-homo corporate Japan is celebrating its mulatto athletes born of black men and Japanese women. Japan is total Cuckpan now. Globo-Japan is a mere puppet of the US as puppet of the Empire of Judea or EOJ.
In the end, it’s not about the Holocaust because Jewish demands on all goy nations are the same regardless of whether the nations were villains or victims in WWII. Germans were villains and Poles were victims, but notice Jews pressure both peoples to comply to globo-homo national suicide. As for the Palestinians, they had NOTHING to do with World War II in any shape or form, but notice Jewish policy on them has been no better than on Germans; if anything, it's been worse. What does that tell you? Jewish Supremacist Power will destroy and sacrifice ANY people and nation to serve Jewish supremacist interests. It’s like how the Spanish behaved in the Americas. Or how Germans and Japanese acted during WWII. The radical supremacist sickness has now passed to Jews, and it has to be stopped.
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Monday, November 12, 2018
Commentary on "11/11/18: Nationalism vs. Imperialism"
http://www.unz.com/isteve/111118-nationalism-vs-imperialism/
@Jake
Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.
It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along with others. But as it became richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.
Initially, German provinces were unified to create a nation. But Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe, and the logic of power is to expand. So, nationalism can serve as a base for imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British National/Racial Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK) from invasion(by foreign armies or hordes). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.
The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country of Imperial Britain. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, they sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t pan out, but the young nation moved Westward to take land from American Indians and then waged war on Mexico to wrest the SW territories. So, the historical theme of US has been both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spanish Empire to grab more territory and gain foothold for worldwide hegemony. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spanish Empire withdrew into humble nationhood.
But the horrors and the heavy cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough here’ and 'we just about had enough over there'(meddling in European affairs led to huge headaches). But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, not to develop them further. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State became addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.
For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political territoriality was always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of bond with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you've never met in life and will never know. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than with capitalist Italy or France. Germanism trumped economic theory. West Germans and East Germans shared common ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians. And secular Jews feel closer to religious Jews than to secular non-Jews. A secular Jew may work together and be friends with a secular Arab, BUT he will feel a closer brotherly bond with religious Jews in Israel. And the secular Arab will feel closer to Muslim Arabs.
Imperialism today is an insane idea, but it had its place in history as a useful and constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world, which would likely be ruled by local elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades.
In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants beneath them were stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, clearing the way for the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model of the people as fellow countrymen than mere subjects of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites depending on the circumstances. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. In such cases, the Western imperial fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees(the comprador elites). The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that pushed for something new. Still, because the collaborationist native elites came to be seen as toady puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost prestige and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people. No one admires a puppet king.
Anyway, if not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who ruthless suppress any possibility of change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but, in time, developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.
That said, whatever good imperialism may have done in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. We can acknowledge of the benefits of past imperialism without calling for more imperialism. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists may have committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. They now do a lot of trade with each other due to the World Order created by European/American Imperialists. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by Western exploration, discover, and conquest. So, we have to give imperialism its due. Now, globalism would be fine as long as it's about the world trading and communicating with one another. Sadly however, globalism has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means violating of border security by masses of migrants who’ve been given the green-light to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.
Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism AND nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire could be a friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, European Christendom in WWI is a bloody stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.) French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism. Though China and Japan are currently not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation(Japan or Vietnam) seeks alliance with a great imperial power(the US) to gain leverage against the bigger national power(China). So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear. There have also been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is now possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about in its founding. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals in America. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions, but if he murders a homeless person, he has face the Law. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples. Weak people had few protections or rights.
European Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial in their logical implications. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind in non-white cultures and civilizations. Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees than in most of the non-West. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this mutual-solidarity led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the acts of conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers trampling on their subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elite who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this proved fatal to Western Imperialism.
Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project following WWII when so many newly minted nations emerged from the collapse of European Empires. But United Nations is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity. Non-whites once valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights and security from bigger powers. As the non-West was far less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to regain hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. In both cases, it was about helping to protect national independence from the other Evil Empire, be it American(from the communist perspective) or Soviet(from the capitalist perspective). Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message in the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.
But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The Third World went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.
It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better in their own homelands. Instead, they are glued to the TV or smart-phone beaming fantasies of the US as paradise of Cool & Wealth or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire and serve its aims.
While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence. It turned non-whites into Caravandals.
@Jake
Nationalism is always anti-imperialist.
It’s not so simple. Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along with others. But as it became richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.
Initially, German provinces were unified to create a nation. But Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe, and the logic of power is to expand. So, nationalism can serve as a base for imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British National/Racial Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK) from invasion(by foreign armies or hordes). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.
The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country of Imperial Britain. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, they sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t pan out, but the young nation moved Westward to take land from American Indians and then waged war on Mexico to wrest the SW territories. So, the historical theme of US has been both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spanish Empire to grab more territory and gain foothold for worldwide hegemony. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spanish Empire withdrew into humble nationhood.
But the horrors and the heavy cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough here’ and 'we just about had enough over there'(meddling in European affairs led to huge headaches). But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, not to develop them further. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State became addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.
For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political territoriality was always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of bond with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you've never met in life and will never know. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than with capitalist Italy or France. Germanism trumped economic theory. West Germans and East Germans shared common ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians. And secular Jews feel closer to religious Jews than to secular non-Jews. A secular Jew may work together and be friends with a secular Arab, BUT he will feel a closer brotherly bond with religious Jews in Israel. And the secular Arab will feel closer to Muslim Arabs.
Imperialism today is an insane idea, but it had its place in history as a useful and constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world, which would likely be ruled by local elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades.
In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants beneath them were stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, clearing the way for the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model of the people as fellow countrymen than mere subjects of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites depending on the circumstances. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. In such cases, the Western imperial fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees(the comprador elites). The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that pushed for something new. Still, because the collaborationist native elites came to be seen as toady puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost prestige and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people. No one admires a puppet king.
Anyway, if not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who ruthless suppress any possibility of change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but, in time, developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.
That said, whatever good imperialism may have done in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. We can acknowledge of the benefits of past imperialism without calling for more imperialism. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists may have committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. They now do a lot of trade with each other due to the World Order created by European/American Imperialists. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by Western exploration, discover, and conquest. So, we have to give imperialism its due. Now, globalism would be fine as long as it's about the world trading and communicating with one another. Sadly however, globalism has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means violating of border security by masses of migrants who’ve been given the green-light to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.
Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism AND nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire could be a friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, European Christendom in WWI is a bloody stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.) French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism. Though China and Japan are currently not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation(Japan or Vietnam) seeks alliance with a great imperial power(the US) to gain leverage against the bigger national power(China). So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear. There have also been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is now possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about in its founding. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals in America. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions, but if he murders a homeless person, he has face the Law. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples. Weak people had few protections or rights.
European Empire was the biggest the world had ever seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial in their logical implications. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind in non-white cultures and civilizations. Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees than in most of the non-West. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this mutual-solidarity led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the acts of conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers trampling on their subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elite who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this proved fatal to Western Imperialism.
Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project following WWII when so many newly minted nations emerged from the collapse of European Empires. But United Nations is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity. Non-whites once valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights and security from bigger powers. As the non-West was far less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to regain hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. In both cases, it was about helping to protect national independence from the other Evil Empire, be it American(from the communist perspective) or Soviet(from the capitalist perspective). Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message in the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.
But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The Third World went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.
It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better in their own homelands. Instead, they are glued to the TV or smart-phone beaming fantasies of the US as paradise of Cool & Wealth or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire and serve its aims.
While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence. It turned non-whites into Caravandals.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Response to "Against David Irving’s View of Hitler" by Eric Zuesse
http://www.unz.com/article/against-david-irvings-view-of-hitler/
Zuesse:
Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view… tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen.
No... The real problem of Goldhagen in relation to Palestinians isn’t tribalism or nationalism. It is IMPERIALISM. If Zionists compromised and allowed a nation-state for Palestinians, Jewish tribalism could co-exist with Palestinian tribalism. Unfortunately, Zionists are in imperialist mode and denying the right of tribalism to the Palestinians. Jewish Globalists are tribal-imperialists. Their attitude is ‘tribalism for me but not for thee’. THAT is the problem. If Jews accepted universal tribalism/nationalism, they would get along better with other nations. But even as they promote their own tribalism, they attack the tribalism of others. Jews use their influence to destroy Arab nations or sanction Iran. These Wars for Israel have led to the swamping of Europe with ‘refugees’.
Tribal-nationalism has always been defensive against imperialism. It was tribal-nationalist passions that led to wars of resistance against European and American imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria. Long live tribalism.
EU is now neo-imperialist and seeks to undermine national sovereignty and security of European nations. Resurgent nationalism says NO to this. Tribalism is anti-imperialist. Italian tribal-populists have no designs on OTHER nations. They are nationalist and, as such, opposed to demographic imperialism of those black Africans who arrive in Italy to beat up Italian men and hump Italian women.
The problem with Nazis wasn’t tribalism or nationalism. They invaded and trampled on the tribal-nationalism of other nations. Resistance against Nazi imperialism was tribal-nationalist. And resistance against Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe was also tribal-nationalist. If Nazi Germany had remained tribal-nationalist and not turned imperialist, there would have been no WWII.
What is happening in Yemen is the result of imperialism, not tribalism. It is US-Saudi-Zionist imperialism that is waging war on Yemenese struggle for deciding their own affairs and future.
Tribalist-nationalism never hurt anyone outside its borders. Tibetans and Palestinians are tribal-nationalist. They want freedom and independence for their people in their own territories. Their hopes were crushed by Han Chinese and Zionist IMPERIALISM.
Jewish Tribalism per se isn’t the problem. If Jews want to preserve their tribal culture and memory, that's all well and good. If Jews want a nation of their own, no problem.
Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Jews. They must occupy even the few remaining Palestinian territory. And they use the hammer of US globo-homo-imperialism to wage Wars for Israel and pressure EU to put out to demographic imperialism that is totally altering the racial and cultural character of Europe.
Zuesse:
Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view… tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen.
No... The real problem of Goldhagen in relation to Palestinians isn’t tribalism or nationalism. It is IMPERIALISM. If Zionists compromised and allowed a nation-state for Palestinians, Jewish tribalism could co-exist with Palestinian tribalism. Unfortunately, Zionists are in imperialist mode and denying the right of tribalism to the Palestinians. Jewish Globalists are tribal-imperialists. Their attitude is ‘tribalism for me but not for thee’. THAT is the problem. If Jews accepted universal tribalism/nationalism, they would get along better with other nations. But even as they promote their own tribalism, they attack the tribalism of others. Jews use their influence to destroy Arab nations or sanction Iran. These Wars for Israel have led to the swamping of Europe with ‘refugees’.
Tribal-nationalism has always been defensive against imperialism. It was tribal-nationalist passions that led to wars of resistance against European and American imperialism in Vietnam and Algeria. Long live tribalism.
EU is now neo-imperialist and seeks to undermine national sovereignty and security of European nations. Resurgent nationalism says NO to this. Tribalism is anti-imperialist. Italian tribal-populists have no designs on OTHER nations. They are nationalist and, as such, opposed to demographic imperialism of those black Africans who arrive in Italy to beat up Italian men and hump Italian women.
The problem with Nazis wasn’t tribalism or nationalism. They invaded and trampled on the tribal-nationalism of other nations. Resistance against Nazi imperialism was tribal-nationalist. And resistance against Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe was also tribal-nationalist. If Nazi Germany had remained tribal-nationalist and not turned imperialist, there would have been no WWII.
What is happening in Yemen is the result of imperialism, not tribalism. It is US-Saudi-Zionist imperialism that is waging war on Yemenese struggle for deciding their own affairs and future.
Tribalist-nationalism never hurt anyone outside its borders. Tibetans and Palestinians are tribal-nationalist. They want freedom and independence for their people in their own territories. Their hopes were crushed by Han Chinese and Zionist IMPERIALISM.
Jewish Tribalism per se isn’t the problem. If Jews want to preserve their tribal culture and memory, that's all well and good. If Jews want a nation of their own, no problem.
Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Jews. They must occupy even the few remaining Palestinian territory. And they use the hammer of US globo-homo-imperialism to wage Wars for Israel and pressure EU to put out to demographic imperialism that is totally altering the racial and cultural character of Europe.
Monday, June 4, 2018
The Great Reversal. A Response to "Douglas Murray: Europe is committing suicide" in Hungary Journal
https://thehungaryjournal.com/2018/05/20/douglas-murray-europe-is-committing-suicide/comment-page-1/#comment-1135
A kind of reversal has happened between the West and the Rest. The Great Reversal.
There was a time when people in the Rest stayed put and minded their own business in their own world.
In contrast, the people in the West, as adventurers-businessmen-conquerors-missionaries-or-colonizers, intruded into the world of the Rest and began to take over. In some places, their colonization and replacement of natives were permanent, especially in the Americas and Australia.
Because of Western aggressions into the World of the Rest, there was growing resentment and hostility among the non-white natives. They became anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist(once they developed modern nationalist consciousness borrowed from Western political ideology). The message of the Rest to the West was 'Go Home'(back to Europe) and 'This is OUR land'. Nationalist wars of liberation against Western imperialists heated up and some were fierce & bloody and cost lots of lives. British let go of Kenya only after many bloody battles. French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria willingly.
But eventually, most imperialists and colonizers from the West retreated back to their homelands of origin. Even the well-entrenched French in Algeria went back to France despite their considerable numbers and investment in the region.
Back then, non-whites had no hope of moving to the West. Europe hardly took in foreigners, and US immigration policy was virtually all-white prior to the 1965 immigration law. So, non-whites in the World of the Rest were in nationalist mode and focused on developing and improving their own nations. This was the time when all the world thought of nationalism as the gold standard and best weapon against imperialism. The idea was that the non-whites should have sovereignty and control their own national destinies. Therefore, white imperialists and colonizers in non-white nations should return to their own nations of origin. And indeed, most European colonizers packed up things and returned to their homelands(even though many of them had been born in places like India, China, or Africa).
And in the Cold War, the two great superpowers professed to champion nationalism against imperialism. Soviets supported Vietnam and Cuba as nationalist liberation struggles against American Capitalist Imperialism. And the US supported Afghanistan and Eastern European anti-Soviet dissidents as patriotic resistances against Soviet Communist imperialist aggression. So, there was nothing worse than imperialism in world affairs. Even the US and the USSR, though hegemonic powers, claimed to be for the independence of all nations and accused the OTHER side of being imperialist and hostile to nationalist aspirations of peoples who want to be free.
So, how did all this change? One big factor was the change in immigration policy. Once the West allowed in non-white immigrants, many non-whites all around the world came to favor Global Invasion over National Defense. After all, they could instantly improve their material lot by moving from Asia, Africa, Middle East, or Latin America to the First World of the US, Canada, EU, or Australia. Why bother with the poverty, corruption, repression, or violence at home when one's life can be improved overnight by becoming an 'American', 'Englishman', 'New German', or some such? Why stick around in Pakistan when one can live much better in UK or Australia? Why remain in Nigeria, China, or India when one's material well-being can immeasurably improve by moving to Canada or Australia or Sweden?
So, Diversity-Immigration undermined patriotism among the Rest. The Rest, which had once resisted the Invasion by the West, came to support the Invasion of the Rest into the West.
So, there is now a reversal of World Migratory Policy and Trends. It is white people who are into patriotic/nationalist mode and trying to stem the Mass Invasion by the Rest into white homelands. And it is non-white peoples who are into demographic imperialist mode and trying to flood into the West to take over communities, leech off welfare, usurp institutions, and colonize white wombs(or, if non-white female, marry white men who are deemed preferable to non-white men).
The former imperialists(whites) are now in nationalist mode, and the former nationalists(non-whites) are in imperialist mode. Whites want to save their nations, and non-whites want to invade and take over white bounty of the Richer West.
And of course, Jews like George Soros push the New (dis)Order because Diversity means they get to play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, the only way a patriotic people can overthrow an alien elite is by coming together as a united folk. The reason why the Irish were ultimately able to push out the British was because Ireland was virtually entirely Irish. Irish could unite as one.
But suppose British imperialists had imported millions of non-Irish into Ireland to the point where the native Irish became only1/4 of the population. Imagine an Ireland that became 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 Africa, and 1/4 Muslim(or Hindu) under British Imperialist rule. Would the real Irish be able to make common cause with the 'New Irish' to push out the British? Of course not. The real Irish, the 'black Irish', the 'yellow Irish', and 'brown Irish' will be divided among themselves, a fact that can be exploited by the imperialists in divide-and-rule manner.
Also, why would the 'New non-white Irish' rebel against the British imperialists when it was the Empire that had allowed them to come to Ireland and enjoy better living conditions? They would most likely collaborate with the British against the native Irish. (Is it any wonder that non-whites collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists against the white native folks in the West?)
Sadly, both UK and Ireland are now in the same straits. Financially, culturally, politically, and ideologically, both are under the domination of the Empire of Judea that has duped both peoples into believing that the greatest truths are Diversity, Magic Negro, Homomania, and Shoah-Worship. In contrast, any show of genuine patriotism is 'far right' or 'neo-Nazi'. (This is all the more hilarious when Jewish supremacists compel white peoples everywhere to support the Zionist ethno-state of Israel.)
It is time that white people woke up. Their lands are being colonized and taken over by the combined force of Jewish globalist elites and non-white mass invaders. And of course, white cuck-collaborators gladly take 30 pieces of silver to destroy the White West while spouting off the usual cliches about 'racism-schmacism'.
White people must become like the Viet Cong or the FLN.
A kind of reversal has happened between the West and the Rest. The Great Reversal.
There was a time when people in the Rest stayed put and minded their own business in their own world.
In contrast, the people in the West, as adventurers-businessmen-conquerors-missionaries-or-colonizers, intruded into the world of the Rest and began to take over. In some places, their colonization and replacement of natives were permanent, especially in the Americas and Australia.
Because of Western aggressions into the World of the Rest, there was growing resentment and hostility among the non-white natives. They became anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist(once they developed modern nationalist consciousness borrowed from Western political ideology). The message of the Rest to the West was 'Go Home'(back to Europe) and 'This is OUR land'. Nationalist wars of liberation against Western imperialists heated up and some were fierce & bloody and cost lots of lives. British let go of Kenya only after many bloody battles. French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria willingly.
But eventually, most imperialists and colonizers from the West retreated back to their homelands of origin. Even the well-entrenched French in Algeria went back to France despite their considerable numbers and investment in the region.
Back then, non-whites had no hope of moving to the West. Europe hardly took in foreigners, and US immigration policy was virtually all-white prior to the 1965 immigration law. So, non-whites in the World of the Rest were in nationalist mode and focused on developing and improving their own nations. This was the time when all the world thought of nationalism as the gold standard and best weapon against imperialism. The idea was that the non-whites should have sovereignty and control their own national destinies. Therefore, white imperialists and colonizers in non-white nations should return to their own nations of origin. And indeed, most European colonizers packed up things and returned to their homelands(even though many of them had been born in places like India, China, or Africa).
And in the Cold War, the two great superpowers professed to champion nationalism against imperialism. Soviets supported Vietnam and Cuba as nationalist liberation struggles against American Capitalist Imperialism. And the US supported Afghanistan and Eastern European anti-Soviet dissidents as patriotic resistances against Soviet Communist imperialist aggression. So, there was nothing worse than imperialism in world affairs. Even the US and the USSR, though hegemonic powers, claimed to be for the independence of all nations and accused the OTHER side of being imperialist and hostile to nationalist aspirations of peoples who want to be free.
So, how did all this change? One big factor was the change in immigration policy. Once the West allowed in non-white immigrants, many non-whites all around the world came to favor Global Invasion over National Defense. After all, they could instantly improve their material lot by moving from Asia, Africa, Middle East, or Latin America to the First World of the US, Canada, EU, or Australia. Why bother with the poverty, corruption, repression, or violence at home when one's life can be improved overnight by becoming an 'American', 'Englishman', 'New German', or some such? Why stick around in Pakistan when one can live much better in UK or Australia? Why remain in Nigeria, China, or India when one's material well-being can immeasurably improve by moving to Canada or Australia or Sweden?
So, Diversity-Immigration undermined patriotism among the Rest. The Rest, which had once resisted the Invasion by the West, came to support the Invasion of the Rest into the West.
So, there is now a reversal of World Migratory Policy and Trends. It is white people who are into patriotic/nationalist mode and trying to stem the Mass Invasion by the Rest into white homelands. And it is non-white peoples who are into demographic imperialist mode and trying to flood into the West to take over communities, leech off welfare, usurp institutions, and colonize white wombs(or, if non-white female, marry white men who are deemed preferable to non-white men).
The former imperialists(whites) are now in nationalist mode, and the former nationalists(non-whites) are in imperialist mode. Whites want to save their nations, and non-whites want to invade and take over white bounty of the Richer West.
And of course, Jews like George Soros push the New (dis)Order because Diversity means they get to play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, the only way a patriotic people can overthrow an alien elite is by coming together as a united folk. The reason why the Irish were ultimately able to push out the British was because Ireland was virtually entirely Irish. Irish could unite as one.
But suppose British imperialists had imported millions of non-Irish into Ireland to the point where the native Irish became only1/4 of the population. Imagine an Ireland that became 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Chinese, 1/4 Africa, and 1/4 Muslim(or Hindu) under British Imperialist rule. Would the real Irish be able to make common cause with the 'New Irish' to push out the British? Of course not. The real Irish, the 'black Irish', the 'yellow Irish', and 'brown Irish' will be divided among themselves, a fact that can be exploited by the imperialists in divide-and-rule manner.
Also, why would the 'New non-white Irish' rebel against the British imperialists when it was the Empire that had allowed them to come to Ireland and enjoy better living conditions? They would most likely collaborate with the British against the native Irish. (Is it any wonder that non-whites collaborate with Jewish globalist imperialists against the white native folks in the West?)
Sadly, both UK and Ireland are now in the same straits. Financially, culturally, politically, and ideologically, both are under the domination of the Empire of Judea that has duped both peoples into believing that the greatest truths are Diversity, Magic Negro, Homomania, and Shoah-Worship. In contrast, any show of genuine patriotism is 'far right' or 'neo-Nazi'. (This is all the more hilarious when Jewish supremacists compel white peoples everywhere to support the Zionist ethno-state of Israel.)
It is time that white people woke up. Their lands are being colonized and taken over by the combined force of Jewish globalist elites and non-white mass invaders. And of course, white cuck-collaborators gladly take 30 pieces of silver to destroy the White West while spouting off the usual cliches about 'racism-schmacism'.
White people must become like the Viet Cong or the FLN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)