Small may be beautiful, but big is powerful. Dog beats a cat, bear beats a wolf, lion beats a leopard, and elephant beats a rhino. And a heavyweight boxer beats a welterweight boxer. Of course, on a pound-for-pound basis, the smaller may be tougher. A cat the size of a dog would destroy the latter instantly. Also, quantity isn’t necessarily quality. Some countries are huge but lacking in fertile soil and/or natural resources. Some countries have large populations but without much discernible aptitude for wealth creation and social organization. And in the world of sports, Jamaica alone produces faster sprinters than China, India, and the White West combined. Arabs and Muslims far outnumber Jews in Israel and possess far more territory and resources but haven’t made much of their advantages. Brazil is a gigantic country with tons of resources but hasn’t lived up to its potential due to its lackluster Latin leadership, diversity & division, and, worst of all, a very large black population(who are equally good at soccer and crime).
That said, World History from the 18th century to the 20th century seemed ‘unnatural’ or imbalanced, in large part due to the rise of certain key nations in the West, especially France, England, and Germany. Spain and Portugal gained a head start in the discovery and exploitation of the New World, but their subsequent fates cohered with the ‘natural’ logic of History, just another chapter in the cycles of rises and declines/falls from the dawn of civilization. It seemed only ‘right’ that such limited kingdoms couldn’t effectively rule over such vast territories across the seas for long. Also, the maddening diversity of Latin America seemed fated for conflict and confusion, a world of wariness and mutual distrust leading to apathy and enervation than unity and morale.
In contrast, Britain, France, and later Germany went from strength to strength, and it was almost as if they’d arrived at the secret formula of eternal greatness, an overcoming of the historical cycle of rises and falls. The supposition held even in the 20th century following the calamitous double whammies of World War I and World War II, after which Europe rebounded quickly and provided living standards superior to any previous period. Even after wholesale destruction of cities and the death of millions, it was as if the Modern West would only move forward and onward. And certain non-Western nations proved adept at emulating the West; Japan was the prime example, rapidly rebuilding following the Pacific War, possibly the biggest calamity in Japanese history.
Just like economists in their search to break free of boom-bust cycles, it was as if the West had been seeking, if only subconsciously, to transcend or at least bypass the Iron Law of the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. The West certainly stumbled upon something because, not only did it avert the declines but kept rising higher and faster even after momentous setbacks, thought at the moment to be the death knell of civilization.
While the West came upon this formula(that broke free from History to make History), the Rest seemed dazed and confused, unable to make heads or tails of the profound changes emanating from the West and utterly clueless as to how to respond to them. China was typical in ignoring the problem and hoping it would just go away. Civilizations that were so accustomed to the rise-and-fall model of history perhaps thought that the West, despite all its dizzying successes, would sooner or later succumb to the historical logic and decline, like all the kingdoms, dynasties, and/or empires. But what happened to Spain and Portugal(and to Greece and Rome long before them) didn’t happen to certain key powers in the West. Also, unlike Spain and Portugal that failed to create viable world powers in Latin America, the Anglos who founded and settled North America laid the foundations of what would become the greatest power the world had ever seen.
If far-seeing space aliens had visited Earth around 1500 A.D., they would likely have bet the future on the consolidation of several great powers: China, Indo-sphere, Russia, Europe, and whoever comes to dominate the Americas, especially North America. China then was obviously a great civilization with deep history, rich culture, lots of talent, and large land mass with considerable resources. Indo-sphere, though to coalesce into a modern ‘nation-state’ only under and via independence from the British Empire, was also well-populated with peoples who made key contributions to the world, not least in spirituality. Russia would have seemed backward then, but the potential was tremendous. Europe, by which we mean Western and Central regions, was a special case.
Europe’s weakness was its strength, and vice versa. Unlike other civilizations, imperial dominance was short-lived, and all of Europe failed to coalesce into one unified state like China. The biggest European empire(post-Roman and west of Russia) with any longevity was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it was mostly Austrians ruling over second-rate Slavs and others. Napoleon came closest to forming something like a unified European Empire, but he failed, denying Europe the unity of China, Russia(and the Soviet Union), or the United States. Yet, historians have noted certain advantages in the failure to bring all of Europe under a single authority — conflict bred competition that rewarded innovation in production and military power. At most, unity came at the level of ethno-nationalism, especially with the Germans who united under Prussia; the great tragedy for the Balkan Slavs was the failure to unite as the Germans did, what with Yugoslavia tearing(and being torn) apart after the Cold War; but then, Serbia, the dominant power in Yugoslavia, never gained the prestige and respect of the Prussians. To an extent, the persistent division of Europe owed to deep and genuine ethnic differences, mainly among the Latins, Germanics, and Slavs. But then, even most of the Latin states failed to unite, as was the case with the Germanic peoples and the Slavs, not least because they undermined one other’s efforts at unification. The Latin powers were committed to keeping the Germanic states apart, Germanic powers likewise felt about the Slavic states, and etc. (Even now, consider the sabotaging of Russia’s attempt to revive the Russo-Slavo-sphere in Ukraine.) And there was the influence of Great Britain, the absence of which would have profoundly altered the history of Continental Europe, for better or worse. British priority at all times was to prevent European unity, allying with just about ANY power to maintain the ‘balance of powers’, something which made the British skilled in diplomacy and duplicitous in nature. Very possibly, had Britain never existed, men like Napoleon and Hitler might have succeeded in the political unification of Europe into a kind of federation. If the influence of the Moon has been to stabilize Earth, the influence of Britain was to sow divisions, even chaos, so that Europe could never meld into a united empire. One might argue the EU of late has finally arrived at some kind of unity, but the EU project isn’t about European sovereignty but about vassalage to the Jews who rule the US as the lone superpower. Indeed, the European Union is less about the proud union of European countries than a spineless surrender of Europe to a union with Africa and the Third World under the watchful eyes of the Jewish-controlled US as the master of the Collective West(more like Cuckative West).
Through the 19th century and well into the 20th century, the world witnessed two great trends in political power, one ‘natural’ and the other ‘unnatural’. ‘Natural’ in this case signifies a big country as big power, and ‘unnatural’ a small country as big power(and big country as small power). The rises of Russia and the US as great powers were most ‘natural’ as both entities were vast in resources. Russia had more population than any other European power, and the US had a high birth rate among whites in the 19th century, and there was also what seemed, for a time, like endless immigration from all across Europe. The US clearly outpaced Russia in the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, even following the Russian Revolution(when for a time many intellectuals in the West looked to Russia as the future, especially as the Capitalist West seemed to have fallen into permanent depression), but Russia averted the fate of the Ottoman Empire(even though the calamities it faced in World War I, Bolshevik Revolution & the ensuing civil war, forced collectivization, and World War II were on a scale beyond any tragedy of modern Turkish History). Even though Russia lagged the US and Germany in industrialization and progress, it still managed to advance in key fields. Even with the defeat in World War I, Russia(as the heart of the Soviet Union)managed to industrialize at breakneck pace under Josef Stalin, weathered the storms of World War II, and emerged as a superpower that, for a time, even led in the space race. For all its ups and downs, Russia, whether Tsarist or Communist, did manage to stay in the great power game.
As for the US, the whole world knows the story. Best land, fine lineage of Northern European settlers, and first-rate legacy of the Rule of Law, at least relative to the rest of the world mired in arbitrary and/or mystifying use of power. With all that land and resources, quality of culture and habit, and good genes, what came to be the US arose from a sound foundation, and the mostly European immigrants who followed respected and adopted the Anglo model. So, it was only a matter of time: The US was destined to be a great power without even trying to be. It was a ‘natural’ great power that could easily become a superpower, which it became.
Contra Russia and the US, the other great powers were ‘unnatural’, though hardly unique in history. All through history, peoples of small regions gained in military prowess and began to dominate their neighbors who were far larger in number. Assyrians and Macedonians ruled over vast territories and peoples, and perhaps the most remarkable of its kind in pre-modern times was the Roman Empire, with Persian and Mongol empire as contenders. Ottoman Turks also gained hegemony over vast areas inhabited by non-Turkic folks. The rise of empires in the modern era surpassed the history norm due to the mastery of the wind and seas. European Imperialists went from sea-faring to ocean-crossing and forged the first truly global empires by conquering vast expanses of territory far from the homeland, something unimaginable in the time of the Romans.
At any rate, the ancient Roman Empire and modern British Empire had in common their ‘unnatural’-ness. Of course, it was ‘natural’ that such a well-organized, highly disciplined, and capable people should conquer and dominate others. Still, such empires are built on shaky grounds as, despite all the carrots-and-sticks and ‘inclusive’ magnanimity, there’s always bound to be a sense of resentment among the subject peoples. There’s also the burn-out factor as such an empire can be maintained only with extra, even extraordinary, investment of time and effort as it must rule over vast alien territories and populations. One slip-up, and the whole thing can begin to unravel. Nothing can be taken for granted in such an empire; it was said the sun never sets in the British Empire(and NY is supposedly where no one ever sleeps), and it was a point of pressure as well as pride, as the empire had to be overseen and managed around the clock around the world. The movie BOUNTY shows the iron determination, discipline, and organization necessary to maintain an empire, especially an overseas one as control of the seas demands constant motion of voyages and patrols. It calls for almost inhuman levels of self-restraint and self-denial, as well as hierarchy and power over others. Once such a fire burns out, it’s hard to turn on again. In a way, the movie serves as metaphor for what happened to the Anglo World. Society eventually mutinied against the Old Way and gave itself to revelry and decadence.
Likewise, Jews are incessant in their imperial obsessions because their empire will fall apart the minute the they’re asleep on the job and take things for granted. A Russian can take for granted that Russia belongs to Russians, and an Iranian can that Iran belongs to Iranians. But the current World Jewry, like the British before them, can never take for granted that their hegemony will last if they just took it easy. Such imperial energies can be exhilarating but also exhausting, and it seems the Anglos, like the Romans long before them, reached a burnout point where they simply couldn’t sustain it any longer, especially with the two major wars in Europe.
Imperial authority depends on the clear presence or threat of force, absent which signs of agitation appear among the subject folks. In other words, while Turks continued to accept the authority of diminishing Turkish Power, non-Turks such as Greeks and Armenians saw the fissures as an opportunity to finally regain independence and autonomy. In the 20th century, China went through hard times but remained intact because most people in China were Han Chinese who, despite their disappointments with the inept, corrupt, and/or crazy governments, still accepted the authority invested in leading and representing the Chinese people.
If Russia(and Soviet Union) and the US were ‘natural’ great powers, the other great powers were ‘unnatural’. They were Great Britain, France, Germany, and later Japan. (Ottoman Turks lost out in their desperate gamble in World War I.) China and India were also ‘unnatural’ in that they had the elements to be great powers but faltered as the two Sick Men of Asia. What took shape as ‘India’ under the British Empire was rich in talent, history, and culture but lacked in cohesive will to come together under inspired authority. Things were so pathetic that, prior to the British, the Mughals kicked the Hindus around like dogs and spread Islam far and wide. And China, also rich in history and talent(and considerably bigger than India), failed to meet the challenge of modernity; and if Hindus were ruled by Mughals before the arrival of the British, the Han Chinese were ruled by Manchurian dynasties even to the first decade of the 20th century. One wonders how history would have played out if China had understood the challenges and caught up with the West before imperialism got a foothold in China. China was as much an ‘unnatural’ weak power as Great Britain was an ‘unnatural’ great power.
Even though Western/Central European nations are relatively small, the European continent(including European Russia) is bigger than the US. Even without Russia, Europe is two-thirds the size of the US. As a combined power, it’s potential would have been awesome, but it couldn’t overcome the problems of diversity like the US more or less managed to do. The difference is each European nation is deep in history and culture, therefore obliged to preserve and remember what is unique about itself. A true Italian is Italian before (pan)European, and the same goes for a true German and true Hungarian.
In contrast, the US was founded by Anglos who set the template for entry into the US. Those choosing to emigrate had to adopt the American Way as set forth by the Anglos(and fellow Northern Europeans). So, even as the US tolerated and even respected ethnic diversity, the understanding was that YOU are an American before you’re a Pole, Italian, Swede, Irish, Greek, or whatever; furthermore, it was thought that Americanism and the Melting Pot would eventually erase memories and attachments to the Old World. Besides, Anglo-Americans themselves practiced what they preached(sufficiently) by accepting as fellow Americans the non-Anglo-Americans. So, while a Polish-American could have his Polish culture on the side(with kielbasa and sauerkraut), it had to be a secondary feature to Americanism that bound him in a sense of fellow-citizenship with non-Polish Americans.
Such a formula was never going to work in Europe because there wasn’t a single or superior formula for being European. An Italian, in simply being Italian, is fully European. He doesn’t have to demote Italian-ness to the periphery to be ‘European’. Whereas Anglo-Americans owned the founders’ rights to the United States in defining the essentials of Americanism, no such authority existed in Europe. Even when some figures came close, as with Napoleon and Hitler, it was unity by conquest than by free will, the choice of immigrants voluntarily choosing and pledging to become ‘Americans’ above all. Immigrants were joining and participating in the Anglo American conquest of the New World that rubbed out the Indians to make way for the Europeans of all stripes under the stewardship of Anglo-Americans. Because European chances at unity, usually short-lived, came by the way of conquest and coercion, they deteriorated sooner than later when the imperial power diminished or was defeated, the fate of Napoleon’s France and Hitler’s Germany.
Europe was united by certain themes, especially the Greco-Roman, but these were a matter of cultural authority than political-military authority. Whereas immigrants to the US were well aware of the political, economic, and military might of the Anglo-Americans who controlled the levers of power, all that was left of the great Greek and Roman civilizations was their legacy; if anything, modern Greece and Italy were thought of as jokes.
There was the shared faith in Christianity, but it was as divisive as unifying, especially due to Europe being divided along Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant lines. Religious differences even scarred those within the same nation or similar ethnicities. The Catholic-vs-Protestant strife in Northern Ireland is a famous example. Poles and Czechs, part of the Slavic folks, became further estranged from Eastern Slavs due to their Catholicism, a tension that also played out in Yugoslavia with Catholic Croatians duking it out with Orthodox Serbians, and with both of them duking it out with Slavs who’d converted to Islam in Bosnia. (Unification of Germany overcame the Protestant-Catholic difference, but the tragedy of Yugoslavia was the bridge the religious and cultural gaps through a sense of shared blood and history.)
In the pre-World-War-I years of the 20th Century, the world power arrangement seemed thus: The US, a great power, destined to become a greater power. Russia, an underachiever but still a great power on the move. Great Britain, the premier great power around the world, ruler of one-fourth of the globe. France, the second great European power after Britain. Germany, a rising power overtaking Great Britain in industry. Japan, rising rapidly as a great power in Asia.
In Europe, the main source of tension was between the two ‘unnatural’ powers, the established one, Great Britain, and the rising one, Germany. The British had come to terms with the French as a worthy competitor — Britain usually got the first pickings while French got the second-round picks. Two could be company, but three seemed a crowd. Besides, whereas Britain regarded semi-industrial France(40% of whose population was rural after WWII) as a perennial second runner in the economic front, it nervously eyed Germany as a power that could overtake the British Empire(a foolish fear as Germany only wanted its ‘rightful’ share of the world). This all came to a head in the events that led to World War I. If not for the British, Germany could have ended the war in a year, defeating both Russia and France. Far fewer lives would have been lost, and Germany would have been the dominant power on the Continent. Defeat was tragic for Germany, but it had a second chance at world power status under Adolf Hitler but, once again, Britain was instrumental in preventing German victory. (Given Hitler’s pathologies, British machinations in World War II were more justified than in World War I; indeed, one wonders if the UK and USSR would have gained much moral advantage in the 20th century if not for Hitler, against whom the British painted themselves as defenders of the free world when, in fact, they were the biggest imperialists in the world; and Soviet totalitarianism was redeemed in the eyes of many by its victory over Nazi imperialism, without which Soviet Union would have been remembered as the most murderous power in the 20th century. Even today, despite all the bad blood between the UK and Russia, their national self-perception revolves around the war with Nazi Germany.) World War II finished Germany as a world power for good. Thereafter, it recovered as the economic powerhouse of Europe but lost all rights of sovereignty, independence, and pride.
Japan’s problem stemmed from being a rising ‘unnatural’ power at odds with an ‘unnatural’ weakling, which was China. Had Japan and China modernized around the same time, there would likely have been far less tension between the two civilizations. Modernizing China, being bigger and more populous, would have been stronger than modernizing Japan, and the Japanese would have accepted this reality. But as Japan modernized first and faster while China lagged for reasons domestic and foreign, Japan joined the other imperialist powers in targeting China as the Sick Man of Asia(or the Whore of Asia) to carve up. This would have grave consequences for Japan-China relations that linger to the present(and seems to be getting worse as Japan is now part of the Neocon US satellite). China failed to modernize before the West got a foothold and forced concessions, and then, Japan exploited the weakness as well. Japan first grabbed Taiwan, but it was Manchuria that would poison relations and lead China and Japan on a warpath of utter devastation. Just like Jews now use Ukraine against Russia, Japan used Manchuria against China. Japanese ‘benevolence’ claimed to honor and defend Manchurian independence and nationalism against Chinese belligerence when, in fact, the Japanese planned to turn Manchuria into another Korea, a Japanese colony, at best a puppet state. While Manchurians had once been a separate ethnic group, their long rule over all of China dissolved many of the national and cultural barriers between the two worlds. Still, the nationalist movement in China did curse out the Manchu rule and reasserted Han Chinese sovereignty as the forerunner to driving out rest of the imperialists, and the Japanese took advantage of this China-Manchu tension, except that many Manchurians didn’t buy the Japanese line at all, and it was only a matter of time before China would demand Manchuria back, and this all came to the fore when, following the Xian Incident, Chiang Kai-Shek changed his policy of finishing off the communists first before tackling the Japanese threat.
Incredibly to the Chinese, Chiang made a national front alliance with Mao against Japan. This meant Japan would have to defend Manchuria in a forever war with China, which would only grow stronger in time. Or, Japan could go on the offensive, punish the Chinese, grab a bigger chunk of northern China, and force the Chinese to accept Japanese rule over Manchuria and whatever else they conquered. Japan chose offense than defense, but this led to unforeseen consequences beginning with the US sanctions under FDR, who promised to resume the sale of iron and oil only if Japanese withdrew back to Manchuria. In retrospect, Japan should have taken the deal, but doing so would have been construed as Japanese defeat at the hands of China, the Sick Man of Asia. The world media would have said, “Proud and brave Chinese fend off the Japanese attack; Jappers run back to their base in Manchuria with tails between their legs.” Without US iron and oil, Japan figured the only way to secure resources was to take southeast Asia where the European imperialists had developed various extractive industries, but an open war with white nations could mean a confrontation with White America, then still an awesomely race-ist country. And the rest is history. Japan lost in the most catastrophic manner and gone for good was its global ambitions. Its economy under the US empire grew faster and larger than ever, but politically and militarily, it’s been a whore-geisha to Uncle Sam, now Uncle Shem.
So, after World War II, the two ‘unnatural’ powers Japan and Germany were out. They were allowed to prosper as whores of the US, but they lacked anything like national pride and autonomy. Germany and Japan built and designed things but had no control over their own destinies, let alone those of the world.
Then, soon followed the demise of two other ‘unnatural’ powers, Great Britain and France, what with their outmoded justification for world domination, especially when Democracy, Nationalism, Communism, and Post World-War-II Narrative all rebuked old-style imperialism. Democracy was about people freely choosing their representatives and leaders. Nationalism was about national sovereignty for each people. Communism was about spreading the Marxist formula of social justice around the world, and it conflated capitalism with imperialism. And the Post-World-War-II Narrative held that the West was morally superior for having resisted and defeated the world-conquering imperialism of the Evil Nazis and the ‘Japs’, and increasingly, ‘racism’ made the Holocaust the centerpiece of World War II Narrative.
Then, it’s no wonder the British, the French, and other European Imperialists found themselves on the moral defensive for their rule over their non-European colonies, especially as their economies were drained by the war & reconstruction and challenged by various nationalist resistance movements that were either tacitly supported by the US or aggressively championed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Empire was very much an empire but justified as an anti-imperialist imperialism, or an empire in which everyone was a comrade of equal worth and dignity. Unlike British privilege over the darkies, there was no Russian privilege over non-Russians in the empire, i.e. Russia was the main body than the mastermind of the Soviet Empire that came into being under the leadership of men of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
So, in a way, the US vs USSR, aka the Cold War, was more ‘natural’ following the defeat and/or demise of the ‘unnatural’ powers. In due course, Great Britain, France, and of course, Germany and Japan learned to live within their limitations. Their unstable empires over vast numbers of foreigners couldn’t last forever. In contrast, the US and the Soviet Union were empire-sized political orders. However, world affairs were still not in a ‘natural’ state of balance as China and India through most of the 20th century remained hopelessly backward or in a state of perpetual crisis. It was only in the final decades of the 20th century that China and India began to make their move toward achieving something like their true potential. Finally, only under Deng Xiaoping did China have a stable leadership that was open-minded and rational enough to make pragmatic than dogmatic decisions, not least based on the modernization of East Asian nations, especially Singapore. And true economic liberalization came to India only in the 1990s. The globalization of the Western Economy based on seeking the most cost-effective means of production and services not only did wonders for urban Western elites but for manufacturing in China and the tech boom in India; and with their growth, China and India began to diversify their economies from excessive dependence on Western(and especially US) demands.
In the last quarter of the 20th century, there was much focus on the G-7 countries, which seemed both right and wrong. Right because those were indeed the top economies in the world but wrong because it ignored so much of the world. When G-7 was born, the world remained divided by the Cold War, and China and India were still economic basket-cases despite their vast populations. In the 21st century, the prestige of the G-7 has been slipping(and may one day seem quaint if current trends continue). Not only have Japan and Western Europe been fading, but Japan(along with the East Asian Pussies) face steep demographic decline, whereas Western Europe and Canada are effectively being erased racially and culturally by Third World newcomers; and what with all the anti-white cult in the media and academia, not least ‘educated’ whites themselves, even elite positions are being opened up to nonwhite usurpers handpicked to be the New Cucks of the Empire of Judea. Incredibly, the ‘conservative’ Tory Party of the UK now takes pride in marginalizing native white British males for top positions while bending over for the globo-homo ‘gay’ dong up the bung. In the future,the G-7 may go the way of the aristocracy.
In the 21st century, we are finally witnessing the emergence of what better resembles a ‘natural’ world order. The US with its vast resources and large population remains the lone superpower. Russia, with its considerable population, vast resources, and some degree of aptitude, has re-emerged from the post-communist crisis-period as a power to acknowledge. China has rapidly grown into an industrial powerhouse and is expanding its military power. India, once written off as a joke, still faces epic challenges, some of them seemingly insurmountable, but it too is taking shape as a genuine power, at the very least as a country that can’t be pushed around. (Of course, it seems the Hindus are playing a clever game. On the one hand, work with Jews, who control the West, to gain greater access to and leverage over globalist institutions while, at the same time, operating from the perspective of national sovereignty to make India more or less immune to globalist pressures, e.g. refusing to go along with Jewish-decreed Western Sanctions against Russia.) If current trends continue, the future will belong to the ‘natural’ powers, big in size, population, and talent, whereas the former ‘unnatural’ powers shall never reclaim their great power status. No chance of France taking back entire swaths of Africa and Asia. The idea of the UK re-colonizing India or taking back Hong Kong is now a joke. If anything, it seems globalist Indians are colonizing Britain, which is depressing, but at this point, who the hell cares as the Anglos have degenerated into the most pathetic bootlicking and brownnosing cuck-maggot-collaborators of the Jews. Even Anglo cultural influence has been degraded over the years. Britain once gave the world the Beatles and James Bond. Now, it’s Harry Potter and the cult of Princess Diana. (In the past, British actors took pride in playing British characters but now mainly seek relevance by playing Americans.)
Of course, size and population alone don’t guarantee great power status. A Brazil filled with Germans would be a superpower overnight, but it has too many corrupt Latins and too many blacks. Indonesia has a large population and vast resources in its many islands, but the native population is pretty lackluster and are unlikely to amount to much. Indeed, what would the Southeast Asian economy be without the overseas Chinese?
Among all the contenders of future greatness, India is the most interesting case as it has some of the biggest extremes in exceptional talent and mind-boggling ineptitude. A high-tech giant where half the population still shit outdoors. On the other hand, Hindus are, along with Jews, the ONLY people in the world with a spirit and culture powerful enough to withstand the pressures of globalism. For example, whereas Chinese outside China soon lose their sense of Chinese-ness, Hindus outside India still know what they are. Class is more easily deracinating than caste.
Can the emergence of a ‘natural’ world order proceed peacefully? Currently, the US is the lone superpower. China is a great power, along with Russia. India is making heady progress in various areas and asserting its own course of action(to the ire of the US and UK). The lesser but important powers like Iran are also gaining in prominence and despite the crippling sanctions by the West. At this point, it seems most of the world, especially in the ‘Global South’, is ready and willing to accept the rise of a new world order(not to be confused with NWO of Bush and the Neocons) where nations with the potential to be powerful are indeed becoming just that. And in the rise of the ‘natural’ giants, the chance of any ‘unnatural’ power to gain world dominance is unlikely. (Of course, Jewish Power is the most ‘unnatural’ as Jews don’t even have a sizable nation of their own. Israel is very small. Yet, in an odd way, Jewish Power is also the most ‘natural’ as power is centered in elite institutions, and Jews have silently seized and captured those key areas in the West. After all, invisible germs can take over entire organisms.)
This poses a problem for the US as the lone superpower. In the 1980s, there was much talk of Japan’s emergence as the economic behemoth(destined to overtake even the US). Despite its political subservience to the US empire, Japan was still regarded as an economic superpower. However, the US always knew that, when push comes to shove, it could pull the plug on Japan, a nation so utterly dependent on the US control of the world in terms of trade routes, markets, resources, and ‘protection’(actually an extortion racket). In contrast, the Collective West is realizing with the Ukraine Crisis that the rug cannot be so easily pulled from under Russia that can feed itself and has bountiful resources. Furthermore, the sanctions are compelling Russia to develop its own domestic industries in key areas or lean to the ‘Global South’ and China for supplies. So, even as Germany and Japan were deemed economic powerhouses with their rapid recoveries from the rubble of World War II, they could always be undone overnight by the US, just like the Jews could turn Kanye West from a multi-billionaire to a mere millionaire almost overnight.
But as Russia, China, and India rise(and furthermore increase trade and act on mutual interests in the vast territories of Eurasia), the US is far more limited in what it can do. The US can’t do to them what Jews did to Kanye West.
Whatever tensions exist between China and India, it’s over slivers of territory than world domination. Also, both nations have come to appreciate the benefits of close ties to Russia that has too few people for too many resources. Furthermore, neither Russia, China, nor India wants to dictate to one another about ‘values’, unlike the US that prides itself as the ‘exceptional nation’ with some divine right to preach to the rest, which is kind of weird given that ‘wokeness’ obsesses so much on the ‘great evils’ of the American Past/Present and Western History; but then, white moral arrogance paradoxically stems from white self-flagellation, i.e. “We whites are in a position to preach to the rest of you because we’ve been redeemed at least in part by prostrating before the holy trinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos, the most sacred peoples that ever lived”, or “Because I repent for my white guilt about Emmett Till, I have the moral justification to hate China”, or “Because I take the knee to George Floyd and wash stinky Negro feet, I’m justified in painting bombs with BLM and drop them on hapless Arabs”, or “Because I’m so sorry for the ‘homophobic’ sins of the West, I’ve earned the moral credit to nuke Moscow.”
In the end, war or peace will be up to the US. Is the US willing to accommodate the rising great powers and live with them in peace and mutual respect? Or will the US insist on remaining the lone superpower on both the military and ‘moral’ level(as plenty of Americans think they are ‘more evolved’ because they associate homo fecal-penetration with the ‘rainbow’). Of course, it’s all the more problematic because the US is ruled by Zionic Jews who are by nature supremacist.
Interestingly enough, the fact that Anglo-Americans and Christian Whites submitted to Jewish Power suggests that they aren’t so obessively supremacist. If indeed white Christians were pathologically committed to supremacism, why would they have allowed Jews to gain power over them? It seems many white Christians, including the elites, were perfectly willing to share power with Jews after World War II. However, they miscalculated because Jews were never content with mere power-sharing on an equal basis. Jews lusted after total domination, control, and supremacy. Incredibly, white Christians caved to Jewish demands. And in the current UK, it seems white Britons are even willing to bow down to Hindus and the like. Thus, based on the evidence of white attitudes, it seems a white Christian-ruled America could make peace with a new world order of ‘natural’ great powers, i.e. the US could learn to live in peace and on friendly terms with Russia, China, India, and even Iran(in a ‘let bygones be bygones’ sort of way).
The reason why the current US cannot accept such an outcome is because of the Jewish Factor and mainly for two reasons. Not only is Jewishness innately the most supremacist consciousness in the world but Jewish Power, the greatest power that ever was, is actually built on sand. It is not based on and rooted firmly in the soil. Rich or poor, strong or weak, China is about Chinese people on Chinese land as their base. Russia is about Russian people owning Russian lands. Indeed, the history of Bolshevism shows that the national majority can reassert its authority in time. In the 1990s, Jews ran much of Russia(mostly into the ground), but they were too few, and when a man like Vladimir Putin emerged, he was supported by the vast majority of Russians. India is something of an ethnic and cultural mess, but an indisputable sense of Indian nationality has developed and taken root. Besides, over 90% of Indians are Hindu, and Hinduism isn’t just a religion but an ethnic identity.
In contrast, the Jews who rule the world(via the US as lone superpower) may have more wealth and power than Russia, China, and India combined, BUT they are ‘alien’ elite overlords over vast numbers of goyim. Only in Israel are Jews the solid majority, but Israel is a tiny speck on the map, and its survival and power depends on the favoritism and protection of the West that is now under Jewish control. Thus, Jewish Power isn’t based on something that they can take for granted. Chinese leaders, whoever they may be, can at least rest assured that they are Chinese ruling over vast numbers of Chinese. For all the unrest and turmoil that may grip China, there’s the sense that the Chinese people will only accept other Chinese as legitimate rulers over them.
But, for how long can Jews rely on goy support in the West? What if the goyim go ‘Kanye West’ and begin to ask questions and challenge Jewish Power? It’s no wonder Jews work so hard to invalidate, discredit, shame, and impugn the very notion of whiteness. That way, whites will be too guilt-ridden, ashamed, and self-loathing to unite and work for white interests. Also, whites will look to the sacrosanct forever-holocaust Jews(and blacks and homos) for moral guidance and do as told. With whites under their command, Jews can maintain their position as the rulers of the US as the lone superpower and direct the West’s forces against perceived foes and rivals, like Russia, Iran, and increasingly China, which has infuriated Jews for its ties with Russia.
But then, one wonders if Jews are creating for themselves a two-front war. Sure, all the white-bashing may lead to more white apologetics, cuckery, and submission, but there is also the chance that whites may say, “this is just about enough” and turn against the Jews, in which case Jews(and homos and cuck whites) will have to face Russia, China, and Iran on one side while facing White Rage politics on the other. If you beat a horse hard enough, there’s the chance that it may kick you, smashing your skull to pieces.
The transition of the world to a system molded by several great ‘natural’ powers can be peaceful as the examples of China, Russia, and India have shown. None of them seeks world domination nor has the messianic impulse. China and Russia were in messianic mode only under communism, but that ship has long passed. India knows that its defining culture, Hinduism, isn’t for export. What all three great countries have in common is seeking mutual interest by trade.
In contrast, the US seems hell-bent on dominating, reshaping, and leading the world. This impulse seems to stem from various sources. There is the legacy of Anglo Imperialism, which passed from Britain to the US, even though the latter masked its dream of empire in ‘progressive’ piety of ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy’. There is the Protestant missionary impulse, the idea that the US is a City on a Hill, an exceptional nation, a beacon of light for all the world. There is the hyper-capitalist drive, one not merely of commodities and goods but popular culture as the new religion: Coca Cola as the new holy water, Hollywood as the new vatican, and Rock/Rap as the new gospel.
Given the conceit of America’s founding as a bold new experiment, there’s less in history and deep culture that Americans can boast of; rather, American pride comes from the obsession with Something New as the leader in fads and fashions. There is also the sports culture, especially because of blacks. Blacks, being the best athletes, made the US the powerhouse in global sports. American blacks outran, out-jumped, and out-fought the other peoples around the world, and blacks are naturally into showboating and blinging their championships. A kind of Black-American athletic imperialism has been approved by the world community, not least because black champions aren’t necessarily seen as expressions of black arrogance and supremacism but as the triumph of the underdog after a couple of centuries of picking cotton and being called ‘nigger’. (In truth, blacks were never underdogs in speed and strength, and Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali’s destructions of white boxers were really the natural results of black over-dog-ism in athletic prowess.)
Of course, blacks have the support of Jews who intend to use the black song-dong-strong formula as instruments of world control. Jews want every non-black nation to take in blacks, have blacks take over the national sports and be idolized as the ‘national’ heroes(as has happened all across Europe and in Japan as well), thereby subverting the representative native face of the nation. Consider the French soccer team that is nearly all black. To the extent that athletes are, rightly or wrongly, seen as ‘national heroes’, such a shift has had a profound impact on French self-image and national identity.
And there are also the homos, even a closer ally of the Jews. Indeed, the Jewish use of Globo-Homo gives the game away as to their real designs. Jews well know that the Globo-Homo agenda is designed to undermine and degrade any politics of sovereignty among the nations of the world. This is where Jews are most different from Russians, Chinese, Indians, Iranians, and etc. Russians don’t mind other nations being ruled by their own representatives of the majorities with their unique national interests. So, despite all the tensions between Russia and Turkey, not least because Erdogan is such a skunk, Russia has no problem with Turkey being about Turkish pride, history, culture, and interests. And whatever bad feelings some Turks may have about Russians, at the very minimum they understand Russia is Russia and has its own unique interests and concerns. And this consideration applies to China, India, Iran, and etc. Iran isn’t trying to turn China into a Shia Muslim country, and Chinese couldn’t care less if Iranians never read a book on Confucius or Mao. It’s all a matter of national sovereignty.
But such an outlook and approach don’t sit well with Jews. Why are Jews so allergic to any notion of goy national sovereignty? They pretty much destroyed it in the Collective West and are working to undermine it in Latin America, Japan, and the East Asian Pussies(aka Asian Tigers but they’re more like pussy cats). It’s because acknowledging such sovereignty in non-Western countries implies that it should also apply to countries that Jewish minority elites rule over. If Chinese sovereignty is about the Chinese being ruled by fellow Chinese, the kind of leaders that the great majority of the population identify with(and the same logic applies to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Arab nations, and etc.), then why should the nations of the West be any different? Why shouldn’t all Western nations be like Hungary where the overwhelming Hungarian majority have voted in elections for pro-Hungarian leaders who represent Hungarian nationhood, history, heritage, and territoriality? If Russian leaders represent the solid majority of Russia, if Turkish leaders represent the solid majority of Turkey, if Chinese leaders represent the solid majority of China, and if Iranian leaders represent the Iranian population, it would seem such is the norm around the world, a matter of national rights or sovereignty.
But if such a principle were validated in the West(as in Hungary, one of the few exceptions to the current ‘Western’ rule), what would it portend for Jewish Supremacist Power? What would happen to the George-Soroses of the World whose tentacles have reached into every crevice of Western law, finance, media, and deep state? It could very well mean the end of Jewish Supremacism.
And that is precisely why Jews employ Globo-Homo as the joker up their sleeve. Jews cultivate, fund, and promote homos in every country and also indoctrinate the non-Western elites and their children as to the magical wonders of globo-homo, which is associated with Western power, privilege, connections, wealth, celebrity, creativity, and etc. In other words, to be allowed INTO the globalist glitz club, one has to fully take ‘communion’ with Gay Rites.
Now, what happens when the elites of a country imitate the West in showering praise and protection for homos(and trannies) as a special people and, furthermore, when those very homos are fawned upon by Jews who rule the West and also monopolize ‘spiritual’ authority? It means the country is no longer ruled by true patriots who represent the needs, values, and the will of the national majority. It means the elites, ever so status-conscious and beholden to Western Standards, will always favor the vanity-politics of homos who, feeling alienated from the majority ‘homophobic’ population while being so grateful to World Jewry that made them the new darlings and princelings of the world, will do the bidding of Jews whose ultimate agenda is to subvert and weaken every goy nation for Jewish takeover. It’s like an octopus injects enzymes into crabs to soften the meat inside, which turns to goo, which is then sucked up by the octopus, rather like what the Jewish-like space aliens do to earthlings in the sci-fi film UNDER THE SKIN.
Because Jews rule the West and push globo-homo to secure world control, the 21st century may not witness a peaceful transition to the new order of great ‘natural’ powers. Without Jews, the West may accept the new ‘natural’ order. After all, Europeans gave up their empires and made peace with the new reality after World War II. And if not for Jewish-led US pressures, it’s likely Germany and Russia would have already sealed the deal on Russian gas for German goods. Even globalists like Angela Merkel were looking to work with Putin’s Russia even after the 2014 fiasco in Ukraine, but the US threw one monkey wrench after another into Russian-German relations. But why? Because of the legacy of Anglo imperialism? In part, perhaps, but the real reason is Jewish Power that is waging war on all sovereignties… except of course in Israel. Today, most Western ‘leaders’ are puppets of Jews much like Warsaw Pact leaders were puppets of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
One of the biggest contradictions in the world is the quality/quantity deficit neurosis among Jews. Jews believe themselves to be the Chosen or the Superior, yet the only majority Jewish country is Israel, a tiny piece of the world. Perhaps, Jews would be less neurotic about world control if they had a country of their own the size of Brazil or India. They might feel that they, as a great people, have a great chunk of territory to call their own. But as things stand, Jews who regard themselves as the best of the best have only a sliver of land as the Jewish State.
As a Euro-Semitic people, Jews could easily identify with the ‘Aryans’ of the West or the ‘Semites’ of the Near East(the Arabs and the like), but Jews opted to set themselves apart from both. This led to a powerful identity and a strong sense of tribalism and cohesiveness, but it also meant an exclusionary outlook on the world, i.e. most of goyim were not good enough to be Jewish, and the ones with superior qualities in looks or intelligence were married into the Jewish tribe and their children were raised as Jews. Thus, Jews were bound to be numerically disadvantaged and persist as minorities in goy majority lands.
By superior wit and cunning(along with sheer chutzpah, which made for steely will combined with strategic flexibility), Jews could gain influence and even domination over goyim, but the countries were still defined by majority goyim, which means Jews were, at best, ‘guests’. Jews may have run circles around ‘Dumb Polacks’ in Poland, but Poland still belonged to the Poles. Jews have gained tremendous leverage over Ukraine(as a Jewish Gangster Paradise), but it’s still known as Ukraine, not Jewkraine.
The very exclusive nature of Judaism limited the number of Jews. Jews could be European or Semitic, but goy Europeans and goy Semites(such as Palestinians) could not be Jewish. If Jews accepted their numerical limitations and its implications, things would have been fine. But even as Jews exclude the world in Jewish identity and community, they demand that the world open up to and be owned by Jews. It’s like someone who never invites you to dinner but always demanding to be invited to your dinners. It’s like someone who would never let you do his wife but always demands that he do your wife.
Since Jews cannot overtly lay claim to goy countries, they’ve devised other means to gain control. A lot of it has to do with financial manipulation. Jews may not officially own the country(in the way that Israel is said to be a Jewish State), but they can become the financial masters and control much of the economy, pulling the strings directly or indirectly, as the financial sector makes the rules of where the money goes.
Indeed, it was through finance that Jews came to control much of the world, and Jews thought their power was ironclad until they recently bumped against Russia and other countries with their control of commodities. The other ways of Jewish control has been ‘spiritual’ and idolatrous. Via the Holocaust Cult, Jews have pretty much converted Western ‘souls’(as holes) to Jew Worship. And through the idolatry of BLM and Globo-Homo, countless goyim around the world have been converted to believing that their worth is to be measured by how cucked they are to Negroes and Homos.
Still, there’s nothing like the security of land. Land is real. It is tangible, the ground under your feet, the soil from which food grows, where oil is found, where minerals are mined, where your ancestors are buried. In contrast, no matter how much financial and ‘spiritual’ power Jews may gain over others, Jewish Power is utterly dependent on the complex networks and systems of control. Even when the political system broke down in Russia, Russia was the reality on which Russians lived. Rich or poor, Russians owned Russia as their homeland. In contrast, financial power can vanish overnight if the system breaks down. It’s based on legality and contracts, or connections and controls. When Jews lost oligarchic power over Russia, the country reverted to Mother Russia from Whore Russia. As for ‘spirituality’, it too can vanish into the thin air when the narratives change and paradigms shift. Gods, demons, and angels are all in the mind, and it’s very possible that the world will wake up and reject Globo-Homo as a sick and disgusting Jewish Power Play. Then, in an instant, Jewish Power over so much of the world just goes ‘poof’ in the air.
One shared trauma of China and Russia has to do with the Mongol invasions. Though some in Russia/Europe have tended to conflate the Mongols and Chinese as one(as both are part of the East Asiatic race), Chinese dreaded the barbarian horsemen so adept at archery. In times of dynastic decay or political tumult in China, Mongols took advantage and once even managed to conquer all of China(and expand its borders). Incredibly, the Mongols even crossed Siberia and invaded Russia, even reaching parts of Poland. If not for the land mass and population of Russia to serve as shock absorber, who knows how the Mongols might altered the history of Europe. They might have outdone the Huns who even sacked Rome on occasion.
