Notes on Spencer Quinn's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review(of Israel Shahak's Book)" — Problem with Kevin MacDonald's Theory of Northern European Individualism

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/05/jewish-history-jewish-religion-a-review/

This book review leaves the impression that the problem is less with Jews than with idiot goyim who allowed themselves to be played.

Jewish ethnocentrism is problematic for being extroverted than introverted. If Jews want a world of their own, fine. The problem is they also want the whole world as their empire, an ambition that can be realized only by Palestinianizing World Goyim. To create the Jewish State, there had to be Nakba against the Palestinians. Tragic, but if Jews had stopped there, no big deal to the rest of the world. But what is now happening in the West is White Nakba, and it's largely engineered by Jews who've gained control of white elites via bribery, brainwashing, and browbeating.

But then, maybe Jews wouldn't have turned out this way if Europeans had just left them alone. If Rome hadn't invaded Judea and pushed them into exile, Jews might not have spread all throughout Europe, which might have remained gloriously pagan. Also, the European spirit of discovery and world conquest didn't originate with Jews who nevertheless were useful as money-lenders and investors in the vast enterprises. So, Jews got a taste of World Power via Europeans.

In the Ancient World, Southern Europeans, esp. the Greeks and Romans, were most aggressive and adventurous. Later, it was the Northern Europeans, without whom Jews wouldn't have gained World Hegemony. Shahak's book details how Jews threatened by fellow Jews sometimes sought refuge in the world of kinder white Gentiles governed by more enlightened values and more humane application of the law.
On the other hand, these very goyim also recklessly drove Europe over the edge in World War I. Some will say the Jewish Hand played a role in the Great War, and I'm sure that was true, but whites often had a compunction to slaughter one another over what now seems like trifles. Granted, some historians say this was the reason for European advancement. Unlike most parts of the world that either remained sparsely populated or came under overwhelming imperial power, rough parity ruled among the European kingdoms/states, and this led to many more wars that fostered innovation in warfare and various technologies; it's like warring Japan was most open to new ideas when each clan sought superior weapons from European traders. But it also means Europeans got into the habit of treating war as some kind of sports. Most of these wars were resolved quickly, but when the warring parties were well-matched, things got awfully bloody like the matches between Ali and Frazier.

Kevin MacDonald argued that Jews gained over Anglos and other Europeans because the latter are more individualistic, but I'm not so sure. While modern concepts of individuality and liberty were advanced in the Anglo world(and Netherlands), those societies weren't governed or defined by principles of individualism but by class, obedience, respect, and conformism. For all practical purposes, individualism had significance only for certain thinkers, adventurers, innovators, and the like. Most people were concerned with fitting in, being approved, seeking validation. Northern Europeans weren't as clan-based or kinship-oriented as the Greeks and Southern Italians, but they still thought socially and communally than as individuals. If they served as a crew member on a ship, they did as the captain ordered. They were loyal to the firm they worked for, like Bob Cratchit to Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. And they were mindful of the class they belonged to. And they were anxious about their respectability and standing in society. Thus, individualism in the Anglo World was rather constricted. Given liberty and individuality's tendency toward social chaos, social discipline and fear of disapproval were paradoxically the necessary conditions for the increase in freedom. The anarchic urge within liberty had to be tempered by manners and rules. In other words, individuality and liberty had to be merited by a sign of superiority, intelligence, wit, and/or skills.
Thus, individualism was essentially elitist, and most people, deemed mediocre and uninspired, were expected to just fall in line and conform, do what was necessary to gain approval and avoid opprobrium. The end result was a society where a relative few were deemed superior and worthy of admiration; they deserved more 'social credit' in liberty and individuality; the rest should just shut up, fall in line, and obey, which was pretty much the rule in British boarding schools.

Of course, Britain eventually loosened up, especially with the rise of Youth Culture popularized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the like. Later, there was the explosion of Punk culture that took it to a whole new (lower)level, especially appealing to Brit youths eager to smash the remaining vestiges of class culture. But, old habits refused to die. Anglo-Britain(and Canada and Australia) remained very much places where most people remained deferential to authority as the best and 'expert'. Of course, authority came to wear the face of 'liberal democracy' and even came to be associated with hipness. It presented itself as 'lightened up', disdainful of old hierarchies and snobberies. After all, the Establishment embraced the Beatles, the Royal Family opened up to vulgar celebrities, and the ruling class came to indulge in the same popular culture as the hoi polloi. Still, the formula still remained, "the Best know and the Rest follow".

Now, what would constitute the Best? When UK was ruled by awesome race-ists(as the Best of the nation), most Brits fell in line and supported the racial-national agenda. But, if the Best were altered, the Rest would naturally fall in line PRECISELY BECAUSE most Brits never had real individuality of their own — and even popular culture, which felt so joyous and liberating, fostered collective emotions and 'thought', the crowd mentality that could be shepherded by the Power; it was more about mass idolatry of godlike celebrities than autonomy of the individual. Is it then surprising that New Britain was hardly more individualistic than Old Britain and in some ways even less so?

Just look at the rise of 'woke' culture and Covid-mania in the UK. A truly individualist society wouldn't get so crazy. People would ask questions and show some skepticism. But when the Best say so-and-so in the UK, most people just follow along like sheep. They lack the pride and confidence of individuality. What is truly insidious about 'woke' ideology or political correctness is it gives the false impression that it's about the voice of the People and the Powerless. Thus, the brainwashed sheep being led by the nose are fooled into believing they're struggling against the system. Wow, they knocked down a bloody statue of some past figure who sold slaves! What awesome rebellion against tyranny!
In truth, UK is now ruled by Jews who, via financial and media control, define what is Best. Jews push 'wokeness' to weaken white pride, resolve, and autonomy, all the better to make whites serve ANOTHER power. But because 'woke' ideology creates the illusion that 'white supremacy' still rules or infests the West, the idiot mobs think they're fighting the Power by vandalizing old statues. It's like the moronic Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution who were led to see themselves as rebels when, in truth, Mao merely used them as shock troops to get rid of his political rivals. Contra Kevin MacDonald, individualism wasn't the dominant mindset among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Rather, it was the individuality of the Best that was respected and rewarded while the Rest were pressured to obey and follow along.

In contrast, while it's true Jews have been profoundly tribal, their power also derived from a strong sense of personal individualism, i.e. self-centered pride of individuality has been more common among Jews than among Anglos. While Anglos were into 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir' before their superiors, Jews were more likely to be distrustful of their own kind, evento the point of irreverence. It could be Jews were sometimes overzealous to kill/murder other Jews precisely because too many Jews were overly defiant and strong-minded; it's like, for all the black bitching about 'racism', they are most prone to beat up or kill other Negroes cuz the only thing black egomania fears is an ass-whupping.

It's also worth noting that Jewish Tribalism wasn't based on loyalty to a clan leader but to God. Tribalism based on leadership crumbles along with it. It's about follow-the-leader, so when the leader goes, so does the tribalism. In contrast, tribalism based on the Covenant means everyone within the Tribe is equally blessed by God or some great force; it's a matter of blood and spirit regardless of who is leader. Anglo tribalism was based on leadership. So, if the leadership lost prestige(with the fall of empire) or cucked to a foreign entity(the Jews or whatever), the whole system came to be fatally compromised. As for Christianity, a universal faith, it wasn't something the Anglos could claim for themselves. It was only a matter of time before other peoples invoked the Christian God and Jesus to throw back the sermons at the British Imperialists.

Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost.

Well, a Jewish State should serve Jews first and foremost.

He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances.

Nothing wrong with that.

Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be.

Jewish problem is less about double standards than duplicitous standards. Every national entity must have double standards. If Japan is to remain Japan, it must favor Japanese over others. Still, a principled people would not only use double-standards in their favor in their own domain but respect similar practices by other peoples in their own domains. So, if Japanese use double-standards to favor Japanese in Japan while respecting Iran's use of double-standards to favor Iranians in Iran, there's no real problem.

But, Jews play a different game. For some reason, not only should Jews use double-standards in favor of Jews in Israel but THE WHOLE WORLD must be made to endorse such behavior, all the while pledging to favor the Other(especially Jews) over their own kind in their own countries. So, while Hungary must praise Israel for being an ethnocentric Jewish State, it mustn't favor Hungarians in Hungary; Hungarians must abandon any notion of a historical homeland with deep roots and meanings for Hungarians.

Imagine that. Hungarians have no global ambition and merely want to preserve Hungary as their little nation. In contrast, Jews not only have Israel but use neo-imperialism to smash neighboring Arab nations. Jews also control US and EU and use them as goy attack dogs against Russia, China, and Iran. And yet, these Jews are lecturing the Hungarians about decency and morality. It's like a billionaire gangster lecturing about the evils of greed to a peasant with a plot of land. Jews want all the goy world to be blackrocked. Jewish supremacists are cretins through and through, but no less disgusting are the goy cucks who grovel at their feet.

One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism.

I wouldn't hold this against Jews of that period. We shouldn't judge past peoples and cultures with today's values. Were things any more enlightened among Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, and etc.? Back then, censorship and authoritarian measures were de rigueur all throughout Europe. Besides, Jews couldn't have survived for so long as a culture and people without certain restrictions, be they legal, cultural, spiritual, racial, and/or spiritual. Japan was an isolated island-nation but, prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry's black ships, had done everything to keep Japan sealed tight. Such isolationism kept Japan from progress but also preserved and fostered a unique culture.

He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many case freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression.

Nothing unique in history. Roman Empire was brutal and ruthless but also created Pax Romana in which many people lived in relative peace & prosperity and also gained freedoms and privileges under Roman military and legal protection. It's like that MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN scene about "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Empires can be liberating on some level. A people may be free of foreign rule but found themselves under crushing autocracy. North Korea is politically independent whereas South Korea is a US satellite, but it's far more repressive. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, but it was freer there than in Mao's China, which was liberated from foreign rule but crushed under the Chairman's fat arse. Western Imperial rule over the Muslim World was much resented but also led to modernization. Hindus no doubt gained a lot under British Imperialism. And American Indians(victims of 'genocide') and American blacks(shackled under slavery) gained access to ideas and things they never would have on their own. Black moral rage about slavery, for instance, is an adoption of white values as black African culture never had a moral issue with bondage. Also, Jews will say Palestinians shouldn't complain so much because, all said and done, Arabs living in Israel are better off materially than most Arabs in Arab-ruled countries. Palestinians get less than Jews but still get more than most Arabs elsewhere.

We can understand why many Jews felt liberated from their own tradition by the Emancipation, but I can also understand why conservative Jewish elements among tried to keep the tradition and community together. After all, no matter how rich and free one becomes, a Jew is no longer Jewish without a powerful sense of blood and culture. Indeed, this is borne out by what's happened to the white race. Whites got rich and comfy. They came to favor materialism and hedonism as the two pillars of their existence. Result has been utter deracination and decadence. Whites are now so without an identity or loathe the one they have that they pledge fealty to other identities, especially Jewish or Black. Some pretend to be 'American Indians'. For others, racial self-flagellation is a kind of anti-identity. White 'conservatives' prefer to label themselves as Christians, Civil Nationalists, or Libertarians. They are afraid to be True Race-ists, the only way to be free.

Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.

Purely from a scientific point of view, this would be true enough. After all, certain Christian folks who still reject evolution and insist the world is 10,000 yrs old come across as ridiculous. But, a culture isn't only about objective truth but a sense of soul, myth, roots, and cosmology. Culture is essentially irrational and if a people were to totally reject their culture for its irrationality while wholly embracing science/rationalism, they would be lost because humans are more than walking calculators. Worse, even though science is an infinitely superior means for man to reach the moon or cure some disease, it too is the tool of power, evinced by the Covid regimen. Science is a great tool but not The Answer. Also, it doesn't define a people. It's agreed that the world is round in Syria, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Yemen, Iran, and etc. It's agreed by all peoples that aspirin reduces pain. But what does that have to do with their sense of who they are as a people and culture? The law of gravity or the chemistry of Vitamin C doesn't make Jews distinct from Turks or Turks distinct from Iranians.

Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings.

From the perspective of free speech and honesty, that's bad stuff. But Jews were hardly alone in that kind of censorship. Through much of US history, most people didn't know of all the racy and controversial things said by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. In the public lore, Jefferson was Mr. Enlightenment who said 'all men are created equal'. And Lincoln was portrayed as the Great Emancipator. Most didn't know what Lincoln really felt about blacks. Historians used to focus on Woodrow Wilson the Progressive, or Mr. Democracy, than on Wilson the 'racist' — he was indeed awesomely race-ist. A lot of people don't know about what Winston Churchill said of the various non-white races and even about Jews(before they bought him off). So much has been bowdlerized or airbrushed out of history. Jews were surely no different. But given Jewish activism in Free Speech and Civil Liberties Movement of the 50s and 60s, Jews do come across as a bunch of lowlife hypocrites and cretins.

And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud.

This is what kills me. The white/Christian world came up with tons of epithets for Jews and nonwhites but in the vernacular, not in canonical writings. In contrast, the sacred texts of Judaism are filled with slurs as if Don Rickles wrote them. Imagine opening up some Christian text and reading stuff like, "you know them Christ-killing money-changing kikes are up to no good", "we gotta get the ni**ers to believe in Christ as a means to suppress their jungle jiggity uga-buga nature", or "we need more missionaries in China to convert the lot of them slanty-eyed yellow bastards". Christian texts might put down other peoples as 'heathens' but on the basis of their ignorance, not on their blood. If white Christians said unkind things about nonwhites, it was outside the context of religion. But it seems Jewish sacred texts were into racial name-calling. The Talmud must be full of stuff like, "Get a load of them dumb Polacks. Let's go exploit them and screw their shikse bimbo whores."

In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.”

Maybe Maimonides wasn't all bad.

There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles.

That doesn't bother me. I think Jewish men also had a practice of thanking God for being men than women... though with tranny business these days, maybe some new passages have been added to the New Talmud that says, "Thank you for removing my balls and giving me a fake 'vagina'." If Jews felt pride in being born Jewish, nothing wrong with that.

they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers

Catholic Church complied, so who is the cuck? We can't blame Jews or any people for acting in their self-interest, but we can blame whites/Christians for cucking time and time again in the hope that they will be forgiven and loved by Jews. White dummies or whummies need to wake up. If they won't or can't, they are beyond hope.

On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:

Jewish Logic is pretty ridiculous, but there is something to be said in its favor. First, it is for Jewish interest as they do get the milk on the Sabbath. Also, given the ridiculousness of Sabbath rules to begin with — one isn't allowed to milk the cow even? — , it seems Jews needed to concoct some ingenious means to circumvent the law. In other words, if the law itself is ridiculous, come up with counter-ridiculous ways to go around it. Now, why couldn't Jews just do away with the law? It was ordained by God.

In our time, what is most appalling isn't the Jewish abuse of laws or legalism to get what they want. It's vile and rotten, but at the very least, it's a case of Jews messing with laws to their advantage. Their self-interest makes it somewhat rational.
What is truly astounding is that so many white goyim go along with it even though it does nothing for the white race. Jews milk 'ridiculousness' to get the cream. Whites go along to emerge empty-handed. Granted, we can understand why white cuck elites choose to collaborate. They are taken care of, like the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. But what about all those white 'deplorables' who get NOTHING out of this? Why are they so into "Muh Israel" and "We Luv Jews, Jews, Jews"? Jews are bad, but whites must be DUMB, like Lone Star.

Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court

This wasn't much different from the racial laws in the American South. White killing a white was a big deal and a Black killing a White was a very big deal, but white killing a black, not so much. And in the West, Whites had to kill Indians to make way for civilization. Of course, today things are reversed. Blacks killing whites or non-blacks(excluding Jews) is no big deal, but whites killing a precious black is a big big deal. The only acceptable murder of a black is by another black, apparently because it's all in the family. Likewise, the reason why Jews reacted so hysterically to the cases of Leo Frank and the Rosenbergs was they simply couldn't abide by the notion of inferior goyim killing Jews. In the American South, it was a taboo for even a good black to kill a bad black. Blacks simply weren't allowed to kill whites. Jews feel likewise about goyim. They feel as the massuhs while all goyim are really a bunch of schvartzes of various colors. But just like blacks once internalized their own inferiority and dutifully served at the feet of the white massuh, it appears so many white goyim internalized their inferiority as well vis-a-vis Jews. To most white Americans, it's perfectly okay for Jewish Power to use the US military to smash the skulls of millions of Arabs/Muslims, but how dare anyone touch a hair on a single Jew!

One thing for sure, most whites/Christians believe Jews/Zionists have every right to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, but heaven forbid any Jew get killed by a non-Jew. Zionists killing 100,000s of Arabs is just 'Israel defending itself', but if some Muslim kills a Jew in Europe, it is ANTISEMITISM.

In some ways, things have changed a great deal since the time of Woodrow Wilson. But structurally speaking, not much changed. It's not that the US is less 'racist' but that it's 'racist' about other things. Back in Wilson's day, it was okay to be 'racist' against blacks and even let the KKK march in DC. Today, when Robert E. Lee monuments are being removed in Southern States, a KKK march would be unimaginable. BUT, it's okay to allow BLM thugs burn down entire parts of DC, vandalize, loot, and randomly attack people. Ostensibly, it's in the name of 'anti-racism', but it's really an expression of black savage-supremacism with the blessing of Jewish Supremacist Elites who use blacks as the bullwhip against whites emotionally and physically. Use black muscle to intimidate whites, use black narrative to guilt-bait whites. But it's really about Jewish supremacism and black supremacism working hand in glove. So, the current US is really just as 'racist' as it was a hundred years ago. The content is different but the structure is the same.

https://mondoweiss.net/2022/01/pompeo-at-zoa-gala-israel-is-not-an-occupier/

And consider US foreign policy. US military is given green light to drop bombs on the Middle East and kill countless 'sand-ni**ers' at the behest of Jewish Supremacism, the new ideology of America. While apartheid in South Africa was deemed an absolute evil, Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank must either be supported or ignored. So, the US didn't go from 'racism' and 'imperialism' to 'anti-racism' and 'anti-imperialism' but to 'neo-racism' and 'neo-imperialism' with new saints and monsters. In 2020, invoking 'George Floyd' gave blacks a free pass to rob, loot, burn, and murder. They could act 1000x worse than the KKK ever did, but as Jewish Supremacists rule America and as Jews need blacks to guilt-bait whites, black supremacist savagery is A-Okay.

For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out.

That's not a bad rule. It's like the US shouldn't go around hurting other nations, BUT it is not the role of US to save or bail them out. Let them fix their own problems. The problem is the US goes around the globe claiming to help other peoples while actually causing them great harm, especially in the Middle East and places like Ukraine.

One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never.

But there's a LOL case. Some Jewish doctor treated Adolf Hitler's mother, and Hitler was thankful later in life and allowed the doctor safe passage.

According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile.

That's terrible but Japanese are worse. Even a cursory look at Japanese culture suggests that Japanese regard other Japanese as prostitutes and toy-like playthings. Jews treat goyim as whores, whereas Japanese treat their own kind as whores.

Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.

You know, those would be perfectly good laws for whites if 'Jews' were replaced by 'whites' and 'gentiles' were replaced by 'non-whites', especially Jews and blacks. Whites need to learn from Jews. Whites need the White Talmud. If any Jew complains about it, just tell him, "We drew inspiration from YOUR culture, and we're acting just like you."

Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews.

Jews are right to abhor Christianity as it blasphemes Judaism. What's rather sad is whites failed to develop their own religion and mythology upon the fall of Rome. They had to rely on heretical Jews. In the long run, Christianity turned out to be an albatross around the white neck. Time has come to move beyond it, especially when a total creep like Devil Pope Francis can rise to the highest authority.

West Alarmed as US Prepares for Key Talks with Russia With No Negotiating Strategy & Divided Allies by Alexander Mercouris

There are Two Sides to the West: Jewish West and White West — One is Formula for Power, Other is Formula for Weakness — Paradox as to why the West attacks Goy Nations that opt for the Jewish West Formula(way of power & life) while flattering Goy Nations that opt for the White West Formula(way of weakness & death) — Life/Death Paradox of Jewish-run Globalism

The West and the Rest. It is one way to look at the world as, for several centuries, the West has led and the Rest has followed. Because the West, despite its tragedies and setbacks, went from progress to progress and from strength to strength, the Rest has looked to the West as a model of the Future, what to do and how to do it.

Of course, the demarcation between the West and the Rest hasn't always been clear. Parts of the West, like Southern Italy and Greece, have remained as backward as the Third World nations until the 1960s. Turkey, as a bridge and/or barrier between the West and the East, hasn't been easy to define in historical and civilizational terms. And modern Japan, at least for a time, seemed more comparable to developed Western nations than with other East Asian nations(that have since caught up with modernity, more or less).
Germany has been considered as part of the West since the end of World War II, but it wasn't always so. Germans during World War I were regarded as no better than ancient tribes of Huns, and National Socialist Germany is regarded as a historical pariah, an outlier and anomaly, that defies Western categorization. Indeed, especially in the aftermath of World War II, what is often called the 'West'(or part of 'Western Civilization' imbued with 'Western Values') has been narrowly defined in terms of allegiance(and submission) to Anglo-American Hegemony(that, in time, came under the control of Jewish supremacism).

Russia is now perceived by Western elites as part of the Rest. Not that Russians much care about their 'outcast' status. Unlike insecure toady Poles who, as self-loathing Slavs, are ever so eager to win approval from the West, Russians can take pride in their own history and culture. Amusingly enough, the 'West' rejects Russia and denounces it as irredeemable but then gripes about how Russia has drawn closer to Rest, especially China and Iran.

Anyway, what is the Rest to think of the West? In the second decade of the 21st century, what can the Rest gain from the West, as both positive and negative models?

First, we must acknowledge there are Two Wests: The Jewish West and the White West.

And this leads to a paradox. Why? Because the current reality is as follows.

1. The Jewish West is the part of the West as controlled by Jews in service of Zionic hegemony. It is about consolidating Jewish power and bolstering Jewish Identity. Furthermore, it is about pressuring goyim, especially whites, to honor and serve Jewishness & Zionism above their own identities and interests. Indeed, for the lowly goyim, there shall be no interest before Jewish interests, just like Yahweh commanded, "There shall be no gods before Me."
As for non-white goyim, they may nurture their own identities but mostly as weaponized expressions against whiteness but never above or against the identity and interests of Jews. Arab-Americans can take pride in being Arab, but they better not take part in BDS against Zionist supremacism. Chinese-Americans may be proud of being Chinese but must put Jewish Power before Chinese interests... like the whore Amy Chua does.
Jewish West is about Jews expanding their own power and about the goyim, especially whites, praising Jews to high heaven and pledging to obey and serve Jews first and foremost.

2. The White West is the other prominent part of the West. In the past, the White West was dominant. It was Christian and nationalist. And some Western powers were in imperialist and even supremacist mode. Back then, Jews served the White West, especially in the days when the Christian Church, European Nobility, and White Race-ists held the most power and prestige.
But that White West had faded from history. All that is left of the White West is sappy cuckery before Jews who demand that whites surrender to Afromania, Globo-Homo, and of course to the Holy Holocaust Cult. The White West today can never be about white identity or white interests. Indeed, the White West not only denounces white identity and white interests as 'racist' but questions the very concept of whiteness as nothing but a deranged fantasy.
If the Jewish West is about pride, the White West is about shame. If the Jewish West is about how all must honor and defend Jews, the White West is about how all must revile and condemn whiteness.

Of course, there are times when whites are allowed some passion/aggression BUT ONLY WHEN in the service of Jewish Power. So, Jews praise whites for serving as attack dogs of Zion in destroying Arab/Muslim nations hated by Israel. Jews praise white generals, politicians, and pundits for barking loudly at Iran and Russia(and increasingly China). Jews praise 'good whites' for barking at 'bad whites': the 'deplorables', 'white supremacists', and 'insurrectionists'. (Indeed, the loudest passion among many whites is their virulently anti-white hysterics in total obeisance to Jews and Negroes.)
Just like dogs, in having to be so sappy and servile before their master, are grateful on the occasion they're allowed to vent their repressed predatory instincts on rabbits and strangers, white cuckeroos take to barking at the selective enemies(always chosen by their Jewish Master) with wild abandon. It's the only way they can let loose on occasion and 'feel like a man'. John McCain was especially well-heeled in this art of cuck-doggery: Servile dog to Zion but rabid dog to Russia, Iran, Syria, and anything hated by his Jewish Master. Rule goes: Be a servile dog to the master, be an angry wolf to whomever/whatever set against by the master.

So, when we speak of the West, we must specify which 'West' we are talking about. The Jewish West or the White West? They aren't the same and don't follow the same rules.

When the Rest looks upon the West, it's obvious that they should emulate the Jewish West and reject the White West. Why not follow the formula for powerfulness than one for powerlessness? After all, Jewish West is about survival, continuity, pride, power, and unity. It's about Jews working to expand their reach, secure their dominance, and reinforce their sense of heritage & culture. Over the years, the Jewish West has gone from strength to strength based on this formula.
In contrast, the White West is about submission, sorry-ass cuckery, sappy-head wussiness, and utter self-debasement... in other words, the prescription for racial and cultural suicide. As whiteness itself has been called into doubt, it isn't even tenable for whites to say white women and white men belong to one another, that white lands belong to white people, that white industries belong to white workers, that white history and culture belong to whites, and etc. The current way of the White West is a formula for decline and demise.

When we see Hindus and East Asians in the West, the former seems to emulate the Jewish West while the latter the White West. That means Hindus are better positioned for the future. Japanese-Americans, for example, have been successful as individuals but have turned into a total zero as a culture and identity. If anything, they are like yellow whites, utterly deracinated and following in the footsteps of white suicide. In contrast, Hindus have something like a core identity and seem to be aping the Jews in their long-term strategy.

Now, here's the thing. Even though it's obvious the way of the Jewish West leads to power while the way of the White West leads to weakness, the Current West pushes the way of the White West on the Rest. It is the reason for the global paradox.
The formula of the Jewish West is the path to power, BUT the US as lone superpower is hellbent on destroying any part of the Rest that emulates the Jewish West. But, when some part of the Rest emulates the White West, it is showered with praise and favors. In the short term, it has much to gain from the preferential treatment, but it has accepted the formula for decline and demise because the way of the White West can only lead to racial suicide(as can be evinced in the fates of whites in US, EU, and Canada who've taken this road of self-destruction).

Compare Hungary and Japan. Hungary has chosen the way of the Jewish West. It wants to defend its borders, identity, and culture, much like Jews do, especially in Israel. In response, however, Jews have heaped all manner of abuse on Hungary and calls for its isolation, condemnation, and destruction.

In contrast, once racial-minded Japan is now utterly cucked, promotes jungle fever, spreads multi-culti propaganda, and pushes for mass immigration(in the manner of Germany, which is too late to save at this point). As a result, Japan is being praised by the West, and there is short-term gain from this(especially as servile yellows crave approval from the West), but the emulation of the White West will lead to the demise of Japan.

It’s like a doctor reviling a patient for quitting smoking while rewarding a patient for choosing to smoke even more. The Global Order is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If your side chooses to emulate the successful formula of the Jews, it will be targeted for destruction. If your side chooses to emulate the self-destructive formula of the whites, it will be showered with prizes. If you choose the formula of power, you will be hunted down. If you choose the formula of suicide, you will be rewarded with money and trinkets. It's like offering a lifeboat only to those who've chosen to drown themselves. The Life/Death Paradox of Jewish-run Globalism.

Jews want the way of the Jewish West only for Jews. For the Goy West and the Rest, the only approved and mandated path is the way of the White West. (Of course, this doesn't apply to blacks as they're too wild and crazy to care about what anyone thinks. For blacks, whatever-makes-them-feel-good is what matters most. They feel and act more like funky fungus, and that may prove to be a blessing because it takes some degree of intelligence and inhibition to be manipulated by Jewish Propaganda.)

ANTI-WAR SCOTT HORTON SPANKS THE SHIT OUT OF ZIONIST SKUNK WILLIAM KISTROL THE JEWISH SUPREMACIST

If Whiteness has no Validity or Meaning, then Whites cannot lay claim to anything, and there is No Common White Property — The Political Art of White Dispossession by Jewish Supremacism, especially by pushing ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs

What secures the survival and well-being of a people? What keeps them healthy in body and spirit? What provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose, even destiny? What fills them with a sense of distinctness, a special quality that makes them rise above mere genericity, rise above the occasion?

A people must have a sense of their evolutionary origins and understand what makes them different from other races. If of a spiritual bent, a people must be bound by the conviction that God created different peoples, and each group is unique in its own way. A people must have a sense of history. Just like every individual has his own unique biography and every family has its own story, every people need to keep with their own history with its origins, myths, tales, and heroes & villains. Just like it's tragic for an amnesiac or an Alzheimer patient robbed of memory, a people without historical memory and a deep sense of roots & mythic bonds are truly lost, like a confounded hiker or navigator without a compass, no sense of where he came from and no sense of where he's going and why.
For security-sake, it's essential that a people lay claim to certain territories as rightfully theirs. A people without a country are like a man without a home: Doomed to wander as nomads. There's a difference between a traveler and a nomad. A traveler has a home to return to in the end, like Odysseus. In contrast, a nomad is a chronic wanderer. Steve Martin's character in PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES has a home and a family waiting for him. John Candy's character is always on the road, condemned to drift from place to place.
Furthermore, as one lives forever, a people must produce new generations, and this requires the union of man and woman. To preserve the unique features of form and beauty of a people, most of the sexual unions must be among the men and women of the group. Excessive miscegenation leads to something like the mulatto-mestizos of Latin America, confused populations with weak sense of who or what they are.
In addition, to ensure the synthesis of identity, history, and territory, there must be proper authority, a concentration of power, that works to lead, represent, defend, and preserve the people and culture. Without these supports, a people's long-term survival comes into question. It's like there's no guarantee that a chair with four wobbly legs will remain standing. If a horse with one broken leg is useless, imagine one with four broken legs. What happens to a building when its columns or support beams are broken? The whole thing may well crumble to the ground. Indeed, bigger the structure, stronger its support system must be. Bigger they are, firmer they must stand... or else harder they fall.

Now, it's possible for a people/culture to survive without all the supports. Jews certainly did for nearly two thousand years without a homeland to call their own, and Kurds continue as a people & culture despite being dispersed among several non-Kurd-majority nations like Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and etc. In the case of the Jews, their magic formula was the Covenant, which went beyond mere identity, territory, and history. The Covenant created a spiritual bond between Jewish Blood and Heavenly Spirit. It meant that wherever Jews may be, whatever straits they were in, and however downtrodden they may be, they are the Chosen People favored by the one and only true God. The fact that Jews survived over the millennia despite so many setbacks(and even loss of territory) is a testament to the power of bonding blood with spirit. At any rate, Jews are an exception in history.
Furthermore, while there's much to learn from the Jewish Example, one should never heed Jewish advice as the essence of Jewishness is to maximize its own tribal power, wealth, influence, and control at the expense of goyim. If something works great for Jews, Jews will recommend the very opposite for the goyim. But then, Jews are being smart in their deviousness. If gold is buried in spot A, of course it makes sense for Jews to tell others it's buried in spot B... or C or D or E. It's like the Vikings who settled in Iceland wanted it for themselves. So, they gave it the forbidding name of 'Iceland' to keep others away while naming a far less hospitable land mass 'Greenland'. Likewise, Jews want to hoard their own 'Iceland' for themselves while recommending the metaphorical 'Greenland' for goyim. Iceland is really green whereas Greenland is frozen.

For most peoples, the failure to secure one of the pillars of peoplehood is like being a Paralympian than an Olympian. It's like competing with a missing arm or leg or with a broken spine. Such peoples must hobble through history and are always at a disadvantage vis-a-vis others with sturdier, sounder, and more complete support systems. An engine running on all six cylinders has more kick than one running on three. A plane with four working propellers is preferable to one with only two working. Jews are like someone using both arms and both legs urging others to tie one hand behind the back and jump around on one foot. Some Jews go even further and urge upon goyim to cut off all limbs. Jews would have goyim, especially white goyim, turn into Boxing Helena.

Still, a people with one or two cylinders working are better off than a people with all the cylinders out of order. The rule of history is that a people with essential support systems, no matter how poor and backward, are better positioned to survive into the future than a people who, no matter how well-fed and affluent, have been robbed of theirs. Indeed, compare the Palestinians and Anglo-Canadians. The latter enjoy much better living standards than the tragic Arabs living under Zionist occupation and tyranny. But, whereas Palestinians doggedly cling to their pride of identity and sense of history(and totally believe in the rightness of their cause and see Jews for what they are) despite their loss of territory, Anglo-whites in Canada have no pride of identity, no sense of history, and no claim of territory. Indeed, for Anglo-whites nothing is conceivably more evil than the idea of white authority/power in service of white interests. Even as a defeated people, Palestinians know what they are and do what they must to survive. Despite their affluence and privileges, Anglo-whites of Canada have zero defense systems against the Great Replacement(or White Nakba) and, if anything, believe the evil of whiteness must be erased by Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity, or D.I.E.
So, whereas Palestinians struggle to remain Palestinians with each passing year, Anglo-whites lose out ever more in Canada(and it's the same in all of Anglosphere and Germanosphere as Northern European whites are now totally mind-controlled by Jews). Of course, Jews sought to mind-trick the Palestinians as well. Zionists argued there's no such thing as the Palestinian people, Palestinian culture, or Palestinian history. Jews said it's all just a 'social construct'(but for some reason, we are to believe Zionism is so natural and real that it has the right to destroy the natives of Palestine to make room for Euro-Israel dominated by Ashkenazim). If Palestinians didn't take the vile Jewish bait, whites not only took it but swallowed the whole thing as good medicine... only to have the hook stuck inside their intestines which are now fatally wounded and bleeding.

Jews rule the world and seek to undermine and invalidate any concept of White Property or White Possession. White Dispossession is the name of the game. This is why Jews attack the very notion of whiteness. If whiteness is a valid category, then whites would have reasons to defend their identity, heritage, history, territory, wealth, authority, and power. But if whiteness is invalid, just some ‘racist’ construct or at best a figment of the imagination, then whites have no unique, special, and/or commanding claim to anything. Minus such conviction, whites don't deserve to own anything as a people, not least because even their peoplehood lacks legitimacy.
Of course, whites as individuals can own stuff, even lots of stuff(like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett), but there is nothing that whites as a race, culture, or people can have, defend, and preserve as their own. The politically correct mantra of Diversity really means that anything white can be claimed and taken by nonwhites? (It's like Asian-Indians as individuals could gain wealth under British Imperialism, but they, as a people, could not claim India as a national entity independent of Rule Britannia).
It's akin to conditions of slavery, at least on the legal and psychological level(even if whites aren't literally slaves). Consider blacks in the American South when slavery still existed. Not all blacks had to pick cotton from sunup to sundown. Some black slaves could learn a craft and earn money(even save enough to purchase their own freedom). But no matter how much they earned(and even upon gaining freedom), it was virtually forbidden for them to think that they deserved or owned anything as a collective, as a people. For blacks, wealth and freedom were just individual matters. Some blacks could do pretty well as individuals and some could be legally free, but they couldn't be empowered as an united people.

Today, Jews have done the same to whites who are but soul-slaves of the Zionic Tribe. Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook are among the richest whites in the world, but their wealth is purely an individual matter. They can spend it on themselves and their close ones but never ever for white interests. But then, as people aren't mere individuals but part of a larger community, what can rich whites do to show they aren't just in it for themselves? There are three choices: (1) Libertarianism, a soulless ideology about 'muh freedom' that only further atomizes the white race and separates rich whites from those with less (2) The Approved Tribalism or Idolatry of Jews, blacks, and homos — even though Identity is generally denied to most groups, especially whites and Palestinians, it is not only tolerated but celebrated among Jews, blacks, and homos as the three magical groups (3) Mania for Diversity and Inclusion, which means rich whites should care about nonwhites around the world and welcome them into the West, not least to snub and replace 'racist' whites.

Is it any wonder that Jews(who are only 2% of the US population), blacks(who are 13% of the population), and homos(who are only 2.5% of the population) have more authority than whites? All Jews can coordinate together for Jewish Power. Blackness has been made sacred, i.e. blacks, just by being black, are deemed holy. Globo-Homo is now celebrated, and an entire month is reserved for Limp-Wristianity or Queertianity as replacement for Christianity. And even though the identities of Mestizos, Asians, Arabs, and etc. aren't especially regarded in the West, they have prestige as 'immigrants' bearing the wonderful gift of Diversity, further pushing whites to the back of the bus. (Of course, no one asks why people from Latin America must come to the US for a better life when their own countries are plenty diverse. Why has Diversity failed to do its magic for Latin America? Does Diversity become magic only when whites in the West are on the verge of losing their majority status? Odd how that works.)

Anyway, War-on-Whiteness(or WOW) and the ensuing White Dispossession allow Jews to lay claim to and gain possession of just about anything that once belonged to the white world. Nothing white is deemed sacred or priceless. Jews look upon the white world as a Jewish pawnbroker looks upon property. They are all trinkets for his taking. Everything white has a price tag and can be bought or sold or just taken by Jews or nonwhites.
Of course, Syrians aren't so lucky either. Jewish-controlled US foreign policy led to the military occupation of entire swaths of Syrian territory. The way Jews see it, Syria doesn't belong to Syrians, and Jews can use their goy military puppets to invade and occupy any piece of Syrian territory at whim. Currently, Syrians don't even have access to their own oil due to Jewish-guided US occupation. And of course, Palestinians in West Bank are silenced by the Jew-run media while yet another piece of their territory is swallowed up by Jewish invader-settlers. Jews look upon all the goy world as their oyster or goyster.

Since whiteness is an evil notion, the idea of White Territory is intolerable. Whites have no territory to call their own. All of the West must be on the auction block. It is to be sold and bought. Worse, any bunch of nonwhites can trample into white lands because Jewish-controlled globalism(the current ideology of the West) says Europeans don't even own the identity or meaning of European-ness. Anyone can become 'European' because globalism defines 'European-ness' as the celebration of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
So, while white individuals can own lots of private property, there isn’t a single square inch in the world to designate as White Territory. Jewish supremacists who rule the West insist that whiteness is an evil that must be eradicated, and therefore, nothing can be claimed in the name of whiteness. White people must live merely as generic people or deracinated individuals in service to Jewish Identity, globo-homo-afro idolatry, and globalist ideology. Of course, Viktor Orban disagrees and says Hungary is sacred birth-and-burial ground for Hungarians. Jews cannot tolerate this. Not because Hungary itself is an important and consequential nation in the literal sense — a middle-income country with population of mere ten million, it isn't — but because its European-and-Christian-centered nationalism, in rejecting the entire paradigm of the Jew World Order, may inspire whites around the world to think outside the Jewish Box and say NO to Jewish Supremacism in the name of White Liberation. To Jewish Supremacists, the Hungarian example is akin to Palestinians saying Palestine is their homeland on the basis of pride of identity, resilience of history, and claim of territory. Well, at least Jews also have historical roots in the Holy Land, but it is outrageous how they lay claim to all the West that rightfully and racially belongs to whites.

For Jewish supremacists, the idea that white women belong to white men to have white kids with in order to preserve the white race is also evil. As whiteness is just a figment of ‘racist’ fantasy, white women are mere commodity for other races. They are whores for Jewish merchants and ho’s for black men. Jews say there is no deep and meaningful bond between white men and white women because whiteness is just garbage cooked up by ‘racists’. This is what Jews push. Jews want white wombs to be colonized by black men.
But it's rather odd if one thinks about it. On the one hand, Jews and blacks impugn whiteness as just worthless garbage, but they seem obsessed with white beauty that is the product of tens of thousands of evolution whereby white men mated with white women. If Jews and blacks see nothing special about whiteness, why do THEY lay claim to beauty that is unique to whites? Of course, the black threat is especially damaging to whites because of the Jungle Fever factor. Even with anti-whiteness in full force in media and academia, most white women won't sexually venture outside whiteness as they don't feel much attraction to most nonwhite men. But it's different with white women and Negroes because black men are better at sports, can holler & sing louder, and have bigger dongs. Indeed, even when the West was 'racist' and enforced taboos against miscegenation in the past, some white women went with black men because of the sheer pull of jungle fever. In our times when Jews control ideology(propaganda) & idolatry(marketing) and outright promote Jungle Fever and encourage millions of black Africans to move to the West, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is an existential threat to the white race. It effectively turns white women into 'mudsharks' and reduces white men into wussy cucks, resulting in the erasure of European uniqueness in form and beauty as the white race will be mulatto-ized and claimed by blackness that, contra whiteness, is much celebrated and even sacralized in the Jew World Order.
The way Jews see it, Jewish Supremacism depends on white submission, and there is no better way to effect permanent white obeisance than by breaking the sacred bond between white men and white women with Jungle Fever. Today, cuckenized white men celebrate the very fact that white women reject them and go with blacks. Jews brainwashed white males into believing that black sexual imperialism and white sexual defeat are synonymous with 'anti-racism' when, in fact, it's premised on black men being superior men to white men. Of course, it could be just a case of White Male Cope. Since they are losing white women to black men and can't do anything about it, they pretend they are letting it happen of their own accord out of racial magnanimity or commitment to combating 'racism'. So, even though white women are being taken away from white men, white men pretend they are giving their women away out of free will. It's like the landlord in THE GODFATHER PART 2 who complies with Vito Corleoene's request out of fear but pretends it's out of the goodness of his heart.

In the Jew World Order, there can be no such thing as White History, yet another essential pillar or support system lost for the white race. Indeed, Jews insist White History never existed because whiteness was always a fantasy of ignorance + supremacism and nothing else. Kids nowadays are told Greeks and Romans weren’t white. Iceland and Sweden were always 'multicultural', meaning multi-racial. Blacks always roamed around Britain and France. So, why not fill up all new movies about European lore and history with blacks and nonwhites? And even if some parts of Europe were indeed all-white, how terrible indeed and in need of being remedied with the wonders of Diversity. It's as if such whites lived inside a cave without the sun and must be brought out into the light. Shame on such history for its lack of diversity. As diversity is so wondrous, all Europeans must fantasize that their ancestors and heroes were black even if such weren't the case.

As for the politics of white authority or white power, NO WAY insist the Jews. Whiteness is ‘racist’, therefore any power or authority centered on serving white identity and interests is totally anathema to all that is good. So, while white individuals can make lots of money and work for powerful institutions, they must never think white or serve white interests. They must serve lofty ideals such as ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘equity’…. though for some reason, they must also serve Jews and blacks and homos as the Holy Three even though we’ve been told tribalism is wrong.

This is why whites are so powerless. Even though whites are still numerous in the West, have lots of wealth, desired for their looks, and are well-represented in elite institutions, whites are powerless as a race because even the most successful white individuals can never ever serve or defend whiteness but must serve ‘woke’ ideology or the idolatry of the holy three: Jews, blacks, and homos. If Bill Gates were to donate a measly $100 to Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, the full force of Jewish Supremacism and its white cuck-collaborators, what with their total grip on elite power, will pounce on him at once and destroy his reputation, connections, and wealth. Also, the courts will dig up anything to bring him down as so-called 'justice' is just a gangsterist lawfare arm of the Jews.

Whites today are like all those horses. Horses are big powerful beasts, but whatever their number, they are powerless as horses because they’ve been trained to serve humans. No matter how powerfully they run and do their horsey things, it’s never for horse-sake but for human-sake. Whites are now essentially saddled horses of Jewish cowboys.

The REAL Pandemic : "HATE CRIMES" On The Rise! - Nick Fuentes

The Great Replacement — We must call it RECRUITMENT than INVASION — Border Security has been Deactivited from within, Not Destroyed from Without

‘State-sanctioned invasion’?

It’s about time we stopped calling this an ‘invasion’. Invasion is when your side cannot stop the conquest by the other side. Invasion is when resistance fails to keep out the foreign forces.

But the US and the West have more than enough resources and power to keep out foreign mobs and masses. Why don’t they? Because the ruling elites of both US and EU(along with Canada and Australia) are owned by Jewish Masters who actively RECRUIT foreign non-white masses to use against whites in the game of divide-and-rule ‘diversity’ strategy.

When an ‘invasion’ is welcomed and enabled by the ruling elites, it is RECRUITMENT. When we call it an ‘invasion’, we place most blame on foreigners breaching the barriers. We create the illusion of foreign mobs overpowering our defenses. In fact, the borders are broken because the ruling elites of the US and EU do as ordered by their Jewish Supremacist masters.

The example of Hungary is proof that the ‘invasion’ can be stopped. Nations far weaker and poorer than the US have effectively halted illegal immigration, erected tough barriers, and enabled border security. US and EU constitute the most powerful bloc in the world. Indeed, they have the means to invade and destroy just about any nation. Just ask Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.
So, why can’t they stop the ‘invasion’ of Third World nobodies? It’s not that they cannot but that they will not because they are hellbent on RECRUITING foreign mobs to demographically overwhelm the native white masses who are no longer represented by their own politicians who are utterly obeisant to Jewish Power.

If we call it ‘recruitment’ than ‘invasion’, we can properly fix the blame on Jews and the cuck-puppet elites than on the hapless non-white masses who naturally want to move from poor countries to richer ones. When someone removes the roof on your house and the rain pours in, do you blame the rain or the jerk who removed the roof? When rats and other pests enter your house through holes in the wall bored by someone, do you blame the pests or the lowlife responsible for the holes?
The real reason for mass illegal migration to the West has less to do with the migrants than with the Jewish elites(and their cuck puppets) who willfully deactivated border security and encourage the Great Replacement’. It is Recruitment than Invasion. Fish rots from the head, and the head is Jewish. 

THIS IS COMPLETE POPULATION REPLACEMENT - The Red Elephants - Vincent James

To Combat Globalism, Whites in the West Must Restore their Own Nationalism, Not Attack Chinese(and Russian) Nationalism — Globalism Is Essentially a Jewish Creation and Tool, and Jews Suppress White Identity Necessary for White National Liberation in the West

https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-globalization-meant-sinification-until-china-virus-intervened

Using the Covid-29 crisis to push nationalism against globalism is good and sound.

Oddly enough however, so-called nationalists in the West are attacking Chinese Nationalism. But if Chinese being nationalist is wrong, it then follows that nationalism itself is wrong. And that means West shouldn't be nationalist like China(and Russia)... which is self-defeating to nationalists.

China used globalism for nationalist purposes. It believes in China First.
And Western nations should use the World Order for their own national interests.
But when people in the West attack Chinese nationalism, they are attacking nationalism itself. It's like Tucker Carlson denouncing China for being 'ethno-nationalist'. Funny coming from someone who opposes immigration on grounds that all of US will turn into California. (But his confused or hypocritical self is full of praise for Zionist ethno-imperialism.)

Russia has shown that a nation can be nationalist and work with China. China has never been opposed to other nations being nationalist. China and Russia get along despite tensions(historical and geopolitical) because both understand and respect each other: Russia uses the alliance for Russian interests, China uses the alliance for Chinese interests. Russia is okay with Chinese nationalism, China is okay with Russian nationalism... as long as neither goes imperialist on the other.

So, why not follow the Russian model? What does Russia do? It pursues Russian nationalism without denouncing Chinese nationalism. That way, Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism can co-exist side by side. They can hammer out differences and compromise on certain matters on basis of mutual understanding.

The problem isn't Chinese nationalism or even Chinese globalism. Pakistan and Iran are far less rich and powerful than the US, but they maintain their sovereignty vis-a-vis China. They trade and cooperate on certain interests without surrendering their power to China. Even impoverished North Korea(with 1/40th of the economy of South Korea) has managed to do its own thing in defiance of China.

But we are to believe that the rich and mighty West has been helpless to stop Chinese power and influence? ROTFL. True, Chinese business interests have moved aggressively into Canada and Australia, but whose fault is that? Anglos turned into a bunch of worthless cucks who measure everything in terms of money and 'woke' virtue-signaling about 'muh diversity'.
What did Sun Tzu say in the Art of War? Power is like water. It generally runs into open spaces. So, when Anglo nations went cucky-wuck and opened themselves to Chinese people and money, guess where a lot of people and money went? China didn't forcibly invade the West(like the West once did against China). Rather, Canada and Australia freely opened themselves up to Chinese people and money(as well as to Hindus, Arabs, and even thuggish Sudanese blacks).

But why did Anglos go from proudly race-ist and nationalist — Canada and Australia used to have WHITE ONLY immigration policies — to globalist, 'anti-racist', cucky-wuck, and pro-diversity? Why did Anglos allow Africans and Muslims to take over entire parts of London? Because Mao sent his Red Guard hordes to conquer them? Because Jackie China and Bruce Lee's ghost led an army of kung fu warriors to invade the West? No, because Anglos let Jews take over the West, and Jew filled white minds with 'white guilt', jungle fever, self-loathing, diversity-mania, and 'muh restaurant' lunacy.

Jews made Anglos cuck to the Other(the Primary Other being Jews of course). Once Anglos got into the habit of cucking to Jews, it was only a matter of time before other groups followed the Jewish Lead: Chinese, Hindus, Arab Sheiks, illegals from Latin America, the African invasion, etc. They all learned to chant 'diversity' and 'racism' to gain increased entry into the rich and clean West. And as white minds were colonized by Jewish PC, whites just nodded along. Keep in mind that until Donald Trump came along, 'nationalism' was a dirty word among nearly all Western elites, intellectuals, journalists, and managerial class.

Russia showed what a nation can do. Russia partly regained national sovereignty from Jewish globalist oligarchs. It has operated on basis of nationalism(relative to the rest of Europe) since. So, when it deals with China, it is on the basis of Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism respecting each other. Russia doesn't have to vilify China, and China doesn't have to vilify Russia.

But US, Canada, UK, and Australia are without Anglo sovereignty. Anglos(like Derbyshire himself) are sorry cucks to Jewish Globalists. If Anglos had sense, they wouldn't opt for anti-Sinicism. Rather, they would argue that white nations must be like China, Russia, and Iran in regaining national sovereignty and operating on the basis of national interest. This can be done without anti-Chinese rhetoric as Russia proved. Initially, China respected Trump as a tough-talking nationalist. Chinese nationalism can work with other nationalisms. Alas, Trump turned into just a cuck to Jews who talks nationalism but engages in continued US globo-homo hegemonism and imperialism. (Also, as Deep State operatives are addicted to the hyper-power game of globalist-imperialism, they despise nationalism as 'small potatoes'. For them, the only game that matters is the globalist contest of world domination. So, instead of envisioning a future where American Nationalism and Chinese Nationalism co-exist peacefully, they can only think in terms of American globalist supremacism vs Chinese globalist supremacism. They project their own supremacism onto others. It's like Jews project all their pathology onto Russia. The difference is China wants to trade with the world but has no interest in spreading 'Chinese values' or 'Chinese ideology', whereas American missionary impulse, Anglo imperial-adventurism, and Jewish supremacism are addicted to transforming the entire world.)

It's weird how Anglo nations are many times richer than Russia(that is strong in military but weak in economy) but politically many times weaker. The West is like one big Hong Kong under British Rule: Rich but a puppet of the Brits. Today, Anglo nations are rich but political and ideological colonies of Jews. When China deals with Russia, it is with a second-rate economic power but a first-rate political power. When China deals with the West, it is with a first-rate economic power but a third-rate political power. Just look at Justin Trudeau or the female leader of New Zealand. Even tough-talking Trump regularly takes it up the ass from Jews and acted as their hitman in the murder of hero Soleimani, the Iranian patriot who's been battling terrorists in Syria. All such Western goy politicians are mere tools and puppets of Jews. But Jews are so powerful that they can hide their power, and goy-cucks play along with the hope that, if they suck up to Jews just one more time, Jews will be nice to them. So, white 'liberals' blame Russia for everything, and white 'conservatives' blame China for everything. Jewish Power manipulates and corrupts US politics, but we had three long years of Russia Collusion nonsense. Jews control US institutions, but we now get 'China Inc or Chinc. controls everything'. It's downright hysterical.

There was a time when the West was both a first-rate political and first-rate economic power. White Christian elites ruled, and they were united as one people with white Christian masses. But over time, Jews took over, and white elites became managerial cucks serving the Jewish globo-homo agenda. And white masses were to be replaced by White Nakba, race-mixed with jungle fever & bamboo fever, and/or killed off with opioids(sold by Jews who once sold opium to the Chinese). Then, the cure is obvious: White Liberation from Jewish supremacism. Unity of white elites and white masses. Nationalism like in Hungary. But we hear NONE of this from the likes of Tucker Carlson. All we get is blaming China for globalism that is really the tool of Jews. The truth is China is prepared to deal with nationalist white nations. Rise of nationalism in White Nations may be disadvantageous to China in certain areas, but Chinese are not ones to tell white nations what to do. (The 'woke' anti-white Chinese in the West are the products of Western PC media and academia controlled by Jews. Chinese in China tend to despise the 'white left'.) They will adapt to the new reality. The one group that is most hostile to revival of nationalism in white nations is the Jews. This is why Jews are now urging whites not to restore nationalism in white nations but to attack Chinese nationalism as the source of globalism's problems. By blaming Chinese NATIONALISM, snuff nationalism in the West as well.

The problem is Anglos are doing NOTHING about the source of US enslavement to globalism: Jewish Power. If anything, they are pretending China is the master of globalism and forced globalism on the West. This is total nonsense. Jews pushed globalism on the West. Jews urged big business in the West to dump on their own workers and send factories to Mexico & China and outsource to India. Jews in Silicon Valley invited all those Hindus. Jewish New York Times hires Hindu and Chinese 'woke' scholars to dump on whites. China didn't create this World Order but merely took part in it. Also, despite all the corruption and brutality of current China, it did make real products and shipped them to other nations, which did a helluva lot more for the world than Jews in Wall Street making trillions via financial manipulation.

If Anglos followed the Putinist model, they could bring back white pride and white-majority nationalism in the West. And then, they could deal with China on the basis of mutual respect. If China currently doesn't respect whites, it's because whites cuck to Jews. Chinese know Jews rule the West. And as whites are cucks of Jews, whites adopted Open Borders and can't say NO to mass immigration-invasion. So, if whites want pride and power back, they must come to terms with Jewish Power. But whites are so in awe of Jews(and so frightened of them) that they are in Alex Jones mode: Jones was deplatformed by Jews but blames the 'Chicoms' for his woes, perhaps in the hope that if he grovels before Jews by blaming everything on China, his accounts will be restored in Jewish-monopolistic platforms.

Whites must blame Jews for globalism. Whites must restore nationalism and white identity by pushing back against Jewish Power. But people like Tucker Carlson and John Derbyshire suck up to Jews... even though Jews hate them most. (It's like Jared Taylor has been denied Twitter and Paypal by Jews, but the fool censors anyone who speaks truth to Jewish Power at American Renaissance.) Jews even fund Antifa that went to Carlson's house and threatened his family. Derbyshire has been de-personed in journalism because Jews smeared him as 'white supremacist'.

Instead of confronting Jews to regain white identity and white-majority nationalism, whites are attacking Chinese nationalism. White 'conservatives' attack Chinese nationalism and white 'liberals' attack Russian nationalism. But if nationalism is bad, then it must be bad for the West too. But if nationalism is bad for China, Russia, and the West, how do we counter and control globalism?

White people need to restore nationalism and come to terms with Russian nationalism and Chinese nationalism(and Iranian nationalism and etc), but instead they blame China for globalism while being utterly amnesiac about the fact that the West embarked on globalism that was created by Jews and Anglo-traitors. If whites don't restore nationalism and merely blame China for globalism, then the result will be continued globalism, especially as the REAL source of globalism goes unmentioned: Jewish Power.

Also, if the West is to pursue nationalism, it must give up on imperialism. It is downright hypocritical for the West to bitch about China(and Russia) when the US and NATO invaded and destroyed nations in Middle East and North Africa in Wars for Israel. It is Trump, tool of Jews, who is interfering in Venezuela. Also, how many Chinese naval bases surround the US? How many US military bases surround China? Who created the mess in Ukraine by instigating a coup?

Wittingly or not, John Derbyshire is merely a shill of Jewish globalists who are trying to blame China for the World Order that Jews have created. If nations like US, Canada, and Australia were to go nationalist and ban further Chinese immigration and investment, China will accept the policies and learn to live with them. It is Jews who will go crazy and denounce white nations as 'racist', 'xenophobic', and 'nazi' at the slightest whiff of white majority interests. It's the Jews and castrated white cucks who insist that even the sentiment "It's Okay to be White" is 'racist'. Has China or Russia denounced Viktor Orban and Hungary? No, all the hatred comes from Jews, and those Jews are well-served by Anglo-cucks who now bark like dogs at the feet of their Jewish masters.

The What-If-Most-People Game: An Easy Way to Tell if YOUR IDEAS & VALUES are Sound and Valid for Most of Society

What would be the simplest way to test as to whose ideas, values, attitudes, and mindset are best or most ideal for society as a whole? One of the easiest way would be to theorize as to what society would be like IF most people think, feel, and do as YOU do. After all, while any society can tolerate, weather, and overcome some degree of bad behavior and destructive tendencies, NO society can last for long if too many people indulge in wrong kinds of behavior. So, a sane, sound, stable, and healthy kind of society is one where most people do what is good, right, responsible, and constructive.

For example, suppose there are two people: Bob and John. Bob doesn't use illicit drugs whereas John is into drugs. Now, which is better? Not using illicit drugs or using them? Bob says it's better to forsake drugs. John says it's better to use them. So, who is right? First, imagine a society where most people are like Bob and don't use illicit drugs. Then, imagine a society where most people are like John and use plenty of illicit drugs. I think most of us can agree that a society where most people don't use drugs functions better than one where most people indulge in drugs. Does anyone want to live in a society full of meth-heads, heroin addicts, and the like? Even most druggies will likely admit that they don't want to live a society run by druggies. Even as they argue for legalization of many drugs, they surely don't want engineers, managers, and other essential workers to be druggies.

Now, take gambling. Is gambling good or bad for society? Suppose Jerry doesn't gamble and finds it to be wrong. Suppose Billy thinks gambling is awesome. What would be better? A society of Jerrys or a society of Billies? Would it be better if most people don't gamble or do gamble? My guess is that even people into joys of gambling would agree it wouldn't be such a great idea to have a society where MOST people gamble. Gambling is not only a vice but mass theft by oligarchs(who in the US happen to be Jewish) from the middle class and working class(and even from senior citizens and poor folks who don't know any better and become addicted to the habit).

Or take prostitution. Suppose Sarah is against it while Skankura is for it. Who would be right? Would society be better if most women are NOT prostitutes? Or would society be better if most women are prostitutes. Even among proponents of legalization of 'sex work', can they honestly say that a society where most women are involved in the sex industry would be better than one where most women aren't? Would it be good for families if most mothers were hookers on the side? Would it be good for society if fathers raised their daughters to be slut-skank whores? Would it be a better society if your mother, sister, cousin, aunt, niece, and daughter were into stripping, porn, prostitution, or S&M for money? Seriously? While we can understand the logic of libertarians who argue for legalization of 'sex work' on grounds of individual choice and free enterprise, surely even most of them know full well that it would NOT be good for society if most women were skankass whores.

Now, take homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Granted, this has less relevance to reality since most homos were born that way and only a handful of kooks are trannies. The fact is most people will never be homo. Even with all the gender-confusion pushed by MSM and academia, most men and women are not going to declare themselves homo. Still, there is the PC notion that homosexuality and trans-genderism are just as valid as real-natural-normal sexuality. They insist that 'heteronormativity' is some kind of mentally sick social construct. They say 'gender is fluid' and anyone can declare himself or herself to be anything, and all these various 'genders' are equal in value and validity. Okay, that being their premise, suppose there is Cary and Nico. Cary is real-sexual and believes a society where most people are proudly real-sexual is best for society. In contrast, Nico is a homo and believes his fruitishness to be just as valid as real-sexuality, aka heterosexuality. Nico believes homo fecal penetration is just as valid and 'natural' as real-sexuality between men and women. So, who is right? Imagine Cary's Society where most people are straight real-sexuals where men and women procreate to produce kids. Then, imagine Nico's Society where most people are fruitkins who bugger each other in the ass or tranny freaks with their dicks and balls cut off and equipped with fake vaginas. Seriously, which society would be better? Which society has better chance of mental health, moral equilibrium, and chance for continuance & survival? Is it really true that all 'genders'(as social constructs) are equally valid? (Also, if 'gender' is a social construct, why does PC say homos are biologically born that way? Is there any consistency in the logic of so-called 'woke' folk?)

How about gluttony? Some argue for 'Body-Positivity' Movement. They say that being a fatty fatkin is glorious and a badge of pride(and lard of honor). But is it really good to eat like a pig and be grossly obese? Suppose Jack believes in eating moderately, exercising, and staying slim. He believes a good society is one where people watch what they eat and watch their weight. In contrast, Otis believes people should eat all they want and there's no shame in being a fatty fatso. So, which society would be better? A society of Jacks or a society of Otises? One where people eat healthy and stay slim, or one where people eat grossly like hippos and look like hippos as well? Again, the answer should be obvious. Then, one wonders why the media, via fashion magazines and the like, push the notion that Fat is Beautiful and just as okay as being slim and trim around the weight?

How about Open Borders? Would it be better for society for most people to oppose the Great Replacement or welcome it? Would it be better for Hungary if most Hungarians were against the Hungarian Nakba or if most Hungarians were for it? For those who are unfamiliar with the term 'Nakba', it was the national tragedy that befell Palestinians when they were colonized, expelled, and replaced on their native territory by European Zionist-Immigration-Imperialists. (As you all should know, Endless Immigration = Genocide or Nakba. If just a trickle of Jewish Immigrants had entered Palestine, Palestinians would still have owned their land and would have tolerated a small Jewish minority. But Jewish Immigration was endless and came to replace the Palestinians... just like endless non-white immigration turned whites in California into a minority. Endless immigration also turned native Hawaiians into a minority in their native ancestral islands.) Anyway, suppose there are two Hungarians. Viktor is opposed to the Hungarian Nakba. He says NO to Endless Immigration, or Replacement Immigration. He believes Hungary will fare best if MOST Hungarians agree with him. Against him is Miklos who sucks up to Jewish globalists like George Soros and welcomes Endless Immigration, one that is sure to lead to the Hungarian Nakba where the native folks are turned into a minority in their own ancestral lands by Africans, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, and others. Miklos wishes MOST folks would agree with him and welcome the Hungarian Nakba. Now, which Hungary will be better off? One where most people think like Viktor or one where most people think like Miklos? If most people think like Miklos, the fate of Hungary will be like the fate of Palestine where the native Palestinians were replaced by European Zionist-immigration-imperialist Jews.

How about Jew-Worship? Would it be better for society if most people said NO to Jew-Worship or if most people said YES to Jew-Worship? Suppose there are Kevin and Lindsey. Kevin thinks it is dangerous for goyim to mindlessly worship and obey Jews who, though smart and creative, tend to be cunning, hostile, vicious, nasty, contemptuous, and exploitative over 'dimwit goyim'. Kevin thinks society would do best if most goyim, while not going full-Nazi, remained wary and cautious about Jewish narratives, agenda, and power. Don't dehumanize Jews but don't deify them either.
In contrast, shabbos goy Lindsey says Jews are oh-so-wonderful-great-awesome-wise-holy-oustanding-and-etc. in every way and then some. Jews are the most sacred, most tragic, most tremendous race of noble folks that ever existed on the face of this planet(and maybe the entire cosmos). If Jews want it, we must give it. If Jews demand, we must fulfill. If Jews command, we must obey. Lindsey believes goy society will be best off if MOST goyim were committed in blind faith to serving, honoring, and appeasing Jews on grounds that what Jews want for themselves and for us must be the BEST thing.
Now, which society would fare better? One where most goyim are like Kevin and remain skeptical of Jewish claims and criticize Jewish abuses OR one where most goyim are like Lindsey and grovel at the feet of Jews as the god-race? Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US embarked on Lindsey-ism and look at the results. Have they been good? The Wars for Israel, bailouts of Jewish banksters, the pornification of mainstream culture, the spread of interracism-jungle-fever-and-ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), anti-white PC propaganda, feminist wedge between white men and white women, Christianity replaced with Globo-Homo Queertianity, White Nakba & Replacement Immigration, new 'cold war' with Russia, and etc.? Has Lindsey-ism been a blessing for America?

And we can go on and on with the game of What-If-Most-People. Given that the health of society depends on what MOST people do, a good society is one where most people do what's right while a bad society(soon to be no-society at all) is one where most people(or enough people) do what's wrong. Needless to say among those cognizant of HBD(human bio-diversity) truths, this isn't only a matter of morality but biology. Some races are more prone to do the wrong thing given their genetic inclinations. Blacks, having evolved to survive in a state of savagery, are hardwired to act against civilizational norms. So, freely left to their own devices, most(or too many) of them will act wrongly and turn once-fine cities like Detroit into hell-holes. White people are genetically hardwired to make more civilized choices while blacks are genetically hardwired to make more savage choices. Whites tend to Europeanize, blacks tend to Africanize. So, a healthy modern society is one where most people are white than black; indeed, blacks in the West can enjoy modernity ONLY BECAUSE they leech off whites; even black achievements under slavery in the Americas owed to white supervision as, after all, black slaves under black rule in black Africa wielded no great results. Though, hypothetically speaking, it's possible for a society made up mostly of black people to have righteous Negroes who act responsible and moral, real-world results invariably show that too-many-blacks lead to 'savagerization'. Likewise, while we can hypothetically imagine a society full of Japanese where most act like jive-ass jiggerish savages, the likelihood is that a society full of Japanese will act in a cooperative and stable manner.

Another factor to consider is that one mustn't confuse 'most' with 'all'. While society is best off if MOST people act in a certain way in accordance to certain values and norms, it wouldn't necessarily be good if ALL people or each-and-every-person acted that way. This is especially true in science and the arts. Certain talents and abilities are inseparable from certain neuroses and eccentric(and often troublesome) tendencies. Many great artists tend to be half-mad or nutty in some way. So, while it wouldn't be good for society if most people had the personalities of Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and John Lennon, creativity and artistry have benefited from the presence of a small minority of mavericks, rebels, outcasts, and eccentrics. Indeed, this is why homosexuality has been beneficial to civilization as a creative outlier. While homosexuality is biologically useless, morally troublesome, and culturally problematic, the 'gay' sensibility has a way of seeing things that has contributed greatly to the arts, design, and perspectives. So, just because society is best off if MOST people act such-and-such, it doesn't mean ALL people should be that way. Certain social rewards are inseparable from the problems that surround them. It's like there's no honey without the bee stings, there's no championship in boxing without getting hit many times. The good can be attained only through the bad.

Still, for MOST people, there are certain values and standards that are best for society-as-a-whole, and it is essential that the great majority of people adhere to certain values and attitudes. But in our sick, decadent, and degenerate order, such sane-majoritarianism is looked down upon. Fashion magazines push fatties as idols of beauty and health. Cities put on massive globo-homo parades and children are read to by trannies on the premise that 'gay is sacred'. The once-Christian West totally bows down to the demands of Jewish Supremacism as if Jews are deities than flawed humans. Once proudly white nations welcome the Great Replacement or White Nakba. Even though blacks are the most destructive race(by their genetics), the White West worships blacks as demigods and celebrates ACOWW. Even though drugs are harmful for the most part, they are pushed on everyone as soma, soma, soma. Gambling went from a vulgar vice to a 'moral' industry that provides 'reparations' to American Indians. Women get their values from shows like SEX AND THE CITY and GIRLS by Lena Dunham. Skankery has been made the New Normal by Disney run by Jews. Under Jewish Power, society is made to push MOST people to choose the Wrong over the Right. Apparently, Jews fear any notion of majoritarian morality because they are a minority-elite and, as such, fear majority values as threatening to Minority Privilege. So, Jews are hellbent on making the majority accept minority-deviance as the New Normal. This is a terrible thing for the West(and the Rest that still looks to the West to lead the world).