Alt-Right must be Anti-Empire, not just Anti-War. A Response to 'Back To The Beginning. As an authentic anti-war movement, the Alt-Right is more relevant than ever' by Richard Spencer

For the article, go here: https://altright.com/2018/04/19/back-to-the-beginning/

This has to be a principled stand.

Also, it's not enough to be anti-war. We have to go the source of these wars.
Wars are mere symptoms of a deeper disease. That disease is imperialism.
Does that mean American Power is an empire? I would actually go further than that and argue that the US has no national sovereignty. It is part of a larger empire called Empire of Judea or EOJ. Judeo-Nazis are the Darth Vaderian force in the world. Soros is a quite a Sorcerer, Palpatine gone mad. (By 'Judeo-Nazi', I'm using the term in a generic way meaning radical racism, imperialism, genocidal impulses, and supremacism backed by great force. Any people can be generically Nazi. Today, Jewish power is most nazi-like, thus Judeo-nazis).

Notice the US policy is geared toward hating certain nations or peoples. And in almost every case, the hatreds have one thing in common: Jews hate them, so we too must hate them. It's like a master hates something, so his dogs must all bark and growl at whatever the master hates.

Jewish masters hate Russia, so Hate News Media tell us dogs to hate Russia.
Jewish masters hate Iran, so Hate News Media tell us dogs to hate Iran.
Jewish masters hate Syria, so Hate News Media tell us dogs to hate Syria.
Jewish masters hate gentile nationalism, so Hate News Media tell us dogs hate homogeneity in nations like Japan and Hungary.
Jewish masters hate Palestinians, so Hate News Media tell us dogs to hate Palestinians.
Jewish masters hate Christianity, so Hate News Media tell us dogs to choose Homomania as the new official religion of the West. Christianity is tolerable ONLY IF it hangs homo flags.
Jewish masters hate white gentiles, so Hate News Media tell white women to go with black men, tell white men to be cucks, and tell white race to feel guilt and seek atonement only by serving OTHER peoples. And the main OTHER people whom whites must serve are of course the Jews. It certainly is lucrative to serve Jews. A shabbos goy who serves Jews like a dog will win lots of doggy biscuits and shekels... like Joe Biden, John Bolton, Clintons, Graham, etc. Not much shekels in serving loser OTHER groups like American Indians.

Among all these Jewish hatreds, the anti-white hatred is the most perverse because Jewish supremacist power depends on White Submissivism. Jews beat on the white horse because, minus its subservience, Jewish overlords have nothing to ride. Indeed, would Jews rule the world IF NOT for the white race and white world? Jews ride piggyback on white power and control the white head by injecting it with PC and holding a gun to it.
But the funny thing is that IF Jews really kill white power, they will kill themselves too. Jews are the like the dwarf attacked to the big strong guy in MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME. If Jews kill the white body or white war horse, they got nothing to ride to trample on the world with. It's be like a Jewish cowboy shooting his own horse. Jews beat on the white horse to tame it. But if they lame it, they got nothing to ride.

So, Jewish hatred of white is a complex affair. Jewish power doesn't rely on existence of Palestinians or Iranians. But if whites didn't exist in the world, Jewish power would also vanish. Also, Jewish men are addicted to white beauty above all.
Even as Jewish anti-white hatred is real enough, it is also confused and contradictory because Jewish power is helpless without white ability and support. Look at parts of Europe that have been overrun by Africans and Muslims. Jews are helpless there.
Jews are also helpless in Detroit. Their power is in big cities with sizable white population who are capable, productive, and subservient to Jews.
Also, Jewish immigration patterns have always chased after Anglos and Germanics. It's been white preferist. Because Jewish power depends so much on white people, Jews feel frustrated. To control whiteness, they must shame and punish white people. But if they attack too hard, there are two possibilities, both of which are bad for Jews.

1. White backlash. Whites figure they had enough and fight back. This will end Jewish power.

2. White demise. Whites totally give into PC and commit mass racial suicide. Then, Jews will be surrounded by browns, blacks, Hindus, and yellows who will see Jews as 'white privilege' and eat them alive.

Anyway, the source of all these wars is neo-imperialism and the fact that US is part of EOJ.
So, Alt Right position must be like that of the 1776 revolutionaries who wanted OUT of British Empire.
Today, we must call for American Re-Independence from the Empire of Judea, the global network of Jewish power from NY to LA to London to Paris to Tel Avis to Rio to Miami to etc. We want our Independence back.
The truth is Jews all over the world feel closer to fellow Jews in other nations than with gentile nationals. Jews in NY feel closer to Jews in Israel and London than with gentiles in the US. Thus, the elites of US are imperialist-minded than nationalist. Jews mainly work for the good of EOJ than for the good of any single gentile nation in which they are a minority elite.

Alt Right must renounce imperialism. This must be a principled stand. In the past, certain Alt Right figures have said they are for a new empire, about colonizing Africa again, and etc. This really must stop.

Imperialism was easy in the past because (1) whites believe in the rightness of spreading Christianity (2) had modern weapons whereas non-whites didn't (3) whites were willing to fight and die in endless wars (4) non-whites lacked national consciousness and unity. Most of the factors are gone for good.

Things are now profoundly different. Non-whites got modern weapons and they got national consciousness. We must be for Universal Nationalism, the right of each people to have national sovereignty and independence.

Why Jewish-controlled US Foreign Policy serves something much Bigger than Israel -- Homomania, Queertianity, or Gay Rites as the Reason why ‘Progressives’ now support Neo-Imperialism, Deep State, and Warmongering

This is in response to Philip Giraldi’s Whose Wars? Israel continues to wag the dog for Middle Eastern wars.

I think the Inclusion of Russia in the equation — as well as animus against Hungary and Poland — suggests that Israel is not central to the equation. Rather, it is EOJ or Empire of Judea. Its hegemony derives from a network of Jewish power all over the world from NY to LA to DC to Tel Aviv to London to Paris to Moscow to Rio to Capetown to etc. It is a truly global in scope and ambition. Israel is its Temple. NY is its bank. DC is its tanks and guns.
It's like the British Empire was much bigger than Britain. The power was in the mastery of seas, the control of far-flung territories, access to resources and manpower(made to serve British overlords). One difference is that British Imperialism was proud of its power and bragged of its glory. In contrast, Judea is an Hidden Empire... which is all the more dangerous because Jewish power cowers behind gentile nations as fronts.

Suppose Israel were to vanish. Suppose a massive earthquake swallows both Israel and West Bank into the ground, and both are gone forever. So, will Neocons and etc. begin to act on the basis of what is good for America? No, they will still push their agenda because Jewish Power is not about one single place but a network of power dynamics all over the globe. After all, Judea had been operative long before Israel was created. It was powerful enough to push gentile nations toward helping Jews create Israel.

But the big question that must be asked is, "Why is there such lack of anti-war opposition from the Progs?" They were out in full force in 2003. Where are they now? Why are progs so silent now or even enthusiastically support of neo-imperialism? Why were they so silent when Obama carried out attacks that destroyed Libya? When he aided terrorists in Syria? When he messed up Ukraine?
Well, most progs are idiots into TV culture, just like most conzos, so most of them have no interest in world affairs. But what about the Prog elites who are well-educated and know what's happening in the world? Partly, it was because Obama as Prez was a 'historic black president', so he had to be made to look good. Symbolism trumped real lives. So, never mind all those dead Libyans. More important was the Idolatry of Obama. Maybe it might have been somewhat different if John McCain or Mitt Romney were president.

But I think the bigger factor is the rise of Homomania and the the total PC-ization of Deep State and Military. There was a time when the Left perceived Deep State and Military, rightly or wrongly, as mainly the bastion of Wasps, conservatives, right-wingers, and etc. But Deep State drank the PC kool-aid, and FBI is now about Diversity and MLK worship. And CIA and NSA work closely with proggy Silicon Valley. And the US military now allows open homos, trannies, and even women-in-combat. These changes were gradually gaining, but they accelerated and came to full fruition under Obama. Military turned homo, tranny, and feminist. And Deep State totally with Obama in waving homo flag. (Granted, core of the military still consists of conservative white men, but things are often judged by its branding than its substance.)

Homomania is especially important because it constitutes a neo-religion for the Progs. It's not merely a support for 'gay rights' but a worship of Gay Rites. Homomania is now regarded as so holy that churches feel a need to associate with homo colors to feel blessed. It used to be that repentant homos went to Church to confess their sins. Now, churches seek benediction from the 'rainbow' angels who are into fecal penetration or tranny pud-chopping.

Homomania may have been most effective in turning Progs into pro-imperialist and pro-war devotees.
Consider Old Imperialism. It was about invading other lands, subjugating native folks, and plundering resources. Surely, the adventurers, profiteers, and materialists loved it. But many people didn't feel good about it. After all, it's not nice to invade and exploit other peoples. So, why did so many people in the West support imperialism? Because the West spun it as spreading God and Jesus to the heathens. Thus, the materialist was made spiritualist. And so, many people, from elites to masses, felt a moral imperative to support imperialism.

With the decline of Christianity, the West no longer had a spiritual rationale to unleash neo-imperialism around the world. 9/11 gave an opening because the US was attacked. People still can support revenge. But vengeful emotions eventually burn out.
In contrast, the missionary or crusading passions are eternal. That was why Christianity or Islam was so useful over many centuries in justifying wars and invasions. It provided moral and spiritual makeover and uplift to material conquests and plunders.

9/11 justified the invasion of Afghanistan and War on Terror in the eyes of most Americans. But vengeful feelings don't last forever. After all, both US and USSR patched things up with Germany and Japan after WWII. Bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones.
In contrast, crusading spirit keeps burning.

Because West is dominated by prog elites and proggy industries, Neo-Imperialism must have them on-board as an enthused support system. But why would they support US militarism if they just regard it as naked aggression and warmongering? Most people, progs and conzos, would not feel good about supporting mere aggression. But what if there were a neo-religion that could captivate the Prog community? What if they came to see it as the Highest Good, something to spread all over the world? What if it could define their sense of Us versus Them? The good 'us' are those who are part of this new faith. The evil 'them' are those who resist it. It's like Christians once divided the world between Christian folks and Heathens. Onward Christian soldiers to bash Heathens and convert them. And Muslims divided the world between the servants of Allah and the Infidels.

In the decadent West, the neo-religion came to be Homomania, and Jews promoted it through massive parades, 'rainbow' colors, entertainment, TV commercials, cucked out politicians, pathologization of opposition as 'homophobic', and movies & music videos. Also, Pop Culture was mixed with PC. It used to be that people went to rock concerts just to have a good time. Jews understood that the mindless masses are most vulnerable to brainwashing in a place of rapturous emotions. It's like how Televangelists take advantage of the crowd through spectacle, hollering, and/or hysteria. Imagine you're screaming and shouting at a rock concert with 10,000s of fans and fireworks go off displaying homo colors. Everyone is screaming his mind off, and you are carried along with mass passion. You come to associate rapturous quasi-transcendent emotions with homo colors. Of course, fecal penetration and pud-cutting have nothing to do with the rainbow, but the mind is associative, like in the Pavlovian trick with dog, bell, and food.

Anyway, the spread of Homomania, especially in Obama yrs, instilled Progs with a new missionary zeal. It is to homo-genize the world. Without Homomania, most Americans would never have become so anti-Russian. It did the trick because the media said "We holy worshipers of Homomania" versus "Those evil reactionary homophobic Russkies whose idea of religion is creepy and discredited Christianity, ewwwwww."
Anti-Russian hatred reached new heights due to the Homomaniacal Factor. If Old Cold Warriors hated the Soviets for being Godless commies, the New Cold Warriors hate Russians for being Homoless Christians. And how did Hillary Clinton praise Israel? She said it is so wonderful because it has one of the biggest homo parades in the world.

So, when progs hear about Russia aiding Syria, they think of an evil Homoless empire aiding a regime that protects creepy Christian minority. In contrast, Israel and US are justified in bashing Syria because they are Homomaniacal. US military has open homos. (To be sure, Russian military also has homos, but Russia doesn't worship Homo-ness. And it doesn't allow Red Square to be overrun by Homo whoopsy-doopsers and NO 'gay marriage'.) Even if people don't discuss it in such terms, I think many Progs subconsciously feel that way. They see the New Cold War as between the Homo-worshiping West and Homo-denying Russia and allies.

Progs are said to be 'liberal' and 'secular', but one doesn't need a real religion to feel religious about something. Communism was said to be 'materialist' and 'scientific' but it was essentially a religion with its sacred canon, messiahs and prophets, and demigods. If anyone rationally critiqued Stalin or Mao, he would have ended up like heretics in the Middle Ages.

Likewise, today's Progs are neo-religious. They worship ideas like 'diversity' or 'inclusion'. They worship MLK and the Magic Negro or the Mandingo and the Negro dong, like in the movie GET OUT. They worship Homos and the 'rainbow' color.
Jews also push Shoah as religion, but the problem is it's too much of a bummer, especially in the Age of Hedonism and Narcissism. In the Age of American Idol, who wants to think about people who were killed in death camps? Shoah may instill guilt but not much in the way of enthusiasm. After all, Christianity's appeal wasn't just about the death of Christ. It was also about His Resurrection and Happy Easter and Merry Christmas and all that. It has a tragic side but also triumphant side. But can anyone imagine saying 'Happy Holocaust Day'? Maybe if Jews are cleverer, they would come up with a new concept that commemorates the 'resurrection' of Jews from the Shoah, something that can be celebrated, indeed even an occasion for giving gifts, especially from gentiles to Jews.

Anyway, in contrast to Shoah-as-religion, Homomania-as-religion is so fun. It's about homo 'angels' of rapture parading down streets, celebrating with wild abandon, and making everyone feel 'Hollywood-ish' in his participation in spectacle. It's like circus-as-faith.
Also, whereas not every nation has Jews, every nation has its share of homos, and Homomania says they must be liberated, supported, and made to lead those nations.
As such, Homomania is great for spreading the power of Judea. Jews can reach out to homos in every nation, favor and fund them, and push them into seats of power. And then, these grateful and vain homos will serve Judea than their own people.

Homos are so holy that even Trump justified his 'Muslim Ban' on account of the need to protect homos from terrorists.

Even in 2003, most progs didn't associate the US military with something holy. They saw the military as a killing machine, an instrument of 'Christian-fascist' George W. Bush. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN divided the nation. It wasn't universally acclaimed.
But under Obama, the homo-ization of the military changed how progs perceived American Power. And the fact that the Deep State was so chummy with a black president convinced Progs that CIA, FBI, NSA, and etc were really on their side, something they would not have believed during Bush yrs or even Clinton yrs.

What a masterstroke by the Jews who understand the Politics of Psychology. Homomania was concocted to be the new christianity or Queertianity. It came to be quasi-worshiped by Progs. Even in protests and rallies unrelated to homos, many activists arrive waving homo colors as if doing so bestows blessing on whatever they are promoting. So, we see homo colors mixed with BLM. We see homo colors at Illegal Immigrant rallies. It's as if every group now feels that their movement will get more traction and sympathy IF it's associated with homo colors. It's like Christians in the past used to associate everything with the Crucifix.

So, unless progs break out of the spell of this phony perverse satanic pseudo-religion, the Deep State can do a lot of damage. With so many prog elites and masses associating US power with spread of Holy Homomania, the neo-imperialists can do a lot of damage. Their evil ambitions will be shrouded with holy homo colors.

Even though the US is the force for evil in the world like Stephen Lendmen's article says, American progs think they have homo-god on their side against evil Russia that won't worship the Holy Homo.

Zionists failed to sink USS Liberty, but they did sink Truth in Journalism. Truth RIP.
American Politics and Journalism are a sunken ship in which there's no honest soul left alive to speak truth to Jewish Power.

The Risible Logic of "Why I Support the Syria Strike" by Nick Fuentes

The video begins at: 18:00



Prior to the strike, Nick Fuentes was bragging that he was right that Trump was only bluffing and didn't intend to shoot missiles.

But when Trump shot missiles, Fuentes now says it's a good thing.

Fuentes is shooting down his own credibility.

Also, he is confusing realpolitik and principles. He could have taken a principled position and denounced the strikes as unjustified BUT ALSO have analyzed it from a realpolitik angle.

It could have been a win-win. He would have won morally on principle and scored as a keen analyst of realpolitik that is often devious and ugly.

But Fuentes tries to justify the attack on principle, and that totally fails.

Machiavellianism is a part of politics, and it operates all the time. But it cannot be justified morally. It can only be understood as 'business', like in THE GOFATHER

Morally, the world community needs to bring an end to the Syrian War as fast as possible. There has been too much suffering. How would Fuentes like to live in a war zone festering with Jihadis funded by foreign nations?

It was evil for US to give aid to terrorists against Assad and destroy an entire nation, mainly because Jewish supremacists want it that way. And it is immoral for Trump to shoot missiles to boost morale of terrorists. It is immoral to lie about chemical attacks. Even if Trump is playing a game, a nation shouldn't be used a pawn. It has real people undergoing real tragedy. The US has no right to play god over other nations.

Also, Russia is in Syria to prevent another Libya. This is not a contest of US vs Russia for world hegemony. It is about Russia helping an ally vs the US doing the bidding of Zionist supremacist madness.

Fuentes can be a moralist(as he claims to be a good Christian) AND also be a keen political analyst of strategic calculations of great powers. But when he conflates realpolitik with principle itself, he is failing.

His IQ goes fro 250 to 25.

A Rebuttal to Yan Shen’s Complaint about Betrayal of Meritocracy in Elite Colleges - The Failure of Modern Parenting, West and East - Why Should Alt Right & White Folks Care about Asians when 80% of them Voted for Obama & Hillary and Cheer on the Replacement of the White Race in the Nations of their own Ancestry and Making?

America’s Cultural Revolution- the Obsession with Self Esteem by Yan Shen: http://www.unz.com/article/americas-cultural-revolution-the-obsession-with-self-esteem/

Yan Shen: Although the incident was undoubtedly a source of amusement to many, to me the surreal confrontation highlighted not only just how deeply rotten modern day American culture had become, but also the clear extent to which East Asian and non-East Asian cultural values had diverged in the 21st century.

Values or strategies? People can have same values or ideology and still have different strategies and habits. So, that incident in the library doesn't necessarily mean East Asians have different values from what prevails in the West. It could be that they just have different outlooks, styles, and attitudes. Consider German Socialists and 'Russian' Socialists. Stalin once remarked that German Socialists tended to be punctual and disciplined. If you take an Italian communist and a German communist, they may have the same ideology and same 'values', but they will have different approaches and manners. The Italian communist is more likely to be like the guy in SWEPT AWAY.


So, there's no guarantee that difference in cultural norms means ideological divergence. If anything, even though East Asians are less likely to act wild and crazy(due to cultural and genetic factors), they are more likely to become PC and globalist. As diligent students, they will soak up all the PC taught in schools. Is it any wonder that so many Asian academics, journalists, and bureaucrats are pushing Maximum PC? Maybe that Pan guy in California is not the type to scream in a library, but he's for total censorship in the name of PC.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/04/04/california-democrat-dr-richard-pan-proposes-fake-news-bill-shut-internet-free-speech-censorship/
So, it's very possible that the Asian guy who asked for quietude in the library will become another Pan. After all, if he's studying so hard, what kind of materials is he reading? Unless it's math, hard science, or technology, he's likely to get a lot of PC. Also, much of indoctrination happens outside schools in music, movies, TV, and state-sponsored propaganda like celebration of Homomania. A lot of it happens subliminally by icon-izing certain images and symbols.

Yan Shen: A recent article by Wesley Yang derided the fact that in contemporary American society “therapeutic concepts of harm have metastasized to encompass what we all once understood to be the unavoidable vicissitudes of daily life.” His discussion focused on the increasing sensitivity of millennials, in particular highlighting the fault line separating minorities from whites. In my opinion, equating the problem with the political left misses the heart of the matter entirely. Left-wing political correctness is merely a symptom of the more insidious underlying disease, which as Amy Chua alluded to in her now infamous essay Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, is the American obsession with self-esteem.

Both Yang and Yan are missing the point. These easily triggered 'snowflakes' were made that way by the System. Therefore, we have to focus on the Power at the center. It is essentially Jewish. Most people, even elite academics, have NO ideas or agency of their own. They are dogs, sheep, and sycophants.
The fault line that matters is between Jews and white gentiles. Now, most white gentiles don't feel this way, but Jews do feel this way. Prior to the rise of Alt Right and related movements, I almost never came across hostile views among white gentiles against Jews. Being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel was as American as Apple Pie. Things may be changing with (1) Alt Right and related folks waking up to JQ and (2) white leftists supporting BDS against what is increasingly seen as 'far-right' Israel that is cozy with the GOP.

At any rate, if white gentiles mostly want to welcome Jews as whites who happen to be Jewish, Jews have hostile feelings toward whites. In the past, this was more understandable because of naked discrimination, periodic pogroms, and the Shoah. People may feel fear and hostility when faced with oppression or obsessed with survival. But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews are addicted to supremacist power, and they fear whites not because whites are hostile or 'antisemitic' but because whites might wake up to how Jews have gone into supremacist mode and are pulling all sorts of dirty tricks in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. If whites were to withdraw support, Jewish supremacism cannot maintain itself. Indeed, what if whites wake up to how US foreign policy has been usurped by Jews to serve Jewish globalist hegemony. Because whites are still the majority, they are the group that Jews fear most. Not because whites are anti-Jewish but COULD become anti-Jewish.
Jews may be less fearful IF they'd risen in power gradually through a process of being morally vetted. Suppose Jews rose high not only through meritocracy but under moral scrutiny. Suppose the worst kind of Jews had been called out and removed by this process. But because of the Jew Taboo(centered on Shoah and other themes), it became impossible to be critical of any kind of Jewish behavior. So, not only smart decent Jews made it to the top but also nasty vicious lowlife Jews. After all, smarts alone don't mean a person has character. Surely, Bernie Madoff is much smarter than the average Joe, but his MQ or Moral Quotient is close to zero. And yet, he was allowed to rub shoulders with men of power and privilege. Even though it was obvious he was doing bad stuff, he was left alone and even protected... as long as he functioned as a cash cow for Jewish groups.

Now, it wouldn't have been so bad if GOOD Jews called out on BAD Jews, but even the better ones went with tribalism over other considerations. Thus, Jewish Power rose rapidly but without being vetted and filtered of really bad shi*. And this is across so many fields. Just how did that compulsive liar Sabrina Rubin Erderly get a gig at a major publication? She'd been caught lying in college journalism. But the red carpet was rolled out for her, and she wrote a big big lie for ROLLING STONE mag, and then the rest of the media(mostly owned by Jews) decided to push the nasty anti-white message. If not for the internet, maybe the whole fraud would have been covered up or sent down a memory hole.

Now, PC has spread far and wide. There is much anti-white vitriol among non-whites and even among 'goody-good' whites. But WHO were really behind this? Jews. And why? Because Jews want to paralyze whites with collective 'guilt'. Non-whites and goody-good-whites(the self-righteous supremacists and vanity-virtue sniffers) may sincerely believe in PC, but they didn't come up with it. It was injected into them by academia and media that are funded and controlled largely by globalists. And even the character of Leftism has changed over the years in accordance to "Is it good for the Jews?" Notice that class issues are mostly gone from what goes by the label of 'leftism' today. Notice that for much of Obama yrs, homo and even tranny issues took front seat and pushed blacks to the back.
As such, the term 'leftism' has no meaning. If something becomes pretty much the opposite of its original meaning, is it still that thing? If Christianity ends up worshiping Satan but still calls itself 'Christianity', is it still Christianity? Today's 'leftism' is LINO or Leftism-In-Name-Only. It is just a mental-putty molded in any way by the Glob Powers That Be.

Anyway, the main reason for anti-white animus of PC is not about historical justice or whatever. It's about Jewish supremacist need to tame and harness white power into a war horse that can be ridden by the Power of Zion. Just think. If white power is so evil, why are Jewish globalists so insistent on using the US military for attacking nations like Syria? Despite 'inclusion' of homos and diversity cult, the US military is still about white generals ordering lots of right-wing white guys with guns. When the US military attacks other nations, it often translates into White Guys with Guns and Bombs killing bushels of Non-Whites. Like in the movie BLACK HAWK DAWN, almost a remake of ZULU, what with heroic white guys fighting like Starship Troopers against hordes of jivers and mofos. Recently, the US military has been causing all sorts of havoc in the Middle East populated with People of Rag. But, do you hear about how 'racist' and 'white supremacist' this is? Imagine all those white guys with big guns blowing up cities inhabited by non-whites. Apparently, Arab Lives Don't Matter... unless there is a likely false flag report about how Assad is killing babies with a blend of Clorox and Aunt Jemima yellow cake powder. And notice that NO ONE in the US prog community is calling for anti-war marches against the never-ending US aggression in Middle East and North Africa.

The fact is most 'minorities' have no inherent animus against whites. Now, blacks may be the exception for both inferiorist and superiorist reasons. Blacks do have a bitter history of having lived under whites who said stuff like, "Hey ni**er, go pick me some cotton and fetch me some water." This made blacks feel inferior. But black animus is also a superiorist contempt for 'white boy'. Blacks be thinking, "We whup your ass, we shout louder than you, we hump your women, and you be a bunch of fa**oty ass cucks."

But most other non-whites have no reason to hate whites. Now, Mexicans have had this resentment thing because 'gringos' achieved so much more. You can see the difference between the Anglo and the Mexican in THE WILD BUNCH. Pike Bishop is always planning ahead and trying to figure things out. Mexicans just like to laugh, eat, and party if they got the power. Or, if oppressed, they just hunker down and eat tortillas and show no agency. Even the Mexican bandido is a more childish character, like in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE or THEY CALL ME TRINITY. Because Mexicans don't have leadership qualities, they like to work for 'gringo' or Americano. Look at Guillermo the sidekick at Jimmy Kimmel Show. We are told that the US used to be a bad evil society in the past because of its racial stereotypes, but Guillermo is the biggest Mexican stereotype of the silly, squat, childlike, and docile dufusez.

Anyway, if whites were solidly in charge, Mexicans might feel resentment but no real animus against gringo. Mexicans look up to power, the big hombre. If Mexicans feel more anti-white hatred today, it's because they feel contempt for weakness. Even as Mexicans resented the Grande Gringo in the past, they also respected him. But now, Mexicans see the Blanco Cuckez and feel nothing but contempt. Also, as they lack intellectual or ideological agency, Mexicans will swallow any crap taught to them by schools. And what do schools teach? A trickle-down version of anti-white vitriol cooked up by Jews.

As for Asian immigrants, I don't think there was much anti-white hatred in the past. As with Mexicans, there was surely some resentment and feelings of inferiority. At one time, Big China lost wars to tiny UK. And US clobbered Japan real bad. Still, Asians came to the US because they respected what the Great White Man made. They weren't coming to play Indians or emulate blacks in Detroit(at least not the parents). But as Asians tend to be docile, teacher-pets, and drones, they mostly went along with whatever was taught them. US media and academia weren't so anti-white in the past. And Asian-Americans who grew up back then didn't turn out to be rabid PC tards.
But many of today's Asian students are rabid dogs of PC. They may not burn down cities or disrupt libraries... though if a bunch of blacks or 'radicals' make a scene, you will always find some yellow dogs following and shouting along because that's what dogs do.

But again, who made the media and academia so anti-white? Jews. And what is the main reason for Jewish anti-white vitriol? Jewish moral outrage at the historical crimes of whites? Really? If this is so and if Jews really believe whites must atone for their 'sins', why do Jews insist on whites support Wars for Israel in which whites end up killing bushels of non-whites? And why do Jews insist that white Americans support White European Jews in Israel who oppress brown Palestinians?

Also, if Jews are soooooo outraged by past crimes, why are they easy on Latin-American whites whose 'crimes' were much bigger than that of Yanquis? It's estimated that Spanish and Portuguese arrival in the New World spread diseases that killed 50 million out of 55 million natives. Also, there was much 'rape' of native women. Also, Latin American whites brought over many more black slaves. Brazil alone brought 10x the number of slaves that US brought. And it was Anglo-pressure that finally ended the Brazilian slave trade. And Mexico has long been a civilization where whites lorded over natives. The Mexican Civil War was more than twice as long as the American Civil War and over a million people died. But even after the reforms, Mexico has been a white-ruled society. But how do Jews regard white Hispanics? As 'people of color'. Why is this? Because Jews need them as allies against white Americans.

So,the real motivating factor of Jewish cult of 'justice' is not righting wrongs but securing Jewish supremacist power. Jews know that their supremacist power in the US(thereby the world) depends on whites serving Jews. Whites will serve Jews instead of themselves ONLY IF they remained stigmatized and paralyzed by guilt. Therefore, whites have been led to believe that any sign of White Identity or Interest is 'white supremacist'. In order for whites to be redeemed, they must serve OTHER peoples. And of course, whites end up serving Jews the most since it's most lucrative to do so. After all, redemptive whites who serve Jews will get lots of goodies like Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain the Cuckaine, Marco Rubio the rubber-boy, and etc. After all, what do whites get atoning for their sins by serving Navajo Indians or fat Hawaiian natives who spend all day munching on Doritos and watching TV?

As for Amy Chua, her book is not about Chinese moms being superior. It's about the lesson that there is no single foolproof method in parenting. Her method worked with one girl, didn't work with the other. Also, upon visiting China, she remarked that Chinese students there lack something American students have and vice versa. At any rate, the Chinese system is hardly better. It's all about robotic mania for tests and good schools. Does anyone in Asia study to learn and to think? No, they only see education as ticket to career and status.
Now, this is also true in the West, but it seems more obsessive in the East. Also, because the main emphasis is on admission, students take it easy once they made it into an elite institution that is treated more like a club(or so it's been said of Tokyo University). It's no wonder that Asian universities get no respect. In Asia, the thing is to get INTO a good school than do real work in one. Bad attitude. Also, this status-elitism is destroying Asia with high suicide rates. Because status matters so much, those who don't make it would rather kill themselves than work at 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. As university attendance has become near-universal in some Asian nations, the overall effect has been to instill almost everyone with hipster-Confucian snobbery that they are too good to do any 'lowly' labor.

Or they'd rather move to the West and abandon their race/culture. Asian status-obsession is value-free. So, if a Chinese parents are ideologically conservative but their kid goes to a good school, has a fancy job, and becomes ideologically liberal, the parents will be happy because their kid made it to higher status... even though his ideology is opposite of theirs. So, in Asia, status is the main ideology. This is not a healthy society. It's all about status, approval, and snobbery. And because snobbery has been universalized in places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are now dying nations. People will not get married or have kids unless they can be assured of social rank and raising kids who will do well in school and gain status. (In a way, Mexican-Americans have a healthier attitude to life. Less snobby.) With the entering of women into careers, this means even less jobs for men, and that means more difficulty gaining status. No wonder suicide rates are so high in East Asia. It's a sick society.

This 'tiger mothering' is a misnomer. It should really be called 'dog-mothering' where both the parent and kid act like dogs. The dog-mother will do anything to train her kid to be good doggy who will win prizes at the dog show. And the dog-student's main obsession is to gain status either by making lots of money or winning approval from PC powers-that-be. It's no wonder that the new crop of Asian journalists in the West are such servile dogs of PC, spouting the same crap as everyone else. Maybe Wesley Yang is a partial exception, but two chopsticks don't make a dinner.
What Asians need is Human-Mothering. American style of Altar-Parenting(offering one's kids on the altar of degenerate pop culture that is all about glory of crazy blacks, degenerate homos, and nasty Jews) is no good, but dog-mothering also sucks. Human-Mothering is best. Raise kids on Akira Kurosawa films, and the world would be a better place. It's like HIGH AND LOW. There is something higher than profits and status. There is a sense of humanity, and humanism is best served on the national level.


Heine said:
“As Western society becomes more individualistic, a successful life has come to be equated with having high self-esteem,” Heine says. “Inflating one’s sense of self creates positive emotions and feelings of self-efficacy, but the downside is that people don’t really like self-enhancers very much.”

Heine got it all wrong. The problem is the West has gotten LESS individualistic. It's gotten more 'INFANTILISTIC'. True individualism is about having freedom and taking responsibility for it. It's like characters in THE BIG COUNTRY. Now, those guys are into individualism. And Gregory Peck's character is about discerning right and wrong based on individual conscience. Now, Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH is a criminal, but he too is a rugged individualist. It's about how even thieves must live by honor. It's about being a tough hombre in a rough world. And that kind of attitude once defined American individualism. It was hard and rugged, like in SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Even James Dean's character in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE was messed up because his father was too weak. He wanted his father to be like John Wayne and beat his spoiled namby-pamby butt.



People conflate idiotic obsession with pop culture(the stupid kind) with 'individualism' but it's really about boys and girls wanting to remain kids forever. So, we now have grownups whose main experience of culture is discussing comic book movies. We have women who turned muffs into muppet-shows in their 'resistance' to Trump. Children are not individualistic because they don't have the means to think for themselves. Even their brattiness is manipulated by adults. So, kids will watch a TV commercial and say, "Mommy, buy me, this, Mommy buy me that." They are dupes of advertisers. So, when adults don't grow out of childish mentalities, they fail to develop into true individuals. True individualism is about self-control and having agency and power over one's own soul, body, and thoughts.
But look at the rise of gambling that addicts adults to dumb slot-machines. Look at the spread of drugs where people need a hit of this or hit of that all the time to feel alive. Look at the spread of videogames where full-grown men spend hours pushing buttons on joysticks to kill imaginary dragons. This isn't individualism but infantilism. A true individual is curious and hardy enough to listen to other views. But today's 'snowflakes' shriek in horror or act like Bam-Bam(of the Flinstones) if what they hear goes against the PC goo-goo talk they got from cradle. Given the prevalence of Altar-Parenting that offered so many kids to the 2PCs of Pop Culture and Political Correctness, many parents have no meaningful relation with their kids. Kids think, "my parents are uncool" and identify with pop idols cynically engineered by the dirty entertainment industry. Parents regard their kids as offerings to the gods of Trash Culture, and the kids feel that the main role of parents is to feed, clothe, and house them until they can finally lead lives in imitation of TV characters like in GIRLS or SEX AND THE CITY or some other trash.

Was it individualism that led to the rise of Homomania? Was it individualism that led to all this hysterical waxing about BLACK PANTHER and the Afrotopia of Wakanda? No, only an infantile society where kids were drugged with PC and Pop Culture from cradle could create such a clown world.

What we need is true individualism. It means kids growing into adults and being responsible for their freedoms. But look all around, and we get babytalk from blacks, feminists, homos, and even Asians. Notice how these people are afraid to think or speak as real individuals. They speak in chant-ese and slogan-ese. Their ideo-vocab repeats the same terms over and over: 'racism', 'homophobia', 'misogynist', 'intersectionality', 'black lives matter', and etc. It doesn't even occur to these morons that the main purveyor of violence against women are black rappers who have contracts with Jewish moguls of music industry. These are infantile idiots whose main fixation is with feeling goo-goo-ga-ga-good. They are like babies who can't change their own diapers about peeing and pooing and go waaaaaaaaah. PC and Pop Culture clowns are like babies. When confronted with something that triggers them, they mentally pee and poo themselves and call on mommy, daddy, teachey, and policey to remove and ban whatever is 'triggering' them, goo ga ga.
But then, who made the kids this way? Those who control Pop Culture and PC.
The problem really began with boomers, the first ones to grow up with TV. Many of them grew up feeling closer to TV characters than to their parents. And then, the TV-kids grew up and became parents and had TV in every room,and their kids became even more TV-ed. And then, there was Cable TV with more dumb channels. Thus, parenting became all about offering kids to the altar of degeneracy.

But is it all that different in Japan, China, and South Korea. When the kids are not studying, what is the main source of their culture? In Japan, it's anime and videogames. In South Korea, it's K-pop and videogames. In China, pop culture is pretty retarded too, hardly less than in US and EU. So, parents push their kids to study, and when the kids are not studying, their experience of culture is junk. This is so different from the past when there was no TV and when movies were made for adults. If you were a Japanese student who was taking time off from studies in the late 50s or early 60s, you might have seen a Kurosawa film at the local theater. Now, the kids are watching dumb cartoons and playing video games. It's soulless. Look at the kids in BEIJING BICYCLE. What an empty cultural life.
Altar-parenting is killing civilization. But so many adults were raised on junk culture and think it's some kind of RIGHT and RITE for their own kids to go through the same junk-phase.

The reason why Pop Cultural Junk is worse than ever is because it's been so intertwined with PC. Though the idea of using Pop Culture as platform for political ideas is nothing new, it has now reached into all forms of expression. When I was a child, I used to read Archie's comic books, and they were just goofy fun. Though all arts & culture have some political subtext, there used to be a time when Pop was Pop. Because Pop was just Pop, you didn't take it too seriously. It was something you outgrew. Also, serious people didn't go into pop culture to spread ideas. They became serious authors, scholars, or artists.
It's different today. Young ones grow up with Pop Culture that is packed with ideological stuff. So, Archie sacrificed his life to protect a fruity politician.

If in the past, Pop was something you were supposed to outgrow, today kids regard Pop Culture as sacred text for Moral Truths and Political Consciousness. So, Pop sticks to them like brain tattoos. Why abandon Pop and kiddie entertainment when 'higher' moral and political truths can be gleaned from them? The New STAR WARS is dumber than ever, but the cultural commentariat is treating it like canonical stuff for the ages. And when NYT runs op-eds about the profundity of Wakanda, we are living in some fantasy world. We are no longer reading but living in BRAVE NEW WORLD.

In the past, college was where you went to put away childish things and got some real knowledge about serious stuff. But youth culture dominates most colleges. The music culture of most young ones is infantile rap and other crap. Also, smartphones have fostered a culture of distractions. So, colleges now dumb people down, not just intellectually but culturally.

Feminism was always ridiculous, but there used to be real intellectuals in the movement. Now, it's just about some fat woman with green hair and steel through her nose yammering about intersectionality with Muslims while wearing a pussy costume. It's like Teletubbies or muppet show.
And then, the rise of 'gay' gender studies made it even worse. At least women are half the world. Homos are 2% and trannies are far less than 1%. But because gender studies showered so much attention on them, this was bound to have a Peter Pan effect because (1) homos are vain and prefer fantasy over reality, therefore their impact on ideology and pop culture was to make us favor frivolity over essentiality (2) trannies are like homos, only more so. Homo fantasy's influence on feminism was to make it even sillier. Feminists in the past were about being free of pop cultural influences that turned women into silly idols. It went too far, but given the sheer inanity of pop culture, it had a salutary effect. But then, homos gain greater cultural influence, and they just luuuuuuv fantasy and artificiality. They promote vanity, narcissism, and artificiality. And this impacted feminism, and women are acting like degenerate teenyboppers of Peter Pan. They've become immersed in the celebrity-centric stupidity of pop culture largely fashioned and propped by homos.
With Jewish media and academia having promoted and spread homomania all over, even straight people are raising their kids to be reverential to homos and trannies. This Peter-Pan-izes the kids because homo culture is essentially Michael-Jacksonish.
Moreover, our pop culture is totally confused. If homomania encourages boys to be effete cucky metro-sexual dorks, Rap music encourages them to be thugs and see women as 'bitchass hos'. Also, rap attitude is one of ignorance + arrogance. It's about hatred of curiosity, humility, discovery, and maturity. It tells 13 yr olds that they know everything if they holler rhymes where everything is a 'motherf***er' and if they threaten others with fists or guns. Rap sensibility stunts the soul at around the age of 13. If Rap music becomes one's main cultural mode, forget about emotional development or mental curiosity. Punk had a similar impact on British youths in the 1970s. Arrogance of ignorance.

Also, PC isn't really about self-esteem. It doesn't try to boost self-esteem but makes people feel angry and blame others for their lack of self-esteem. After all, if a black guy says he appreciates the US, doesn't feel oppressed, and is happy with his life, he is attacked of being an 'uncle tom' or some such. PC is a contest of how "My people have less self-esteem because of 'racist' or 'homophobic' or 'sexist' oppression." PC may claim to boost self-esteem, but Progs are hostile to those who say they do have self-esteem and don't need 'social justice' to lead meaningful lives. Thus, PC is like a trick where it promises you more self-esteem but condemns you when you say you got self-esteem and don't need PC to feel good about yourself. PC is like some Christian sects that claim to save your soul but dislike you if you say you can find God on your own and don't need their help. It has to be their way. Your salvation must be through them, but of course, their treatment never ends... just like psychiatry never ends. Just ask Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys who was kept sick in the name of curing him of his sickness.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits.

Asian self-criticism may be sincere in part. Asians may have more 'panda' genes of anxiety, doubt, and subservience. As they evolved as a race of rice farming serfs, their genes were selected for servility. It might be somewhat different among Mongols who evolved as bride-stealing yogurt-gulpers. Also, Confucian values stressed modesty. Furthermore, in a status-crazed society, one's worth is always measured in relation to others, and there are always others who are better than you.

But in another way, Asian humility may be a kind of showing off. If in Asian culture, self-effacement is seen as a virtue, then one's self-esteem rises in inverse proportion to one's denial of such. It's like those Hollywood movies about Chinese where some guy says, "Welcome to my worthless house. This is my worthless son. Please have our worthless food." On the surface, it appears as humility, but it's really humility-as-pride, or false humility. After all, a display of humility is seen as a sign of superior breeding and manners.

Also, if you expect the worst, it's not so bad if things don't go your way. So, in a sense, it's good emotional strategy to expect less than more. If you win, you are happy. If you don't win, you don't feel so bad since you told yourself not to expect to win.

This is why blacks get so miffed when they don't win. They be telling themselves they's done deserved it and shi*. It's like that black winter Olympian who didn't get to carry the flag and got all sourpuss. It be my bling. But then, blacks are this way due to genetics than PC. They evolved to compete with one another to kill the most number of baboons and show them off as their bling.

Are whites into self-esteem? It seems PC says there is nothing more evil than White Pride. PC is about invalidating the right of White Identity. This may explain why anti-white vitriol is often most extreme among whites themselves. The ONLY way whites can feel esteem is by being goody-good whites, and that means they must hate, hate, and hate white 'racists' and 'supremacists'. So, that's how self-esteem works among whites. They want it too, but because whites can't have it collectively, whites are eager to earn it by screaming about baddy-bad whites.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits... This resilience against negative environmental influences also probably explains why by and large the parasitic memes of left-wing post-modernist insanity which have seemingly hijacked the minds of numerous black, white, and Hispanic Americans alike are absent amongst people of East Asian descent.

It's servility, and it's a trait that can be found in native Mexicans as well. Many native Mexicans are like brown Asians with lower IQ. But emotionally, they are similar. With Asians, it may have developed into a certain neurosis because of the culture's stress on both humility-servility and elitist-meritocracy. On the one hand, East Asian societies were very repressive and people were expected to keep their heads low. If you didn't bow properly in Japan, a samurai could cut your head off. Chinese weren't as ruthless but also had rough justice for those who didn't bow their heads low. So, this aspect of East Asian evolution favored servility and humility.
But because China developed a meritocratic society based on exams, it spread the idea to folks that nothing is as glorious as having a son who passes imperial exams and works for the emperor. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to be humble slavish folks. But another side of Chineseness said every father should try to make his son study and pass exams and bring honor to the family by becoming an adviser to the Emperor himself. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to bow your head low as possible, while another side of Chineseness told the people that, through exams, they could rise very high. So, Asians developed a cultural trait of rising higher with heads bowed low.

In contrast, Mexican natives never developed a universal meritocratic system like the Chinese did. It's interesting that the Chinese exam system was both elevating and repressive. While all forms of education demands form and manners, Professor Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE pushes his students to rise higher in intellect and think on their own. Kingsfield is a son-of-a-bitch in pushing his students to think independently. He wants to raise their intellectual independence as high as possible. In contrast, Confucian education meant one's elevation depended on total conformity to established truths and forms. There was no leeway for individual thought. The range of subject was narrow, the style of the essay was set in stone, and the answers were preordained. In this way, Chinese developed their way of PC of Philosophical Correctness that rigidly froze Chinese culture and knowledge, preventing it from thinking outside the box. In a way, Current Chinese education is still a form of PC. After all, what would happen if a Chinese student wanted to freely express his views about Mao, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and etc? What if he were to write an essay denouncing the decision of Xi Xinping to prolong his rule?

Indeed, the fact that so many Chinese could be mobilized to carry out something like the Great Leap Forward and later the madness of the Cultural Revolution goes to show that the Asian mindset isn't immune from total lunacy. Asians took rather earnestly to communism-Stalinism and carried out crazy horrors in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia(though Cams are not East Asians to be sure).

I'm not sure blacks and browns are motivated by 'leftism'. After all, blacks love to see rich and powerful blacks with lots of bling. Same with browns. They are not opposed to inequality or riches per se. Blacks love millionaire black singers, athletes, TV personalities, and etc. If blacks are for black power, they are really black rightists. They just happen to be allied with white leftists. It's like Muslims in Europe ally with homos and liberals but they are NOT pro-homo or liberal. They are Muslim rightists who want to expand Muslim power. The only real leftists in the US are white progressives(who will work against white interest for 'higher good'), self-critical Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, and some East Asians as teacher's pets of PC. All three groups are willing to sacrifice tribal interest for a 'universal' or abstract principle. So, white progressives will support Affirmative Action. So, self-critical Jews will condemn right-wing Israel. So, East Asian PC commissars will expend most of their energies in serving a non-tribal cause or interest.

When white progressives and blacks holler 'black lives matter' together, the former are being 'liberal' in opposing 'racist' white police whereas the latter are being 'rightist' in that they are blacks who care, first and foremost, about black lives. Notice blacks don't care about all the black violence against other races. So, to bunch all these peoples under one label misses the point.

Speaking of 'post-modern insanity', it may be missing in China that is ruled by nationalist regime, but it's spread like a cancer in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They have massive homo parades, their pop culture is peter-pan-ish and Michael-Jacksonize the young, and they imitate whatever trends that emerge from the Jewish-homo-controlled West. I read in some blog that Taiwan is on the verge of passing 'gay marriage'. It might be law there already. Now, as long as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan don't have lots of diversity, they will be more stable than rapidly diversifying West. But with rapidly falling populations, corporate demand for cheap labor, desire to emigrate overseas and abandon their own nations, and PC promoting 'multi-culturalism', it's very possible that East Asian nations except China will turn into Sweden and UK of the East. If we go by most Chinese journalists in Canada and US, it's amazing how fast and total their conversion to PC has been.

Yan Shen: In part because of their own cultural resilience, East Asians are often marginalized in American society and rendered invisible.

That isn't the main reason. Suppose East Asians lacked such 'resilience' and 'stoic' diligence. Would they be the favored center of attention? How many Americans pay much attention to Puerto Ricans? Or to Guatemalans? Do Muslims get much respect? Who speaks up for the Palestinians? There is the budding BDS movement, but most Americans care little about Palestinians. It's not that East Asians are 'marginalized'. It's that they fail to come into cultural focus. One reason is they complain less. After all, people pay attention to complainers, not to those who remain silent. Even among whites, the conservative boomers were more silent while liberal boomers made more noise. Guess who got more attention and power? So, would Asians have gained more attention if they'd complained more? Not likely. For one thing, Asians look geeky and have weaker voices. So, when an Asian complains, it's like the scene with Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. When a Negro bellows to the whitey, white folks get scared like hearing god's thug angel telling them stuff. They pee their pants. But when someone like Mickey Rooney as Japanese shouts 'I protest', it doesn't inspire much emotions, good or bad, among whites. It's just amusing.


Also, Americans are very idolic and pay most attention to exciting stuff. Take Jackie Robinson. Why did he become such a legend? It was a combination of victim theme and victor theme so central to Christianity. As a black man, he stood for symbol of victim of 'white racism'. But as a man who succeeded in baseball, he came to be admired as a superior athlete who overcame imposed inferiority.
Now, East Asians may have achieved something similar. After all, there was the sad history of Chinese rail road workers. And we know about the Japanese in camps during WWII. But despite those odds and bad times, many Asians succeeded in professions and contributed to US society. Okay, but most professions are boring. They may be far more essential to society than hitting a ball, but Americans love exciting stuff. So, a Negro who hits home runs is more idol-worthy than an Asian who becomes a doctor or accountant or nerdy engineer. But then, it's the same in Asia. Bruce Lee didn't do anything but pretend to kick butts of all color on the movie screen. But he's better-known and more revered in Asia than real Asian folks who cure people, cook food, crunch numbers, build bridges, fix roads, and etc. The human mind is essentially idolic and iconologic. People seek heroes who offer thrills and chills.

Suppose East Asians dominated sports and pop music. They would not be 'marginalized'. After all, this 'marginalization' happens among Asians themselves. Take immigration. Why do Asians choose to leave their own ancestral nations forever and choose to settle in the West where they will be minorities of whites, blacks, & browns and live under the power of Jews and Homos? Why do Asian immigrants 'marginalize' their own nations into a distant memory and take on new identities in the West, often changing their name to something like 'Frank' or 'Francis'? Why do Asians reject their own nations, peoples, cultures, and lands to come to ANOTHER nation where their children are very likely to assimilate into non-Asian-ness? Also, judging by the number of Asian women who choose to have kids with non-Asian men, don't Asian women 'marginalize' Asian men? And why? Because Asian men have zero idolic value in America. Things might be different if Asians were good in sports or dominant in pop music, but not so. One may criticize American culture of being shallow and stupid for favoring trivial things over serious things, but isn't NBA huge in China? All those Asian boys worship black athletes. And according to an American Renaissance article, Chinese women throw themselves as white men in China.

So, if Asians reject Asian-ness as inferior, why should non-Asians give a crap about Asians? It seems the best plan for Asian survival is to end emigration and ban non-Asian immigration and deal with the world only in terms of sharing ideas and trading goods. But so many Asians have chosen to abandon their own people, lands, and cultures to come to the West. Once they've come to another nation, they must expect to be treated by the Norms of the New Nation. And in the US, the Norms are 'winner-takes-all' for the most idolic or iconic groups. And this is why only four groups matter: the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos... and whites. Whites don't have 'victim' thing and are targeted by PC 24/7, but everyone still likes whiteness deep down inside. Look at all those Brazilians who want to have white babies. Look at Asian women who get plastic surgery and blonde hair to look white or marry white men to have white-looking babies. Look at black women who just gotta have their weaves. And look at Tiger Woods and black men who go for white women. And look at Jewish Portnoy Complex. So, everyone wants to feed off whites economically, politically, sexually, and etc. (Indeed, precisely because non-whites want to feed on the white whale, they paralyze it with 'white guilt' so that there won't be white resistance to this parasitism.) Whites are very iconic in this sense, but because they lack the 'victim' theme, they are not holy. To be holy, you need both victim theme and victor theme. Jews are the biggest winners in this because they got the victim theme of Shoah and victor theme of having succeeded so much in business, science, arts, and entertainment. Blacks got it because they got slavery-victim theme and victor theme as athletes and singers. With homos, it's largely manufactured, but still, homos claim victimhood because they were in the closet and claim victor-hood because so many homos saturate elite fields.

Now, East Asians may point to the opium trade, imperialism, building railroads, Philippines war, internment camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korean War, Vietnam War, Great Leap, and Cultural Revolution, etc. as examples of Asian victimhood. But opium war was with the Brits, not with Americans. And building railroads was tough, but it was not like the Chinese were brought by force like blacks. The internment camps were bad but not that bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad, but Japan attacked first and Japanese were doing worse in China. Korean War was bad, but Koreans act like grateful dogs of US, so not much happening there. Filipinos are likewise a silly people without historical gravitas. Vietnam War was bad too, but Vietnamese now LOVE Americans and want more business. Just when we thought Americans are amnesiac, I guess silly Viets are even more so. And Great Leap and Cultural Revolution, horrible as they were, were self-inflicted, so you can't blame white folks for that horror. So, even though there was lots of Asian suffering, the events don't really touch American nerves in a particularly tragic way.

Also, unless a people have idolic or iconic power, their past suffering just becomes the stuff of past history than living history. Because blacks are always visible as athletes, singers, and celebrities, white people are always prone to think, "Oh my god, blacks are so special, talented, and awesome, but we white folks whipped them and said, 'Hey ni**er, pick me some cotton'." Same with Jews. Because there has been so much Jewish talent in letters, arts, movies, music, comedy, and etc., people are always reminded of the specialness of Jews. Also, Jewish scientists changed the world. Asian ones are pretty good at grind-work, but Einstein was the prophet who figured out laws of the universe. And Oppenheimer built the mother of all bombs. That's some iconic shi*. Jewish genius got the spark whereas Chinese smarts only got the heat. So, the visibility of Jewish talent and genius makes people feel about Shoah especially. If Jews had exhibited no talent since the Shoah, I don't think people would much care about the tragedy. It is the the continuance of Jewish talent that reminds people of the evil of Shoah. It makes them feel, "The World committed a great wrong to a special people." But the supposed 500,000 Iraqi kids who died of sanctions? Who cares about low IQ cousin-humping Arabs? All those 'white trash' dying of opioids? Who cares about such low-IQ morons? Even Kevin Williamson who came from a 'white trash' community doesn't care. America's view of 'white trash' is they are only useful as consumers of opioids, cannon fodder for Wars for Israel, more meat for the porn industry, and the poster-child of 'racist white populism' that represents the mother of all evil.
Granted, Jews may lose out in the iconic game in the future. PC has undermined comedy, a field Jews have excelled in. In a PC world, guys like Mel Brooks, Rodney Dangerfield, Albert Brooks, and Don Rickles wouldn't have had a chance. Also, with pop music now being so totally rappy and hippy-hoppy and dumbed down, it's difficult for someone like Bob Dylan to emerge and make a difference. Also, if many talented Jews in the 60s were fueled by hunger and ambition, too many Jews born to privilege lack the fire and drive. And too many of them have mixed with bimbos who bring down Jewish IQ or with Asian women who bring down chutzpah quotient as Asians are servile than chutzpahistic.

Anyway, Chinese-Americans are no good in sports(relative to other races) and don't have the vocal power or movements to be rappers and such. So, whites are not reminded of Chinese tragedies because they don't notice Chinese talent in the 'cool' areas. But this is true of Mexicans and browns too. Sure, the progs pretend to care about the 'dreamers', but it's purely about political expediency. There is no interest in most Mexicans who are seen as Brown Asiatics with lower IQ.
Now, suppose Chinese were dominant in sports and entertainment in the US. Then, so much attention would be showered on Chinese winners, and there would be news stories about how such-and-such's grandfather was killed by evil Japanese or was discriminated by 'racist' America, or was once called a 'chink'. It's just how things work. Why do we know(and care) so much more about nations with famous national cinemas than ones without? Take France vs UK. Among cinephiles, France is a special place. UK is much less so. Why? Because French cinema really put French-everything on the map whereas UK cinema was far less renowned, usually seen as the lesser English-language cinema, a kind of poodle to Hollywood.

Yan Shen: For instance, it’s long been known that Asian Americans are discriminated against in the context of elite college admissions, bearing the brunt of the sacrifice required to create affirmative action spots for blacks and Hispanics in this country.

True, but even with such discriminatory policies, Asians are vastly OVER-represented in elite academia. But from a practical POV, wouldn't it be better for Asians if ALL were banned from elite colleges? After all, what happens when people, Asian or white or Muslim or Hindu, are admitted to elite colleges? Do they serve their own people? Well, Jews do. But who else? Whites who enter elite institutions become enemies of whites. Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and etc. never gave a shi* about white folks. They just joined the globalist club and raked it all in for themselves. Asians are no different. If you think Asians entering elite institutions means MORE Asian power, you're gravely mistaken. Paradoxically, it will mean less power for Asians. Why? Because Asians are status-obsessed rodentoids. Once they get in to an elite institution, the ONLY thing they care about is My Status, My Privilege, My Position. So, to secure their statuses, they will do ANYTHING to be be approved and accepted. Instead of gaining power to serve the Asian community or their ancestral nations --- like Jews serve Israel and fellow Jews around the world --- , Asian elites in the US will just be running dogs of the Empire. Unlike Jews who have the Covenant, Asians just have the Covetousness. So, if more Asians enter elite institutions, they will use their position to spread the agenda of the Empire to weaken Asia. I guarantee that all those Chinese who graduated from elite Canadian and American colleges are committed to spreading homomania, negromania, and diversity to Asia. And because Asians are such suckers for those with elite scholarly credentials, they will listen to the words of Asian Harvard and Yale graduates as if they're the words of gods. Asian elites will be just like white elites. When has Hillary Clinton the Yaley ever done anything for the white race or her own kind? Ted Cruz is supposed to be a conservative, but his main passion is Israel, Israel, Israel. Even half-white Obama turned traitor to blacks. He didn't do crap for the black folks. He mainly served Jews and homos, and now, he has a $60 million book deal. Look at all the white gentiles who write for NYT or WAPO. Do they ever care about white folks? No.

There was a time when white folks did enter Harvard and Yale and then did something for their own race. But Jews took over the elite institutions and rigged the curriculum to turn everyone into a shill for Zion, Afromania, and Homomania. If one serves Homomania, one is indirectly serving Jews because it's Jewish replacement for Christianity. If one serves Afromania, one is also indirectly serving Jewish power because Jews control the industries in which blacks are featured as athletes and singers. Jews have such power over blacks that they even grab black puds and asses with impunity, and the Negroes just have to take it.


Anyway, think of Harvard and etc as Janissary Schools for all groups except for Jews. Jews enter elite institutions to serve and push Jewish interests. Everyone else is turned into a Janissary of the GLOB. Whether it's a white gentile, Asian, mulatto, or Hindu, they turn into the kind of running dogs who bark for the bombing of Syria. If Asians want to make a difference, they should stay on the outside of elite institutions and form organizations to criticize The Power. Entering elite colleges is like entering the Roach Motel. Your soul checks in but it doesn't check out.

Yan Shen: Even when the correct reporting of the facts began to surface later on, we were still subjected to the typical blathering accusing the Trump administration of being disingenuous by feigning interest in the well-being of Asian Americans and proclaiming that Asians shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as tools by white conservatives in advancing their right-wing agenda. The fact that 64 different Asian American groups had filed a complaint against Harvard seemingly eluded everyone. One generally got the impression that Asian Americans were a group deprived of any real agency, instead being merely hapless pawns in the Game of Thrones pitting whites on the one hand against blacks and Hispanics on the other.

I don't think Trump should give a crap about Asians. 80% of them voted for Hillary, and that means most Asians are for the displacement and replacement of White Americans in the nation that they founded and built. With Asians supporting such a vile agenda, why should Trump or whites care about Asians?
Also, if Asians really have agency, why it did take Ron Unz's article to deal the first real blow to the 'myth of meritocracy'? As Unz pointed out, Asians in California have been ignoring black-on-Asian crime and problems associated with illegals and just dishing out the same old anti-white rhetoric that they absorbed from PC. So, the Asian-American narrative barks on command for its PC master. There is no agency there. Furthermore, Asian-American groups who complain about discrimination have said they support affirmative action for blacks and browns. Their plan is to sacrifice EVEN MORE WHITES to make room for more Asians. It's a dirty move.
Granted, NYT and progs are full of shi* as well. If they really care about proportional justice, why don't they point to Jewish over-representation in all elite fields? Hardly 'fair'.

Yan Shen: Another insidious example of the tendency to marginalize Asian Americans has been the rather curious phenomenon as of late of simply pretending that they aren’t even Asian at all. For instance, we constantly hear the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that Silicon Valley lacks diversity and is too white and male. Yet this conveniently ignores the fact that whites are actually underrepresented overall at many of the Bay Area’s most elite firms relative to their percentage amongst the general population.

LOL. It's also amusing because many of those 'whites' are also Jews, which means white gentile under-representation is the real problem. Anyway, since whites are the Villains according to PC, it won't do to say there are Too Many Asians. They have to be made 'white'. It's like the complaints about Stuyvesant school having 'too many whites' when it's majority Asian. 'Whites' is sometimes used as cover for Asian, just like 'teens' is often a cover for black thugs.

But two things. Aren't East Asians a bunch of white-wanna-be's? After all, why did they leave their own peoples and cultures to be with whites and to attend white-made institutions? Also, with all the race-mixing with whites, it seems East Asians want to have white-looking kids. And even a Chinese American woman, Andrea Cheng, is wondering about Asian women dyeing their hair blonde. Isn't it better for Asians to stay in Asia and defend and tend what they got instead of coming to the West and bitching about unfairness? I think if a people move to another land, they don't have the right to complain much. If whites moved to China, they better accept Chinese norms. Otherwise, they should leave. Same with Asians in the West. If they don't like it, they can just go back.

Yan Shen: The obsession with self-esteem and the fundamental lack of what might be described as a self-critical orientation is hardly the sole province of those on the left...
One of the more disappointing revelations in my opinion has been the extraordinary ambivalence of many right-wing whites towards clear anti-Asian discrimination in this country. On various alt-right blogs where themes such as race realism and affirmative action are often discussed, when it comes to the issue of Asian Americans and meritocracy, many right-wing whites seemingly abandon their principles whole. Thus, while these individuals formerly denounced discrimination against whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics, we all of a sudden hear that Asian American academic success is merely the result of cheating and gaming the system.

Again, much of what is called the 'left' is really the non-white right. Rightism puts one's own people and culture at the center. So, blacks and browns who want affirmative action are really black or brown rightists or 'nationalists' who are for "Is it good for my people?"

As for the Alt Right, of course it is opposed to 'principled meritocracy'. Alt Right is about blood and soil. It values Power over Principles. Now, if supposedly principled libertarians approved of AA against Asians, that would pose a problem of logic and consistency. But Alt Right isn't libertarian. It is first and foremost about racial solidarity, ethnic identity, and cultural heritage. Alt Right is for exclusive meritocracy or meritocracy within the white order for the good of whites. So, in an all-white society, Alt Right would be 100% for meritocracy. But in a diverse order where it's a case of competition among various groups, Alt Right has to be for white power first. It must be race-ist. Now, Alt Right might be for meritocracy for Asians IF Asians weren't anti-white. But Asians in the US are mostly running dogs of PC, and once they get their fancy degrees, work against the white race. The vast majority of Asians voted for Obama the homomaniacal monster and Hillary the race-traitor witch-monster-whore. Amy Chua, the Harvard grad and Yale professor, wrote a new book blasting Alt Right and Richard Spencer. This is the reality. So, hell with 'principles'. The fact is most Asians are status-obsessed running dogs. Since PC is the official religion of the US, most Asians who attend elite colleges will become agents of PC and will do everything to hurt 'whitey'. Now, if Vietnamese patriots wanted to kill US neo-imperialist soldiers, OK. That was their turf, and Americans were the occupiers. But since when do Asians get to come to the US and work against the very people whose ancestors built this country? That's a lowlife shi* move.

Also, the highest principle is not meritocracy but truth, honesty, and courage. After all, Billy Boy Clinton is a very bright guy who made it to Yale with real smarts. But his meritocracy with grades didn't translate into meritocracy of virtue or integrity. He's a slimeball through and through. Indeed, so many of these graduates of elite colleges are just the most craven, repellent, lowlife, scummy, and turdy critters I've ever seen. Just look at Obama, Ted Cruz, Hillary, Biden, Gore, Emanuel, Yoo, Comey, and the list goes on. I mean where did they find these people? What a waste of intelligence.

Being Asian, Yan Shen is fixated on degrees(like Negroes are fixated on blings and Mexicans on pinatas), but he should care less about meritocracy and more about truthocracy, honestocracy, and couragocracy, all of which are missing in the parenting culture that is obsessed mainly with gaining status and privilege for one's kibblers.

Alt Right position makes perfect sense. In white nations, whites should do everything to secure their own pride, power, prestige, and well-being. The fact is races are different, and if one takes a principled approach on universal standards, one's own people will lose out IF the other race is superior. This is why whites need a sports culture of their own. A white league. As whites cannot compete with stronger and faster blacks, meritocracy in sports has led to cucky loss of manhood and jungle fever among white womenfolk. And Yan Shen should know that his Chinese folks are losing out meritocratically in the US for the most part. Even if the US were to get rid of all Affirmative Action and even if more Asians were to attend elite colleges, the fact remains that Asian men lose out sexual-meritocratically to men of other races. Raw manhood is judged by height, muscularity, personality, and dong-size, and it seems Asian men can't keep a lot of their own womenfolks. So, what does it matter if some Asian male geeks attend Harvard? The Chinese girlies are still gonna go with other men anyway. Yan, being Asian, is so fixated on exams and colleges, but meritocracy operates in every field. Why do so many white boys get beat up by black boys? I've seen a lot of it when I grew up. Because blacks win meritocratically in muscle power and aggression. If whites, who are still huge in number, keep losing out in the nation that they made, do Asians want to stake their future in the West? What for? Just to turn into running dogs of PC? Just to have lots of race-mixing whereby Asians become half-whites or mulat-tofus?
The best advice is in Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA. "Mountain doesn't move." Asians have China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. They should do everything to keep it. That's a lot of good stuff. Trying to gain in the West will only turn them into cuck-roaches of globalism. It's like the Mongols failed in the end. They were outnumbered by the Chinese and got absorbed into China. Likewise, all the Asians in the West will be sexually, culturally, and politically absorbed into the West and become cuck-roaches of Jewish and Homo power. The ONLY reason Asians should study in the West is to take back the skills to their home nations.

The real war for the West must come from white nationalists. They are the only hope. Alt Right understands one thing. While individuality and meritocracy are important, the identity and power come first and foremost. All ethno-cultural orders function this way. Israel maintains itself because it favors even mediocre Jews over smart gentiles. Perhaps, Israeli GDP will go up if it welcomes high IQ gentiles from all over and let them take over much of the economy. But what will this mean to Jews in a Jewish nation?
Or look what meritocracy has done to Southeast Asia. Chinese minorities have taken over entire industries. Is that worth it? Even if native majority aren't as smart as the Chinese, isn't it more sensible for them to develop their own means to build and establish majority domination of national industries?

The dark lesson of meritocracy can be learned from rise of Jewish Power. Whites took a chance on Jews as fellow whites who happened to be Jewish. As a child, I felt this way and thought most Jews in my school were basically whites with a different religion who just wanted to do well in society. But since the 80s, Jews use meritocracy to gain elite power and do terrible things to undermine White America. It's appalling. And they are doing it even to Europe with ancient roots of blood and soil. And they are exporting homomania all over the world, even to Asia and even to Muslim Turkey(!) until Erdogan(in one of the few sane things he did) said NO MORE. Because Jews are white, they could have made common cause with white gentiles. But they chose not to. And they are now using their immense power to finish off the white race. Will Jews come to their senses and rejoin the white race? The best bet for Jews and whites is to see the main global divide as being between whites(with Jews as fellow whites) and non-whites. But because Jews see the main divide as between Jews and Gentiles, they seek to maximize diversity among gentiles to break up their power via divide-and-rule so as to serve Jewish hegemony. If things continue as they are, the white enforcement of meritocracy for all groups would have been the biggest mistake ever. It's like the Greek Olympics. It was meritocratic but open ONLY to Greeks. Greeks didn't import big-ass Negroes to outrun and out-whomp the Greeks.
Meritocracy must be a tool to serve the race.

There are two kinds of people. Those who use ideology to serve an identity and those who use identity to serve an ideology. The former will always win. Jews win because they use ideas of both left and right to serve Jewish power. Whites lose because they offer their identity to the service of either a fixed ideology or another identity not their own.

Because the races are different, the results of meritocracy becomes race-ist. Take sports. There is no racial discrimination in sports that says NO MEXICANS, ASIANS, HINDUS, ETC ALLOWED. But there is still biological discrimination that favors blacks and effectively excludes many non-black groups. It's even more pronounced between men and women. Women must have their own space in sports because meritocratic competition with men will lead to total loss for women. (Just see what happens as more trannies enter women's sports.) In the end, even individualism fails because of racial differences. Suppose every black basketball player is a libertarian individualist who doesn't see himself as black but as just a free agent. But when he joins a team that is all black, how can he not notice and feel a sense of black power? Likewise, Yuri Slezkine in THE JEWISH CENTURY remarked that even anti-religious communist Jews couldn't help feeling a certain tribal solidarity when so many Jews ended up in elite institutions by meritocracy.
So, even meritocracy leads to racial consciousness. Some groups are more likely to win collectively and others are more likely to lose collectively in certain fields.

Now, imagine a society of people A, B, C, D, and E. Suppose A constitute 5% of the nation while E constitute 50% of the nation. Suppose A has many more bright people, and suppose they gain 50% of the top spots. And suppose peoples B, C, and D take 45% of the spots. Suppose People E take 5% of the spots. That would be meritocratic indeed, but won't people A feel a great sense of racial pride and power? After all, they are the 5% who got 50% of the power. And won't people E feel lots of resentment as the 50% of the population with only 5% of the power? Even if everyone tried to pretend that it's all about individual merit, they would start noticing factors of race and identity. People A will feel tempted to use their vast power to favor A-interests that may actually harm People E. After all, meritocrats can be real sons of bitches. Consider how the rich and powerful elites lobby the US government to push policies that take EVERYTHING away from white folks. It's one thing for smart people to make lots of money and live well. Even poor white folks didn't have much grudge against fabulously rich folks. But that's not enough for the Koch brothers of the world. They must push for 'free trade' that turns entire communities into rust belts. Even so, one might say white folks still have their nation as common historical property. But nope, even that is to be taken from them by demographic replacism resulting from non-stop mass invasion. So, white folks not only had to accept other people making a lot more money and shipping factories overseas. They were also supposed to swallow the eventuality of losing ownership of their nation that had been founded and built by Europeans. Worse, they are supposed to resign themselves to even ancient Europe being swallowed up by Africans and Muslims.

What recent history teaches us is that meritocracy is no guarantee for loyalty and integrity. Many Jews and globalist elites who amassed tremendous wealth and power through meritocracy felt no loyalty to the historical nation. And they were committed to pushing any number of lies to realize the globalist vision to destroy universal nationalism that had been the basis of so much good and stability in the post WWII order.

Meritocracy turned into Imperitocracy.

Henceforth, history must be seen as a war among races. In a war, there is no 'fair play' or 'principles'. In war, you do ANYTHING to win. It is a primal clash of powers. In order for white folks to have a world of principled meritocracy once again, they must first secure an Order of Power for themselves, one that cannot be invaded by non-whites or usurped by hostile elites. Meritocracy and principles are good in the abstract, but a people and culture are not an abstraction. They are real. And they must first secure reality before they create an order of principles and rules.

If meritocracy leads to another people gaining power over your people and then using that power to destroy your people, the hell with meritocracy... at least for the time being until you can build a new order in which your people are safe and secure.

How the World went from Universal Nationalism to Universal Imperialism - The Hidden Empire of Judea - The Lost Chance after the End of the Cold War - Donald Trump’s Betrayal

Nationalism is the best defense against imperialism.

Nationalism means minding one's own business. It means having national sovereignty and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

Imperialism, in contrast, means trampling on the rights and independence of other nations.

If Nazism or National Socialism had remained in nationalist mode, it couldn’t have done much harm. But it went into imperialist mode and violated & trampled on the rights of self-determination and self-rule among other nations.

Initially, Japan modernized for nationalist reasons. Threatened by British and American imperialism, it emulated Western science & technology to defend the homeland.
But it went from nationalism to imperialism upon the realization that the great powers were conquering and dividing the world among themselves. In order for Japan to be compete and command the respect of other great powers, it felt a need for an empire of its own.
Furthermore, UK and US, two imperialist powers, welcomed Japan into the imperialist club as counterbalance to expanding Russia and uncertain China.

Prior to the emergence of modern nationalism, the world had been divided among empires with little regard for established borders. Indeed, it had been so since time immemorial. Power and might decided the boundaries and limits of power. So, Persians conquered and laid claim to huge swaths of territory, even areas inhabited mostly by non-Persians. Same with the Romans, the Mongols, the Russians, the Ottomans, and Western European empires. There was no Rule or Ideal in the world that insisted on a Basic Right of security, ownership, independence, and self-rule. Jews did have the concept of the Covenant and Holy Land(promised to them by God), but this 'right' meant nothing to the greater empires that dwarfed the Jews.

Security could only be assured by might. There was no universal ideal or international law agreed upon by all the peoples of the world. And no global institution existed to enforce higher principles. For most of history, peoples were too busy conquering, defending, adventuring, or discovering to think in terms of universal political morality for the whole world. If a kingdom or state was sufficiently powerful and ambitious, it could very well embark on invasions and control of more territory. It was about grabbing more and more..

But then, there was the rise of modern nationalism in Britain, France, US, then followed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Modern nationalism was a noble development insofar as it obligated the national elites to represent, serve, and defend the national people AND ignited the nascent idea that a nation had a RIGHT to land, security, and independence. Nationalism made national autonomy a right in terms of ideals and principles. Indeed, the main theme of the American Revolution was the idea of the colonists right to break away from the British Empire and establish a free and independent nation-as-republic.

However, due to the long legacy of imperialism(stretching back to beginning of history itself) and backwardness around the world, modern nationalism inherited the ambition for empire-building. This led to a contradiction. Even as nationalism defended the homeland from other nations and empires, it sought to expand its own imperial base. So, Japanese nationalism went from defending Core Japan to conquering and claiming other lands that were non-Japanese. Earlier, the British had gone from forming a secure Island Kingdom to conquering other territories that would eventually constitute a gigantic world empire. Though a nation born of independence from the British Empire, the US went from creating a new nation out of the wilderness in the New World to searching overseas for imperial domination, especially after the defeat of the Spanish Empire.

Western Imperialist expansion seemed only natural because most of the non-West was also in the imperial mode of constant invasions and counter-invasions. They lacked the nationalist ideal of (1) elites-and-peoples bound by historical and cultural covenant(which would have made foreign invasion more difficult) and (2) the political principle of the rightness of national autonomy and self-determination. Their political philosophy was essentially might-is-right. When the Brits invaded the territories of what came to be known as ‘India’, they merely usurped dominance from the Muslim Mughals.

But WWI and especially WWII dealt a serious blow to the imperialist model. Nazi imperialism and Japanese imperialism were not only defeated at huge cost but denounced as the epitome of evil. Also, it wasn’t long before almost all Third World folks demanded their own national independence, waged wars of liberation, and eventually expelled the European imperialists(sometimes with moral support from the US or the material support of the Soviets). And the Vietnamese fought a long hard battle to drive the US from what had once been ‘Indochina’.

So, with the end of WWII, there was the gold standard of Universal Nationalism. The new consensus was that EVERY people deserve to have a safe and secure homeland. Such ideal had been expounded by Woodrow Wilson after WWI, but it didn’t go far because the Great European powers weren’t about to abandon their empires, without which they couldn’t be great powers because their homelands were limited in territory, resources, and population.
And as the West set the template, Japan was determined to have an empire too. This all came crashing down after the horrors of WWII in which Europeans themselves suffered the ignominy of imperialist domination and rule under Nazi Germany.

Due to the Imperialist Legacy, the modern nationalism developed as nationalism + imperialism for some nations. If some European nations were content to remain and defend their own territories, others had embarked on imperial ventures long before the rise of nationalism. Thus, the French nationalism inherited the French empire and valued it as a source of prestige and power. This was a system of 'Nationalism for me, but not for thee'. The modern British and French were proud nationalists at home but sought to suppress and crush nationalist consciousness in their subject peoples.

But with the eventual fall of empires following WWII, the new template was "Nationalism for me and for thee." Let each and every nation, big or small, or powerful or weak, rich or poor, be free and independent. And this was to be a moral right. In the New Order, the richest, biggest, and most powerful nation had no right to conquer and claim a small, weak and poor nation. At the very least, even the biggest nation and smallest nation were equal in the area of the universal right of national self-determination. After all, there was a reason why the world body of international law came to be known as United Nations than United Empires.

In the post-WWII era, many progressives and liberals were supportive of the national liberation struggles of Vietnam, Algeria, and Cuba for independence and autonomy. And when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, even leftists denounced it as a communist form of imperialism.

Still, US and USSR remained as the two great empires. Of course, neither admitted that its version of world order was imperialistic. Soviets insisted their world order was about the brotherhood of man under communist ideology. And the US claimed to serve as the defender of the Free World.
And if their apologists did detect elements of imperialism in the US or Soviet world order, they argued it was different from Bad Old Imperialism. It was imperialism-as-necessary-evil against either Communist Tyranny or Capitalist Exploitation. So, even if Pax Americana was an empire, it was a noble containment strategy against the insatiable fanaticism of communism. Or, the Soviet empire was necessary to lend support to peoples around the world seeking independence from the exploitative greed of Western capitalism. At any rate, the assumption was the imperialism-as-necessary-evil would no longer be necessary IF the Evil Empire(communist or capitalist) finally vanished from the world.

Eventually, the Cold War did end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of nations no longer under the Soviet-Russian yoke: Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and etc. It appeared that universal nationalism came to prevail over Soviet Imperialism. Russians now ruled over Russia, not over other peoples who had their national autonomy.

With the end of the Cold War, many hoped that the US empire would wind down too. After all, US-as-empire had been justified on grounds of containing and, if possible, rolling back the Soviet empire. With no more Soviet Empire, what need would there be for the US empire?

Maybe just maybe, the US empire could have come to an end, and America would have returned to nationalist mode: US minds its own business, and other nations mind their own business, and, as good neighbors, all nations trade with one another, share ideas, and communicate. Fences make good neighbors. Also, bridges among nations are supposed to transport ideas and goods, not allow one people to mass-invade and colonize other nations.

But three things happened that kept the US in the imperial game.


1. The US got filled with hubris of End of History. Having won the Cold War, the American elites thought the American Way was the only way. In terms of political philosophy, mass culture, economic theory, and military prowess, the idea was that America, as an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, has the right to ‘lead’ and ‘defend’ the world. "If you're not with us, you're against us." My way or the highway.

2. The West’s cult of mass immigration as not only an economic good but a moral imperative resulted in an all-out mass invasion of white nations by the Third World. This had a profound impact on world consciousness as non-whites, who’d previously demanded and fought for nationalism and independence, came to devalue nationalism in favor of a new kind of imperialism. As non-whites figured it is so much easier to have a good life by moving to the West than by working as patriots to reform and develop their own nations, they effectively became champions of demographic imperialism and mass-colonization.

And if, like Fareed Zakaria or Nikki Haley, they gained elite positions in the West, they became cheerleaders for globo-imperialist warmongering against non-white peoples. After WWII, peoples in the Third World sympathized with one another in what they regarded as a common struggle against White Imperialism. But in the Age of Globalist Empire, non-whites who rose up the ranks in the West function as servitors of the Zionist-controlled Empire against non-white nations. Having been groomed & appropriated by the West(that serves the Empire of Zion) and flush with status & privilege, the likes of Haley and Zakaria are more than happy to cheer on the bombing of nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and etc.

As for the EU, by some estimates Brussels is already one-third Muslim and is expected to become majority non-white in a few decades. As non-whites settled in the West, they identified neither with their nations-or-origin or with white Westerners. Many came to exist in an ideological limbo of globalism, a kind of Universal Imperialism. Take Francis Fukuyama, the man who declared the triumph of ‘liberal democracy’ as the End of History. He's no longer Japanese in any meaningful sense, but he's not part of the White West either. He resides in the lala-land-of-the-mind called Endofhistoria. And Amy Chua feels as a member of what she calls the 'supergroup'.

**Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist Western nations became so pro-immigration was their subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, imperialism once spread diversity around the world(especially permanently in Latin America), and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity. Algerians and Vietnam eventually rejected and resisted the Diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians did everything they could to stem the flow of Invasive Diversity of Zionist colonizers. And Tibetans certainly aren’t happy about mass-migratory Diversity of Han Chinese who keep flooding into Tibet. Anyway, by welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of having imposed Diversity on subject territories that couldn’t say NO to well-armed European colonizers and their collaborators... like Hindus who followed in the heels of British Imperialists into Africa and Southeast Asia. Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.**

3. Another reason why the US empire grew only bigger was because Jews became the new ruling elites of America. Why did this matter? Because Jewish power is essentially and intrinsically imperialist. As Jews are a minority elite in the US, they don't identify with most Americans who are seen as dumb and filthy goyim, an untermensch. Jews regard themselves as superior to goyim and mainly identify with other Jews in other nations. So, from the perspective of Jewish supremacists, gentile nationalism is regarded as independence and autonomy from Jewish Hegemony, just like the British Imperialists regarded the nascent nationalism among the American colonialists as a threat to British Imperialist hegemony. Jews fear and loathe gentile nationalism as an hindrance to Jewish globalist networking for Jewish supremacist hegemony. After all, if a gentile folk put their own people and culture first and foremost, their nation would take precedence over Israel and Jewish interests.

Jews are like the British imperialists who feared the rise of nationalist consciousness in Third World nations. After all, British elites didn't feel an affinity with the native majority in any of the subject domains. Their affinity was with the Mother Country and to the network of British Imperialists and colonizers all over the world. British Imperial power could sustain itself around the world only by making the subject peoples mainly 'identify' with British Imperial prestige than with local national concerns.

Kenyan nationalism meant Kenyans asserting authority against the British rulers. It meant Kenyans should defend and serve their black identity in their own nation than the global ambitions of the British imperialists. Indian nationalism meant the brown people of the subcontinent demanding self-rule & self-determination and, furthermore, asking the Brits to leave. As Gandhi said:


If the British were about the ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’(or imperialist-nationalism), Gandhi was about universal nationalism, or ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’. British imperialists feared such an attitude because it would meant the end of the Empire of Albion. After all, if every non-white domain(or Ireland for that matter) of British Empire insisted on its own autonomy, how could British hegemony be sustained?

Today, Jews feel and act like the British imperialists. Most Jews don't feel a shared sense of identity, history, or destiny with gentile nationals in US, Canada, Poland, France, UK, and etc. To Jewish minorities(elites or otherwise) in such nations, most of the people are just seen as replaceable and interchangeable filthy goy untermensch. To sustain Jewish supremacism, Jews suppress goy nationalism. Consider how David Brooks and William Kristol are obsessed with keeping Israel as a Jewish ethno-state BUT they’d love to see whites in Europe, US, and Canada reduced to minorities in their lands of their ancestry or epic founding. And hideous Jewish supremacists like Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin think gentiles exist to fight Wars for Israel. To Jews, gentiles are little more than cattle. Jews look upon gentiles like pigs look upon other barn creatures in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM.

Jews now practice Imperialist Nationalism of ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee’. So, Jews say all Western nations must support Israel as a JEWISH STATE but also say white gentile nations must abandon nationalism(even one that says ‘for me and for thee’) because gentiles exist to serve Jewish power first and foremost. Jews don’t want gentile nationalism to come between Jewish Supremacism and White Submissivism. Also, Jews push for Mass Invasion(aka ‘immigration’) to turn the native white majority populations into minorities in their own nations. That way, Jews can control the native majority by guilt-baiting them with accusations of 'racism' for being insufficiently ‘welcoming’ of non-white mass invaders and leeches. And as the nation grows ever more diverse, Jewish Imperial elites hope to play divide-and-rule by pitting non-whites against whites, whites against non-whites, non-whites against non-whites(as they are racially diverse), and whites against whites(as they’re ideologically divided).

This is why Jews fear being ‘gandhi-ed’ out of the West. Indeed, what would happen if white folks woke up and told the Jewish supremacist-imperialists, "It’s time you left"? What if whites decided on mass civil disobedience against Jewish Power? Say NO to Wars for Zion. Goycott Jewish Hollywood, Goycott Jewish media, Goycott Jewish-run businesses that are hostile to whites, Goycott Jewish Casinos. No to Zion. That would surely make the Jews shit. As Hindus(against Brits), blacks(against Segregation), and National Socialists(against Jews) proved, boycotting businesses can be very effective. Palestinians are leading the way with BDS. of course, Jews use Economic Warfare all the time. Consider how Jews use the West to sanction Iran and Russia.

As it stands, Jewish imperialism is far more insidious and dangerous than British imperialism. At the very least, British Imperialism, like the French or Spanish kind, was OUT IN THE OPEN. It wasn’t denied. If anything, the British made a big deal of it 24/7. Brits were singing anthems about how Britain rules one third of the globe. So, there was NO DOUBT as to who was in power in the British Empire.

In contrast, Judea is an Hidden Empire. Even though the biggest power in the world is Jewish Global Network — most of US politicians, academics, media people, etc are agents or shills of Zion — , Jewish power uses gentile nations as fronts to carry out its dastardly deeds. So, even though the Power of Zion was behind the recent Syrian attacks, we've been led to believe US, UK, and France done it! Jewish supremacists are craven but cunning a**holes who use their vast capital to manipulate, bribe, and threaten OTHERS to do the fighting and killing.

It was very different in the Age of British Empire. Everyone knew the British were in command of using their proxies and subjects to further British Imperial interest. So, even when Brits recruited and ordered Indian, African, and Arab troops to fight in wars, no one would have thought India, Kenya, or Arabia were leading the charge. Everyone would have known that those non-white forces were only doing the bidding of the British.
But, because the Empire of Judea is a Hidden Empire, so many people fall for the charade that 'liberal democratic' Western nations are deciding to wage these Wars for Human Rights which are really Wars for the Hidden Empire of Zion. UK and France are essentially vassal nations of the US that is a vassal state of the Empire of Judea.

The problem with Donald Trump isn't nationalism. If the US had gone into nationalist mode after the Cold War, the world would be a safer and better place. All of a sudden, the Soviet Union was gone, and Russia was no longer a threat and wanted political and economic cooperation with the world. And if Anglo-Americans had still ruled America, maybe something could have been worked out. But Jews were rapidly gaining elite dominance in the US in the 80s and 90s. And Jewish attitude toward Russians was hardly different from their attitude toward white Americans: Both are mere cattle, replaceable and interchangeable. To Judeo-Nazis, white Russians and white Americans are filthy goyim, or untermensch. So, the hope of Russia’s transition from communism to a market economy was lost. Jewish globalists took hold of the reins of ‘reform’ in Russia and economically plundered the nation in the 1990s. Also, Billy Boy Clinton, a shill of Jewish globalists, pushed NATO right up to Russian borders.
Jews figured, "Don’t let a crisis go to waste." Jews exploited the End of the Cold War for their own nefarious agendas. Instead of having the US empire subside with the end of the Soviet empire, Jews took advantage of America-as-sole-superpower to consolidate control over EU and Russia. Thus, European nations soon became mere vassal-states in the coming decades. Also, clever Jews manipulated the vanity of warriors like John McCain and ‘thinkers’ like Samantha Powers into believing that they, as redemptive gentile leaders of the ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation, deserved the right of Enlightened Empire Building to remake the whole world in their image.

Of course, Jewish directed the power of the US mostly toward Jewish-Supremacist agendas, which is why most of US aggression has been directed at the Middle East and North Africa. Consider how Jewish power directed the US to use sanctions, invasions, and even support to Jihadi terrorists to undermine stability in the Middle East, all for the supremacist interests of Israeli hegemony.

Trump ran on nationalism that promised to end or severely limit US ventures overseas. US was the imperialist destroyer in Iraq, Libya, Syria(where CIA aided Alqaeda, the very people who did 9/11), and recruited Neo-Nazi elements to pull off a coup in Ukraine.
Trump sounded good during the campaign, but the Deep State now circles him like sharks and force his hand to do the bidding of the Empire of Judea instead of focusing on the problems of Americans. (Globalist ‘humanitarians’ say the rich and powerful US shouldn’t be so greedy & self-absorbed and instead must help other nations. But their idea of ‘humanitarian’ intervention mostly comes down to destroying nations hated by Jews. And the bulk of US foreign aid is more money for Israel to keep on crushing Palestinians and destabilizing the Middle East with threats and attacks.)

Jews hate the idea of American nationalism because it means the goy sheeple of the US will no longer go baaaaah and support Wars for Zion. Furthermore, the theme of American Nationalism would be, "American leaders must do what is good for MOST American people(most of whom are not Jewish)." Jews hate the notion because Jews feel zero affinity with gentile Americans. Jews want the bulk of American energy to be channeled toward serving globalist hegemony of Jewish Power. The mentality of Jews isn’t much different from that of a king. King expects the people to serve him, not vice versa. The Jewish 2% expects the gentile 98% to serve them, not vice versa.

The world needs universal nationalism. Nationalism for Me and for Thee.
But as long as Jewish power rules the West, it is becoming ever more difficult. Jews fear gentile nationalism because it undermines the neo-imperial globalist Jewish hegemony of the US.
To better understand the Jewish mindset as a microcosm, consider the Israel-Palestine conflict. How nice it’d be if Jews went for ‘Nationalism for Me and for Thee’ with their Palestinian neighbors. Jews would have Israel as their homeland, and Palestinians would have West Bank as their homeland. But nope, Jewish power summons the support of the West to crush Palestinian nationalism while maximizing their own nationalism with massive walls and military violence. It is a form of Imperialist Nationalism: ‘Nationalism for Me but not for Thee.’ So unjust.

‘Nationalism for Me but for Thee’ is like the logic of American Slavery, which was ‘Freedom for Me but not for Thee.’ Abolitionists began to ask, if white folks should be free, why not blacks too?
Likewise, if Israel has a right to be free and independent as a Jewish state, why doesn't Hungary have a right to be free and independent as a Hungarian nation? Jews call upon the West to praise and support Zionist nationalism but then pressure the EU to sanction and destroy Hungary for having chosen national survival and self-determination.

We know why things are so. It's because Jews seek to maximize their own tribal power, they seek to weaken the ethno-national power of all other peoples so that they will serve Jewish globalist hegemony.

Anyway, how depressing that Trump, who ran on nationalism and an end to globo-imperialism of US interference, has now been pressured by the Deep State Zionists and Military Industrial Complex to cook up BS about 'chemical attacks' to sabotage Syria's rightful nationalism.
US now illegally occupies much of Syria. US accuses Russia of meddling in elections and harboring aggressive global ambitions when, in fact, Jewish-controlled US is the #1 meddler in other national elections and the invader & destroyer of Iraq & Libya and an enabler of terrorists in Syria and Ukraine. When will this madness ever end?

Anyway, the overall arc of history.

1. Imperialism. The mighty dominate and rule over all others. Might is right.

2. National Imperialism. The right of one's own nation to be safe and secure from invasions but no such rights recognized for other peoples. Example: Japan defended itself from other empires but tried to take over China. ‘Nationalism for me but not for thee.’

3. Universal Nationalism. The right of each nation/people/culture to be free and independent. Nationalism for all peoples of the world as the core basis for international cooperation. It is the Template that emerged from the ashes of WWII and the end of empires. ‘Nationalism for me and for thee’.

4. Universal Imperialism. The right of great powers to militarily, financially, and culturally invade and transform other nations: Drop bombs, take over banks, bribe politicians, and spread Homomania as the new crusading faith. In turn, the the great powers must welcome vast demographic invasions by rest of the world. ‘Imperialism for me and for thee.’
We see this dynamics playing out between EU and Middle East. EU supports the Zionist-US invasions of the Middle East and then welcomes millions of Muslim 'refugees' displaced by those invasions. EU becomes demographically invaded in turn.