Thursday, February 8, 2018
Democrats vs Republicans? Well, How about the Imperial Party vs the National Party?
Maybe, it’d be more honest and useful if we could scrap the current two-party system of Democrats & Republicans and reorganized & restructured the American Political System with two new parties:
The Imperial Party and the National Party. Even though Democrats and Republicans are divided on a host of issues — many of them overblown trivialities or manufactured distractions — , the current political fault-line fails to address the most fundamental issue of American Power, namely the question of "Is America a republic or an empire?" and "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" Though the answers are not so cut-and-dry or black or white, the growing political gulf is about the big question of America’s role in the world. The reason why the issue is complicated is that America is a superpower and had a very important role to play vis-a-vis other nations. So, an ‘isolationist’ kind of republicanism is not possible at the present or the future. America must play a big role in the world. But where and when does importance turn into imperialism? Nationalists believe America should focus mainly on American affairs. They believe it’s good for America(especially in not getting involved in foreign wars, usually at the behest of Zionist interests) and also for the world since US intervention has led to such dire results all across the globe. America’s record in Guatemala, El Salvador, Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. have deeply traumatized those nations. Even the ‘success’ of South Korea overlooks the fact that the war killed millions of people and left the peninsula divided to this day.
Therefore, even if the US has a key role to play in the world, why must it so intrusive and destabilizing? And why have so many military bases in every corner of the world? Isn’t that imperial overreach? Would American security and well-being be threatened if all those bases were not maintained? Does anyone really believe that trade routes will be endangered if US military moves out of Europe and the Pacific? Are pirates going to take over the seas and plunder everything?
Globalists obviously want the US to be on imperial footing. They aren't content with America as a limited power even with a superpower military and giant economy. They want America to be the policeman, judge, and jury of the world. Some admit that it is a kind of empire but a beneficent one based on justice and human rights than plunder and exploitation. They point to the generosity of US aid, trade deals, and protective alliances. If only it were so. If indeed the US were ruled by wise elites with nobility of mind and soul who really care about the humanity and want to use its power to prevent horrors like the one that happened in Rwanda, maybe the US as a Tough Love Empire wouldn’t be so bad. But as things stand, the US is ruled by an ethno-oligarchy(of Zionists) that is utterly corrupt and near-psychopathic in their power-lust and contempt for dumb filthy goyim. Jewish Globalists, as the new elites, don’t care about anything but maximizing and securing their own tribal-supremacist power. So, US-as-an-empire in its current position only means a world bullied and bloodied by a superpower whose muscles are directed by the sick minds of Jewish Supremacists.
And then, there is the other question of, "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" This too cannot be answered simply. After all, America is a vast young nation, and most Americans are composed of conquerors, settlers, immigrants, and those who arrived as slaves. And even a good number of people who entered illegally were granted Amnesty, and some of them became Good Americans. So, there is no such thing as an American with ancient roots in or claim to America. Even American Indians don’t qualify because the nation-state and modern civilization of America came into being only with the vision and expansion of white Europeans, especially from Great Britain and other parts of Northern Europe.
Even so, there is a definite history of America. Even if theoretically anyone can become ‘American’, America became what it is because a certain kind of people conquered it, settled it, envisioned it, and founded it. If Chinese, Hindus, or Arabs, instead of Anglos and Germanics, had first arrived in the Northern Hemisphere of the New World and settled and expanded, the resulting civilization and its culture/laws/values would have been wholly different. If Muslims had the chance to found and develop their version of ‘America’, there would be a mosque in every town. Good or bad, it’d be a very different kind of civilization.
Also, even though different kinds of people arrived and became ‘Americans’, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was absolutely crucial. The ones who arrived first got to establish the political and economic methodology, spiritual and ethical norms, and the mores, culture, & language. If Russians had arrived, settled, and defined ‘America’ first and if Anglos had come afterward, the Anglos might have been compelled to assimilate to Russian language, culture, and political norms. After all, if an Anglo were to decide to move to Russia permanently, he will have to assimilate to Russian-ness since Russia is the land of Russian people and culture. So, the ORDER OF ARRIVAL was key to the meaning of Americanism. Indeed, if Germans than Anglos had founded and settled ‘America’ first, then Anglo arrivals would likely have assimilated to what would have been an essentially German-America. Even though Jews came to dominate America, why did they master English and adopt many Anglo-American norms? Because they arrived later and had to respect and assimilate to the template established and defined by another people. If proto-Zionists had founded America, they may have established Hebrew as the dominant language and defined America as a Great Jewish State. And if non-Jews had been allowed to immigrate to work on farms and fill up the factories, they might have been regarded and treated like Arabs in Israel/West-Bank.
There’s a saying, "Finders keepers, losers weepers." In the case of America, it used to be "Founders decide, Followers abide." So, even as new people arrived and became Americans too, there was respect & appreciation for the pioneer stock and the mostly European(and African) folks who laid down, through mind and/or body, the core foundation of Americanism. Not only was there a historical, cultural, and racial acknowledgment of the main thread of America but a profound respect for the Constitution, Rule of Law, Due Process, and Property Rights that made American Democracy and its reforms possible, along with economic opportunity and growth unprecedented in human history. So, even if there was room for yet newer Americans, the understanding was that they would come with admiration and respect for those who’d been in America first or before.
Also, because Americanism was founded on the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights, the process of immigration and naturalization must adhere to clear legal standards. After all, one thing that set the US(and Northern European nations) apart from the rest of the world, especially the Third World, is that Americans have traditionally been far more mindful of laws, rules, and standards than in nations like Mexico and other Latin American nations where everyone, from elite to peon, has tended to play fast and loose with the rules for petty interests or personal gain. Even among Europeans, there is far more Rule of Law up north than in Southern nations like Italy or Greece. Indeed, there are huge differences even among whites. If Anglos had settled South America and if Latinos had settled North America, the Anglo-South would likely be far richer than the Latin-North.
For a time, immigrants came with admiration and respect for the great founders of America and the earlier Europeans who did the heavy lifting on farms and factories. But with the Jewish takeover of elite institutions, the Narrative was altered so that the Founders got stained with the ‘original sin’ of slavery(which is rather odd since white people conquered Indians before they brought blacks, and that would mean ‘genocide’ is the original sin of America, but I guess blacks are just ‘cooler’ than Indians). Because the founding of America was fraught with ethnic cleansing of Indians and slavery of blacks, the New Narrative said it was tainted for all time. Also, because immigration policy had favored Anglos and Northern Europeans over other kinds of people, it was condemned as ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’. So, the New Narrative said that America can only be redeemed by newer waves of immigrants — preferably non-Northern European and even non-white — who would arrive and start anew without the stain of ‘genocide’, slavery, and ‘white supremacy’. So, instead of new immigrants coming with respect for America’s past and its founders & builders, they would come with sneering contempt and sniveling disdain. They would come to accuse and judge than appreciate and thank. Instead of immigrants respecting America’s past, existing Americans(especially whites with deep roots in America) should wax romantic about the future. Since the past is so tainted by ‘white supremacy’, America can only be saved by its future of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’.
But argument fails here under the scrutiny of moral logic. After all, if Early America was tainted by slavery and ‘genocide’, how are the later immigrants any less tainted? After all, they are participating in and partaking of something that was created by ‘historical sins’. Those who share in stolen loot are just as guilty. If indeed all those noble Jews and non-whites were so shocked by how America was founded and built, why didn’t they stay away? If Jews abhorred the pogroms in Europe, why did they come to land where Indians were ‘pogromed’ off the land? Also, if indeed whites are guilty for the tragedies suffered by Indians and blacks, how does it follow that whites owe something to all the peoples of the world who were not done wrong by the white founders and builders of America? Just think. Since Jews took Palestine from indigenous Arabs, they owe something to those people. Most decent people would agree. But who in his right mind would argue that because Jews took land from the Palestinians, they are obligated to let in a million Chinese and Hindus? And how would that help the Palestinians? They would just be losing their lands to Chinese and Hindus as well as to Jews. It’d be even worse.
Also, all these immigrants are coming from blood-lands of their own. As every history has been soaked in bloodbaths, wars, famines, slavery, rapes, conquests, and even genocides, they all have their own ‘original sins’ and all other kinds of 'sins'. ‘Genocide’ and slavery didn’t begin in America. Both have long pedigrees. Furthermore, even if we acknowledge the historical tragedies of America, when we compare the rise and development of America with other civilizations in the same time frame, there is no denying that something great and magnificent was created in America, and this owed to the founding by Anglos. At the time of America’s founding, European Imperialism had yet to conquer all the world. If China, (what is now)India, Persia, and Russia had played their cards right, they too could have done great things. But they lacked the bigness of vision and the spirit of freedom. At one time, Russia even claimed Alaska but failed to do much with it and stupidly sold it to America at fire-sale price. China, with its vast pool of talented people, could have made great advances, but it was filled with arrogance, complacency, and tyranny. And the bloodbaths in other parts of the world equaled or exceeded anything that happened in America. Also, as Hispanics got a head start in what came to be Latin America, they too could have done great things. But like the Spanish kingdom, Latin America just got saddled with corruption, confusion, and stagnation.
But just because Jews resented the fact that Wasps weren’t so eager to invite them to play golf or bonk their daughters, their vengeful viciousness came to dominate the immigration debate into a case of "Let’s bury whitey."
Anyway, due to the change in the Narrative, the question of "Is America for Americans or is America for the World?" has become greatly complicated. There are few Iron Nativists left in America. Most Americans don’t mind new people coming to become Americans. But their Americanism still maintains that America belongs to Americans: the people with deep roots in America and people who arrived legally with due process with respect for American history, culture, and laws. The idea that America belongs to the World is anathema to them. They believe the world has people who might become good Americans, and therefore, the American system should select those well-intentioned people of good character and hopefully some skills because 21st century America is not a world where any bunch of illiterates can find ready work on farms or factories. So, a broader meaning of ‘America is for Americans’ doesn’t mean that only existing Americans can be Americans and no one else. It says America is something good because of its history of culture, laws, and achievements, and from all this, a certain American civic identity and character have formed. So, to keep this fire going, America must be careful and mindful of what kind of people are allowed and in what numbers. Numbers matter. After all, assimilation becomes ever more difficult with massive arrivals of people. If Jews had trickled into Palestine, they might have assimilated into the Palestinian nation. But TOO MANY Jews came to replace Palestinians, just like TOO MANY Mexicans and Asians have come to replace whites and even blacks in parts of California. If massive arrival of ‘gringos’ changed the character of SW territories from Mexican to Anglo in the 19th century, why wouldn’t the reverse process also drastically change the character of those areas? And if Mexicans are moving to the US, it must because Anglos did a much better job in America than Mexicans did in Mexico. So, if all those Mexicans move up north and take over, won't they be spreading their own problems to America? This also goes for Haiti and Dominican Republic. Race and culture matter. If Haitians move to DR in great numbers, they will Haitianize DR into a 'shithole'.
Unfortunately, the pro-immigration people have gone utterly loco with what could only be described as suicidal will among ‘progressive’ whites and homicidal urge among non-whites who are now into parasitic colonizer mode than immigrant mode. They no longer come with any respect and admiration, especially as anti-white PC has been globalized. So, new arrivals from India, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, and etc. all come with the attitude of "racist white supremacist whitey, fuc* you, and you owe me." And they, even Muslims, ally with homos(mostly white decadents with tenuous connection to reality) who are now adored as angels and saints of America. Gee whiz, with Diversity blessing the homos and vice versa, how can any decent person object to the Color-Colonization of the West? After all, PC tells us that nothing is holier than homos and nothing is more wondrous than Diversity? The most fervent advocate for this future is, of course, Justin Trudeau, a ‘natural liberal’ who has no sense of roots or attachment and is so addicted to the fanfare of the ‘new’ that he’s willing to piss away the entire history and culture of Canada to feel thrills up his legs. But then, the majority of Canadians voted for that fool, so what does that say about the white race? It means, what with Jews controlling most of the media, academia, and entertainment, even masses of whites have been turned into mental mice following an idiot pied piper like Trudeau.
Anyway, given that the main divide in politics is about Americans who mainly see America as a nation for Americans in a world of many nations VERSUS Americans who mainly see America as an empire that should swallow and be swallowed by the world, the conventional divide between Democrats and Republicans isn’t very useful, not least because there are plenty of globalist-imperialists and patriot-nationalists in both parties.
The Imperials see America as the only nation that matters. Even as they claim to care about Diversity, they believe the world should come to America as the only nation of importance, the exceptional nation. If they really respected true diversity and wanted other peoples and nations to thrive, would they be telling the world to, "drop everything in your nation, leave your people, forget your identity, come to America, and become Americans." But then, what is so great about being an ‘American’ when these ‘progressive’ globalist-imperialists say American history has mostly been about ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’? If their argument is ‘racist’ America must be saved from itself by wonderful Diversity, then why call on Diversity to leave their own lands? If indeed Diversity is so wonderful, aren’t non-white living in paradise in their non-white ‘diverse’ lands? Why try to uproot them and bring them to America just to save the souls of whites? There are too many contradictions and absurdities in the Global-Imperial position, but then, empires have always been unstable because their combination of inequality(between the dominant power and weaker peoples) and diversity(divisions held together only by bread & circuses or porny displays of power) is difficult to sustain across vast distances over long periods.
Nationalism may be less exciting and adventurous, but it is more sound and stable over the long haul. How nice if National Socialist Germany had stuck to ‘boring’ nationalism than embarking on adventurous and exciting imperialism. Same was true of Napoleon and France. They should just minded the business of France.
In a way, the Imperial Game of America is both unnecessary and almost inevitable. It’s unnecessary because America is an empire unto itself. Few nations can claim to be both a nation and an empire(within its own borders). America, with its vast territory plus Alaska and Hawaii, has a lot to play with without meddling in or melding with the rest of the world. But then, because the US is so populous, vast with farmlands, endowed with almost limitless natural resources, and so wealthy, its ambitions and energies were itching to spread out over the bigger world. American business, military, media, academia, churches, and etc. want to play global roles to gain more markets, convert more hearts, persuade more minds, build more military bases, and etc. It’s just the nature of power. Too much power wants to break out and grab more power.
Anyway, if we were to designate two hypothetical parties as the Imperial Party and the National Party, how would their platforms differ in the most fundamental sense?
1. The Imperial Party would be bored with little old America. It would want global hegemony and to rule the whole world. Its core strategy would be Fuc*-and-Suck, that is Fuc* other nations with military power and financial muscle, and then Suck in their people as immigrants and ‘refugees’(often from war zones created by American imperialist aggression, as was the case of Libya and Syria). Also, suck in the talents(aka brain drain) for the American high-tech industry and suck in the helots for picking tomatoes and as demographic pawns to push black criminal elements out of cities. Because Imperial Party would really be about world hegemony, it’d have no qualms about interfering in other nations, messing with their political processes, and rigging their elections(but then, it might bitch about how Russians are messing up American sovereignty and democracy, an example of rank hypocrisy that betrays American arrogance as the ‘exceptional nation’ that is above the law and has the right to meddle in the affairs of all other nations, but other nations, especially if hated by Jews, better not try to meddle in American affairs. And even if they didn’t meddle, they could be accused of meddling just the same because Jews need scapegoats for whatever goes wrong with their agenda). Like imperialist forces anywhere and all throughout history, the Imperial Party would be addicted to more money, more control, more power, and more hegemony. And also to more More-Americans(endless mass immigration) as the Imperial Party's over-arching ambition and appetite would be bored and unsatisfied with existing Americans like a vain woman is bored with her existing collection of hats and shoes.
(2) The National Party would be for securing borders than complaining of boredom. It wouldn’t be bored with American history and American people. It’d want to preserve Core America that developed as essentially an extension of Western Civilization and European folks. Its main moral narrative would be about owing something to Indians and blacks(of slave ancestry) on grounds of America’s particular history. After all, American history was about particular peoples clashing with other particular peoples on a particular territory that led to particular triumphs and tragedies. When whites conquered the land of Indians, it was a particular, not a universal historical event. When whites brought blacks to work as slaves, that also was a particular story of one particular people doing something to another particular people on a particular territory, mostly the American South. Since American history was about particularities, the National Party would see no reason for America to feel that it must atone universally for wrongs that were done particularly, i.e. if a particular set of whites took a particular territory from a particular set of Indians, the moral issue has to be between whites and Indians, not between whites and Asian-Indians or Chinese.
The National Party would reject the ‘moral’ conviction that the US must serve as a dairy cow to provide milk of human kindness to all of humanity. A nation should only owe something to the peoples it has wronged. Indians and blacks have legit historical grievances. In contrast, seven billion people who want to move to America for material improvement(largely because they messed up their own nations with stupidity and corruption) have no moral justification to demand entry. They are not ‘dreamers’ but creamers who just want to slurp on the cream of others.
The National Party’s vision of the present and future flows from the remembrance of the past. It would regard the immigration waves of the late 19th century as a chapter in US history, not its template for propositional holy writ that America belongs more to outsiders than insiders.
The National Party would also object to any group trying to exploit American power to serve its narrow tribal interests. It would seriously abhor what Jews have done with their near-monopoly control of American power.
Now, there are elements of the Imperial Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are joined at the hip. Paul Ryan also belongs in the Imperial Party.
There are elements of the National Party in both Democratic Party and Republican Party. Plenty of Democrats used to be for the American workers and immigration restriction before super-rich globalists took over the upper echelons of the Democratic party, as also happened in the Republican Party.
Anyway, even if America continues with the current two party system, things might come into clearer focus if we spoke not so much of Democrats and Republicans but of Imperials and Nationals.