Sunday, April 15, 2018

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment