Tuesday, October 13, 2020

New 'Civil War' in America Will be White vs White — Civic Imperialism is Possible but not Civic Nationalism — US was a Race-Nationalist Republic — US Power as Headless Emperor


Will there be a civil war in America? Of course, this means an intra-white war. There won't be a civil war within the black community. Not one in the brown community. Not one in the Muslim or Asian community. Not in the Jewish community. While there are Liberal Zionists, Neocon Zionists, and some radical Jews, Jews are not into Jew-vs-Jew conflicts. Jews usually circle the wagons. Will there be a war among the various groups? Blacks vs browns vs Jews vs yellows vs Hindus vs Muslims vs etc? The only states where such is remotely possible are California and SW territories, Florida, New York, and few others. They are very diverse, and various groups don't see eye to eye. Still, it's unlikely because most non-whites EXCEPT FOR BLACKS mostly get along, co-exist quietly, or at least tolerate one another. Also, as Jews control media and academia, they've directed most non-white ire and animus toward Bad Whites. Anti-whiteness is the political glue among non-whites. It is the one that nominally maintains the alliance of Jews, white cucks, non-whites, and blacks EVEN THOUGH the group that ALL GROUPS have the most trouble with are blacks by far. But due to mass media manipulation, mass education/indoctrination, and the cult of black cool, there is a tendency among Jews and non-whites to at least symbolically associate themselves with blackness that represents both natural supremacy(in sports, rap, and sexuality) and historical victimization(as slaves and marchers for Civil Rights).

Of course, if all whites were to vanish into the thin air in the US, the main conflict will be among Jews, non-whites, and blacks. Without anti-white animus as the unifying glue, it could be hell for all involved. It's like US and USSR became bitter enemies once Germany and Japan lost out in the game of global hegemony. In a US without whites, Jews and Muslims would be serious rivals, especially as white cucks wouldn't be around as cheerleaders and foot-soldiers of Zionism and Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, Jews aren't going to fight their own battles, and they'll have a hard time persuading non-whites and blacks to side with Jews against Muslims. Also, without whitey to blame, most blacks and non-whites will mainly feel resentful about Jewish wealth, privilege, and power. Without whites to scapegoat as the perennial villains, Jews will have a difficult time in deflecting the rage, resentment, and envy of blacks and non-whites. I suppose Jews can try to scapegoat other groups. Make blacks and non-whites resent Asians as too successful. Or try to set Muslims vs Browns vs Blacks. Or try to forge an alliance with Hindus against Muslims. But it will be a tough sell without whites as the all-purpose bad guys and always-reliable-cucks. 

But whites do exist, and if there is a 'civil war' in the US, it will be a whites vs whites affair. It will mainly be between white priders and white guilters. Between white shucks and white cucks. White Priders will be animated by either overt white pride or refusal to succumb to the cult of 'white guilt'. Even if civic nationalist than ethno-nationalist, they will reject the notion that whites are especially to blame for the wrongs of the world. Also, they will believe that, in the final equation, whites did far more good than bad in world history. 
In contrast, White Guilters will believe that whites are uniquely to blame for what is wrong with the US and the world. Even so, as their minds are molded by Jews, they won't particularly care for most peoples around the world, no matter how much they've been harmed by whites(as foot-soldiers of Jews). After all, most proggy types feel hardly any guilt about or sympathy for Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims whose lives were utterly destroyed by the US empire under Zionist control. They never utter "Palestinian Lives Matter", "Arab Lives Matter", "Syrian Lives Matter", "Iranian Lives Matter", and etc. They feel nothing for Russians who perished in the gangster capitalist 1990s dominated by Jewish globalists. As their minds are mushy clay toyed with by Jewish Hands, their main passion boils down to 'white conservatives are nazis', 'blacks are so awesome and cool, therefore especially tragic for having suffered', and 'homos & trannies are the angels of new spirituality'. Clearly, the white 'right' is far saner than the white 'left'. Still, what is most tragic is neither side will understand why there is this rift within the white race. Why did so many whites come to hate their own kind, especially in service to Jews and blacks(and really no other people)? And why did they come to believe they are Good Whites on account of celebrating Sodomy while others are Bad Whites because they don't believe Bruce Jenner is a 'woman'? Because people on the white 'right' are relatively less mind-controlled by Jews, they are more independent and balanced than the morons on the white 'left' who are truly pathetic puppets of Jews who control academia and media.
But the problem is 'white 'conservatives' are too stupid and/or ignorant to realize that the main reason for this white-vs-white hatred is Jewish Power. Even as they rant about the 'left', they hardly say anything about Jewish Power that has driven the wedge between white people, dividing them between 'right' and 'left'. That Jewish Power has a hand in both the 'right' and the 'left' is easily proven. Why is it that, even as the 'right' and 'left' berate and insult one another, they go out of their way to prove that they are supportive of Israel and happily servile to Jews? Donald Trump and his minions are supposed to represent populism and the 'right', but there's hardly any talk of white identity/interests but instead endless gibberish about "Muh Israel". In that sense, the white 'right' is only relatively more independent-minded than the white 'left'. Sadly, it is beholden to Jewish Power even as Jews do everything to dump on it. Things are screwier yet. Jews are dominant in American Liberalism, and that means progs and 'leftists' are beholden to Jewish Money. Also, Jews have funded blacks and non-whites as allies against whites. But this also means that, at least on the grassroots level, there are many on the 'left' who sympathize with Palestinians against Zionists. And such numbers seem to be growing. But at the upper echelons of Liberalism, the power is entirely with Jews and their cuck-progs and toadies who grovel at the feet of Zion. Still, even if muted and muffled, the most vocal anti-Zionist voices are found on the American 'left' at the grassroots level. BDS is dominated by grassroots left and totally crushed by Jews. 
In contrast, given the Jewish animus toward the American 'right', one would think most conservatives and the like would be anti-Jewish. But sadly, many on the 'right' are even more supportive of Jews and Israel than those on the grassroots 'left' are. In a sane America, both white 'right' and white 'left' should unite in a 'civil war' against Jewish Power, the real supremacist force in American Politics and foreign policy. But in Crazy America, the Jews, the most insanely tribal and supremacist people, have convinced idiot white 'progs' to revile and attack other white people as 'supremacist' on account of them saying "It's Okay to be White." White 'progs' seem to believe that Jews suppress 'white supremacism' for the sake of equality and social justice. In truth, Jews suppress white identity/interests to make whites cuck to and serve Jewish Supremacism. Are white 'progs' really this retarded? If they are truly about justice and morality, why have they been silent about Wars for Israel under Obama and Hillary as puppets of Jews? For all their yammering about justice for all peoples around the world, their political perspective is so provincially centered on the US Big Media Narrative spun by Jewish oligarchs. They never question the education or information pushed on them; they just mindlessly believe on faith on account of being told that people who adopt such-and-such viewpoints are 'woke' and 'progressive'. But in truth, the current 'left' and 'right' are fluid, both manipulated by those above. Today's 'left' is about globo-homo vanity over working class interests, and today's 'right' is about 'gay marriage is okay but trannies in washroom is not'... but wait a few years and 'trannies in washroom' will be the new 'rightist' value while the 'left' finds some other kooky issue to foam at the mouth over. The 'left' is retarded, but the 'right' is dumb. Haven't white 'rightists' figured out that the Jewish agenda for them is White Nakba? Jews are using Diversity-Inclusion to bring about the Great Replacement of whites by non-whites in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US. Given such an agenda, when will whites wake up and begin to identify with Palestinians? But these idiot white 'rightists' go on supporting Jewish Supremacism EVEN AS Jews never tire of accusing them of 'white supremacism'. Morons.
Now, there have been elements on the Right that have been critical of Jewish Power, but too many turned out to be Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Denier cranks. Richard Spencer is a prime example. Instead of arguing against Jewish Supremacism and neo-imperialism/globalism, he just wants Anglo-Germanic supremacy to gain dominance and mess up the world in some Nietzschean game of chess. What's the point of opposing one supremacism to push another? What's the point of vilifying Jewish supremacism if one is going to extol Nazi-German supremacism? It's utterly idiotic. 

The American Civil War was not a white-versus-white war, at least not thematically. Sure, it was mostly a war fought among whites, but the driving force behind the conflict was not anti-white animus. It wasn't as if Northern whites were anti-white 'ni**ger-lovers' who decided to kill bushels of Southern whites. The war was over preservation of the Union vs Secession. While some Northern Whites were inspired by abolitionism, most supported the war to preserve the Union. Abraham Lincoln felt the same way. And in the years after the war ended, Northern Whites and Southern Whites came to an understanding, and they saw the need to control the blacks. 

In contrast, many whites today are truly mentally deranged in their anti-white lunacy. But there is no logic or consistency to their worldview. The cult of 'white guilt' is purely selective, usually decided by Jews who push the mental buttons via their control of media and academia. After all, if indeed white progs are surely anti-supremacist, anti-tyranny, and anti-injustice, why were they so silent about or even supportive of Obama-Hillary puppet regime's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why weren't they supportive of efforts on Trump's part to end US entanglement in Syria? Why are they silent about all those dead Iraqis and suffering Iranians as the result of US pro-Zionist policy? Why didn't they march in support of Palestinians in the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms of 1948? 
One thing for sure, the white 'left' is not motivated by true sense of justice but vain opportunism of virtue-signaling. Iraqi lives mattered when Evil Bush II was invading Iraq, but Libyan lives didn't matter when Obama destroyed that country. Progs whine about 'nazis' but were silent about Jews working with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine. They claim to abhor supremacism, but they are okay with US foreign policy favoring Jews/Zionism over Palestinians. They've done nothing about blue cities/states banning BDS. They express outrage over 'sexism' when it comes to Trump but feign ignorance when it comes to Bill Clinton, black athletes, and homo degenerates. There is no rhyme or reason to their moral logic. When illegals were detained under Obama, they were silent. When they are detained under Trump, it's the New Holocaust!!! They didn't care about all the dead Muslims caused by Obama-Hillary's wars(guided by Jewish supremacists), but they suddenly made a big fuss about all those poor-poor Muslims travel-banned by Trump. They talk about history and 'white guilt', but they say almost nothing about American Indians, the most tragic people, the only one that suffered something like genocide in the New World. Even though mass immigration finished off the Indians, progs celebrate mass-immigration. So, what is prog mentality really about? It is just childish parroting of whatever is fed to stupid white minds by Jewish control of media and academia. If Jews say, "Be outraged about this", white progs are outraged about 'this'. Russia Collusion!!! If Jews say, "Be outraged about that", white progs are outraged about 'that'. Black Lives Matter!!! Never mind these urban progs supported stop-and-frisk, mass-immigration, and gentrification that pushed many blacks out of rich cities. The prog mind is all about fashion. It's about flavor of the month. It is the product of political advertising. It is so shallow that it lacks any sense of real history, memory, and moral logic.
But then, the American 'right' is only slightly better. Even as it chooses pride over guilt, it shares basically the same premise as that of the 'left', which is why it keeps losing the debate. The premise is, "Jews are especially wise and wonderful", "blacks are holy and noble", and "the greatest evil in the world is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'." So, the American 'right' agrees with all that but only argues that America isn't so bad because it redeemed itself with progress and wealth-creation. But didn't anyone realize that favoring Jews and blacks uber alles is a form of 'racism'(defined as racial supremacism)? Just ask the Palestinians. And why is it a matter of justice to pay special heed to blacks even when they act like savage apes while ignoring the plight of other groups harmed by blacks? It's one thing to redress historical wrongs but quite another to endow certain groups with the license to cheat, lie, steal, rob, rape, and murder on account of 'muh victimhood'. It'd be like making excuses for American Indians who go from state to state to scalp people and hack them to death on account of 'muh suffering'. 

One thing for sure, the notion of 'civic nationalism' is total bull. There can be 'civic imperialism' but never 'civic nationalism'. Many have a false impression of the US as a 'civic nationalist' republic for most of its history because of the Constitution, but in fact, the US has mostly been a racial-nationalist republic(if not a ethnic one). The facade of 'civic nationalism' was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was a solidly white majority nation, one that was founded and built by Anglos who then Anglo-ized the Germanics. Later, Anglo-Germanic America compelled all Europeans, from South and East, to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic norms. As most Europeans were racially close, they could blend into this new identity called 'American', which upon closer inspection was really Anglo-Germanic American. That was the essence of American Nationalism. It was race-nationalism. The solid white majority of Anglo-Germanic norms became the spine of American Nationalism. Unlike in Europe where each ethnic group maintained its separateness in their distinct territories, the understanding among various European immigrants to America was they would adopt the Anglo-Germanic norms as the main characteristics of Americanism; that gave them license to move, live, and settle anywhere in America. This was why US didn't end up like Yugoslavia. This Americanism was passed off as 'civic nationalism', but it worked only because most immigrants were white and could blend into Anglo-Germanic America in their willingness to assimilate. And many naturally wanted to assimilate as they readily realized that Anglos and Germans had created a superior order of productivity, relative liberty, and opportunity in the New World. 
Would 'civic nationalism' have worked in the US if most immigrants from the beginning were from Africa, Asia, Middle East, brown parts of Latin America, and etc? No, it would have been much more difficult for non-whites with strikingly different cultural backgrounds to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic America. Even after all these centuries, the color lines remain notable in Latin America even though Latin American nations officially make big noises about civic nationalism and people not seeing color. US worked as a race-nationalist republic. All this talk of 'muh constitution' misses the point. Latin America had constitutions nearly identical to that of the US, but things turned out differently because the racial demographics and dynamics were different. Indeed, Canada didn't rebel against the King, and Australia started out as a depressing penal colony, and yet, isn't it odd that US, Canada, and Australia turned out more alike in many respects than with democracies in Latin America inspired by American Independence?
Now, 'civic imperialism', though problematic, is a possibility, as it was in the era of the Roman Empire. With no racial, ethnic, and/or spiritual core to unite all the people, Roman citizenship was a matter of the law and loyalty to the state. And Civic Imperialism seems to be the general direction of the globalist enterprise with the US as metropole. But unlike the Roman Empire where the Romans ruled, any people can come to the US and climb up the ladder to elite status. And whites, whose ancestors founded and built this country, are not only supposed to tolerate and accept this transformation but welcome and celebrate it as 'progress' based on 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. 
But then, this model in some ways resembles the Roman Empire in that the ruling elites will not be chosen purely on meritocratic or ideological basis. There will be meritocracy in that smarter ones will rise higher, and there will be ideology at work in that 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will mandate the promotion of blacks and browns with lesser credentials. But at the very top will be Jewish Power that shall go unchallenged. Jews have the most money, control key institutions and mass media, dominate popular entertainment(that shapes so many minds), and etc. Also, Jews know that MOST PEOPLE are apathetic and disengaged. So, all they have to do is buy off the 'elites' of various communities. It doesn't matter if most blacks aren't keen on Jews. As long as Jews control the black 'leaders', black politics won't stand in the way of Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Same with 'Latinos' and Asians. Even Muslims, especially those from nations like Pakistan who feel little affinity for Arabs. Still, to the extent that all peoples are allowed to emigrate to the US and climb up the elite ladder, the globo-homo US empire will be more like Byzantium where the leadership was far more varied than in the Western Empire. 

While Civic Imperialism is doable, it's extremely expensive. Unlike Civic Nationalism that can exist on a humble level, Civic Imperialism requires tremendous power and expenditure. Empire is about over-reaching. It is about power at the epic level. It's like the mega Hollywood Epic must spend lots of money and make lots of money. There is no other way. Nationalist loyalty isn't based on super-power or super-wealth. A person could be living in a middling nation or even a poor nation. But he may still have a deep sense of nationalism and loyalty to country and folks for reasons of tradition, sentimentality, and sense of roots. It doesn't require much for nationalism to operate. Rich nation or poor nation, nationalism is possible. Strong nation or weak nation, nationalism comes naturally. 
But empire means stretching power over vast distances and diverse peoples, many of whom have little in common. Empire demands that these diverse peoples pledge allegiance to ANOTHER power that would play the role of center-of-the-universe. But the ONLY way to persuade various peoples to obey a foreign power is through the combination of big sticks and big carrots, both of which are extremely expensive. The various peoples must be threatened with force and/or bought with bribes. They must be made willing partners or unwilling partners. It is the ONLY way an empire can be maintained. It requires extra-exertion of power and wealth. 
For those in the metropole, it is both exhausting and exhilarating. The empire must always scramble for more lands and peoples to control. It's a 24/7 enterprise of more wars, more markets, more peoples, more agendas. And yet, those in the metropole feel the power and importance. They become addicted, just like the Romans did. And even though the peoples of other nations who become subjects to this neo-imperial power feel resentment, they also long to be a part of it. And as long as mass immigration is allowed, they would rather take part in the empire than resist it, especially as immigration to the US means a better material life. Also, PC gives the impression to non-whites that they are on the rise, on the cusp of taking power. Even as they are submitting to and taking part in the empire, they feel that they are serving 'social justice' because they are rising at the expense of whites who are being diminished demographically, politically, and economically. 
Thus, if old Western Imperialism was about white rule over non-whites, the American neo-imperialist globalism is about maintaining an empire that facilitates the takeover of the West by the Non-West. At the twilight of the Age of Empires following World War II, the Non-West took up National Liberation against Western Imperialism. Today, the idea is that the Non-West should take part in the Neo-Imperialist Enterprise, a kind of mutual imperialism where the West and Non-West invade one another and merge into one. 
Or so it seems. Because behind all this is Jewish Power that is determined to remain at the very top. No matter who rises and falls in the elite hierarchy, they are to serve the Jews and support Zion. And why? Jews got the money and power; they get to play thumbs up or thumbs down as to who joins the elite ranks and who doesn't. Jews know that whites are too castrated and cucked to disobey the Jews. But Jews are taking no chances. They sniffed pitchfork populism in the candidacy of Donald Trump and intend to crush it for good. As for non-whites, Jews know that the diverse bunch can never come together to take on Jewish Power. Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups forever. 
Can this Civic Imperialist enterprise succeed? It may for some time because the US is so vast, rich in resources, & plentiful in food, and have so much talent. Past empires had an Achilles Heel in the size ratio. The imperial center was far smaller and poorer in natural resources than the imperial possessions. Thus, more stick had to be used as there wasn't enough carrots to go around to bribe the subjects. But the US is an empire unto itself, especially with Alaska in tow. It has vast riches all on its own and generates excess food, fuel, and resources. It has a big stick but also lots of carrots to go around. So, unlike the Italian peninsula, Spain/Portugal, Britain, Holland, and France, it is better able to meet the demands of expenditure necessary to maintain the empire. (It also has Dollar Supremacy.)
Still, there are so many contradictions in the American Way. How long can Jewish Power remain hidden? Also, as long as it remains hidden, it's hard to tell who is ruling America? If Jews, the top power in America, won't declare themselves the ruling elites, who is the captain of the ship? White people? But white people have been so discredited morally, racially, and historically that this isn't workable. Notice that white political candidates NEVER talk about white interests and instead try to justify their careers on what they've done for Jews, homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. Are blacks in charge? The problem is blacks are too much in victim-complaint mode to take over as ruling elites. The mode of black politics isn't "We have the broadness of vision and magnanimity to rule" but "blackity-blackness". Their focus is too narrow to represent all of America. Black political mindset isn't about "what is good for all Americans" but "what all Americans owe us blackity-blackity blacks." So, we have a strange situation. America is the most powerful nation on Earth, but it looks like a headless emperor. Jews are really the head of America but won't show it. If the white head shows up, it is egged on as 'white privilege' or 'white supremacism'. If the black head appears as the godhead of Americanism, all it says is "We da victim, gimme gimme gimme", which isn't exactly dignified or 'presidential'. Obama did seem to introduce a new kind of black politics at a higher level, but he turned out to be a worthless puppet of Jewish Power and then ended up torching America with another round of black rage politics. It's hard to tell the future under such circumstances. 

No comments:

Post a Comment