American Domestic Policy Will Come to Resemble Foreign Policy as the Nation Becomes More Diverse under Globalism

A Globo-Nihilist World of Universal Gangsterism

It should be plainly obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of world affairs that foreign policy tends to be far more cynical, craven, and criminal than domestic policy. This is almost universally the case. Granted, some tyrant who treats his own people like dirt will likely be more responsible in foreign policy simply because he can’t push other nations around like he can trample on his own people. Mugabe, while he was strongman of Zimbabwe, had very little regard for his own people who acted like dirt and were treated like dirt. Though Mugabe reeked of contempt for other nations as well, especially white ones, he couldn’t push them around like he could his own people. And of course, tyrants like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong were more mindful when dealing with great powers than in dealing with their own people who were regarded as little more than sheep or cattle. But those are extreme cases of tyrants with immense power and totalitarian means to carry out any amount of atrocities and bloodbaths.

In most cases, the leaders and elites must be mindful or mindful enough of the people they rule, and this applies even to autocratic nations where the ruling class is not all-powerful and could be in serious trouble if they lose the support of the masses. This has especially been true since the near-universalization of the Enlightenment democratic principle that the leaders exist to serve the people than the people exist to serve the leaders. So, even autocrats must do more than merely give lip-service to this ideal. Otherwise, it could lead to the erosion of popular support or, lacking such enthusiasm, of the people’s willingness to submit. After all, even people who submit out of fear may continue to do so if they believe that the rulers are doing a good enough job.

So, in most nations around the world, the Rule is that the leaders must be especially mindful of the people they govern. Unless they can persuade the people that they care and are doing the best for the nation, they could lose the modern equivalent of the ‘divine right’ or ‘mandate from heaven’. In the modern world, the mandate comes from the people. And since all leaders are elected only by the people of the nation, they must be bound to their own nation. And even if they are autocrats, their justification for power is National Interest. So, the Cuban government, though non-democratic, claim to be watching out for the interest of the Cuban people. The government of the CCP in China claim to represent the Will of the Chinese People. Turkey’s Erdogan’s increasing autocratic grip is predicated on the notion that his regime needs extrajudicial powers in the present situation because foreign enemies and agents(possibly even the American ally) are out to undermine Turkish sovereignty. And for this reason, domestic politics can’t be as cynical, cutthroat, opportunistic, nihilistic, and gangsterish as foreign policy. On the outside, foreign relations may seem more civil and considerate. After all, it’s called diplomacy, and national leaders are expected to act statesmanlike on the world stage. So, even leaders of nations with cultures as different as the US and Saudi Arabia are cordial and well-mannered in their discussions and negotiations. In contrast, there is much bickering between the ‘left’ and ‘right’ in UK parliament and US Congress.

But in foreign relations, the veneer of mutual respect is just that: A veneer. Indeed, mutual good manners are necessary precisely because so many nations agree on so little in terms of historical narrative, culture, religion, social values, and national interest. So, it’s all a case of smiling while holding a knife behind their backs. It’s like the show of ‘respect’ in THE GODFATHER films. It’s just a way of doing business because there is nothing but ‘business’ among different nations. Josef Stalin surely found out the hard way when Adolf Hitler, who’d approached him with seeming respect, suddenly launched a surprise attack on the USSR. Hitler acted like Michael Corleone in the final act of THE GODFATHER. (Michael put the other big families at ease and then sprung an attack when they least expected it.) And Muammar Gaddafi also found out the hard way when the very Western leaders who’d been all smiles, handshakes, and pats on the back turned on him and crushed his regime. And when he was brutally lynched to death, there was Hillary Clinton cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West in THE WIZARD OF OZ.

So, foreign policy is never ever to be trusted. It is gangster politics of ever-shifting alliances predicated on the most nakedly brazen of political interests(mostly of the elites because most people of any nation have no stake in world affairs or world power). Consider how the US was all smiles and handshakes with Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran. Even when Hussein used poison gas and launched missiles on civilian targets in Iran, the US sent him arms while pretending to be neutral. Worse, the US, via Israel and other proxies, even sent arms to Iran to prolong the war between Iran and Iraq as long as possible. Foreign policy can be THIS cynical, nasty, and brutal. Later, after the Gulf War, the US decided to force sanctions in Iraq that led to the deaths of 100,000s of women and children by some accounts. Again, this sort of thing is easier done to another nation than to one’s own people. Indeed, it’s telling that George W. Bush got more flak for the supposed botch-up of the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief than for what he did to Iraq(including the grisly Abu Gharid episode) and neighboring nations. In the case of New Orleans, the main culprit was the weather and broken levees, but Bush was held accountable for something he had little control of. The disaster killed around 1,800 people, but it was a much bigger issue for Americans than Bush’s wars that killed 100,000s not only by US guns and bombs but by unleashing a civil war that Bush’s clownish regime hadn’t foreseen or prepared for.

So, what does that tell you? Because the US government and American elites aren’t accountable to the world, they can act with utmost impunity, mendacity, opportunism, cruelty, sadism, and total disregard. After all, people in nations destroyed by the US aren’t going to vote in US elections. They aren’t going to donate to US politicians. And as they don’t control the US media, their side of the story isn’t going to be told to the American public, most of whom, by the way, are indifferent to what’s happening around the world(despite their nation being a superpower that can make or break any nation) because they are mainly immersed in hedonism and narcissism. (Granted, most people are like that all over the world, and in that sense, Americans are no worse. However, Americans have greater responsibility to be knowledgeable because they elect leaders whose power can profoundly affect the lives of millions, even billions, of people around the world. If a people live in an inconsequential nation like Iceland or Finland, it doesn’t matter because their governments are NOT going to threaten, destroy, or invade other nations. But when the peoples of Germany and Japan failed in the 1930s to stop their governments from acting recklessly in foreign affairs, the result was catastrophe for the world and their own nations. And for this reason, Americans don’t have a choice. Given the power of the US to destroy the world, all Americans must feel compelled to know about what is happening around the world. It’s because so many Americans are ‘insouciant’[as Paul Craig Roberts calls them] that the Bush regime was able to hoodwink Americans to just go along with a war based on total lies. And it was also why most Obama voters hadn’t a clue as to what was really happening in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, & Yemen and with Russia.) If the US were a better nation, then the media, as the fourth estate, would do its role in informing Americans about what is really happening around the world, what kind of people have the most power and what kinds of agendas they are pushing, and what the tragic toll of all this amounts to, but the media are owned by the People of Power; so, why would the Power expose its dark truths to the People?

During the Cold War, there was more of a balance of power among the elites as there was no single consensus ‘truth’. Many on the Left genuinely believed in socialism, even communism. As such, they entered journalism to expose what they regarded as the rot and disease of capitalism and greed. And many Jews, fast rising in power and privilege, felt it was their calling as both tribesmen and idealists to speak truth to Wasp elite power. Jews regarded their opposition as both ‘good for the Jews’ and ‘good for All Americans’ since it is always good to knock the top dog down a few pegs.

Back in the 1960s, despite the eroding prestige of traditional institutions, they still exerted a large and heavy, even if increasingly ‘silent’, influence. The Catholic Church couldn’t be ignored. And as long as there were many people who’d grown up prior to the 60s, their formative experiences had made them culturally and morally more conservative, not least because the Great Depression and WWII had had a very sobering impact on many Americans of all races and classes. Also, the American South still clung to its own narrative, and this was represented in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. For a long time, the Democratic Party relied on Dixiecrat votes. And the Republicans, to make further gains, especially as immigrant-heavy and black-heavy big cities were so solidly Democratic, also reached out to the South. Even though the Civil Rights Movement was gaining the moral upperhand, the South had its own counter-narrative that went heard in many political circles.
And the mounting tensions from the Vietnam War led to the rise of anti-war voices and patriotic voices. So, there was no single narrative, no single truth, no absolute consensus. Back in the 1960s, the Liberals had genuine radical leftists on their side, and someone like Bill Buckley on the Right could even voice Segregationist sentiments. Some really thought the Soviet Union was a pretty good nation and represented the hope of mankind, at least in supporting Third World anti-imperialist causes that would have been lost without Soviet backing. And some others really thought that the Soviet Union posed the greatest menace to world and thought a far more muscular foreign policy was necessary to roll back communism and hopefully defeat it. And when the feminist movement exploded on the scene, there was a wide range of opinions pro- and con-. But over the years, most of the voices and values grew silent and faded away, leaving only one voice to speak for all in the name of End of History. Catholic power faded, what with even Catholic Americans caring more about Rock, drugs, and sex. Church teachings sounded lame and boring to them. Also, the Church was rocked by pedophile sex scandals, especially damaging because the Jewish media and law firms piled on to bleed the Church dry. As for the Mainline denominations, they became increasingly secular and decadent, and most people lost interest. Today, Mainline churches mostly stand empty and are run mostly be lesbians who apparently have nothing better to do than playact as ‘christians’.

Jewish faith has eroded too, but Jewish power grew stronger because Jewishness doesn’t need religious faith to carry on. It is essentially a blood identity, an ethnicity. So, even Jews who lost faith remained as proud Jews and worked with religious Jews to expand Jewish power. As for older people and their attitudes & values, they all faded as they grew old and died. Indeed, how many members of the Greatest Generation are still alive? Their values died with them because they never formed institutions or created new traditions to keep their morals and values alive. As time passed, Jews gained even more control of the media, and they pushed only one Narrative that favored Jews, blacks, and feminists, thereby putting their opponents on the moral defensive.
The opponents of Jews, blacks, and feminists suffered from two deficits. They weren’t as adept, clever, and crafty as Jews in formulating their counterattack. Also, even if they could, they didn’t have the material and financial means to do so because Jews and Liberals controlled most of the media. Furthermore, pushy Jews, via the TV shows ROOTS and THE HOLOCAUST, made blacks and Jews the holy peoples of the world, making it nearly impossible to be critical of them without being called names. Also, Jews employed the dirty trick of guilt-by-association. Though Jews denounced such tactics when used by Joseph McCarthy, they gleefully denounced peoples, institutions, and industries by exposing their ties to ‘unsavory’ groups. Jews used ADL, SPLC, and NAACP(though black, it was largely funded by Jews) to do the dirty work on this. So, while any bunch of Jews could hang out with radical leftists, real-life hoodlums, Zionist imperialists, and financial sharks, it became political & financial suicide for any white gentile to have even the most tenuous ties with ‘far-right’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘racist’ individuals or organizations. And later, this was extended to ‘sexist’ and ‘homophobic’ figures. Because Jewish media made such a big stink about McCarthyism and Red Scare, it was bad form to point out that elite colleges and media had many leftist and even far-leftist types. It was even worse to point out that many of these leftists were Jewish or closely affiliated with powerful Jews. Such noticing was deemed ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and ‘red-baiting’.

In contrast, Jews and their allies could blow the whistle on the even the flimsiest connection between white gentiles(especially white conservatives) and anyone with the slightest odor of ‘hate’. Remember how the media deemed it bad form to make a big deal out of Obama’s ties with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. However, the media went after Trump for being supported by David Duke even though Trump never met Duke. Trump was told to disavow a man he’d never avowed in the first place. In this climate, Jews and Liberals could maintain connections and alliances with the Left and even Far Left whereas American Conservatives and white gentiles couldn’t venture beyond Conservatism Inc. The Right has been so vilified that many Americans believe that even the moderate Right is worse than the farthest Left. And if young people at least were read about and were taught about the horrors of communism during the Cold War, most of that has gone down the memory hole because most college professors hardly touch on the evils committed by the radical left in the 20th century. This is why we have the "There is only one side" mentality at Charlottesville. The Alt Right cannot even exercise their basic Constitutional Rights, whereas Antifa lunatics can run wild, attack people, and destroy property, but still be tolerated by authorities that take orders from Jewish elites.
Through ideas and idols, the ‘left’ has thoroughly indoctrinated and ‘icontrinated’ the majority of Americans into believing that there is only one truth, and there is no room for debate or discussion. And yet, things are actually even more impoverished ideologically and morally because even the real Left has been effectively paralyzed. Even though there are still many Marxist and communist types in universities, they exert almost zero influence on culture and power. They either spend most of their time on ridiculous 50-gender issues OR fixate on trivial stuff like ‘body positivity’, ‘slut pride’, or ‘empowerment’ through pop culture.
The End of History, in gloating over the fall of communism and the false god of Marxism, left the Power with only one objective: Power. Francis Fukuyama’s Liberal Triumphalism meant a death knell not only to Communism and Fascism but to religion, tradition, community, culture, patriotism, family, national sovereignty, and etc. Granted, those values had already eroded so much by the fall of communism. But as long as the communist empire existed, many people in the West still felt invested in and bound together by some great cause and conviction: To defeat the Evil Empire, like Rocky defeated Ivan Drago in part IV. But when the Soviet Empire collapsed, there really was nothing standing but power and greed. Though Fukuyama declared Liberalism as champion, he couldn’t have been more wrong. As events would prove, the real winner of the Cold War was Jewish supremacism. By the end of the Cold War, Jews had taken over most top institutions and industries. Since most Jews claimed to be ‘liberal’, they could have favored liberal values over Jewish interests, but blood turned out to be more powerful than ink among Jews. Unlike Wasps who really went from racial mindset to an ideological and liberal one, Jews moved away from liberalism to neo-tribalism. Jews, who’d been proud of their defense of civil liberties(even for Neo-Nazis) through their support of the ACLU, lost interest in tolerance & free speech and increasingly pushed Political Correctness in media and academia. With every year, journalism had a tighter list of do’s and don’ts. And universities went from a breeding ground for dissent and debate to a place of consensus based on indoctrination and intimidation. Increasingly, more ideologically charged classes and sessions became Mandatory for all students. If the Right became morally and ideologically restricted and curtailed(to the point where Conservatives could only defend abstract principles like individual liberty and private property but couldn’t invoke any pride in whiteness or European heritage, even though, for some reason, it was mandatory for them to fervently support Jewish pride and Israel), the Left was ignored and treated as irrelevant. Even though Marxists were not defacto banned like the race-ists and fascists from media and academia, they were treated as irrelevant nuisance, and indeed they were just that.

Too many former leftist boomers had made too much money and got too powerful. They’d seen the failure of the communist model in the Soviet Union. They’d seen the rise of China under capitalism. So, there was only one game in town, and it was capitalism. But if capitalism of yesteryear was associated closely with nationalism and liberalism(and rule of law), the new globalist capitalism raised the stakes of power and profit much higher, and so, the new elites of the state and big business no longer had any concern for the nation or the people. The people themselves became a nuisance, an obstacle to more profits and power for themselves. And the Rule of Law just came to be seen as outdated ‘regulations’. So, Wall Street was deregulated to the point where financial system operated like a casino. And with loosening morality in an America growing ever more shameless and degenerate, the business of gambling, that had once been considered a vice that should be restricted to a few cities, spread all over America. The most blatant example of this new kind of capitalism was in Russia in the 90s. Despite erosion of values, institutions, and morals, there was sufficient checks and balances in the US to prevent something on the scale of what happened in Russia. But following the fall of the Soviet Empire when the old controls were gone but a new one yet to develop, the Jewish globalist capitalists swooped into Russia to game the system and loot as much of Russian national property as possible. It was surely the biggest looting in the world history. This was the real End of History, which was the Beginning of the Power. A future of gangsterism and tribalism.

In this game, only those with fanatical power-lust and tribal zeal will come out on top. Those who only care about money will not win big. Bill Gates is super-rich as an individual, but he belongs to nothing bigger than himself. As for tribes without power-lust, they will be nothing. Amish have a tight-knit community, but they mean nothing to the world. Mormons do care about power/wealth and group cohesion, but Mormon are nowhere near the ability of Jews, and they lack tribal pride. Whatever that had been tribal and racial about Mormonism is no more. It is now in evangelical mode, and it won’t be long before it takes in too many dummies and non-whites. Jews are identity-zealots and power-obsessives. The only people who are comparable in the world today are the Chinese.

Even though many white gentiles are rich and powerful as individuals, they lack collective power because PC instilled white minds to disdain any power organized around whiteness or European themes. So, Europeans are going about Africanizing European identity and heritage. This has gone furthest in Sweden and the UK where even historical figures are made into blacks in TV shows and movies.
It’s as if blacks have a special claim and right to European history, heritage, and heroes. It’s no longer enough for blacks to have their own history and heritage. Because Africans have no written history and no record of great achievements, they want to take over white histories, legends, and mythologies. And since white people have grown so admiring of blacks in sports & pop culture, they want to present white history to blacks as a gift. Also, because whiteness has been so impugned, whites find it difficult to take pride in white heroes of history. The ONLY way they can make white history ‘good’ again is by turning white heroes into black ones. It’s like Alexander Hamilton as a white male is, well, just a ‘dead white male’, one of those ‘bad guys’, the villains of history responsible for all that went wrong with mankind. But if you turn him and other Founding Fathers into rapping Negroes, they are suddenly ‘cool’, and white people are allowed to get all excited about them.

Anyway, foreign policy is dirty business. While it’s true that all politicians are weasels and even politics-at-home is usually sleazy and slimy, there are still limits to what politicians can do at home. No matter how much Obama hated white conservatives, he couldn’t do against them what he did to Libya, Ukraine, and Syria. And even though the Jewish-run ‘liberal’ media lie through their teeth about whites and conservatives, they can’t lie about Americans the way they can lie about foreign nations and foreign affairs. The media told a big lie about Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, BUT it was nothing like the lies they told about Libya, Ukraine, and Syria that led to the destruction of entire nations. Also, because enough Americans still do care about what happens IN America, there are voices to counter and correct the Narrative pushed by Jewish-run MSM. Also, despite Obama and Holder’s support of BLM and other lunatics, they wouldn’t dare push the violence like they pushed the violence in Libya and Ukraine. At the very least, the Obama regime wouldn’t have dared to send air strikes against white conservatives who oppose BLM. In contrast, the NATO gained control of air space in Libya and dropped endless bombs on Gaddafi until the rebels closed in on the capital, captured the dictator, and lynched him to death. The US could do stuff like that with other nations because US laws, rights, and protections don’t apply to other nations and foreign peoples.
If there are bad guys in the US, the government must follow proper procedures to pursue and arrest the culprits or suspects. But on foreign lands, the US government can just rely on some unverified intelligence to send drone strikes to blow up ‘terrorists’ and if lots of innocent people get killed in the bargain, so what?
So, all the restraints that apply in the US don’t apply in other nations. Even though the elites of America are lowlife scum and would love to rule with an iron fist, as long as American domestic politics is national and proscribed by Rule of Law, they can’t act in pure gangster-nihilist mode. They must follow the rule book. Also, as representatives and servants of the American People, they must demonstrate their loyalty and concern for the American people. Even if these elites look down on most Americans as worthless losers, they can’t be candid about their feelings and must always assure the American people that they have the interests, rights, and protections of American people at heart.

But what happens with increasing Diversity that makes America resemble the world than a distinct nation? We’ve seen how US foreign policy works in other nations. The Deep State will do just about anything and stoop to any level to gain an advantage over other nations. If it takes spying, drone strikes, subversion, invasion, torture, and etc, so be it. Around the world, the US is dealing with strangers. Since they are strangers, the US government owes them no due process and respect. Since they’re strangers, the US government doesn’t have to represent and protect them. The US government is free to do anything to gain the advantage against such strange peoples all over the world. Also, there doesn’t need to be and indeed there can’t be any consistency of rules, values, or methodology in dealing with all those strange peoples because they are all different from the US and from each other. So, the US makes up new rules and concocts new methods for dealing with each people. In contrast, in domestic politics and governance within a single particular nation, people do expect the government to be consistent, predictable, and principled in its affairs. In national politics, the government doesn’t see the people of the nation as strangers but fellow countrymen bound by blood, values, history, and/or principles.

But if the US becomes more diverse, then the varied and diverse Americans will begin to see each other as strangers. During the Great Depression and WWII, the US government was white and most Americans were white. So, the white government looked upon the white masses as fellow countrymen. And when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, all Americans from top to bottom understood what it meant to be attacked by ‘Japs’. Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower had one thing in common in feeling a common bond with the American people who were seen as fellow countrymen. Even though there was ethnic diversity, most non-Anglos had been educated to be good patriots on the Anglo-American model. There was the black problem, but as blacks made up 10% of the population and aspired to be accepted and respected by white society, they too could be seen as fellow Americans. And especially beginning with Truman, there was a concerted effort to do right by the Negroes.

Now, of course, there was lots of corruption in politics and business back then as well. Politics being politics and business being business, corruption will always be with us. But when the nation was more cohesive, the US domestic policy was indeed based on the nationalist and patriotic sense that the government must do right by the people. In other words, the US government must not treat fellow Americans in the way it might treat Iranians, Guatemalans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Mexicans, and etc. If the US government and multi-national corporations approach foreign nations and strange peoples as just pawns, puppets, markets, or rivals/enemies in a ceaseless global gangster turf war, it simply wouldn’t do to see American people that way. Whether citizens of America are on the left or on the right, the US government must treat them all as fellow Americans with same protections under the law. In contrast, no such rules apply to foreign nations. It’s like, if a Muslim-American admires Osama Bin Laden and hates the US, he still has all the access to US government services, enjoys all the basic rights and protections, and has the same voting rights as any other American. In contrast, if he held such views in the Middle East, he could end up dying in drone strike. Or, if he’s fighting an enemy of Israel, he could be armed and funded by the CIA to commit acts of terror.
In contrast, it would be scandalous for the FBI or CIA to directly fund Antifa groups to attack white conservatives and patriots. But the US unreservedly funded and aided Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to topple the government there.

If a government acts more responsibly and restrained on the national level and in domestic mode than on the global level in foreign policy mode, what happens when excessive Diversity makes a nation into just a smaller version of the world? Even if the US still continues as a nation-state, will it act like one when it resembles a mini-world than a self-contained nation?
And if leaders like Roosevelt and Eisenhower felt a direct and deep connection with most Americans as fellow countrymen, how do the current government and Deep State look upon most Americans? Despite all the hollow rhetoric about how ‘diversity is our strength’, the fact is white elites in Deep State don't feel any real deep connection with Muslims, Mexicans, Asians, Hindus, Arabs, and host of other non-white groups. (And when non-whites reach elite status, they not only fail to form a bond with whites but lose the bond to their own people. They turn into political zombies.) Instead of growing nearer non-whites, these white elite operatives will only grow further apart from white Americans. The official line says white elites are one with non-whites, but the fact is they feel and remain separate from non-whites except in the most superficial way(and this accounts as to why globalized Western culture gets more superficial since it is only on such level that diverse people can communicate and get along). It’s a full-time job for elites to feel as one with ONE people. It’s impossible to feel one with over a 100 ethnic groups in the US. But because white elites must make an effort to connect with non-whites, they must disconnect their bonds and loyalties to whites. The end result is nothing but cynicism and nihilism. Unable to connect or really care about non-whites and no longer connected to whites, the only thing left for these Deep State elites is "what’s in it for me?" They just become soulless careerists whose only obsession is status, position, and privilege. To keep the status and rise higher, they will say and do ANYTHING to get what’s theirs. Isn’t this what we see in a soulless careerist robot like James Comey? This also goes for Hillary Clinton. In the end, did she care about anything? Did she care about white people or the working class? Of course, that would have been anathema in New America. White leaders caring about white people? Why, that would be ‘nazi’ and ‘racist’. So, did she really care all about all those trannies, slut priders, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, Hindus, Chinese, and etc., the kind of people with whom she has zero cultural connection or rapport? No, it was all just for show. Like Comey, she isn’t allowed to connect with whites and is unable to connect with non-whites. All she had left was self-serving careerism. Same with Theresa May and all the other cretins.

Diversity means no shared standards, values, meanings, or identities. That is why foreign policy is a game of gangsters. Since the rules, values, loyalties, norms, and the narrative of one nation are so different from those of other nations, the only way that nations can play the game is through distrust, cynicism, espionage, and dirty tricks more commonly associated with gangsters.

Indeed, when we compare the FBI and the CIA, why does the latter have more sinister connotations? FBI has skeletons in its closet too, but because it’s a domestic and national law enforcement organization, it must be careful not to deviate too far from the Rule of Law that protects the rights of all Americans. Americans care more about a wrong done to a US citizen by US government than a wrong done to 100,000 foreigners by the same government.

In contrast, the CIA has been involved in outright subversion, espionage, aid to terrorists, torture, spreading fake propaganda, meddling in foreign elections, bribery, and aiding Pentagon in the invasion of other nations.
Recent revelations about the FBI show how corrupt the agency can be, but the FBI has also played a prominent role in taking down organized crime in the US. In contrast, the CIA has been linked with organized criminals, terrorist, and even neo-Nazis in its nihilistic effort to do just about anything to spread the oligarchic hegemony of the US. As the US becomes more like the world, the rulers of the US will act more like CIA than the FBI in dealing with the American people. The people will no longer be seen a citizens and fellow countrymen but as pawns in a game. Consider the Carol Reed film THE THIRD MAN. When the nihilist American Harry Lime was in war-torn Austria, he didn't see the people there as his fellow countrymen. No, they were just units, pawns, or fleas. He felt no connection to them, and their lives didn’t matter to him. He acted only for himself and for money.

In the current America, the problem goes deeper than white elites no longer feeling a bond with white Americans and being unable to really connect with non-whites. There is a power above that of white elites, and of course, it’s the Jewish elites. Too many Jews are in arrogant, contemptuous, and hostile supremacist mode in relation to gentiles. Jews mainly identify with fellow Jews all over the world than with fellow Americans, most of whom are goyim. American Jews cared more about Soviet Jews than for fellow Americans who might be Catholic or Baptist. And once those Soviet Jews came to the US, they felt far closer to Jews in UK, France, and Israel than with fellow Americans who happen to be gentile.
Did Madeline Albright feel anything for the 500,000 Iraqi children that might have died as the result of US sanctions concocted by Zionists? No. Why not? Because the kids weren’t Jewish. As a thought experiment, let’s suppose Israel comes under the rule of someone as ‘evil’ as Saddam Hussein. Suppose the US calls out on this Jewish Hussein who is denounced as a 'new hitler'. Suppose the US calls for sanctions that might starve 100,000s of Jewish kids to death. Would Jews support such a policy in the name of getting rid of an evil dictator? No way. Jews care for fellow Jews. That, in and of itself, is good. A people should care for their own kind. Now, it’s possible for a people to love their own kind the most but still respect and care about other peoples. This quality is woefully missing from most Jews who will cause any amount of harm to others just so Jews can have it all. The sheer obnoxiousness and vileness of Jews as they’ve gained supreme power in the US and EU have so clearly illustrated why this thing called ‘antisemitism’ was so rife throughout history. Jews will tell any amount of lies and pull any number of dirty tricks to get their way. The likes of Max Boot and David Brooks are hardly different from Jennifer Rubin Erderly and Stephen Glass in their shameless and insane obsession to spin any story and invent any nonsense to push their agenda that, despite the bogus ‘universalist’ or ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric, really just comes down to, "Is it good for the Jews?"

With uber-elites such as that, with white elites serving them while being disconnected from white masses and unconnected to non-white masses, with white masses no longer represented and led by elites, and with so many non-whites splintered along racial, ethnic, religious, and other lines(and their children having trashy stupid pop culture as their only culture, Homomania as their only faith, and PC as their only rule book), the US will no longer resemble a nation but a mini-world or a mini-empire. Then, it is only natural that US politics will go from the mode of national policy to the mode of foreign policy. It will no longer be a case of elites seeing Americans as fellow countrymen but as a Glob-ful of strangers. And in a world of strangers, everyone will be out for the only thing that still matters: Status, Position, and Privilege.

Instead of Puerto Ricans becoming Americanized, Americans are becoming Puerto-Ricanized.