Symbiotic HinJew(or Hindu-Jewish) Power Complex — The Implications of the Jewish-Hindu Alliance for the Future of Power Politics

Sundar Pichai does the bidding of Globo-Homo Zionist-Imperialist Google Jews in crushing the freedoms of whites and Palestinians. It's hardly surprising as Hindus were among the most useful collaborators of the British Empire. 

Power isn’t simply about individuals having lots of money or groups having lots of influence. It’s also about alliances, partnerships, and trusts. In the end, what finally led to the fall of National Socialist Germany was the problem of alliances. In 1941, all of Europe except the UK was either allied with Germany, under German control, or neutral. Furthermore, Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. Germany was also allied with Japan. The only major direct threat to Germany was the U.K. that however hadn’t the means to invade or destroy Germany. Nor did it plan to. It was mainly playing defense. If Germany had maintained its alliance with Soviet Union and pressured Japan to come to terms with the US, it could very well have come out on top. Granted, Germany’s alliances were problematic. Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany were ideological enemies; therefore, their ‘friendship’ was cynical than principled, built on mutual fear than trust. Furthermore, Germany’s alliance with erratic and desperate Japan was also deeply problematic. It became alienated from KMT-ruled China that had been favorable to Germany. But worse, there was the danger that Japan might become entangled in a war with the US, into which Germany might be drawn. (However, if Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor BEFORE Germany invaded Russia, it’s unlikely that Germany would have declared war on the US. On the other hand, it’s unlikely that Japan would have attacked the US naval base IF Germany hadn’t already invaded Russia and seemed to be winning.)
Another problem for Germany was the ostensibly neutral USA lurking in the shadows. The Anglo-American elites felt a certain closeness with Anglo-Brits, and besides, FDR and those around him wanted a world war to boost government spending & ramp up the economy, to defeat the Far Right(which was loathed in liberal intellectual circles whose soft spot was for communism), and use the crisis to take over as the new world hegemon. Thus, even though the US didn’t officially enter the war until 1941, it had been aiding the UK behind the scenes to make things tough for Germany. FDR also pushed the anti-Japanese embargo to provoke a war in the Pacific(that would hopefully be linked to the war in Europe). Anyway, the relevant lesson here is that German power rose when its game of diplomacy was careful not to alienate MANY sides at once. To make itself palatable to the capitalist West, Nazi Germany presented itself as the sworn enemy of Soviet Communism. But when relations with the UK and France deteriorated, Adolf Hitler made the masterful plan of aligning with the Soviet Union, the other great power on the continent of Europe. However, when he attacked Russia, he had no major allies left except Japan, which was however no match for the US. Italy was a third-rate power, and with Germany at war with both UK/US and Russia, it was a zero-sum game of win-all or lose-all. Germany lost everything.

Violating this Pact proved to be most fatal to Nazi Germany. It had no major allies left in Europe.

Jewish power is awesome, the most powerful power in the world today. And yet, Jewish power wouldn’t have amounted to much without its crucial alliances with non-Jewish groups, the Gentiles. Granted, Jews don’t so much seek alliances with other peoples as they seek alliances with the elites of other peoples. If anything, Jews seek to suppress the populist-nationalism of most peoples since such passions pressure the ethnic or national elites to represent and lead their own peoples in exchange for their loyalty and support. For example, the Turkish masses want the Turkish elites to serve Turkey and its people. Such nationalism-populism among goyim is threatening to Jewish power because Jews need goy elites to serve as the cuck-collaborators to Jewish Power. Jews need goy elites to suppress & silence their own peoples and form alliance with Jewish elites. In the past, the Jewish underdog-elites sought the graces of the goy top-dog elites, especially when Europe was still mostly ruled by kings and princes. Even back then, Jews tried to nudge goy kings and princes into lending their ears to Jews than to their own subjects. Today, Jewish top-dog elites demand that their goy underdog-elites do everything in their power to suppress & silence the 'siren song' of nationalist-populism. Consider the case of Hungary where nationalism-populism means the people insisting on the preservation of Hungary as the nation for Hungarians. Viktor Orban has heard the nationalist-populist cry and implemented policies and values meant to cement the bond between the Hungarian elites and Hungarian masses. They are also meant to unite the Hungarian future with the Hungarian past, i.e. present-day Hungarians are encouraged to feel a deep sense of bond with their ancestors and land. Now, why are Jews so triggered by this? After all, don’t Jews promote the same themes in Israel that is defined as the eternal homeland for the Jews? Furthermore, as Hungary is friendly with Israel, why are Jews so virulently anti-Hungarian? It’s because the center of Jewish Power is not in Israel but in the global networks within goy nations. Jewish minority elites in goy nations have far more power than Jews in Israel; indeed, the reason why Israel matters so much to the US is because the Jewish minority effectively controls America. Because the main power of Jews depend on Jewish Minority Dominance in goy nations, Jews denounce and denigrate ANY sign of nationalist-populism in goy nations. After all, populism means the Voice of the People, and nationalism means Elites as representatives & defenders of their own nations, peoples, and lands. A nationalist-populist UK would be state where the majority of white Britons demand national sovereignty and security and where the British elites, as the leader-defenders of Great Britain, comply with patriotic demands.

Now, such nationalism-populism wouldn’t necessarily be dangerous to the Jewish community. Plenty of nations have learned to treat their minorities with decency and respect. Indeed, there are no pogroms in Hungary and Russia despite their being on the hate-list of most Jews around the world. If anything, Jews are well-protected there and face no threats. Then, why are Jews so hostile to goy nationalism-populism? It’s because they are now addicted to supremacist power and are no longer content with survival, security, and affluence. Jews are now in neo-imperialist-and-hegemonic mode and want the world as their oyster. Of course, Jews, being ever so clever, play a sleight-of-hand trick with terminology. Even though THEY THEMSELVES are for tribal supremacism, they demean any people who resist Jewish supremacism as ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’. So, even though the ONLY thing that Hungary wants is to preserve itself as the national homeland for its ethnic folks, Jews demean Viktor Orban and his supporters as ‘haters’ and ‘neo-Nazis’. Jews spew the same kind of filth against Syria and Assad. Jews in Israel and Zionists in the US can use their muscle to wage Wars for Israel and wreck nation after nation. Israel can have all the nukes it wants while, at the same time, using the US and its puppet-states to sanction the economy of Iran, a nation that has no nukes. We live in a crazy world where Jewish Supremacist-Terrorists accuse others of ‘supremacism’ or ‘terrorism’ for daring to say NO to Jewish greed, perfidy, and monstrosity. It’s like a slave-master calling his slave ‘uppity’ for wanting to be free. If white people desire freedom from Jewish globo-homo-hegemony and imperialism, vile Jews smear them as ‘white supremacist’. Self-determination is to be denied to white people because a free people might say NO to the Jewish globo-homo supremacist agenda. The ONLY way for Jews to ensure white submissivism is to deny and forbid white agency & autonomy. It’s like dogs must be denied their independence IF they are to be trained to serve their human master. If you want to take control of someone’s body, first control his heart and mind. As Jews control media and academia, they fill white goyim with ideas and images devised to subvert white pride, freedom, and independence. Jews are the hands, white goyim are the clay.

If Jews were huge in number and had a sizable nation of their own — like Russia, China, India, Iran, etc. — , they would be less paranoid about power. If there were 500 million Jews in a nation about the size of India, Jews might feel assured of their presence in the world EVEN IF they didn’t control other nations through networks of capital(money) and capitals(elite cities of governance). But the only Jewish-majority nation in the world is Israel, which is tiny despite its historical and spiritual significance as the Holy Land. And this is why Jews are so utterly adamant about sinking their claws deep into other nations. Without control of other nations, especially Anglo-made ones that are most successful in the world, Jewish power wouldn't be so formidable.
Now, why are Jews so insistent on world domination? After all, Armenians also have a small nation and a global diaspora, and they too have done rather well as a ‘middleman community’. Still, when was the last time you heard of Armenians seeking to take control of other nations and the world? Why are Jews so unlike Armenians? There are three reasons: (1) Covenant that makes Jews believe they are the Chosen of God and History. (2) Higher IQ that makes Jews look upon gentiles as dogs and cattle to control. Jews think, "Why should dimwit goyim have so much when WE JEWS are smarter and better? Those dummies should be serving us like cattle and horses exist to serve mankind." (3) Stronger personalities. Jews got chutzpah, a pushy doggedness that is maniacally driven like rats and gophers gnawing or clawing their way through everything. To understand why the Jews do what they do, one needs to think like a Jew. It’s like Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER PART 2 says that, in order to understand one’s enemies/rivals, he has to put himself inside others’ shoes.
A nation like China or Russia doesn’t need to take more land to feel big or important. Even though Russia has interests beyond its borders and even though China is eager to expand its economic reach, both nations are important on their own. Like the US, they are almost like empires unto themselves. They don’t really need the world to be world powers. In contrast, a smaller nation like UK needed an empire in order to be great. Indeed, without an empire, the name ‘Great Britain’ is rather amusing. Even with the fall of worldwide communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia still remains the biggest nation on Earth with a sizable population. And even in Maoist isolation and poverty prior to its turn to market economy and entry into the global capitalist system, China was an important nation that had to be reckoned with. In contrast, Great Britain and France without their empires could not be great powers. They could be prosperous nations and advanced economies but nothing more. Same goes for Germany and Japan. Despite their big economies, their presence on the world stage depends utterly on the US for trade, markets, and security. If Germany or Japan were to go to war with the US, they could be destroyed overnight because neither is food-and-energy independent. Their riches totally depend on the thumbs-up of the US as world hegemon.

To an extent, the state of Jewish power is somewhat akin to that of Great Britain as the greatest imperialist power. Great Britain was small, but its ambition was boundless. This led to a contradiction and imbalance in the British character. In a balanced world, a modest-sized nation should have modest ambitions. And there was once a time when the British desired no more than that as they were more concerned about foreign invasions than invading other peoples. But once the British secured their island fortress and mastered sea power, they began to broaden their horizons, especially as their main rival, the Spanish, fell into precipitous decline. France being a continental power concentrated more on army than navy, not least because the European mainland remained a hotbed of military conflicts until the end of World War II. And then, the industrial revolution happened with Great Britain far ahead of other nations. In industrial power, UK was unmatched until the rises of Germany and the (Anglo-founded-and-ruled)USA in late 19th century. Because UK was so far ahead of most of the world, the British got to feeling superior to rest of mankind. They were of a small island nation but so enterprising, smart, innovative, disciplined, rational, and etc. In contrast, most of mankind were lazy, backward, stagnant, incurious, dull-witted, barbarian, or even savage. If the entire world had advanced along with the British, the Brits would have had a more balanced view of the world: "We achieve things, they achieve things. We gain in power, they gain in power." But the Brits began to outstrip most of the world in power and wealth. Especially the non-white races seemed mired in savagery, barbarism, or backwardness. In a balanced world, Indian subcontinent and Imperial China should have been much more powerful than the British. But when the Brits went there, they saw stale civilizations mired in complacency, willful ignorance, superstition, and despotism. British were disciplined but respected the right of individuals. Oriental Civilizations, though advanced to some degree, were all about customs and obedience, leaving no room for progress and reform. The only real exceptions seemed to be the French(though it too began to lag behind Northern Europe and failed to become a truly industrialized nation until after World War II), Germans, and the Americans. But then, the French were long a great people. And Germans were racial cousins of the Anglos. And the US was essentially an extension of Anglo Civilization. A possible non-white exception was Modern Japan, but its rise depended wholly on imitating and copying the West. Could Japan have sparked a social-and-economic revolution on its own? We’ll never know but probably not as it was too regimented and repressive to allow the sort of sparks that led to the industrial revolution in the West.

Russia was another strange case. It was a white European nation but somewhat ‘oriental’ and backward. It seemed capable of advancing like rest of Europe but always seemed to lag behind in technology and organization. And yet, it was so huge. Russia seemed like the exact opposite of UK at least within the white world. Brits were an industrious, capable, and free people in a small nation, whereas Russians were a lazy, messy, and incompetent people in a huge nation. Still, because Russia was so big, the lazy Russians could just rest on their landed laurels and be a great nation(as Napoleon found out when the sheer size of Russia wore his army down). In contrast, the Brits could take nothing for granted because they had to have an overseas empire to be great in power. Russian power could be as ‘slovenly’ as a bear, whereas British power had to be taut as a big cat. Brits always overestimated Russian power, needlessly getting entangled in conflicts of the Great Game that, in the long run, proved to be bad for both sides. America was also a problem for UK though for different reasons. In a way, the US was to UK what Christianity was to Judaism. Jews feel both pride and loathing in relation to Jesus and the religion He birthed. On the one hand, Jews feel awe that one of their own founded a great religion that inflamed the world and captured the hearts and minds of countless goyim. Imagine that, all those millions and millions of goyim kneeling before a Jewish carpenter with odd ideas. On the other hand, Christianity is the God that got away as far as Jews are concerned. As such, Christianity became a competing and then dominant religion over Judaism. Likewise, the Brits felt great pride that their own Anglo kin founded the United States as a new nation with promise and destiny, and indeed, the US grew by leaps and bounds largely because of its core Anglo stock with its know-how and enterprise. And yet, United States was born out of disobedience and, unlike Canada and Australia, developed in direct competition with UK as a potential hegemon. Also, in order to distinguish themselves from their Mother Country(especially as their founding myth was that freedom-loving colonials rebelled against British tyranny and exploitation), Anglo-Americans molded a new identity that de-emphasized their ethnic origins in the British Isles. From the story of Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers to Andrew Jackson(who fought in the War of 1812), the American theme was one of ‘breaking free of British tyranny and the Old World'. It’s no wonder that in World War I and World War II, the British discovered that, even as the Americans were willing to lend a hand, it came with a steep price tag. If the American colonials stiffed the bill to the British Crown after the costly French-and-Indian War, American neo-imperialists in WWI and WWII were most eager to collect every sixpence for services rendered to the Brits. The Tea Party was nothing compared to the Gold Party.

Both Jews and Hindus have had a long experience of dealing with the West. The Jews had it with just about every European group, though they reached the greatest height by serving and then usurping the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans. Jews also reached great heights in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution, but egalitarian communism ultimately proved to be antithetical to Jewish talents. Jews also came to prominence in Modern Germany, a key European power, but the friction between Jewish prophetic-radicalism and German counter-prophetic-radicalism burned it all down, leading to destruction of millions of Jews and Germans. In the end, Jews failed in Russia and Germany. And due to the power of class and tradition, Jewish power remained limited in the UK despite its great wealth and influence. It was in the US that Jews finally gained the upperhand, and with the US as the lone superpower, Jews enforced their Judeo-centric will on UK, France, Germany, and etc. Even on Japan that now submits to ‘gay pride’ parades.
Unlike Jews, Hindus mainly experienced the West through a single power, the Anglo-Brits. It was under British Imperialism and through Anglosphere that Hindus were brought to modernity, united into a proto-national entity, educated in London, and ferried across the seas to serve as coolies, middlemen, and soldiers for the British Empire. So, both Jews and Hindus gained a tremendous deal via their contact with Anglosphere(and Anglo-made US). And until the latter half of the Twentieth Century, both groups played a subservient role vis-a-vis the Anglos though the dynamics were already changing fast in early 20th century that saw both the stirring of Zionism and Indian Independence Movement.

But there was a key difference. Indians sought independence from Anglo rule whereas the Jews relied on Anglo-power in the UK and Anglo-American power in the US to make the Jewish nationalist project of Zionism possible. In other words, if the Hindu Movement was for independence from Western Imperialism, Zionism could only succeed under the protection of British Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism(with support from the USSR as well before Stalin soured of the Jews). Also, if Indian Independence was about kicking whites out of the subcontinent, the founding of Israel was essentially about half-white European Jews, the Semito-Aryans, booting the native Arab browns from what was then Palestine. Granted, Jews had a two-pronged approach in their national aspirations. On the one hand, Jews cajoled and pleaded with Western Imperialist powers to use their ‘white supremacist’ power to aid the Zionists in ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the bulk of Palestine to be re-branded as Israel. On the other hand, Jews justified the founding of Israel as a sanctuary from 'antisemitism'(and the Next Holocaust) of white folks as intransigent Evil Supremacists. After all, why couldn’t Jews remain in Europe after WWII if Hitler and the Nazis were defeated? Weren’t the Bad Guys gone from the world stage? Apparently, Jews could never be safe in the presence of lots of white people who may one day decide to Go Nazi again to round up innocent Jews for the death camps. So, the argument was Jews needed a homeland AWAY from Evil Whitey... except that the irony was that Jews needed the support of Evil Whitey to lay claim to Palestine and expel 700,000 Arabs from their ancestral lands in a war provoked by Jews.

For this reason, many Hindus have had mixed feelings about Jews and Israel. On the one hand, Hindus appreciate the Jewish Narrative of sanctity borne of victim-hood at the hands of Evil Whitey, but Hindus can’t help noticing that Israel was created essentially as a neo-imperialist enterprise against a brown people. Another difference between Israel and India is, of course, the size. Israel is a tiny nation whereas India, at 1/3 the size of the US, is one of the largest nations. What Jews in Israel and Hindus in India have in common is ethnic diversity, but there is a crucial difference between how Judaism sees Jews and how Hinduism sees Hindus. According to the Covenant, all Jews are equally blessed by God(though to be a certain kind of Rabbi, you need special ancestry, just like in order to be ‘made’ by the mafia, you have to be 100% Italian), whereas Hinduism developed as a complex caste system, the purpose of which was to keep the various Hindus divided by profession, marriage, and residence. It was a spiritualized form of apartheid. Thus, if Judaism was about the unity of Jews, Hinduism was about the divisions among Hindus. Also, if the COVENANT blessed all Jews equally as the Chosen, the Hindu concept of KARMA said some Hindus, those of the uppermost castes, were most favored by the cosmic laws whereas others, those of lower caste and animals, were less favored or disfavored. In this sense, it’s amazing that India has come together as one nation under Hinduism. To be sure, modern Hinduism, like modern Islam, underwent profound changes in order to be palatable to modernity(that has affected every corner of the world). Even the Hindu National Party isn’t for official discrimination against people who were formerly designated as the ‘Untouchables’. Also, introduction of modern democracy has created the impression that ALL Indians take part in the national pageant though, to be sure, India was, up until the 1990s, pretty much a one-party dictatorship like Japan under the Liberal Democratic Party. Though the Hindu National Party initially came to power on the basis of economic issues, it thinks very much like the Israel Likud Party(headed by scoundrely Netanyahu) and Turkish Justice & Development Party(headed by rascally Erdogan). What the Likud and AK(Justice & Development) parties realized is that economic issues aren’t enough. After all, the economy has ups and downs all the time. To gain dominance, a political party or movement has to capture the cultural and ‘spiritual’ loyalty of the populace so that, even during down times, enough voters will stick with the Party out of sentimentality and emotional commitment. In populist politics, irrational power of commitment is greater than rational power of calculation. Consider the power of love. Even in troubled marriages, the spouse may stick through thick and thin out of love. As Tammy Wynette sang, "Stand by Your Man."

And a mother loves her children even they go bad because they’re hers. In religion, why do people stick with faith in God even when so much goes wrong? Why not blame God? They choose not to because God is beyond reason. He is a holy being, the ruler of all that is. This is why a people who gain irrational or ‘spiritual’ power over another people are crucially advantaged. Jews understood this all to well, which is why they used Holocaustianity and the cult of ‘White Guilt’ to make white people look upon Jews as the holy god-race especially blessed by God or History and sanctified by Tragedy. Jews studied human psychology and know that people are drawn to power in two ways: Awe for might & Respect for righteousness. Mere might can lead to awe but also fear and loathing. It’s like we are in awe of earthquakes and hurricanes but also dread them. Mere righteousness can lead to sympathy but also contempt because the meek and powerless come across as pathetic. A far more resilient kind of power combines the display of superiority with righteous sympathy, and Christianity came upon the most potent formula for this kind of power. The Passion of Jesus makes people feel sympathy for the poor decent man who preached love and understanding. The sympathy makes people feel morally righteous. But if Jesus had merely been a good person who got beat, his mission would have been one of the countless lost causes. Also, His humiliation and death would have elicited pity than respect. But the Resurrection of Christ made Jesus out to be the Son of God, the immortal Being. Jesus defeated death, rose to Heaven, and returned to inspire the Disciples. And that was awe-inspiring. Jews understand this dynamics all too well. Jews know that people look up to power & wealth, and Jews of course got lots of power and wealth. But Jews also know that people can easily feel envy and resentment toward the rich and powerful. In Western History, rich Jews had often been targeted, fairly or not, as a bunch of piggish a**holes. ‘Mighteous’ power works more-or-less on a rational basis. Those with power and money win over allies(who want a piece of the pie) but also make lots of enemies. Therefore, Jews figured they needed to shield their ‘mighteous’ power with righteous power. Righteousness is often irrational and ‘spiritual’, especially when a certain people are associated with blessedness in the eyes of God or verdict of History. As Holocaustianity made Jews the righteous race that suffered the ‘greatest horror of all time’, Jewish Power gained both a material-rational and moral-irrational(‘spiritual’) basis. A whole bunch of cuck-collaborators flocked to Jewish Power for a piece of the pie out of rational calculation for material interests, but they've also stuck by Jewish Power out of irrational-‘spiritual’ reasons because the reigning neo-theology of the West made every Jew a kind of christ-figure. Like Jesus was both the great Son of God and a righteous victim, Jews came to be seen as both a triumphant race that can accumulate stinking loads of money and a tragic race that effectively died for the Sins of Western man.

James Woods as Max in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. He manages to both take all the money AND become a tragic figure to Noodles.

Marc Chagall: The White Crucifixion

Same goes for the Negroes. Even though much is made of the tragic history of lynching, all this white worship of the Negro has more to do with Negro triumph in sports(as the lone racial superpower of athletics), rap music, and sexual prowess. Whites feel especially sad and guilt-ridden about the black tragedy because they look upon blacks as a god-race(after Jews). American Indians suffered a much greater tragedy than the Negroes(who, if anything, gained so much by having been brought over to the New World), but there isn’t much interest in their tragedy because they’re seen as a bunch of losers. Same goes for all the Muslims who died in Wars for Israel. For most Americans, Muslims are a bunch of worthless good-for-nothing ‘Muzzies’ despite the horrible deaths of 100,000s. And there isn’t much respect for Hindus either.
While plenty of Hindus succeeded as entrepreneurs or professionals in the US, they lack the 'viscerality' of blacks in sports, oratory, and music. Hindu presence in American Culture has mainly been about their funny accents, especially in connection to THE SIMPSONS. Furthermore, whereas white souls have been drummed endlessly with tragic tales about Jews and Negroes, most white folks(especially in the US) know and feel nothing about the tragedy of Indian history. When Hindus bleat on and on about how they too were wronged terribly by Evil Whitey, there is an element of Victim Envy, especially as the cult of White Guilt underlies so much of Western Thinking since the rise of Political Correctness. Of course, all three groups — Hindus, Jews, and Negroes — gained as well as lost in their experience with white peoples, but Jews and Negroes have selectively decided to emphasize their victim-hood at the hands of Evil Whitey. As this factor has imbued Jews and Negroes with so much moral mileage, the often-imitative Hindus want a slice of the White Guilt Pie as well. And for this to work, ALL WHITES must be blamed and made to share in the collective guilt. Notice how not only Anglo/Irish whites with deep lineage in the US but ALL whites in the US are made to atone for Slavery. (Jews are the only ones who are exempt from collective White Guilt about slavery, which is rather hilarious since Jews played a prominent role in the slave trade and in the managing of finances in the Antebellum South.) And notice that both Jews and Hindus blame white Americans for their troubles with OTHER whites. The Shoah was a German thing and, if anything, White America did its part in defeating Nazi Germany, as did the UK. But for some reason, the US Capitol has a Holocaust Museum and all Americans, especially white ones, are made to feel ‘White Goy Christian Guilt’ for what happened to Jews at the hands of Nazi Germans. But the US had NOTHING to do with the rise of Hitler. If US is guilty of anything in regard to Jews, it’s in having aided Zionists in the destruction of Palestinians, but there is hardly any discussion of Nakba in American Politics. If Jews make white Americans feel guilty about the Shoah(done by Germans on the other side of the Atlantic), Hindus now argue that White America, Canada, and Australia must atone and pay for what the Brits did in India. Even if America, Canada, and Australia were founded and/or developed by Anglos, what do British actions in India have to do with non-Indian lands? For example, if Anglo-Canadians are ‘guilty’ of anything, it would be their taking of lands from the indigenous folks. Same goes for the US. And in Australia, the Anglos took the land from the so-called Aborigines. So, even if we were to accept the White Guilt Narrative, whites wronged different peoples in different parts of the world. While Hindus made good sense to argue that Anglos must leave India that should be ruled by Hindus themselves, they make NO SENSE when they argue that non-Indian lands must make way for massive Hindu immigration-invasion and dotkin colonization because of what the Brits did in India. It’s like Palestinians have good reason to demand the Right of Return, but imagine a bunch of Hindus arguing that Israel should let in tons of Hindus because of what had been done to the Palestinians. Hindus are trying to steal the Victim Pie of other peoples: "You guys suffered and are owed a debt, so WE collect it." In Canada, ‘victim pies’ should go to indigenous folks and in Australia to its aboriginal natives. After all, they are the ones who lost their lands to whites. But Hindus with their Dotzpah say they should have the main rights to the ‘victim pies’. Hindus are as unscrupulous as the Jews.

DOTKIN LOGIC: Because Anglos took the lands of American/Canadian Indians, Asian Indians should take over those lands via massive immigration-invasion. Why not argue Asian Indians should be given licenses to Casinos in Indian Reservations?

Hindus and Jews have some things in common. Both are peoples with ancient roots that go back thousands of years, something that can’t be said for most peoples around the world. Their longevity has to do with the fusion of ethnicity with spirituality, the most resilient formula for survival. In our time, both Jews and Hindus tend to be anti-Muslim though for different reasons. Jews have issues with Iranians and Palestinians, but as the Muslim world is so divided, Jews have forged defacto alliances with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the Muslim world, the Hindu world is far less divided, but then, Hinduism is mostly restricted to India with only pockets of co-religious communities throughout Southeast Asia. In a way, Hindus aren’t so much anti-Muslim as anti-Pakistan and anti-treason among their own kind(as diehard Hindu nationalist believe that Asian-Indians who converted to Islam long ago betrayed their own race and culture). In other words, Hindus feel little or no animus against Iranian Muslims or Malaysian Muslims. Rather, Hindus are angry with former-Hindus who went over to Islam. It’s a matter of ‘narcissism of small differences’. It’s like Jews especially hate fellow Jews who convert to Christianity or Islam. Furthermore, in the West at least, the term ‘Hindu’ has a broader meaning as, despite religious differences, the habits and attitudes of many Muslims from the subcontinent are remarkably similar to that of their Hindu brethren. The majority of Pakistanis are ex-Hindu-Muslims whose ancestors converted centuries ago. Racially, they are indistinguishable from Hindus just like Catholic Europeans and Protestant Europeans most often cannot be told apart by their creeds. So, terms like ‘Hindu’, ‘dothead’, or preferably 'dotter' or ‘dotkin’ don’t necessarily mean someone of Hindu faith. Fareed Zakaria is a Muslim-born Asian-Indian but looks like any Hindu and could therefore be included in the Dotkin Category. Also, his way of thinking is remarkably similar to that of bonafide Hindus from India. It’s like Jews who gave up Judaism and became atheist communists still remained Jewishy in their personalities and attitudes.

Fareed Zakaria, an Indian Muslim but looks and thinks like Hindu Dotkins in the West.

When we speak of Hindus, we must be far more careful in drawing a distinction between Hindu elites and Hindu masses than when we speak of Jews. While plenty of Jewish masses may not see eye-to-eye with the Jewish elites, the fact is a sizable portion of the Jewish population is in elite fields. Over 50% of Jews make more than $100,000 a year, and by some estimates, 40% of the top 1% in the US is Jewish. So, there is a great parity in achievement and attitude among Jewish masses and Jewish elites. Also, most Jews in the West are Ashkenazi and closely related in blood. In a way, the Abrahamic race is like a Brahminic race unto themselves. If there are high Hindus, middle Hindus, low Hindus, and gutter Hindus, Jews prefer to see their entire race as members of the High Race of Abrahamic-Brahmins or Abrahmins.
In contrast, India is a much divided nation despite Hindu nationalism. In a way, it’s a far older version of what happened in Latin America. The ancient Aryan invasions into India were like the white Spanish-Portuguese invasion of the New World. If the Hispanic invaders promoted some degree of race-mixing — mostly white male and brown female — , the Indo-Aryan elites resisted or outright banned miscegenation, but over thousands of years there was considerable interbreeding that blurred the lines between the conquerors and the conquered, but then not to the extent that certain racial distinctions cannot be noticed to this day. (And in Latin America, despite the promotion of race-mixing, there is a rough parallel between racial and class hierarchies: Generally, higher the class, whiter the race.) In modern times as the result of Western Influence, Indian reformers have sought to do away with caste and meld all Indians in a melting pot, but the fact is, on the cultural and social level, differences remain. (If southern Italy and northern Italy still remain divided in many respects, one can appreciate the far bigger differences among the peoples of India.
Yet, precisely because India is so diverse and divided, it has paradoxically led to a kind of national unity. Divisions can lead to strife and crisis IF distinct populations exist in territories roughly claimed as their own. Consider the breakups of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Some of it was peaceful, some of it violent, but in every case, there were peoples with a more-or-less clear sense of ‘who we are’ as opposed to ‘who they are’. But in India where racial distinctions, class distinctions, linguistic distinctions, and religious distinctions have been all-over-the-map(plus the fact that the Indian elites tend to be far more Western-educated-and-prone than other national elites, not least because Indian higher education is taught in English, a language that remains ill-known to the majority of Hindus), it’s been difficult for most groups to gain the critical mass necessary for a separatist movement. If there are 1000 people made up of 10 groups of 100 people each, each group of 100 might choose to go its own way. But suppose there are 1000 people where each group consists of only 5 people. As most groups lack critical mass for autonomy, they have no choice but to stay within the whole under a comprehensive rubric. In India, the common theme for the great majority has been Hindu identity, but this has been as problematic as effective. Unlike Islam where all Muslims are equally blessed by Allah, Hinduism has had a long history of picking and favoring winners over losers, and this aspect of Hinduism will not go away suddenly despite the best efforts of Hindu Reformers to turn the religion into a national identity. But on the other hand, Hinduism has been more effective than Islam as a national theme because Hinduism, like Judaism, is specific to a people whereas Islam, being a credo-religion, can be adopted and claimed by any people. While there are Hindus outside India, India is the undisputed homeland of the Hindus. In contrast, Pakistan can’t make the same claim for its brand of Islam. For one thing, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan despite India being a Hindu majority nation. Also, the egalitarian ethos of Islam led to much internecine warfare among Muslims because EACH Muslim group or nation feels it is as good or better than other Muslim nations. In contrast, the emphasis on hierarchy led to less intra-conflicts among Hindus. Granted, one thing that has held India together is a certain haziness as most dotkin minds are rife with superstitions. With minds overloaded with so many contradictions and confusions — Hinduism is far fuzzier than other religions about the boundary between reality and fantasy — , most Hindus in India have had a difficult time in establishing who and what they are. Indeed, this was one reason why the Brits, who had a very clear sense of their identity in the racial and cultural sense, were able to rule India for so long. A sharp needle will go right through a soft and fuzzy pincushion.
Indian identity is essentially that of conquerors being swallowed up by what they conquered. In a way, the Aryan Conquerors in India were like the Mongols who invaded China. But if Chinese regained control from the Mongols, many of whom were absorbed into China, the descendants of the Aryan Conquerors remained in power over the millennia even as their bloodlines became more mixed with the darker-skinned Dravidian folks. In this sense, India is most like Latin America where the white race, despite mixing with natives, is still in control and will likely remain so for centuries to come, especially as the brown indigenous folks seem to lack the fire of inspiration and independence. What Indo-Aryan elites have in common with Latino-Aryan elites is their need to keep the population together by scapegoating Evil Whitey. Even though both Indo-Aryan elites and Latino-Aryan elites practice various means, ranging from subtle to blatant, to keep their power and privilege over the darker-skinned masses, they also seek to obfuscate their own racial-conscious practices by directing the Ire of racial injustice against Northern European whites, especially the Anglos, who’ve fallen completely under the spell of White-Guilt-ism.

In a way, Hindus are an ideal people for collaborating with Jewish globalist-imperialists. While Hindus take pride in their independence struggle, they also have long record of having constructively collaborated with the British. In some ways, the British had more problems dealing with the Irish than with Hindus despite the fact that there are many more Hindus who were of a very different culture. And this side of Indian-ness never faded. Even after the British left, the elites continued to communicate in English. Even today, Indian higher education is mainly in English like in Singapore. The Indian nationalist elites didn’t so much do away with British Imperialism as take over the roles that the British had established for themselves. Thus, in a way, the Indian nationalists inherited the ways of the British Empire. Also, even though Indians were proud to have struggled for and won independence, they never forgot all the rewards that came with being part of the Anglo-Spheric Empire. And many in the Indian diaspora, when given the chance of moving to India or the UK(or one of the white commonwealth states), chose the latter. Even though their hearts were with India, their bodies felt more comfortable and cleaner in white lands despite an odd white lad calling them a ‘wog’ or ‘darky’. As UK decline in power relative to the US, it was only natural that many Hindus would plan to move to America. Or Canada or Australia with lots of land and opportunities. And this is why Jews came to appreciate Hindus as a most useful ally. Jews not only see Hindus as allies against Islam and China but against whites as well. Unlike blacks and like homos, Hindu elites tend to be high-achievers, and such talent is good to have on one’s side. Jews have also sought an alliance with the Chinese diaspora, and in some ways, Jews are closer to the Chinese at least in one regard: A good number of Jews have married Chinese women whereas Jewish-Hindu marriages tend to be relatively rare. And Jews have trained plenty of East Asian ‘yellow dogs’ in the way of PC to use them against whites. If there’s one difference between East Asians and Hindus, it’s in their respective personalities. Whereas East Asians tend to be earnest, Hindus tend to be calculating. East Asian earnestness may be due to genetics but also to the fact that East Asians come from more cohesive homogeneous nations. Thus, like Swedes, East Asians tend to be more trusting of one another and obedient to the prevailing dogma. They take it to heart with greater sincerity. In contrast, as Hindus come from a world of so many divisions and distrust, they think more strategically than ideologically. While many Hindus surely believe in what they say, they also regard ideas as tools to get the upper-hand. They haggle for ideas. British legal tradition also played a role in the development of the modern Hindu character. While the Brits were into Rule of Law, national unity, cultural discipline, and all that, their legalist culture made for a less ideological society. Mastery of law(and verbal skills and wit) trumped Dominance of Ideology or Religion. The lawyer than the philosopher became the central figure of Britain. If the philosopher seeks The Truth for All Time, the lawyer seeks the truths of the moment that may win him the case. The lawyer is far more malleable and fluid in his thinking that the philosopher, ideologue, or theocrat. Indeed, the guiding liberal-democratic ‘values’ of Britain were more the work of legal scholars and professionals than of Big Thinkers. As Hindu elites sent their children to study law in the UK, India became filled with lawyerly types who became more adept at arguing points and making cases than seeking deeper truth and meaning. Needless to say, Jews also became masters of the law. Granted, both Jews and Hindus have a long tradition of law in their religions and customs, but both took a lot from Anglo/American law and gave it a tribal twist.
Because Anglos and Anglo-Americans continued to de-culturalize themselves and define themselves more by ideals, values, and process than rites, rituals, and customs — even British rituals of tradition became ‘clean’ and ‘dignified’ over time — , their Rule of Law made them favor legality over identity. In contrast, because Jews and Hindus maintained their cultural distinctness, their use of English and American laws became increasingly slanted toward tribal interests. Between legality and identity, the latter will win out IF it is strong. But identity will lose out to legality IF it is weak. Sadly, Anglo/American/Canadian identity grew overly generic, bland, idealistic, and individualistic, and that meant Anglo-folks of UK, US, and Canada were increasingly willing to bend over backwards to favor the law in fairness to ALL(regardless of race, creed, or color) than to preserve their own kind. In contrast, precisely because Jewishness and Hinduishness remained particularist and distinct, Jews and Hindus increasingly used legality to serve their own identities... even while spouting the Anglo/American ideals of Rule of Law and fairness to all. Just ask the Palestinians. And consider the Hindu Justice logic that says the US must let in millions of Hindus because of what was done to American Indians and blacks. Huh? America owes something to Hindus because of what happened to Negroes and the Red Man?

Anyway, why wouldn’t Hindus not collaborate with Jewish globalist supremacists? After all, they can have the best of both worlds. When Hindus collaborated with the Anglo-Imperialists, there was much to gain but also much to lose. Anglos brought modernity and progress to India and opened the door for the Indian diaspora all around the world as the British Empire at its height ruled over 1/4 of the world. Still, Indians were under a foreign power and treated as a subject people. And it was shameful that such a rich civilization with so many people and so much land would be pushed around by a bunch of people from a small island who, not so long go, had been barbarians far behind the Hindus in civilization and achievement. Thus, Hindu collaboration in the Age of British Empire was profitable but shameful. Hindus had to give something to gain something. It was collaboration where Hindus were clearly subservient to the British.
But, the new collaboration with the Jews is different. While Hindus do play a subservient role in relation to Jews in the West, the fact remains they have an independent and autonomous nation of their own. Their new collaboration doesn’t come at the price of loss of Indian Independence. Rather, they can have nationalism in India and gain much by working with Jews to control Whitey in the West. And maybe just maybe, Hindus may even take power from the Jews one day. While Jews have higher IQ than the Hindus — the general IQ of India is on the low side — , India has a lot of people and among them are a good number of geniuses and brilliant individuals. Also, whereas too many high IQ Jews are mixing with non-Jews or not breeding, the great majority of Hindus in the West are sticking with their own kind. Also, the culture of family tends to be stronger among Hindus than among Jews. While Jewish brains must rely on goy bodies, Hindu brains have plenty of Hindu bodies to work with. In the long run, global power could come down to a conflict between Jews and Hindus. They are allied now because they have common enemies/rivals/problems with Muslims, Chinese, or whites, BUT because so many high-end Hindus hanker for the jobs and wealth that Jews currently dominate, Jews could come in for stiff competition from Hindus in the future. Though I would bet against it, the Planet of the Apu isn’t inconceivable IF current Indian population-and-migration trends hold up, especially as white and East Asian demographics continue to implode. (Also, even as Hindus and Muslims/Pakistanis feel much bitterness toward one another in the subcontinent, they more-often-than-not see eye to eye when they come to the West. Indo-Muslims in the West are more likely to feel closer to Indo-Hindus than with Muslims of other nationalities.) It will largely hinge on the attitudes of white folks. White people have decided Jews are ‘one of us’. Even White Advocate Jared Taylor has wet-dreams of the Jewish-White Alliance. Almost all white folks worship Jews as the Holy Holocaust people. And so many whites have taken Jews to heart as funny comedians, hip celebrities, brilliant authors, great scientists, and etc. It helps that most Jews are at least 50% white and look it, and plenty of Jews could blend in easily with whites, especially those of/from Southern Europe. In contrast, Hindus will always seem like the Other to whites. Though Hindus were categorized as members of the Caucasian race, there are many kinds of Hindus. Some look almost Greek-Persian while others look almost like Australian Aborigines. Your average Hindu is dark-skinned with facial features that are distinct from those of Europeans(and even Arabs). So, even as whites may find some Hindus endearing, they will never see the dotkins as ‘one of us’. Even among white Libs who make a conscious effort to go beyond race, there is a closer connection to Jews than to Hindus. Among white Christians, the Judeo-Christian connection makes them feel closer to Jews than to Hindus with their alien religion with elephant gods and other forms of idolatry.

Hindus know this, and it fills them with resentment. This is why Hindus are now so eager to play up White Guilt in regard to their own kind. If whites won’t see Hindus as ‘one of us’ and give them a pass like with the Jews, Hindus must seek to control white emotions by manipulating White Guilt. As it stands, Jews have both the White Pass card and White Guilt card. Jews are accepted as white by whites, and they can flash the White Guilt card to browbeat whites into obeisance and cuckery. Even though Hindus have done very well in the US, they lack the White Pass and haven’t yet found a way to milk White Guilt in regards to Hindus(though they’ve had a bit more success in the UK and Canada that were part of the empire that subjugated India). In a way, it’s frustrating for Hindus as to how whiteness can be both a blessing and a curse. PC tells us that Evil Whitey is to blame for everything whereas non-whites are nobler. And yet, the West is still dominated by whites as the main support body. Even now, white votes and white spending power are most crucial in US, UK, Canada, and Australia. As it stands, even whites instilled with PC ‘wokeness’ prefer whites to most non-whites. Despite their constant yammering about Diversity, most white progs hang with other whites and have little interest in other cultures. This is why whites feel so close to Jews. In a way, the dogma of anti-whiteness makes whites draw closer to Jews as the Only Good Whites. If whites suck but if Jews-as-whites are so holy, it means whites must root for Jews as the Only Good Whites, the worthy standard-bearers of whiteness. Same goes for white delirium for Homomania. If whites suck but if white homos are so holy, it means one of the few ways whites can celebrate whiteness is by cheering on the homos, among whom whites and Jews are most prominent. Currently, whites have special feelings for Jews, homos, and Negroes, or the Holy Three but have no such feelings for Hindus. If Hindus were content to find success as immigrant-individuals in the US, this would be no problem, but of late, the Hindus can smell the blood. They sense what is happening: Jews broke the back of white pride, whites have lost confidence and autonomous warrior spirit — white fighting spirit as it remains is that of dogs serving the interests of Jewish Masters — , and white lands and legacy will soon be up for grabs in US, EU, Canada, and Australia. In this mad scramble for the white world, especially the Anglosphere, the Hindus want their share. To get a bigger share, Hindus want to be more aggressive to take more, but aggression needs to be morally shielded/licensed because even a wounded/dying beast will react in panic to overt aggression. Indeed, this is the secret that Jews and Negroes have. They aggressively and obnoxiously take and take from whites, but whites are helpless to do anything about it because Jews and Negroes, as Holy Peoples, have a moral shield around them. In contrast, overt Hindu aggression can lead to hostile reaction from whites. Whites don’t yield as readily to Hindu demands, and this is why Hindus emulate Jews in trying to forge a moral shield for themselves based on British Imperialist ‘exploitation’ of the subcontinent. But another problem for Hindus is that they are targeting the sectors that White Jews dominate. As Hindus lack a moral shield, their excessive ambition is met with push-back. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2008 Wall Street Meltdown, hardly any Jew faced justice even though Jews pretty much dominate Wall Street. In contrast, some low-down corrupt Hindus were targeted and penalized. The fact is the current system is set up so that Jews can get away with just about anything UNLESS they really mess up big time like Bernie Madoff did. In contrast, Hindus can be targeted for much less. Because Hindus know that Jews are a ‘made people’, the god-race of the West, they know they can’t overtly name and target the Jew as the rival. Hindus know that the ONLY American group that can be scapegoated for all problems is white people, especially if they happen to be male, straight, and conservative. So, even though much of the tensions are between Hindus and Jews, Hindus go along with the charade that they are being held back by WHITE people.
What Hindus and Jews have in common is the strategic insistence that whites were entirely wrong while they were entirely right. For Jews, the relationship between the Tribe and whites was always about noble and innocent Jews being wronged by wicked whites foaming at the mouth with ‘antisemitism’. Hindus obviously noticed that Jews(and blacks) gained tremendous power and/or prestige by ‘sacralizing’ themselves while vilifying the Other(whites). As serious students of power, Hindus have decided on the same ploy where White-Indian relations was always about Evil Whitey and Good Dotkin.

That said, because Jews are so powerful and because white power is far from over, Hindus figure that the proper thing is to side with Jews against whites for the time being. Hindus can read the writing on the wall. While white goyim outnumber Jews by a huge margin, the fact remains that Jews control the elite institutions and have the moral-spiritual upperhand over whites. If whites were to shake free of Jewish controls, gain white national liberation, and work together, they could beat the Jews, and then Hindus would most likely side with whites. But as things stand, Hindus sense that Jews got the upperhand while whites are fading dramatically on the world stage. As Jews control the West and seek goy collaborators with Jewish globo-homo supremacy, Hindus are eager to play along... for the time being. Look at Sundar Pichai. That dotkin played along with Jews and got rewarded with CEO position at Google. He does the bidding for his Jewish Masters to rig and manipulate Google to favor Jewish and Zionist interests over those of Palestinians and whites. As things stand, Jews lead, and Hindus follow. Jews came up with Globo-Homomania, and Hindus(and everyone else) just tag along like dogs. But if East Asians and whites of Northern European extraction are earnest in their commitment to the ‘Poz’, not all Hindus are so lame and stupid. They KNOW what is really happening and play along until the game changes.

Jews and Hindus both come from haggly-waggly cultures. Jews became this way because they had to make it in the most advanced part of the world, the Christian West. Chinese became market-dominant in Southeast Asia but didn’t need to be so haggly-waggly because they were up against lackluster third-rate SE Asians. In contrast, Jews had to struggle among smart, tough, and independent whites. Jews needed to be extra-pushy to get things their way. And Hindus needed to be haggly-waggly because the sheer caste, cultural, and linguistic diversity in India didn’t make for a culture of community and shared values. Furthermore, as strict and exclusive as Hinduism was in determining who could be a Hindu, it could be accepting and adaptive with foreign ideas. Non-Hindu gods, cultures, and ideas could be appropriated into Hinduism. Also, the pluralistic localism of Hinduism meant that different towns and villages could have their own extra-gods and spiritual fetishes. It’s like there’s one Hindu sect that reveres rats of all things. Obviously, most Hindu sects feel no such reverence toward pesty rodents, but the thing about Hinduism is the lack of strict central authority, thereby permitting different Hindu individuals, sects, and locales to seek their own path of enlightenment. This has made Hinduism both complex and fascinating but also exasperating and ludicrous. And yet, such adaptiveness may be an advantage for Hindus in crazy globo-homo world where, all of a sudden, countless people have come to worship sodomy as god or ‘godomy’. It'd Bolly-Holly-wood.

How the future will play out with the Hindu-Jew or HinJew Cooperation(with Jews as leader and Hindus as follower) is anyone’s guess. But for the time being, they are rather united because both are eager to grab as much from the beached white whale. They are eager to suck as much milk as possible from the white teat. Also, as Jews are tough, competitive, & rude and Hindus are mean, nasty, & dogged, they are stressed out from dealing with their own kind. As much as Jews stick with Jews and Hindus stick with Hindus, Jews know other Jews are a**holes and Hindus know other Hindus are a**wipes. They know that white people are much nicer, kinder, and fairer. And for the time being, white people still have much of the Magic Dirt, Magic Money, and Magic Goodness. Also, nothing unites Jews with other Jews like the bloodlust of leeching off whitey. And nothing unites Hindus with other Hindus like the bloodlust of sucking on whitey. It’s like wolves are united in their shared instinct to bring down a caribou or moose for food. And nothing unites Hindus and Jews(and other non-white groups) like the bloodlust of taking from whitey. In THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA, sharks and fishes of all kinds come together in feeding frenzy upon the marlin. It’s the way of the world.