The French Empire unraveled soon after World War II. But, it was far from a total loss. The French colonialists reconnected with the National Core. They returned to France, their homeland. Back then, French colonialists had a homeland waiting for them with open arms. But, what is France today? It is a demographic colony of Muslims, a sexual colony of Africa, and a political-financial colony of the Jews.
As for the Netherlands, it doesn’t lift a finger to save a single White Boer Farmer in South Africa. Holland now proudly identifies as ‘multicultural’, which means that it belongs as much(if not more) to Africans and Muslims than to the Dutch themselves. It is now a crime for the Dutch to say, “My country belongs to my people”, but it is wonderful for Africans and Muslims to say “We have a right to colonize and take over Dutch lands and wombs.”
In the end, true nationalism is defined by the National Core. National identity, history, and territory become confused when an order opts for imperialism. As one people gain dominance over other peoples and their lands, their sense of national interest and destiny becomes intertwined with those of other peoples.
Thus, distinctions between the National and the Imperial become muddled and contradictory. As Amy Chua discussed in her thesis on hyper-powers, the conquering people must be sufficiently ‘tolerant’ of ‘diversity’ in order to rule over a vast empire. The subject peoples must be co-opted with rewarding, even prestigious, roles in the order.
While a determined power can use brute force to assert its will over weaker domains, brute force alone cannot rule over vast lands inhabited by different peoples indefinitely. In the case of American History, white people could just remove the relatively small numbers of primitive native folks and create a more-or-less homogeneous White empire-nation.
However, most empires were about one people ruling over other peoples who vastly outnumbered the former. Also, even though the conquered peoples were relatively deficient in technology and/or organization, they were not hopeless primitives like the American Indians who were doomed against whites.
Therefore, to keep an empire, the ruling people had to be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and pro-‘diversity’ in relation to the conquered peoples. Empires are inherently diverse since they are about one people conquering and ruling over other peoples of different races, cultures, and religions. Also, in order to win over collaborators(or, better yet, converts at least in religion or ideology), the ruling people must be reasonably ‘tolerant’ and use the carrots as well as the sticks. It’s been said that the Nazi Empire was doomed in Russia because it offered only extermination/enslavement for the natives.
That said, Hitler also understood certain historical truths, just as important in their own ways. An empire can survive in only two ways: Via ‘diversity’ & ‘tolerance’ OR eradication & homogeneity. He understood that while D&T method was useful and effective, it was ultimately doomed. All D&T empires eventually faded from history. The only kind of permanently successful empire is where one people take over, effectively exterminate or crush the natives(or absorb them racially, as happened to the indigenous Ainu people of Japan), and become the ruling majority.
Anglos in North America & Australia and Russians in Siberia could forge such uncharacteristic ’empires’ because only sparse populations of primitives stood in their way. But it was a tall order for Germans to pull off such a feat against the Soviet Union that, in 1941, had 170 million people and an advanced civilization. Easier to kill a gopher than a bear.
In order for the German Empire to be permanent, it had to effectively take the form of a giant German Nation, or empire-sized nation. Not so much one where Germans ruled over others but where Germans were both the rulers and the ruled. D&T(diversity and tolerance) method, while effective in the short term, usually led to the conquerors being either expelled or absorbed by the larger native populations. Mongols were absorbed into non-Mongol peoples or, in time, driven out by the native folks. Alexander’s Macedonian and Greek rulers eventually faded into the local domains that they conquered. The Aryan Conquerors in India may have used an extreme and elaborate system of race-separation ideology to perpetuate rule over the natives permanently. But despite DNA studies showing lingering differences among the various castes, lots of Brahmins in India look dark like the natives. Over 1000 yrs, they’ve been absorbed far more than they’d like to admit. Libido will do that over time.
Under the policy of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, an empire may grow and flourish for a spell. Initially, the dominant people maintain the rule of ‘us’ over ‘them’. While the ‘them’, or the conquered, are offered positions and opportunities in the empire, they nevertheless have the subordinate role vis-a-vis the ‘us’, the conquering people.
But, as time passes, the conquerors come to rely more and more on the conquered for materials and manpower. Also, among the conquered, some perform their duties so loyally that they are accepted into the conquering tribe. There have been cases where, over time, the conquerors and the conquered merged into one people, where it was hard to tell who was on top.
This was especially true IF either the conquering people or the conquered people(or both) had a weak cultural identity. Mongols were fierce and aggressive but culturally barbarian/backward. As such, they were absorbed into more complex cultures even as they remained on top militarily.
When an advanced or complex culture conquered a backward culture, the latter usually got sucked into the former. Christendom and Islamic World converted and absorbed many peoples. And long ago, certain gentile tribes were absorbed into the Jewish Tribe possessed of a most powerful sense of culture rooted in the Covenant. The merge is usually doable IF the conquerors and conquered are of the same race despite cultural differences. Plenty of Germanic and Slavic barbarians became ‘Romans’ or ‘Greeks’.
But when a powerful culture conquers powerful cultures, neither side is willing to be absorbed into the other culture. This is even truer if the peoples differ in race as well as in culture. Latin America is an interesting case. Because the natives mostly had weak cultures, they were absorbed into the conquering Latin Culture. They took on Spanish names and language. And they accepted Christianity.
If the natives of Central and South America were white, they might have just become ONE with the Spanish. But being brown, distinctions and separations remained between the conquerors and the conquered despite the effective cultural ‘Latinization’ of the whole continent.
At any rate, empires eventually confuse the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered. This confusion is a double-edged sword. In some ways, it facilitates further integration between the conquerors and the conquered. If the conquerors come to care more for imperial glory than for the national core, then they may come to feel a stronger bond with the conquered folks than with their ethnic kin back home, especially as parts of the far-flung empire become their new ‘homes’.
And if the conquered folks come to share in the pride of imperial glory, they could come to regard the conquerors not so much as a swarm of locusts but as manna from heaven. Still, the ensuing confusion can lead to all kinds of anxieties, paranoia, tensions, distrust, and resentment.
Both sides may have to acknowledge the limit to their convergence due to lingering differences, as well as the real danger of loss of identity and culture. Then, it is hardly surprising that most empires have faded in time.
Latin America is still in a state of limbo. In one way, it appears to be a successful and permanent merging of the conquerors and the conquered. Unlike the rest of the Third World, there was no movement to decolonize the continent and ship the whites back home. At most, ‘de-colonization’ meant reducing the power of the ‘yanquis’ or ‘gringos’. In other ways, however, it looks like an ongoing imperial project where something BIG might happen with drastic transformations in power politics.
Nationalism appears most vital and vivid when empires fall apart. Such collapse finally decides what is Core Nationalism and Expansive Imperialism. It’s like separating wheat from chaff, gold from dirt. Core Nationalism is muscular and lean, Expansive Imperialism is fat and round. An empire is like a person with excessive fat. He has eaten too much, and it has made him bigger. He carries a lot of weight and can push others around with the heft. There are advantages to be sure. A sumo wrestler gets a lot of leverage with the fat. But, he tires easily and has to keep eating and eating to maintain his size. The excessive fat becomes a burden.
Now, when a fatso exercises and sheds the extra weight, does he shrink to nothingness? No, he will reach a point where he is mostly lean muscle. That is the Core Person. Minus the fat, he may look diminished and won’t be fit for something like sumo, but he will feel healthier and lighter. So, if one wants to know what a fatso really looks like, the fatso must lose weight. All the flab makes the fatso look like other fatsos. They are defined by fat that covers their body. But with exercise and healthy eating, a fatso will lose weight, and then he will really look like his true self.
This also goes for empires. Empire confuses the identities of peoples, for both the conquerors and the conquered. The conquering people may become so attached to the empire that they forget what they really are at the ethnic, cultural, and territorial core. Indeed, because they’ve come to covet the empire above all else, they may conflate the loss of the empire with the end of the world, the end of everything. But, of course, it isn’t so. Losing an empire is really to (re)gain the nation(for both the conquerors and the conquered), as it finally reveals the Core Character of the People and their Culture. Far from a total loss, it is merely the loss of the Imperial fat that allows for the re-emergence of a defined National musculature. The conquerors return home, and the conquered regain sovereignty.
When the British lost their empire, they still had Great Britain, their true homeland. After the French lost their empire, they had Core France, the land to which the French colonialists came home to. When the Turks lost the Ottoman Empire, they finally defined the borders of Turkey and what it meant to be a Turk. When the Japanese Empire collapsed in Continental Asia, there was still Core Japan. Austrians lost the empire, but they still had the Austrian Core. Russians lost the Soviet Empire but not the Russian core. And Germans lost their short-lived empire in World War II but still had the German national core, albeit in a diminished state.
As for the conquered peoples, their National Cores, if solid enough, remain submerged but intact under Imperial Waters. The Polish people and civilization were long submerged under Russian and Prussian Imperialism but remained as a steady rock awaiting to re-emerge with the ebbing of empires. This was also true of the Greeks whose ethno-rock was long submerged under the Ottoman Imperial Sea.
So, true nationalism is Core Nationalism, and it reappears with the fading of empire. The imperialists may fear that the loss of empire is the loss of everything, but it’s actually a realization of and a re-connection with the National Core. In the end, was it so tragic that the French in Indochina returned to France or that the British in Kenya returned to Great Britain? Gone was Imperial Glory, but there was National Integrity.
What is truly ominous about globalism is it is an attack on the Core itself. It isn’t like losing(or gaining weight) but like a flesh-eating disease. Apparently, it wasn’t enough for the Brits and the French to lose their far-flung empires. They must lose their national cores as well(though some might characterize the current trends in places in Britain and France as reconstituting the old empire in miniature forms).
Globalism doesn’t only target the former Imperialist Nations. World Jewry insists the attack on the National Core must be universal(with pass-over privilege for Israel only). Even though Swedes and Poles didn’t have overseas empires, they too must surrender their national cores. Even though Polish Conservatives mouth patriotic platitudes, they collaborate with Globo-Homo capitalists to import tons of nonwhites and spread Homomania everywhere.
Also, the pervasiveness of deracinating Pop Culture, anti-ethno-ideology, and anti-life feminism have led to Child Dearth all over the Modern World. Women take jobs from men and then wonder why there aren’t enough marriageable men around. Feminism is narrowly focused on female careerist ’empowerment’ while ignoring the dire consequences for society as a whole.
While the relative freedom for women was an advantage for the West, the West’s greatest rise came in the past when balance was maintained between the ideal of equality and the reality of biology. Thus, Western women enjoyed more freedom and rights than women in other cultures, BUT they still performed their crucial biological functions as wives and mothers. This led to the triumph of the West. (If modern feminism had remolded the West in the 18th century, there would have been no Rise of the West.)
There once was a sense of All-Empowerment(for men and women) for the entire society, and this required a complementary relationship between men and women. But materialistic feminism led to women seeing themselves as a separate and independent group apart from men. Instead of working with men to create a powerful society for all, women opted for the narrowest goals of personal/sexual entitlement. Of course, most women lost out in this order as only a handful of women succeeded in the most coveted fields. But the toxic mindset infected most women, and they lost all sense of what is GOOD FOR ALL or Mutual Empowerment. They just opted for the narrow self-interest of me-me-me in-this-instant.
There was a time when even the loss of empire meant that a people would not lose all. The fall of empire meant that the conquered peoples regained(or conceived of) their own nationhood while the conquering peoples withdrew into their national core. Both sides got something. Liberation for the conquered, Re-connection for the conquerors. Imperialists returned home and reconnected with their nation and kin… like Lawrence(of Arabia) who had enough of imperial ventures and embarks for Britain his home at the end of David Lean’s film. Or the guys in THE DEER HUNTER who say goodbye to all that(imperialism) and return home where family and friends are. The fall of empire was like declaring bankruptcy. You lost lots of stuff, but you could keep your house and core property. So, if you rashly speculated in lots of real estate deals and got burned, you needn’t lose your core home.
But globalism says even the Core possession of a people/culture must be placed on the auction block or turned into something like a brothel. The culture and ideology of current the UK is a whorehouse or a house-party. It is not a home where anyone would feel safe.
In Christopher Nolan’s DUNKIRK, the soldiers feel safe ‘at home’ as they make it across the channel. Today, London has been colonized by the Other. British Police looked the other way when girls were turned into sex slaves in Rotherham(or Brothelham). And yet, this is the the New Centrism, and anyone who calls for Core Nationalism is smeared as ‘far right’… unless he or she happens to be an Israeli, in which case he or she is showered with praises by the Western elites.
We are told endlessly that Global Warming will raise sea levels and submerge sea coasts all around the world. But even more alarming is the prospect of Global Swarming that may well submerge all the First World under the rising tides of Third World invasion egged on by globalist Jews.
No comments:
Post a Comment