A Nation of Immigrants? Okay, but WHICH immigrants?

Jews tell us that America is a nation of immigrants. They go even further and say even Great Britain is a nation of immigrants. But we must ask... which immigrants?

It’s really a matter of who/whom.

Even if Britain developed as a nation of immigrants/invaders over the eons, it mattered WHO or WHICH PEOPLES invaded or arrived.

Even in the Age of Invasions, Britain was conquered by Europeans, so it remained European.
If Britain had been invaded by Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and Africans than by Danes, Vikings, Romans, Germanic peoples, it would have become a very different nation. After all, every place on the planet was created by invasions(or 'immigration'), but WHO INVADED decided the race, culture, and heritage.

Pre-Columbian America was a land of ceaseless invasions(since time immemorial) as indigenous peoples, the Indians, invaded each other’s territories. But regardless of which side prevailed, Indians still ruled the continent since Indians conquered Indians. But when America was invaded by whites, the culture totally changed because whites were racially and culturally different. White conquest of America was different from conquests by other Indians.

So, who/whom matters. Suppose UK were to accept millions of immigrants of only Anglo or Anglo-ized white stock from America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. European Britain would be maintained EVEN IF these new immigrants become the majority of UK. Overseas Anglos and whites would be rejoining native Anglos. Being of same racial stock, they would blend together as one people.
But if UK brings in tons of Pakistani and black immigrants who become 25% of the population, the nation will have been drastically been altered. Indeed, one only needs to look at the fate of London today.

So, we need to clarify the notion that AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS… Okay, but WHICH immigrants.
It’s like saying AMERICA IS A NATION OF CONQUERORS. But then, which conquerors? Who-did-what matters as different peoples do different things.

Suppose the first wave of Anglos conquer America and take land from Indians. Suppose a second wave of Anglos conquer the first Anglo-America. Then, suppose third wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave. Then, suppose fourth wave of Anglos conquer Anglo-America of first wave taken over by second wave taken over by third wave. So, this America would be a nation of series of conquests, but since all the conquerors were Anglo, it would be Anglo-America even after all those waves of new arrivals.

But suppose American conquerors were of different stocks with each successive wave.
Suppose first wave of conqueors are Anglos who conquer Indians. Then, second wave of conquerors are Hindu. Third wave of conquerors are Mongols. Finally, the fourth wave of conquerors are African. Therefore, the demographic and cultural outcome is a hodgepodge of various races under the thumb of the latest conquerors.

So,both Americas --- the one conquered only by waves of Anglos and one conquered by waves of different peoples --- would be nations of conquests, but they would differ drastically from each other due to demographic differences.
Consider two glasses filled 1/4 with milk. Suppose in the first glass, another 1/4 of milk is added to conquer the previous milk. Then another 1/4 milk is added to further conquer the pre-existing milk. And then, another 1/4 is added to fill the glass. So, the first filling of milk has been conquered by three additions of milk. But despite the conquests by new milk, the glass is filled with real milk.
In the other glass, suppose the 1/4 milk is conquered by 1/4 orange juice. Then, suppose the resultant mixture is conquered by 1/4 prune juice. Finally, the glass is conquered by 1/4 beer.
Now, both glasses have been 'invaded' or 'conquered' by new material, but the first glass is still milk because milk conquered milk. But in the other glass, it is milk no more. In fact, I don't know what it is, but one thing for sure, it'd be hard to digest. In the first glass, the new additions of milk 'restored' the earlier milk. In the second glass, the new additions of non-milk 'replaced' the earlier milk.

Palestine was a place of conquests since time immemorial, and it always mattered WHO conquered. Romans didn’t RESTORE Jewishness. They REPLACED it. Muslims didn’t RESTORE Christianity. They REPLACED it. Jews/Zionists didn’t RESTORE Arabs. Jews REPLACED them.
Other people’s babies can RESTORE your people ONLY IF they are of same stock and culture. But if they are another race and culture, they will REPLACE your people.
When Bismarck’s Prussia conquered other German areas, it was still service of German identity and power as Prussians and other Germans were all Germans. This is why Bismarck was mainly interested in conquering and uniting fellow German lands and peoples.

So, terms like ‘immigrants’ and ‘conquerors’ miss the point because of their generality. The crucial question is who/whom.

Israel can be said to be a nation of immigrants/conquerors. But which ones? If current Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million new Jews, the result will still be Israel, the nation of Jews. But if Israel were to be conquered or ‘immigrated’ by 5 million Arabs or Africans or Hindus or Iranians, it'd be a very different country.

It’s like it’s meaningless to say ‘Hungary is a nation of people.’ Of course, it is, just like every nation is a nation of people. But what makes Hungary Hungarian? Can just any people keep Hungary Hungarian? No, it is Hungarian because it is a nation of Hungarian people, not just any people. Israel to is a 'nation of people' but which people?

Jews are cognizant of the power of identity and demographics. Consider elite-demographics or elitographics. Why is the American Agenda so heavily geared to serve Israel, to oppose nations hated by Jews, and to prop up the Holocaust narrative? Because Jews are heavily represented in elitographics and esp in super-elitographics, or aristographics.

If all those elite Jews were replaced by elite Arab-Americans, would US policy and agenda remain the same since both Jews and Arabs are 'people' or 'fellow Americans'? Would Arab-American elites RESTORE or REPLACE the current US policy that is heavily biased toward Jewish concerns? Ruling power is always defined by elites, but which elites? American Power is heavily pro-Jewish-supremacist because Jews command elite-demographics. Demographics matter even more at the top than at the bottom. Jews certainly have no problem with Jewish elite demographic domination of media, academia, finance, entertainment, and judiciary.

The generality of ‘elites’ hardly answers the question of power.Who/whom clearly matters. It really mattered when 'Bugs' elites --- busy urban globalist Semites --- replaced the 'Wasp' elites. The entire trajectory of American politics, culture, and narrative was changed.

Indeed, why are Jews and Democrats flipping out over Trump and rise of nationalism? Because who-controls-the-elite-power matters. Elitographics matters. Not all elites are interchangeable, just like not all peoples are interchangeable. It’s amusing how Jews say white gentiles can be ‘restored’ by other people’s babies but Jewish elites and their cuck-servants cannot be ‘restored’by other elites with contrasting agendas and ideas. Suddenly, who/whom matters.

Indeed, Jews call for more non-white immigration not to RESTORE white America but to REPLACE it with Diversity that allows the game of divide-and-rule by Jews who thus keep their dominance.

By the way, William Kristol and David Brooks were saying whites are a bunch of dying losers who should be replaced by immigrants of other races. But after representative Steven King’s remark, Jews are pretending as if non-whites are selflessly coming to america to RESTORE white America that need not worry about eclipse and extinction. Whites trusting Jews is like chicken trusting weasels.

Following this logic, black America can be restored by non-blacks. So, when Mexicans or white/Jewish gentrifiers take over a formerly black area, blacks call tell themselves that it has been restored of its blackness. LOL.

The Historical Tragedy of Anti-Russian-ism and the Russo-Japanese War. And the Evil of Current Anglo-Zionism.

‘Anglo-Zionist’ as term sort of makes sense given that so much of world affairs have been distorted by the uber-national ambitions of Anglos and Jews in our globalized world.

It goes back to the Crimean War, but it got really crazy during the Russo-Japanese War.

Given that Russia is a white power, it would have made sense for UK and US to side with Russia. But UK was paranoid about Russia because of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world. (Indeed, Russia's land-centrism ensured its limited role in overseas ventures. Russia was too busy maintaining control over its territorial empire.) And US too often followed Anglo-centrism and prejudices. Sometimes, US was right to follow the UK-lead. Other times, it was stupid, and the Russo-Japanese War was a prime example.

Enabling Japan to win the war(though it was more like a tie with the advantage going to Japan) messed things up for everyone in the long run. It undermined Tsarist authority because Russia became the first white nation in modern times to lose to non-whites. That paved the way for revolution.
And it was bad for Japan in the long run because it became filled with over-confidence that led to confrontation with America. If Russia had won the war, Russians would have gained influence in Manchuria and Korea, and that would have been better for Chinese and Koreans since Russians were more tolerant and willy-nilly than the the psycho-anal control-freak Japanese. Also, Russian aims were limited in Asia whereas Japan wanted to win it all.

In a way, Japanese over-ambition was understandable given the historical context. For most of Asian history, China was the most powerful nation. And Japanese had respected that. But because Japan westernized/modernized first, it became the PREMIER Asian power. Now, if Japanese had a proper long-term view, they would have resigned themselves to the prospect that China too would eventually modernize and become the biggest Asian power. But once the Japanese got a taste of ‘greatness’ and respect(from white nations) as the premier Asian power, Japan didn’t want to let it go. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War would have cured the Japanese of such hubris.
If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have licked its wounds, gained sobriety, and accepted its loss of role in continental Asia. But once it ‘beat’ even Russia, it got addicted to its role as the #1 Asian power. It could no longer accept the inevitable rise of China. It had to everything to prevent China’s rise because it would mean Japan would be #2 in Asia, not #1.

Japan got its foothold on continental Asia with its defeat of China over Korea in 1895. Next, the Japanese were eyeing Manchuria. If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, there was no way Japan could encroach further on China. Also, it would likely have lost its influence over Korea to the Russians who, being more tolerant, wouldn’t have been as aggressive against the Koreans.

So, there would have been no Japan-China War, and China would gradually would have developed and modernized and surpassed Japan — and western powers would gradually have withdrawn from China. And since Japan would have learned its lesson by losing to Russians, it would never have dared to take on the Americans.
Also, losing to Russia would not have been End of the World. Russia had no plan or means to invade and occupy Japan. Russia would have driven Japanese out of Manchuria and controlled the seas around northern China. In contrast, when Japan lost to the US, it lost all sovereignty and became a total whore-cuck nation of America. And it is still a sorry-ass whore-puppet of Uncle Sam/Ham.

So, imagine that. If Russia had won the Russo-Japan War, it would have been better for Russia, China, and Japan.
But, why did Russia ‘lose’? Because of the damn Anglo powers. Brits made it difficult for the Russian navy to get to the Pacific. They were denied the use of the Suez Canal.
And not so subtly, US favored Japan too.

Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Japanese as the 'honorary whites' who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.
UK and US developed a similar paranoid-hostile feelings about Germany. Supposedly, Anglos and Anglo-Americans were good civilized whites while the Germans were Huns and Teutons.

To be sure, Germans and Russians were also to blame for seeing each other as enemies when they could have been friends. Germany vs Russia in WWI was pretty retarded. Stalin realized this, which is why he was willing to work with Germany, but that Hitler violated the pact and attacked Russia and ruined everything.

It is the Russian Jinx. Every time some great white power makes things bad for Russia, its seismic effects mess up the whole world.

The problem long ago was that UK and US saw the world in Anglo-centric terms and failed to see or acknowledge the important role Russia could play.

Fast Forward to today, and we have the same kind of petty ethno-centrism messing up the world. Now, it is Zio-centrism with Anglos playing the role of cuck toady dogs of Jews. Zios now control the US and EU. And Zios see EVERYTHING in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?”

Given the rise of yellow Chinar, it would make sense for white Europe and white Russia to come together and grow closer. And given the massive population explosion of Africans and invasion of EU by the Muslims and the black Africans, it would make sense for white nations to increase nationalism and national sovereignty and work with Russia as a great white power to fend off the Flood of Color.

But instead, US and EU are doing everything to isolate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy.
This is not in the interest of white Americans, white Germans, white French, white Italians, white Britons, and etc. So, why are US and EU at loggerheads with Russia? Because there is nothing Jews fear more than white identity and unity.

Now, especially due to WWII and Holocaust, even those who call for white identity and white unity are not for persecution of Jews. If anything, most white right parties in Europe are pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So, why are Jews so worried? It’s because Jew are no longer satisfied with the good life under the rule of law in the West. They want Zio-centrist supremacist rule over the world. Jews totally control the US, and Jews want EU and Russia under total Jewish control as well. There are lots of Jewish oligarchs and rich Jews in Russia, but that is not enough for Jews. As long as there is Russian identity and unity, Jews fear it may one day check and restrain Jewish power.

So, Jews are totally out to destroy white power. This is why Jews push massive migration of black Africans into Europe, massive homo propaganda, massive feminist propaganda, and massive interracism via pop culture. It is a way to drive a wedge between the most crucial racial unity, that of man and woman. After all, no amount of technology , science, economy, and government can create white people. White people can only be created by union of white man and white woman. So, Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men and ONLY white men. Jews use massive black and Muslim migration to make white women mate with non-white men. And Jews promote whore culture so that white women will go with Negro bad boys than white boys.

This is bad for whites, but Jews push such an agenda. As far as Jews are concerned, the interests of white folks don’t matter at all. It doesn’t matter how much the white world is harmed and ruined as long as it is good for Suprema-Semitic power.

More than 100 yrs ago, overweening Anglo and Anglo-American hurt Russia and set off a series of events that led to all sorts of disasters.
Today, Zio-Anglo power is acting in much the same manner and once again against Russia for the sake of Zio-centric rule of the world.

Anglos long ago failed to treat other great white powers — arguably with the exception of France — with any respect. And in its overreaching, events led to Revolution and the World War II.

Today, Jews cannot accept a multi-polar world where Russia plays a role and China plays a role. But Jews are more willing to accept Chinese power since Jews figure — correctly — that whites in US and EU will never identify with China no matter what China does since China is an Asian nation. (And in the US, it is acceptable to be ‘racist’ against the Chinese, so there is a fair amount of yellow peril alarmism, and that means whites will always see the Chinese as the Them). But because Russia is white, European, and Christian, the rise-success-and-pride of Russia is a threat to the Jewish model and a model for whites in the West.

Russia and nationalism, Jews don’t like. Russia and Christianity, Jews don’t like. Russia and anti-homo-agenda(as proxy of Jewish globo-imperialism), Jews don’t like. Russia and international agenda independent of Zio-global approval, Jews don’t like. Russia and its role in WWII as the #1 destroyer of Nazi Germany. You would think Jews would like this and be grateful, but Jews don’t like it since Russians are one people they cannot pin with Holocaust Guilt.

Jews are now like Hitler. There is the combination of grandness and pettiness. Zio-globalism is grand because it has a grand vision of remaking the entire world. Likewise, Hitler was a grand visionary who wanted to remake the world.
But if you’re going to have such a grand vision, you have be for all peoples and nations.
Hitler’s grand vision only served his petty prejudices. At least Napoleon invaded Russia to spread Enlightenment values(and rule by iron croissant, to be sure). But Hitler’s view of Russians was just to see them as slaves of German invaders. If you only care about your own people, then stick to your own nation. Bismarck’s vision and his actions complemented one another. He was for Germany and came up with policies that mostly affected Germans.
Hitler only cared about his own kind and despised Slavs and other races, but he had global ambitions. If you have national ambitions, stick to your nation. If you have global ambitions, think about what is good for everyone. Hitler was incapable of such grandness of heart to match his grandness of vision.

Likewise, Jewish zealotry is too petty for a grand world vision. Jews are less than 0.1% of the world population but Jews want to steer all of global power and events in the interest of “Is it good for the Jews?”

Anglos were sort of petty too but not entirely. The Christian and universalist side of them did sincerely believe in some of that White Man’s Burden stuff. Many Anglos and Anglo-Americans were sincerely devoted to improving other parts of the world and feeling some degree of sympathy for the bloody darkies.

But Jews? Just take a good look at Victoria Nuland’s countenance, and you know what it’s all about. The world must not be ruled by people with the personality and prejudices of, say, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, and Sheldon Adelson.

Also, even though Anglos were full of themselves, they never claimed to be perfect and were open to criticism from other peoples. And there were plenty of Anglo writers and critics who were harshly critical of Anglo over-reach, hypocrisy, and etc.

But Jews? Even the slightest whiff of criticism of Jews is treated like Mein Kampf.
Consider how Gregg Easterbrook ended up in the Jewlag, or Jewish Gulag.

Jews are the most powerful people in the world but want to be seen and treated like the most powerless. Jews want the whole world to see Jews like the GOP does. Jews boss around the GOP, but GOP acts like it needs to protect poor poor Jews from all those ‘anti-semites’.

Also, if Christianity and Marxism had some universal strains, there is nothing about Jews and Zionism that is about universal good or justice. It’s all about “is it good for the Jews?” and nothing else.
When Zio-centrism is the most powerful animating force of globalism, we live in dangerous times indeed.

Fate of Anglos in the Zio-Globalist World Order

What of the Anglos in the globalist world order? What role will they play?

And why did they lose out in the lands of their own creation?

Maybe their very advantage carried within it a seed of destruction.

The huge advantage of Anglos was the culture of principle, honor, and rule of law.

But for those to work properly, a community has to be de-culture-ized. Rule of law must apply to all individuals. Principle means one has to favor stuff like meritocracy over one’s own kind. And honor means one must maintain dignity.
Among Anglos themselves, these were good things to have; they led to social reform and better governance. Nevertheless, those factors de-emphasized culture, kinship, and heritage since laws must be fair and neutral to all.

So, over time, Anglos lost their blood-and-guts identity.

And when their nations were filled up with non-whites and Jews, Anglos didn’t have the red blooded cultural tribal sense to fight and keep the power. Their culture, if such continued, became one of golf club privilege and high-toned airs of Bill Buckley.
And if white people did express themselves with blood and guts passion, their enemies could invoke the very Anglo book of fairness and point out how ‘racist’ the Anglos were acting.

So, Rule of Law and Neutral Justice are good things… but the danger is they turn people into bland individuals who are de-cultured and favor principles over blood and homeland. When such anemic people come in contact with red-blooded folks, they lack the balls to fight and survive.

Jews learned the art/science of rule of law, but they never gave up on blood and guts cultural sense… and they esp clung to it after the problems of communism, Nazism, and Zionism.

Communism taught socialist Jews that just being ‘workers of the world’ was dull and meaningless. While social justice is good, man needs culture, history, and heritage.
So, Jews found more satisfaction in Zionism that bound socialism with Jewish identity and culture.
In some ways, Germans did same with National Socialism that bound Germanism with socialism. If Nazis had kept it national devoid of contemptuous chauvinism, it might have succeeded like Zionism. But Hitler was a racial chauvinist and imperialist. (Perhaps, the undoing of Zionism in the long run is its imperialism. Occupation of West Bank is turning out to be costly. And Zio-con messing of the Middle East may lead to some unforeseen consequences for Jews. You reap what you sow.)

Anyway, rule of law and idea of justice are good and necessary, but they must be used as mere tools. They are weak as core culture and identity of a people.

A Jew who feels as Jew-and-Zionist has meaning. But a Jew who rejects his identity and says, “I’m just for individual liberty and rule of law” has weak meaning.

Tools are good and necessary but must not be mistaken with the flesh-and-blood-people they are meant to serve.

After all, each person matters more as a blood-and-flesh product of family than any ideology he adopts.
If ideology or ideas count the most in determining identity, then it means you are NOTHING unless you believe in something. What you believe would count more than your very existence.

So, if you believe libertarianism is what counts most, a person who is not libertarian is not human and has no value. But in fact, a person’s worth remains intact regardless of what he believes.
A Jew is no less a Jew for abandoning communism and adopting capitalism. He is still a Jew. His core identity is more than any ideology. This is why a Jew must put Jewishness and Zionism first before any ideology. He may adopt parts of various ideologies to serve his Jewish interest. But the thing is to have the ideology to serve him and his people than to have him and his people serve an ideology as the end-all of truth.

Tools exist to serve humans, humans don’t exist to serve tools.
Even Marx made this point. Economics must serve man. But capitalism too often makes us believe we exist to serve the economy.

Economy must serve man and his nation.

Globalism says ALL MEN must serve the economy of globalists.
In the end, it means we all must serve the economy of Wall Street and Las Vegas.