Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations. And the Problem of Excessivism and Homoholics.

Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations.

It's about forests at war with forests but trees being uprooted and moved all around.

So, we have these Wars for Israel that pits the West against Middle East and North Africa.
Western military invades and bombs those places. It's Western Forest attacking Muslim Forest in a strategy premised on Clash of Civilizations.
But then, Muslim trees are uprooted and replanted in Western soil. Thus, Muslim trees are planted alongside the Native trees(that have been severed from their roots, therefore no longer able to draw sustenance and meaning from heritage and history).
We are told that the forests must fight but the trees must get along together.

Another Clash of Civilization is the ridiculous 'new cold war' with Russia. We are supposed to support NATO of US and EU against Big Bad Wolf of Russia. At the same time, US and EU urge all Russians of talent and ability to move to the West and settle in Germany, UK, and US. Or Israel.

There is also growing Western intervention in black Africa for whatever reason: Terrorism, competition with China, neo-imperialist meddling. And we hear about how black Africa is 'less evolved' because it doesn't worship homos. So, that's another clash of civilization... but the EU actively promotes repopulating its nations with African 'migrant' invaders.
The West must intervene in Africa because African Values have made a mess of things, BUT Africans with African values are most welcome in the West, and white folks must 'welcome' them.

Another much-touted Clash of Civilization is between the 'liberal democratic' West and autocratic China ruled by Ming the Merciless. So, we are told that the US needs to surround China with massive naval presence. And maybe a war may be inevitable in the future.
At the same time, US-Australia-Canada welcome and allow tons of Chinese immigration. In some parts of Canada and Australia, Chinese are buying up entire areas. Get ready to fight the Chinese Forest but let in tons of Chinese trees.

What a schizo world. Clash of Civilizations running alongside Mash of Populations.
We are told the West must fight the Non-West due to clash in values and interests... but those non-whites are welcome in the West because the West is about 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'intersectionality'(of all groups with holy homos), and 'anti-white privilege'. Supposedly, all those newcomers will be Queeristened(homo-christening) in time, and all will work out. Like the queeristened Mosque in Canada.

"We will let Muslims Islamize the West, but we will Queeristen Islam."

The synthesis: Homoslam.

All of this could be avoided if the West didn't give into Excessivism. Lots of things are okay or even beneficial in moderation or proper doses. Diversity can be good if restricted or limited. But excessive diversity is a mess. Empires fall apart due to excessive diversity, so why make diversity the core character of a nation? The whole point of a nation is to have a homeland independent of empire. But if the homeland itself becomes excessively diversified, there is no peace and stability.

Homo culture is okay and even creative & productive if properly constrained. But let homos run wild with their narcissism and vanity, and we end up with Homomania as new religion.

It's like alcohol. In moderation, it's no problem and even has some health benefits. But excessive drinking and addiction leads to sickness, mental breakdown, and self-destruction.
Alcohol is okay but alcoholism is not okay.
Homos are okay, but homomania or homoholism is not okay. What we have now is Homoholics who are addicted to homomania as the central value and core conviction of their lives. Most homoholics are not even homo. They are straight but were raised from cradle with the 'sacralization' of the homo. So, just as Christians feel cleansed in association to Jesus, most millennials feel justified and redeemed in association with holy homos.
A certain cause or group is deemed more righteous if it has the blessing of homos. It's like 'God on our side' except as 'Holy Homos on our side.'
And they cannot get enough of this because they are addicts or homoholics. And there are also Afroholics who more-or-less worship the black race as Magic Negroes. Consider all those white fools who frothed at the mouth and fainted at Obama rallies or consider Chris Matthews with thrills up his legs.
And then you got Xenoholics who can't get enough Diversity since their self-righteous supremacist arrogance is predicated on hugging immigrants, minorities, and foreigners to showcase how 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' they are in contrast to all those 'racists'. It's their drug of moral supremacism to get high on themselves.

Main Problem with the World: the US is the Lone Superpower, and it is ruled by a Lone Superpower Ethnic Group, the Jews

First problem: the US is the lone superpower.

That, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily bad since majority of Americans are decent people.

It’s the Second problem in combination with first problem that makes the world so toxic.

Among various groups in the US, there is only on superpower group. Jewish Ethnics.

In the past, the lone superpower group within the US was Anglo-American or Wasp.

And then, esp after WWII, the racial/ethnic dynamics became more balanced among Wasps, Catholics, Irish, various other Ethnics, blacks, Jews.
Also, there used to be the generational divide that pit Experience vs Youth. But over time, Youth Culture took over everything, and even old people still listen to youth music and rock. In the 60s, the culture of maturity stood against culture of excitement. But the boomers never really grew up. As such, they co-opted the young of successive generations or caved to infantile demands. Cult of Youth became dominant, even though most things young people enthuse over have been planted in their minds by older people -- boomers and X-ers -- who control the academia and media. When we hear, "Young people demand this", they've made to demand it by older people who planted those ideas and images in naive immature minds. And if boomer in their counterculture heyday rebelled against elders, today’s youths take all their cues from teachers and Pop culture controlled by boomer/ X gen elders. So, there is no longer any balance of power between youth and experience. There is just the Cult of Youth that defines everything. There is no respect for age, and if anything, older people are pressured to cave to demands of young people whose minds have been corrupted by PC and Pop Culture. Look how Hillary sucked up to Lena Dunham.

Wasp power declined precipitously beginning in the 1960s. Ethnic power also faded as various ethnics — Italians, Irish, Polish, etc — just became generic Americans, hardly an identity to rally around. Blacks got stuck in rage politics and self-destruction. Religious identity faded and Catholics grew weak. Evangelicals and Southerners got numerical power but not much brains.

Meanwhile Jewish power rose and rose. In time, Jews became a superpower group in America. Eventually the ONLY ONE. There had been a time when Anglos were the lone superpower group. And then, there was balance among various major groups since end of WWII. But in the end, the only group that was perpetually on the rise were Jews who gained preeminence as the Lone Superpower Group in America.

There has been massive arrivals of non-white immigrants, but most Mexicans and other 'Hispanics' have been lackluster in gaining elite power. As for Asians, they do better in schools and make decent money, but they lack spark and unity among themselves. Whereas all Jews tend to become ONE in the US regardless of national origin(Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany etc), the various Asians groups don’t see eye to eye on anything. Chinese and Hindus as one people? Fat chance. Also, especially among East Asians, there is too much interracial marriage to maintain a strong sense of identity and interests. The prevailing attitude among Asians is that they must be the 'feminine' partner in relation to whites, Jews, or blacks. Since Asians generally follow and suck up to power, they generally do whatever is necessary to garner favor from Jewish elites.
Muslims haven’t amounted to much either.

So, we have a dangerous situation. US is the only superpower in the world AND the US is ruled by one ethnicity as the lone superpower group. This group is only 2% of the US population but has tremendous control over brain and nerve centers of law, economy, government, judiciary, and etc. If it weren't for the First Amendment, Jewish Power would be even greater as American Jews, like their counterparts in Europe, would have made it illegal to criticize any aspects of Jewish dominance.

If Jews were the lone superpower group in America in a multi-polar world, it wouldn’t be so dangerous. In that scenario, even if Jews dominated the US, the US would not dominate the world that is multi-polar and balanced among various great powers. So, there would be a sense of geo-political equilibrium, and the US, even if Jewish-dominated, would have to respect that balance.

But, as things currently stand, the US is the lone power and controls the world. So, WHO controls the US is has huge repercussions to all the world. If there was balance of powers among various racial/ethnic groups within the US, it wouldn’t be so bad since different groups would balance each other’s interests, agendas, and avarice.

It’s like various political parties balance each other out in a democracy. One-party system can lead to autocracy and corruption of power. In the current US, we have a one-ethnic-group system despite there being many larger groups in America and despite the lone superpower group being only 2% of the population. There is Red State vs Blue State divide in the US, but the ONE ISSUE on which both sides are completely in agreement about is Israel, Israel, Israel, Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust, and Jews, Jews, Jews. Jews are so holy and wonderful and need to be worshiped and etc.

Suppose Palestinian Americans, Russian-gentile-Americans, and Iranian-Americans also wielded considerable power in the US. Then, US foreign policy wouldn’t be so rabidly Zionist and Judeo-centric, radicalized and abused to serve the narrow interests of the Jewish Tribe grown supremacist over the years. But since there is NO balance of powers among the various groups in the US, the US as lone superpower is essentially a War Machine for the Tribe as the lone superpower group in the US. This state-of-affairs is very dangerous. For all the world to tremble before the supremacist interests of a single small ethnic group in America… it can only mean things will be completely out of whack, and indeed they are.
The New War on Russia is really a Jewish War on Russia. Jews use homo proxies and pussy riots proxies — just like ‘white helmets’ are used as proxies in Syria —, but the puppet-masters are of the Tribe.

Long ago, the UK sought to maintain balance of power on the European Continent so that no single nation would be able to consolidate all of Europe against the UK.
Today, something must be done to bring forth some kind of ethnic balance of power in America because Jewish lone-superpower-group domination is greedily whipping into frenzy the awesome Might of America to serve very narrow tribal supremacist interests, albeit under cover of ‘principles’ like ‘human rights’, ‘liberal democracy’, and etc. (These Jews who claim to be for 'liberal democracy' actually prefer Deep State shenanigans to undermine the true will of the people.) Nikki Haley is just another 'servitor of the Empire'. Her ilk whore out in any way and anyhow to climb up the ladder of prestige and privilege.

Anyway, if the US were the lone superpower in the world BUT wasn't dominated by a lone superpower group domestically, there would be some restraint to US power at the global level. Even with US as the most powerful nation, its foreign policy agenda would be counter-balanced among various contending ethnic groups within the US. It’s like Greek Americans side with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Americans side with Turkish Cypriots. But as neither side is dominant, US doesn’t use its power to favor Turks or Greeks. That is balance. And because Irish-Americans gained considerable power, the US respected Irish interests as well as the interests of Britain, long the main ally of the US. But pity the Palestinians. They got no power at all. So, even after so many yrs of Zionist occupation, all we hear from US politicians is “Israel, Israel, Israel” and almost no sympathy for Palestinians.

So, the real problem is Jews have become the lone superpower group in the US that is the lone superpower in the world. This situation is more dangerous than when Anglos were the only superpower group in America. For one thing, since Anglos were the majority of America for a good part of US history, it seemed only right that they would wield the most power. And even when Wasps were no longer the majority, they comprised a huge percentage of the population, and furthermore, many ethnics had become Anglo-Americanized and shared in core values and interests. So, Wasp power did represent many peoples and even groups within America. Also, due to the Christian values of Wasps, there was *some* sense of human interests beyond the merely tribal.

But Jews have never been more than 3% of the US population. So, for them to have lone superpower status within the US throws things out of balance. Also, as the core organizing principle among Jews is ethno-tribalism, their hypocrisy when it comes to universal human rights goes far beyond Christian hypocrisy.

If the US had three superpower groups, even that wouldn’t be so bad for the world. If Wasps, Jews, and Hispanics were three superpower groups, there would be some kind of balance among them. Therefore, American Power couldn't be used solely as an instrument of Jewish interests.
But Jews constitute the ONLY superpower group in the Current US, and that means the awesome power of America is to serve Jews uber alles.
To be sure, white gentiles could become a superpower group if they all pulled together, but white identity is deemed either suspect or generic. Genericism means whites are like a slug with no backbone. As such, whites must lean on OTHER stronger identities to gain a sense of cultural or moral embodiment.

In a hypothetical scenario, suppose the US has Jews as the lone superpower group in America, but American power is only on par with Iran or Brazil. In that case, Jews would dominate the US but the US would not dominate the world. And that would make for some balance in the world.

But when Jews are lone superpower in the US that is the lone superpower in the world, that is a dangerous formula. That is too much power around the world for too small a group. It is Jewish supremacism.
Jews have achieved in America what Napoleon or Hitler sought in Continental Europe. Control over all.

Traditionally, the two powers that did most to maintain balance-of-power on the European Continent were the UK and Russia. Both feared the unification of European power under one nation. Napoleon(France) and Hitler(Germany) unified Europe and waged great wars on the UK and Russia. In both wars, UK and Russia were allies. And it seems rather logical that UK, with a history of suspicion for Continental politics, has been the first European nation to exit the EU. Still, UK is no longer what it used to be. It’s a spent power, a poodle of the US. Russia is still a major power though also greatly diminished.

US and EU united under Jewish hegemony is very dangerous to the world. And we are seeing it.

It all comes down to Globalism vs Islam in the Grand Battle of Macro-History

It boils down to Globalism vs Islam as the war of Macro-Historical Forces

There are now three big forces in the world: Globalism(largely controlled by Jews), Nationalism(controlled by gentiles of each nation), and Islam.

Nationalism is powerful but it is not a grand ideology. It is limited within particular national borders.

In contrast, globalism and Islam seek world dominance. It is no wonder that the main clash is between these two ideo-empires.

Islam is universalist, and globalism is imperialist. When Big Forces collide, each vies for supremacy.

It's like Cold Front meeting Warm Front. It leads to storms and hails.

Both are violent on a worldwide scale. Muslims will use violence and war to spread Jihad.
Globalism will use bombs, sanctions, financial manipulation, and worse to destroy entire nations that won't put out. Consider the fates of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Marxism was the other grand ideology, but it died. Its radical element joined forces with globalism that is a fusion of oligarch capitalists, decadents, and radical nihilism. In former Soviet Republic states, many former Marxists reverted to Islam.

So, it's Globalism vs Islam.

We accuse Islam of violence, and yes, Muslims can be violent.
But globalism has been the far more aggressive, destructive, and invasive force. Muslim terrorism killed 1000s in the West. Globalist imperialism has come close to killing a million or more in the Muslim World.

Because of the Cold War, there was once alliance-of-convenience between globalists and Muslims, esp in Afghanistan. But fall of communism no longer made the alliance viable.

In material terms, globalism is 1000x more powerful and well-funded than Islam despite the riches of Saudis and Gulf states(that, despite their Islamism, are allied with globo-US against Iran).

But Islam has certain advantages. Islam is rapidly spreading worldwide. Muslims have no guilt conscience. Every Muslim is a warrior of the heart and/or womb.

In contrast, the warrior culture of globalism is purely mercenary. It hires and pays soldiers to fight for 'muh liberty' and 'muh smartphone', but its ideology revolves around Beastie Boys 'right to party', homomania, 'pussy hats', and tattoos & piercings. Globalism is mega-rich but utterly vacuous and degenerate morally and spiritually. Whites and yellows who are the core demography of globalism have forgotten how to create life. They prefer materiality and 'liberty' over life, family, and culture.

Also, there is the lack of unity between elites and masses in globalism. Among globalists, it's a case of Jewish oligarchs like Soros and Adelson throwing cash around to foment divisions or to buy support for Israel in a world in which Jews are less than 0.1% of the population. Most people of the globo-west haven't a clue as to what globalism is really about. For some, it's Hollywood movies for the world. For SJW's, it worship of Statue of Liberty. For homos, it's homo parade in every nation.
In contrast, among Muslims there is spiritual unity between Muslim leaders and Muslim masses.

Globalist soldiers are the best in the world in training and equipment, but the globalist masses have no idea what they're fighting for.
But every Muslim knows why a Muslim fights and carries on with Jihad either violently, culturally, or reproductively.

How much of Muslim terror in the West is for Jihad and how much is it for revenge?
If it's a matter of revenge, it's less about ideology and more about 'justice'.
It's like US got 'just' revenge for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, US even extended the revenge for 9/11 to Iraq even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, the logic of revenge is part of politics.

So, some of these attacks by Muslims are not about religion but about retaliation for globalism's war on the Muslim world. Even 9/11 was 'blowback'. If Muslims attack all things 'infidel', why don't they target Brazil and Japan with their vile decadent cultures? (Imagine if China became far more powerful than the US. Suppose China stations troops in the US and carries out operations that decimate entire cities. Suppose so many Americans are reduced to refugee status like in the original RED DAWN. Suppose China decides to put on a Nice Humanitarian Face and allow American refugees to come live in China. While some Americans might be cuckishly grateful for China's generosity, might not some Americans want to get even with the 'slanty-eyed buggers'? Might they not carry out acts of terror? Would it be accurate to blame the violence on Uncle-Sam-ism? Wouldn't the violence have been motivated by revenge than any belief in American values?)

So, I think much of the Muslim violence has to be seen as retaliatory than religious.
If the US feels what it did in WWII against Germany and Japan was morally justified on grounds of revenge, then Muslims have a case too.

That said, because Muslims do have a universalist, warrior, and missionary creed, Islamic rage(even when retaliatory) takes on a prophetic and even apocalyptic overtones. Once Muslims get riled up, their rage just keeps burning. It's sort of like, once Jews acquire a certain resentment, it never seems to go away until their enemy is totally ground into the dirt.

Also, Muslims must be frustrated by the schizo character of globalism. It has the mightiest military in the world that can destroy entire Muslim nations in no time. But when Muslims go to the West, they don't see a race of mighty warriors and heroes but a bunch of cucks, pansies, wussies, and dorks who get pushed around by shameless sluts, henpecking feminists, goofy Jews, funny homos, nasty Negroes, and even trannies.
The West is still defined by the image of the White Male, and the globo military is still dominated by white male warriors from top to bottom. They are formidable killers who make Muslims shit their pants in the desert, like in the movie AMERICAN SNIPER.
But when Muslims come to the West, they see all those pansy white boys who cower before Negroes, kiss toes of Jews, get henpecked by wenches, pushed around by slut daughters, and do nothing to protect their women from rape gangs. Also, Muslims realize that whiteness and white men are most denigrated, degraded, and vilified in the center of the white world.

Muslims fear the globo-mercenary force operating in the Muslim World, but they see the West itself as a soft underbelly, or an overripe fruit just waiting to drop from the tree. Whites may be effective killers in the Middle East, but they seem to be political & financial slaves of Jews, cultural slaves of homos, and sexual slaves of blacks.

Nationalism would be the best thing for most nations, but globalism weakens all nationalisms. Only nations sufficiently big like China, Russia, and Iran can maintain true nationalism by weathering the onslaught of globalist hegemony. All other nations have become vassals of the US empire whose invite/invade strategy is messing up the whole world.
But unlike most peoples, Muslims will not succumb to globalist since they have a deep-and-powerful eternalist sense of what is right or wrong, holy or profane.
In contrast, Japanese no longer feel any sacred connection to their culture or history. Defined by globo-disposable cosplay culture, they follow the US and even have homo parades. Japanese people have become like gadgets and robots and cartoon characters.

So, non-Muslim nations that haven't the political, economic, military, and/or spiritual wherewithal to sustain autonomous nationalism like Russia, China, and Iran find themselves succumbing to globalism in all its deracinating and defiling manifestations.

But Muslims resist because they do have a hardy, durable, and eternal sense of what is right, holy, and sacred.
Also, they still believe in the faith. In contrast, no one cares about the church of England whose latest theme is 'gay marriage'. Because Christianity is a pacifistic religion, it wilts and fades without the protection of a Noble Warrior Class.
In contrast, Islam is a fusion of warrior creed and spiritual vision. To believe and have faith, in and of itself, is to be a warrior in Islam. A Muslim can defend himself in accordance to the Prophet. In contrast, a true Christian must turn the other cheek, and if he chooses to fight and shed blood, he must feel guilty afterwards and beg forgiveness before the Lord.
As for materialist globalism, it means you are NOTHING unless you got status and money. In contrast, even the lowest poorest Muslim feels spiritually rich as a man of God.
To be sure, there is a kind of quasi-spirituality to globalism with its New Age fantasies, but can anyone explain what Ashley Judd and madonna were yammering about at the 'pussy hat' pandemonium? It's virtue as faddishness.

So, in a way, Samuel Huntington called it right. It is about Islam vs the West. But he was wrong in one sense because Globalism, not the West, is the main contender with Islam. Globalism has already swallowed up the West; it is fusing the West with the Rest, and this voracity is advancing at rapid pace and unfortunately succeeding all too well in Latin America, Asian, and non-Muslim Africa. They are all turning into variations of Rammstein's Amerika, and the US and EU are being third-world-ized in turn by these crass materialists whose main culture is Rap, Hollywood, and video games.

It is Muslims who've thrown the monkey wrench into this globalist project by rejecting its sham ideology and values(and we should be thankful because it sticks in the craw of the GLOB monster). Even though Muslim mass entry into the West happens via globalism, Muslims will not bow down to globalist creeds and fads.

Now, I think Sharia is pretty backward and brutish. But, does anyone really think current Western values are any better?
Worship of homos and trannies? Christian bakers destroyed for decency and integrity?
Slavish & craven goy worship of Jews and Zionism in Congress?
Anti-white vitriol from the mass media?
Rap Music as expression of America pride?
White boys raised to be cuck-wussies into Gayria, Negria, and Zioria?

What kind of girls white fathers are now raising? Should these men be prouder than Muslim men because they have 'western values' that is now little more than cuckery of the likes of Justin Trudeau?

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.