Power isn’t simply about individual wealth and group 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. Germany was partnered with the Soviet Union. Germany was also allied with Japan. The only considerable challenge to Germany was the U.K., which however hadn’t the means to invade or destroy Germany. It mainly played defense.
If Germany had maintained constructive peace with the Soviet Union and pressured Japan to come to terms with the US, it could very well have come out on top.

Granted, Germany’s relations were problematic. The Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany were ideological enemies; therefore, their ‘friendship’ was cynical than principled, built on mutual fear than trust. Germany’s alliance with erratic and desperate Japan was also deeply problematic. As a result, Germany became alienated from KMT-ruled China that had been favorable to Germany.
Worse, there was the danger that Japan might become entangled in a war with the US, into which Germany might be drawn. (However, if Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor BEFORE Germany invaded Russia, it’s unlikely that Germany would have declared war on the US — for sure, Japan didn’t join in the German war against the Soviet Union and maintained neutrality. On the other hand, it’s unlikely that Japan would have attacked the US naval base IF Germany hadn’t already invaded Russia with an inevitable victory looming.)

Another problem for Germany was the ostensibly neutral USA lurking in the shadows. The Anglo-American elites felt closer to 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 — the defeat of Germany and a drained Britain would have been ideal for global US dominance, not the defeat of the UK and the triumph of Germany across Europe.

Therefore, even though the US didn’t officially enter the war until 1941, it had been working behind the scenes to make things difficult 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 diplomatic strategy was careful not to alienate too many sides at once. To make itself palatable to the capitalist West, National Socialist 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.

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 goyim. Granted, Jews don’t so much seek alliances with entire nations as they seek alliances with the gentile elites against their own peoples. If anything, Jews seek to suppress the populist-nationalism of most peoples as such passions exert pressure on the 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 an alliance of subservience with Jewish elites.

Of course, 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, however, Jews tried to nudge goy kings and princes into lending their ears to Jewish whispers than to the cries of 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 populist-nationalism means the people insisting on the preservation of Hungary as the homeland for Hungarians. Viktor Orban has heard the nationalist-populist cry and implemented policies and values meant to cement the bonds between the Hungarian elites and the 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 their progeny.

Why are Jews so triggered by examples such as Hungary? After all, don’t Jews promote the same themes in Israel that is defined as the eternal homeland for the Jews? Besides, as Hungary is friendly with Israel, why are Jews so virulently anti-Hungarian? It’s because the essence of Jewish Power isn’t centered in Israel but spread out across 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 bulk of Jewish Power depends on the Jewish Minority Dominance in goy nations, Jews denounce and denigrate ANY sign of nationalist-populism in goy nations. 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 a 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 come to treat their minorities with decency and respect. 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 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 akin to ‘neo-Nazis’(even while Jews work with Sub-Nazi monsters in Ukraine).

Jews spew the same kind of filth against Syria and Assad. Jews in Israel and Zionists in the US 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, Jewish supremacists 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 serve their human master. If you want to take control of someone’s body, first control his heart and mind. As Jews control the 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 sink their hooks into other countries. Without control over them, especially Anglo-made ones that are most successful in the world, Jewish power would be greatly diminished.

Now, why are Jews so insistent on world domination? 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 the Armenians, or Greeks for that matter who also prospered as a middlemen community under the Ottomans?
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.” (3) Stronger personalities. Jews got chutzpah, a pushy doggedness that is maniacally driven like rodents 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 saying that one must learn to see things from the enemies’ vantage point.

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 the UK needed an empire to be great on a global scale. 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 world 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/or security. If Germany or Japan were to go to war with the US, they would 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 Old 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 nothing more 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 the army than the 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 took off with Great Britain as the vanguard. In industrial power, the UK was unrivaled until the rise of Germany and the (Anglo-founded-and-ruled)USA in the late 19th century.

Because the UK was so far ahead of most of the world, the British became accustomed to feeling superior to the rest of mankind. They were of a small island nation but highly enterprising, smart, innovative, disciplined, rational, and etc. By comparison, most of mankind seemed lazy, backward, stagnant, incurious, dull-witted, decadent, barbaric, and/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 came to far 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, the Indian subcontinent and Imperial China should have been much more powerful than the British. But when the Brits went there, they encountered stale civilizations mired in complacency, willful ignorance, superstition, and despotism.

The 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 to the global rule seemed to be the French(though it too began to lag behind in industry), Germans, and the Americans. But then, the French had long been 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 the strange case of Modern Japan, but its rise depended wholly on emulating 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. At times, it seemed capable of advancing like the rest of Europe but always seemed to falter in technology and organization. Yet, it was immense. Russia seemed like the exact opposite of the UK within the white world-sphere. The Brits were 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 needed to control 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. The Brits tragically overestimated Russian power, needlessly getting entangled in conflicts of the Great Game that, in the long run, proved detrimental to both sides.

America posed a challenge for the UK if for different reasons. In a way, the US was to the 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 slipped away from the Jewish grip. 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. Yet, the United States was born out of disobedience and, unlike Canada and Australia, developed in direct competition with the UK as a potential global 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-emphasize their ethnic origins in the British Isles. From the story of the Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers to Andrew Jackson(who fought in the War of 1812), the American theme was one of ‘breaking free of the British tyranny and the Old World’. It’s no wonder that in World War I and World War II, the British discovered that American aid 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 experienced 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-visionarism burned it all down, leading to the destruction of millions of Jews and Germans.
In the end, Jews failed in Russia and Germany(though, of late, they are reconquering Germany that has lost its will and soul). And due to the role 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 upper-hand, and with the US as the lone superpower, Jews enforced their Judeo-centric will on the UK, France, Germany, and etc. Even in Japan that now submits to ‘gay pride’ parades, Negrolatry, and Diversity Cult.

Unlike Jews, Hindus mainly experienced the West through a single power, the Anglo-Brits. It was under British Imperialism and through the 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 the Anglosphere. 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 dramatically in the early 20th century that saw both the stirring of Zionism and Indian Independence Movement.

But there was a key difference. Indians sought national independence from Anglo rule, whereas the Jews relied on Anglo-power in the UK and US to realize the dream of Jewish nationalism. In other words, if the Hindu Movement was about independence from Western Imperialism, Zionism could only succeed under the protection of British Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism(with key 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 Imperialists to use their ‘white supremacist’ power to aid the Zionists in ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the bulk of Palestine to be rebranded as Israel.
On the other hand, Jews justified the founding of Israel as a sanctuary from ‘antisemitism'(and the Next Holocaust) of the white folks as intransigent Evil Supremacists. Without such a logic, the obvious question would have been, “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(though given India’s own problems with its Muslim minority, some Hindus rather admire Zionism’s tough stance on the Arab-Muslims).

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 lineage, just like in order to be ‘made’ by the mafia according to GOODFELLAS, 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 historical 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.

Given such realities, it’s amazing that India has come together as a national entity under Hinduism. To be sure, modern Hinduism, like modern Islam, underwent profound transformations in order to be complementary with 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 has a stake in the national dialogue 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 the scoundrel 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. The economy will always have ups and downs. To gain dominance and a sense of continuity, 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 the rational power of calculation. Consider the power of love. Even in troubled marriages, the spouse may stick through the thick and thin out of love. As Tammy Wynette sang, “Stand by Your Man.”

And a mother loves her children even if 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 for all their troubles and go with another god or drop religion altogether? They choose not to because the meaning of God is beyond reason. He is a holy being, the ruler of all that is.

It explains why a people who gain irrational or ‘spiritual’ power over another people have attained a crucial advantage. Jews understood this, which is why they used Holocaustianity and the cult of ‘White Guilt’ to make white people look upon Jews as the holy god-race blessed by God and/or sanctified by Tragedy.

Jews mastered the ways of human psychology and realized 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 powerless seem 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 made people feel for the poor decent man who preached love and understanding. This sympathy made people feel morally righteous. But if Jesus had merely been a good person who got whupped real bad, his mission would have been one of the countless lost causes of history. It would have been more about 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 psychological dynamic. 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 were often 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 God’s blessings or History’s verdict, and the two were combined in the myth of the Judgment at Nuremberg.
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, but they also stuck by Jewish Power out of irrational-‘spiritual’ commitment to Jew-Worship. Like Jesus was both the great Son of God and a righteous victim, Jews came to be seen as both a triumphant race that accumulated lots of cash and a tragic race that effectively died for the Sins of Western man.

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 the 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 the Jews). American Indians suffered a much greater tragedy than the Negroes(who, if anything, gained a great deal in the New World), but there isn’t much interest in their tragedy because they’re seen as a bunch of losers. Same goes for the countless Muslims who died in the Wars for Israel. For most Americans, Muslims are a bunch of worthless good-for-nothing ‘Muzzies’. And there isn’t much respect for Hindus either(though the Hindu gift for gab and hustle may change minds in years to come).

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. Besides, whereas white souls have been drummed endlessly with the tragic tales about Jews and Negroes, most white folks(especially in the US) know and feel nothing about the tragedy of Indian history(especially as the movie GANDHI has long been forgotten).

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 undergirds so much of Western Thinking since the rise of Political Correctness. All three groups — Hindus, Jews, and Negroes — gained as well as lost in their experiences with white peoples, but Jews and Negroes have selectively decided to emphasize their victim-hood at the expense of all others.

As the Narrative has imbued Jews and Negroes with excess moral mileage, the often-imitative Hindus want a slice of the White Guilt Pie as well. And for this trick to work, ALL WHITES must be blamed and burdened with 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 whites 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 the Nazi Germans. But the US had NOTHING to do with the rise of Hitler. If the US is guilty of anything in association with 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 once 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, and so, WE collect it.” In Canada, ‘victim pies’ should go to indigenous folks and in Australia to its aboriginal natives who lost their lands to white folks. But Hindus with their Dotzpah say they should have the main rights to the ‘victim pies’. Hindus are as unscrupulous as the Jews.

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 and spirituality, the most resilient formula for ethno-cultural survival.
In our time, both Jews and Hindus tend to be anti-Muslim though for different reasons, though both peoples formed narratives about retaking land and power from the invasive Muslims through opportunities created by Western Empires that fatally weakened Muslim dominance. Jews have issues with Iranians and Palestinians, but as the Muslim world is so divided, Jews have forged de facto alliances with certain Arab/Muslim countries.

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 during Mughal dominance. 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 the 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 mostly aren’t distinguishable 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 bona fide Hindus from India. It’s like Jews who gave up Judaism and became atheist communists still remained Jewishy in their personalities and attitudes.

When we speak of Hindus, we must be 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 upper-level 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 good deal of parity in achievement and attitude between the Jewish elites and the Jewish masses. 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 invasions 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 considerable interbreeding that blurred the lines between the conquerors and the conquered happened just the same, but then not to the extent that 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 hierarchies 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 levels, 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, somewhat similar to the US where the problem of ethnic and racial diversity has inspired a new kind of ‘nationalism’ based on shared pride and purpose — paradoxically, the American mantra is that ‘diversity’, long considered a cause for division and distrust, is the very foundation for unity, apparently on the basis of forcing(or inspiring) peoples to move to a higher common ground that transcends the narrowness of ethnicity and tribalism, though the main themes of the US seems to be Jew-Negro-Homo Worship than anything truly lofty and ennobling.

Divisions can lead to strife IF distinct populations exist in territories roughly claimed as their own. Consider the breakups of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Some of them were peaceful, some violent, but in every case, there were peoples with a more-or-less clear sense of ‘who we are on our land’ 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 totality under a comprehensive rubric. For most of history, caste wasn’t merely an economic station but an identity.

In India, the common theme for the great majority has been Hindu identity, but this has been as problematic as useful. Unlike Islam where all Muslims are equally blessed by Allah, Hinduism has had a long history of picking winners and losers, and this divisive element has been resilient, culturally if not legally, despite the best efforts of Hindu Reformers to turn the religion into a national identity.
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.

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, and Pakistan has many Muslims of various ethnicities who feel animus toward the South Asian majority. Also, the egalitarian ethos of Islam led to much internecine warfare among Muslims because EACH Muslim group or nation feels it is as good as other Muslim nations.
In contrast, the emphasis on hierarchy led to less intra-conflicts among Hindus. Hindus high and low know that being a Hindu is about subordination based on a caste system that comes with karmic pedigree, i.e. what might seem unequal or unjust to the Muslim or Christian mind seems cosmically ordained to the Hindu one.

Granted, one thing that has held India together is a certain haziness as so much of India is rife with superstitions. With minds overloaded with so many contradictions and confusions — Hinduism is far fuzzier than other religions on the boundaries between reality and fantasy — , most Hindus in India have had a difficult time establishing who and what they are. It 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 the product 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 the 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 gradually 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 spark of 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 struggle for independence, they also have a long record of interdependence, i.e. of having constructively collaborated with the British. In some ways, the British had more problems with the Irish despite their closer racial and geographical proximity. And this interdependent aspect 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 Imperialist institutions as take them over.

Thus, in a way, the Indian nationalists inherited many of the modes of the British Empire(and, by economically and politically taking over Britain itself in recent years, may incorporate it into a kind of global Indosphere). 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; besides, Indians gained independence with ideas and values taken from the British, as Gandhi himself admitted. And many in the Indian diaspora, when given the chance of moving to India or the UK(or one of the white commonwealth states), usually chose the latter. Even though their hearts may have been with India, their bodies longed for the more comfortable and cleaner white lands despite the prospect of an odd white lad calling them ‘wog’ or ‘darky’.

As the UK declined 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 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 things with greater sincerity.
In contrast, as Hindus come from a world of 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 with ideas.

Print