[Ombrageux]

Globalist trends:
• Borderlessness in all spheres (demographic-migratory, financial-economic, political-military)
• Demographic-migratory borderlessness -> Results in the Balkanization of Western countries and the end of white majorities. What will the result be? South Africa? Mexico or Brazil? Bosnia?
• Financial-economic borderlessness -> Results in tax evasion, squashing of wages (migration/offshoring), financial speculation -> public debt, privatization (seizure by transnational elite of the State’s assets), buying off of politico-media class by transnational elite.
• Political-military borderless -> “Global governance” (limited transnational government where this benefits elites, let borderless otherwise reign), military attacks on resisting autonomous Nation-States and counter-empires, creation of a Transnational Surveillance State.

I don’t know whether the end outcome would be desirable or not but this, it seems to me, is the fundamental question, the real debate.
The debate is distorted because the producers of culture (news media, academia, pop media) and our politicians are one-sidedly in favor of globalism. The debate is policed according to the demands of political correctness with a rough crescendo of increasingly taboo topics: Western political supremacism (wars/foreign policy), global governance (including Europeanism), economic borderlessness (including free movement of capital/“independent” central banking), migration and ethnicity, and, finally, no point beating about the bush, Jewish elites.

For reference, Jews make up a disproportionate amount of our political, financial and, especially, cultural elites, although the degree of predominance varies, generally varying from 1000-2000% over-representation, although control can also be total. (E.g. rough estimates: Hollywood = 100%, official high intelligentsia = 40-60%?, highbrow print media = 50%?, Federal Reserve = 100% since 1980s, Supreme Court = 33%, West’s richest = 15% (France), 35% (U.S.), U.S. Senate = +10%, etc.) Western elites are therefore to some degree biased in favor of the prejudices and perceived interests of Jews, as would be the case with any over-represented group. That mentioning this fact has been made a thoughtcrime, alone, shows that this over-representation has a big impact on public discourse.

It is an open question whether Jewish over-representation in these sectors is the critical cause of globalism, although there is overwhelming evidence it is an accentuating factors. After all non-Jewish elites also benefit from globalism and, in most sectors, remain the majority, although they (as disorganized-individualist Goyim) seem to defer to a critical mass of ethnocentric Jewish elites. Successful Goyim intellectuals and politicians will know to A) At a minimum, not step on the community’s toes. B) Preferably, cultivate the community by pandering to its perceived interests and prejudices. Opinions on the impact differ although certainly in France and the U.S. Jewish groups (leftists, neocons, plutocrats, “liberal interventionists”) have often been at the forefront in promoting the “invade-the-world, invite-the-world, govern-the-world” (unholy?) trinity. Jewish groups have been very successful in defaming, demonizing and ostracizing nationalists in the West, no doubt shifting the political center gravity more towards transnationalism than it would otherwise be.

Unsurprisingly, most Jewish elites oppose applying to Israel what they demand for the West under threat of ostracism and defamation – namely immigration/multiculturalism and abolition of national sovereignty to fight nationalism/“defend human rights.” Just as it would never, ever, ever occur to Jewish groups to apply the “diversity” standards they demand of white/Asian over-representation, that is “positive discrimination”/affirmative action and guilt-inducing media portrayals assuming racism, to their own community’s far-greater over-representation in many fields. This suggests that they themselves, consciously or not, do not consider globalism to actually be good for those it applies to.

This hypocrisy in itself does not necessarily mean globalism is a bad thing. Globalism could theoretically still be altruistic: bad for the communities that adopt it, good in the long-run for humanity. However, it is hard to tell exactly what globalism would lead to, given that predicting the future is always uncertain and fully open debate has been outlawed by our liberticidal elites. Worst case, it would mean a transnational dictatorship, underpinned by U.S. military power and the Surveillance State, finance reigning supreme over borderless economies and bought off politico-media establishments, (non-)nations becoming increasingly impotent groups of Balkanized (via immigration/non-assimilation) and moronified (courtesy of Hollywood/TV) individuals (increasingly depressed, lonely, apathetic, economically/physically insecure). Perhaps degenerating into ethnic civil wars.

But the world might not be so bleak and perhaps there will be unexpected solutions to the expected problems (or new problems will make the old ones seem irrelevant). Although personally I would say that, when nationalists are allowed to make their case, I tend to find them more convincing. I don’t want to completely dismiss globalists. No doubt, as in all things, there’s a balance to be had between nationalism and globalism. But the fact that globalists don’t even recognize the potential problems of their position – and have to resort to censorship and ostracism for those who raise them – suggests they themselves know on some level that their case is a weak one.

In any case, due among other things to the speed of the demographic trends, and barring a nationalist revolution, we will find out within our lifetimes.

[wat0n]

Nationalism or globalism? No, while interesting, that should not be the real question we should be asking right now.

The actual question here is, why do Europeans usually blame everyone else, especially immigrants and the Jews, rather than themselves for their own economic failures? The Euro itself was rejected by mainstream academic economists during the debate around its implementation, so don't complain that you were not warned.

And I say "you" because you work or worked for Brussels IIRC.

[Buzz62]

Ombrageux:
The New World Order is now inevitable.
I suggest you find out what it is and what the plan is to implement it.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
- Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

http://amtruth.com/NWOquotes1

[Ombrageux]

wat0n - Well, we can blame certain litigious and liberticidal activist Jewish elites for the fact that we can't even talk about the causes and consequences of Jews being over-represented in certain critical sectors.

But anything beyond that is certainly debateable (that is, if we were allowed to debate it), but it's poorly researched because of it having been made a thoughtcrime, so by their action it's hard to distinguish fact from fantasy.

What I am talking about is much bigger than the euro. The euro, as I have written elsewhere, was mainly a French mistake (not even particularly Judeo-French), a Promethean effort by François Mitterrand to Europeanize German economic power, rival the U.S. dollar, and create a European Superpower before the arrival of the globalist age. This has largely been a failure because, while the French State was tactically largely able to get its way through its cohesion and will, the general strategy is basically faulty. The failures of euroland - the manifest impossibility of multinational democracy, banksterism, economic dysfunction, technocracy, the propaganda fielded on its behalf - however are a good warning sign of the problems that will come with other forms of globalism.

French Jewish intellectuals/politicians do tend to be very Europeanist however and, though they did not initiate the euro construct, they have tended to defend the elite's handiwork. People like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jacques Attali, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Dominique Strauss-Kahn have repeatedly told us that any questioning of the EU will lead to World War 3/becoming U.S.-Chinese colonies. There of course exceptions, Emmanuel Todd (influenced by Anglo thinking) and Éric Zemmour (a consistent French nationalist, a rarity) are both euroskeptic, but that's about it.

French Jewish groups have also undeniably been at the forefront in attacking France's ethno-cultural cohesion (because "racist") and promoting immigration and multiculturalism since at least the 1980s. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Alain Finkielkraut switched from being immigrationist to "nationalist," not because mass immigration was hurting France, but because it might hurt his community. In fact he said recently that perhaps the only thing which could unite the new black-white-Arab France was... "anti-Semitism". I wouldn't go that far!

Buzz62 - Appreciated. Conscious conspiracy is certainly possible, although arguably not necessary, the causes are mainly long-term, structural and cultural-ideological. Although I am certainly interested in the history of finance and the Federal Reserve.

[Buzz62]

Buzz62 - Appreciated. Conscious conspiracy is certainly possible, although arguably not necessary, the causes are mainly long-term, structural and cultural-ideological. Although I am certainly interested in the history of finance and the Federal Reserve.

I agree completely Sir.
Yet...who has the means to sway an entire culture?
Who has the means to create ideology?

Follow the money Sir.
But please follow it quickly.
I fear we are running short on time.

[wat0n]

wat0n - Well, we can blame certain litigious and liberticidal activist Jewish elites for the fact that we can't even talk about the causes and consequences of Jews being over-represented in certain critical sectors.

But anything beyond that is certainly debateable (that is, if we were allowed to debate it), but it's poorly researched because of it having been made a thoughtcrime, so by their action it's hard to distinguish fact from fantasy.

What I am talking about is much bigger than the euro. The euro, as I have written elsewhere, was mainly a French mistake (not even particularly Judeo-French), a Promethean effort by François Mitterrand to Europeanize German economic power, rival the U.S. dollar, and create a European Superpower before the arrival of the globalist age. This has largely been a failure because, while the French State was tactically largely able to get its way through its cohesion and will, the general strategy is basically faulty. The failures of euroland - the manifest impossibility of multinational democracy, banksterism, economic dysfunction, technocracy, the propaganda fielded on its behalf - however are a good warning sign of the problems that will come with other forms of globalism.

French Jewish intellectuals/politicians do tend to be very Europeanist however and, though they did not initiate the euro construct, they have tended to defend the elite's handiwork. People like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jacques Attali, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Dominique Strauss-Kahn have repeatedly told us that any questioning of the EU will lead to World War 3/becoming U.S.-Chinese colonies. There of course exceptions, Emmanuel Todd (influenced by Anglo thinking) and Éric Zemmour (a consistent French nationalist, a rarity) are both euroskeptic, but that's about it.

French Jewish groups have also undeniably been at the forefront in attacking France's ethno-cultural cohesion (because "racist") and promoting immigration and multiculturalism since at least the 1980s. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Alain Finkielkraut switched from being immigrationist to "nationalist," not because mass immigration was hurting France, but because it might hurt his community. In fact he said recently that perhaps the only thing which could unite the new black-white-Arab France was... "anti-Semitism". I wouldn't go that far!

I don't find it surprising European Jews are Europeanist considering the bitter experience they had with forms of radical nationalism in Europe, ditto for their support for de-emphasizing European nationalism and even immigration. The same applies to the broader European population as well.

Yet I doubt European Jews, and Europeans in general, would rate the immigration experience as successful, mainly due to the lack of integration of immigrants. But then, why the hell didn't the European governments move in that direction? And why would the immigrants themselves or the European Jews be blamed for that, anyway? See a pattern here?

[The Immortal Goon]

This isn't a new thing. This isn't an ethnic conspiracy.

This is capitalism. It's how it was working two centuries ago. It is the means of production moving, not a shady cartel of Illuminatai twirling their mustaches and attempting to destroy the French people, whose nationality capitalism itself defined.

[Buzz62]

Don't just assume the Euro is an economic failure.
The creation of the Eurozone and the common currency, has made is much easier for nations to "set-up office" in new nations.
Expansion.
T-Mobile, Seimons, the Dutch Cable TV Companies, IBM, Westinghouse, etc.

Devalue the currency, have a fire-sale, a sell-off to...Western concerns who just happen to have the cash available, and hope the resulting stabilization is strong. But as we see in this article, it hasn't been. But was that the "goal"?
Was that the point of the unification efforts?
Its what they said it would be...but that hasn't happened has it.

On the other hand...guess who now controls most of the internet, Cell business, electrical generation, and so on?
German firms, US firms, British French Dutch firms...
Hell Phillip Morris is making cigarettes in all sorts of new markets. Owns some of them outright.
And yet Greek smokes...still suck!

Don't assume the Euro was a failure...you don't know what the goal was...

[blackjack21]

Borderlessness in all spheres (demographic-migratory, financial-economic, political-military)

The problem with borderlessness is that it doesn't overcome language barriers. A greater fear of being overwhelmed by Anglo-American capitalism is that English is the world language. If language barriers break down, it spreads more English (except in America).

Demographic-migratory borderlessness -> Results in the Balkanization of Western countries and the end of white majorities. What will the result be? South Africa? Mexico or Brazil? Bosnia?

Yes. What does Jeb Bush say about illegal aliens breaking America's laws? It is an act of "love." Would he say the same of Cliven Bundy? I rather doubt it.

Financial-economic borderlessness -> Results in tax evasion, squashing of wages (migration/offshoring), financial speculation -> public debt, privatization (seizure by transnational elite of the State’s assets), buying off of politico-media class by transnational elite.

I still think the bigger picture is that what is transpiring is the collapse of the welfare state. The economics and demographics do not permit it to last as it did in the 20th Century. The buying off of the politico-media class is a fait accompli. There is no way Barack Obama would have become president, or re-elected without it. You wouldn't have media personalities who say, "I just feel like {maudlin pause} ... like ... {more soul searching} ... that the reason people disagree with the president's policies is ... {more pause} ... I hate to say it ... {brief pause} ... racist." This reminds me of the anti-Vietnam media campaigns by the same people. They'd all say EXACTLY the same thing. "We never should have been there in the first place..." How can people all say exactly the same thing and it not be scripted? These people are all paid as some sort of referent authority. It's all a sham, and it's too obvious now.

The debate is distorted because the producers of culture (news media, academia, pop media) and our politicians are one-sidedly in favor of globalism.

They all flip like a switch in favor of things too. "Gay marriage" is an example.

For reference, Jews make up a disproportionate amount of our political, financial and, especially, cultural elites, although the degree of predominance varies, generally varying from 1000-2000% over-representation, although control can also be total. (E.g. rough estimates: Hollywood = 100%, official high intelligentsia = 40-60%?, highbrow print media = 50%?, Federal Reserve = 100% since 1980s, Supreme Court = 33%, West’s richest = 15% (France), 35% (U.S.), U.S. Senate = +10%, etc.) Western elites are therefore to some degree biased in favor of the prejudices and perceived interests of Jews, as would be the case with any over-represented group. That mentioning this fact has been made a thoughtcrime, alone, shows that this over-representation has a big impact on public discourse.

I think the effort to criminalize white Christian conservatives by Lois Lerner, et. al. is an example of how they have overplayed their hand.

It is an open question whether Jewish over-representation in these sectors is the critical cause of globalism, although there is overwhelming evidence it is an accentuating factors.

I still think there are overwhelming physical factors. For example, global trade was physically limited by labor until inter-modal shipping broke through that bottleneck. That made it possible to move factories out of cities and countries. Similarly, the internet (global crossing) made it possible to outsource service sector jobs. I still remember like it was yesterday telling my Jewish boss that they'd outsource entire divisions of companies. "It'll never happen," he said. He was so wrong. Jews know how to get on the band wagon and milk it for all its worth, but they aren't always the innovators in society.

Jewish groups have been very successful in defaming, demonizing and ostracizing nationalists in the West, no doubt shifting the political center gravity more towards transnationalism than it would otherwise be.

That only works when they are effective. I think the left thought we were in a different time and place. Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and fomenting of dissent in Eastern Ukraine is an excellent example of how totally out of touch the EU and US bureaucrats are these days. Their thumping about homosexuals at the Sochi Olympics while Vladimir Putin was plotting his invasion of Eastern Europe is telling. What's surprising is that more actors haven't taken advantage of the nominal collapse of NATO. I'm guessing Putin could invade Austria and promise to behave and they'd still do nothing. I'm pretty sure Ukraine, Moldova and Romania are in the cards.

Unsurprisingly, most Jewish elites oppose applying to Israel what they demand for the West under threat of ostracism and defamation – namely immigration/multiculturalism and abolition of national sovereignty to fight nationalism/“defend human rights.” Just as it would never, ever, ever occur to Jewish groups to apply the “diversity” standards they demand of white/Asian over-representation, that is “positive discrimination”/affirmative action and guilt-inducing media portrayals assuming racism, to their own community’s far-greater over-representation in many fields. This suggests that they themselves, consciously or not, do not consider globalism to actually be good for those it applies to.

Well, I think they fancy themselves an "invisible" elite--as though we don't know. When society hits a tipping point throughout history, groups like the Jews tend to face extreme hostility as the frustration-aggression response finally kicks in. The sad part is that a lot of Jews who don't have much to do with a global conspiracy are the ones who take the biggest hit.

The New World Order is now inevitable.

Disorder is now inevitable, and someone is likely to get the blame.

French Jewish groups have also undeniably been at the forefront in attacking France's ethno-cultural cohesion (because "racist") and promoting immigration and multiculturalism since at least the 1980s. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Alain Finkielkraut switched from being immigrationist to "nationalist," not because mass immigration was hurting France, but because it might hurt his community. In fact he said recently that perhaps the only thing which could unite the new black-white-Arab France was... "anti-Semitism". I wouldn't go that far!

Maybe not yet, but it is possible. What got me interested in the Jewish Question was the antics of Alan Grayson comparing the Tea Party to the KKK. It was so outrageous, that I just needed a clearer answer. I suspected Jewish involvement in the IRS targetting of the Tea Party, but now it looks very much like a movement promoted substantially by Jews and leftists. Will an Allen West or a Tim Scott ultimately side with the Jews who attacked them? That's the kind of question that will be answered with time. Will Lois Lerner et. al. be sent to prison, or will their ability to commit crimes using high office result in a deep political fracture in the United States? I see that as a more likely outcome now.

Devalue the currency, have a fire-sale, a sell-off to...Western concerns who just happen to have the cash available, and hope the resulting stabilization is strong. But as we see in this article, it hasn't been. But was that the "goal"?
Was that the point of the unification efforts?
Its what they said it would be...but that hasn't happened has it.

The goal may have been to de-emphasize nationality. However, Southern Europe always inflated its currency. Tight money is making them suffer. They had not bargained on that. So it's interesting that we see threads about Jews leaving France now. The odd thing to me is what ever made anyone think that moving Muslims into France (or the UK) would somehow turn them into liberal democrats?

[Buzz62]

You may be right.
the de-emphasization of nationalism may have been the point.
It looks like its having the opposite effect though.

[Verv]

Wait, is this the Ombrageux that I know? It seems like a few years ago you were very much in support of a general sense of globalism and were quite anti-Nationalist. perhaps I am mistaken but this is seemingly a very welcome change.

I do say, we have a growing number of nationalist sympathizers out there. I merely hope that this is not going to be a growing disappointment of people who vaguely adopt the idea of nationalism and borders being good but are still, in their heart of hearts, liberal people with a liberal agenda and remain the enemy of true Nationalists...

Globalism cannot be altruistic -- even if it paints itself as such, because the real intention is market exploitation and greater profits; the idea of defeating racist / nationalist creeds is an incredibly funny thing. One glance at most wealthy elites and it is clear that they have no intention of themselves interacting with the slums that mass immigration creates.

They ride their donkey through the swamp.

[Beal]

Henry Kissinger

Misattributed.

Congressman Larry P. McDonald

Apparently he did say this. Of course, he sounds like a bit of a nutcase.

David Rockefeller

He wrote this, but was discussing his role as an internationalist promoting free trade, communication between different countries, and an active international role. He attributed this work, in part, to the defeat of the "very real threat posed by Soviet communism." Two sentences later he dismissed conspiracy theories about a "secret group of international bankers and capitalists" controlling the world economy.

Longer quote here.

Paul Warburg

Actually James Paul Warburg. He is famous for saying this. He did indeed promote a strengthening of the UN akin to "world government" because he feared the alternative was nuclear war.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

No known primary source (news article, book, transcription, recording, etc..) for this quote. Likely a complete fabrication.

John F. Kennedy

No known primary source for this quota. Likely a complete fabrication.

Woodrow Wilson

Misattributed, taken out of context, or completely fabricated.

[Buzz62]

Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.

This is widely reported on many sites as coming from the Bilderberg Conference (1991) Evians, France, purportedly recorded by a Swiss diplomat, but no such recording has ever been provided.

Misquoted?
You don't know that.
You know it was reportedly said at a Bilderberg Conference.
Was anyone ever charged? Denied?

Wilson:
OK I hadn't known that about this one.
You might be right.

How many times do politicians and the highest ranking bankers of the world, have to tell you their plans, before you acknowledge them?
The concept of a NWO has been debated for years, yet they continue to talk openly about it.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/New_World_Order
Another cute one by Kissinger in there.

[Ombrageux]

I don't find it surprising European Jews are Europeanist considering the bitter experience they had with forms of radical nationalism in Europe, ditto for their support for de-emphasizing European nationalism and even immigration. The same applies to the broader European population as well.

It's perfectly normal for Jewish elites to promote Jewish interests, but they should recognize that these can clash with non-Jews' legitimate interests, and they shouldn't criminalize Goyim for defending their interests. Jewish organizations (SPLC, ADL, LICRA, AIPAC, CRIF) argue: We are allowed to defend our ethnic interests, but you whites are not allowed to defend your ethnic interests; we unconditionally support Israeli ultra-nationalism, but any expression of French nationalism must be criminalized. It's the double standard which is unacceptable.

Yet I doubt European Jews, and Europeans in general, would rate the immigration experience as successful, mainly due to the lack of integration of immigrants. But then, why the hell didn't the European governments move in that direction? And why would the immigrants themselves or the European Jews be blamed for that, anyway? See a pattern here?

The words you typed, as far as I can see, make no sense. Try again. This time, try considering for one minute if Jewish elites have ever been unfair to other peoples or made mistakes. Just as we Goyim, every day, are made aware of the injustices and mistakes of our elites (Vichy France, Nazi Germany, American slavery, etc).

Accepting a little (self-)criticism of Jewish elites does not mean condoning the murder of ordinary Jews.

This isn't a new thing. This isn't an ethnic conspiracy.

This is capitalism. It's how it was working two centuries ago. It is the means of production moving, not a shady cartel of Illuminatai twirling their mustaches and attempting to destroy the French people, whose nationality capitalism itself defined.

Tell you what: Capitalism was originally a West European phenomenon which some have argued was caused, among other things, by the culture and values of Protestantism. The West European culture and Protestant religion of capitalist elites obviously influenced on some level the capitalism they made, even if we can argue about the actual impact. Obviously, non-Europeans suffered quite a bit from the fact that white capitalist elites did not identify with them, of course capitalism was brutal in Europe, but it's quite easy to argue that there was an additional layer of suffering for non-whites because of the ethnic factor. We could obviously say the same thing about the impact of Japanese capitalism on Japanese as against non-Japanese.

Capitalism is not some disembodied entity free of ethnic bias, but something practiced by individual people with particular ethnic identifications and cultural backgrounds.

In exactly the same way, since the 1800s to the extent capitalist (or for that matter communist) elites were/are disproportionately Jewish and ethnocentric, the associated culture and bias is going to influence capitalism in some way. Indeed you could say that about modernity in general. People generally tend to be more exploitative and oppressive against people who are not their co-ethnics (just like white elites are more brutal vs. blacks than their fellow whites).

And I explicitly said conspiracy is not required. The causes are structural. There's also no "conspiracy" because these elites are generally very open in their advocacy of undermining the homogeneity and white/Christian composition of Western nations and replacing with multicultural hodge-podges. They're not shy about it.

That only works when they are effective. I think the left thought we were in a different time and place. Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and fomenting of dissent in Eastern Ukraine is an excellent example of how totally out of touch the EU and US bureaucrats are these days. Their thumping about homosexuals at the Sochi Olympics while Vladimir Putin was plotting his invasion of Eastern Europe is telling. What's surprising is that more actors haven't taken advantage of the nominal collapse of NATO. I'm guessing Putin could invade Austria and promise to behave and they'd still do nothing. I'm pretty sure Ukraine, Moldova and Romania are in the cards.

These elites are only overwhelming in the West (especially U.S., Canada, France). China is run by ethnic Chinese. Russia is an interesting case because the few Jews that are left are massively over-represented among the oligarchs, but Putin has nonetheless enforced an unabashedly Russian and nationalist policy, rather like De Gaulle in 1960s France.

Wait, is this the Ombrageux that I know? It seems like a few years ago you were very much in support of a general sense of globalism and were quite anti-Nationalist. perhaps I am mistaken but this is seemingly a very welcome change.

I do say, we have a growing number of nationalist sympathizers out there. I merely hope that this is not going to be a growing disappointment of people who vaguely adopt the idea of nationalism and borders being good but are still, in their heart of hearts, liberal people with a liberal agenda and remain the enemy of true Nationalists...

Globalism cannot be altruistic -- even if it paints itself as such, because the real intention is market exploitation and greater profits; the idea of defeating racist / nationalist creeds is an incredibly funny thing. One glance at most wealthy elites and it is clear that they have no intention of themselves interacting with the slums that mass immigration creates.

They ride their donkey through the swamp.

Indeed I've developed a bit My economics are still pretty left-wing but I turned to Nation-Statism when I realize that that was the only way for a people to determine their way of life (including whether to have left/right wing economics). I also recognize the link between a kind of guilty-white-liberalism and globalism. Heck I not too long ago was even able to get along with Dave of all people.

[The Immortal Goon]

In exactly the same way, since the 1800s to the extent capitalist (or for that matter communist) elites were/are disproportionately Jewish and ethnocentric, the associated culture and bias is going to influence capitalism in some way. Indeed you could say that about modernity in general. People generally tend to be more exploitative and oppressive against people who are not their co-ethnics (just like white elites are more brutal vs. blacks than their fellow whites).

And I explicitly said conspiracy is not required. The causes are structural. There's also no "conspiracy" because these elites are generally very open in their advocacy of undermining the homogeneity and white/Christian composition of Western nations and replacing with multicultural hodge-podges. They're not shy about it.

But this is much more a rural/urban divide than it is an ethnic one. Jews in Europe lived mostly in cities, but they were still (and remain) a minority of the population.

Brittany must submit to Paris because it is a rural place connected to an urban place. This is, again, not a new insight, but either the capitalist or the anti-capitalist:

The inhabitants of trading cities, by importing the improved manufactures and expensive luxuries of richer countries, afforded some food to the vanity of the great proprietors, who eagerly purchased them with great quantities of the rude produce of their own lands. The commerce of a great part of Europe in those times, accordingly, consisted chiefly in the exchange of their own rude for the, manufactured produce of more civilised nations. Thus the wool of England used to be exchanged for the wines of France and the fine cloths of Flanders, in the same manner as the corn in Poland is at this day exchanged for the wines and brandies of France and for the silks and velvets of France and Italy.

A taste for the finer and more improved manufactures was in this manner introduced by foreign commerce into countries where no such works were carried on. But when this taste became so general as to occasion a considerable demand, the merchants, in order to save the expense of carriage, naturally endeavoured to establish some manufactures of the same kind in their own country. Hence the origin of the first manufactures for distant sale that seem to have been established in the western provinces of Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. No large country, it must be observed, ever did or could subsist without some sort of manufactures being carried on in it; and when it is said of any such country that it has no manufactures, it must always be understood of the finer and more improved or of such as are fit for distant sale....

...A revolution of the greatest importance to the public happiness was in this manner brought about by two different orders of people who had not the least intention to serve the public. To gratify the most childish vanity was the sole motive of the great proprietors. The merchants and artificers, much less ridiculous, acted merely from a view to their own interest, and in pursuit of their own pedlar principle of turning a penny wherever a penny was to be got. Neither of them had either knowledge or foresight of that great revolution which the folly of the one, and the industry of the other, was gradually bringing about.

It is thus that through the greater part of Europe the commerce and manufactures of cities, instead of being the effect, have been the cause and occasion of the improvement and cultivation of the country.

This order, however, being contrary to the natural course of things, is necessarily both slow and uncertain. Compare the slow progress of those European countries of which the wealth depends very much upon their commerce and manufactures with the rapid advances of our North American colonies, of which the wealth is founded altogether in agriculture. Through the greater part of Europe the number of inhabitants is not supposed to double in less than five hundred years. In several of our North American colonies, it is found to double in twenty or five-and-twenty years. In Europe, the law of primogeniture and perpetuities of different kinds prevent the division of great estates, and thereby hinder the multiplication of small proprietors. A small proprietor, however, who knows every part of his little territory, who views it with all the affection which property, especially small property, naturally inspires, and who upon that account takes pleasure not only in cultivating but in adorning it, is generally of all improvers the most industrious, the most intelligent, and the most successful. The same regulations, besides, keep so much land out of the market that there are always more capitals to buy than there is land to sell, so that what is sold always sells at a monopoly price. The rent never pays the interest of the purchase-money, and is, besides, burdened with repairs and other occasional charges to which the interest of money is not liable. To purchase land is everywhere in Europe a most unprofitable employment of a small capital. For the sake of the superior security, indeed, a man of moderate circumstances, when he retires from business, will sometimes choose to lay out his little capital in land. A man of profession too, whose revenue is derived from. another source, often loves to secure his savings in the same way. But a young man, who, instead of applying to trade or to some profession, should employ a capital of two or three thousand pounds in the purchase and cultivation of a small piece of land, might indeed expect to live very happily, and very independently, but must bid adieu forever to all hope of either great fortune or great illustration, which by a different employment of his stock he might have had the same chance of acquiring with other people. Such a person too, though he cannot aspire at being a proprietor, will often disdain to be a farmer. The small quantity of land, therefore, which is brought to market, and the high price of what is brought thither, prevents a great number of capitals from being employed in its cultivation and improvement which would otherwise have taken that direction.

...The capital, however, that is acquired to any country by commerce and manufactures is all a very precarious and uncertain possession till some part of it has been secured and realized in the cultivation and improvement of its lands. A merchant, it has been said very properly, is not necessarily the citizen of any particular country. It is in a great measure indifferent to him from what place he carries on his trade; and a very trifling disgust will make him remove his capital, and together with it all the industry which it supports, from one country to another. No part of it can be said to belong to any particular country, till it has been spread as it were over the face of that country, either in buildings or in the lasting improvement of lands. No vestige now remains of the great wealth said to have been possessed by the greater part of the Hans towns except in the obscure histories of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It is even uncertain where some of them were situated or to what towns in Europe the Latin names given to some of them belong. But though the misfortunes of Italy in the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries greatly diminished the commerce and manufactures of the cities of Lombardy and Tuscany, those countries still continue to be among the most populous and best cultivated in Europe. The civil wars of Flanders, and the Spanish government which succeeded them, chased away the great commerce of Antwerp, Ghent, and Bruges. But Flanders still continues to be one of the richest, best cultivated, and most populous provinces of Europe. The ordinary revolutions of war and government easily dry up the sources of that wealth which arises from commerce only. That which arises from the more solid improvements of agriculture is much more durable and cannot be destroyed but by those more violent convulsions occasioned by the depredations of hostile and barbarous nations continued for a century or two together, such as those that happened for some time before and after the fall of the Roman empire in the western provinces of Europe.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

Tying the ethnic thing into this is to completely miss the actual mechanism of the problem. You like the rural areas that had existed and want them to continue. I understand the romance behind them, but it's over. And it has been for a long time. Capitalism was the executioner.

[Ombrageux]

But this is much more a rural/urban divide than it is an ethnic one. Jews in Europe lived mostly in cities, but they were still (and remain) a minority of the population.

This is a nice neutral-sounding theory for Jewish over-representation. But it's definitely not the main factor. Look at America, they immigrated like everyone else, and they became massively over-represented in the usual fields. You might say: Well that's because Jews don't live in the countryside. That begs the question: Why didn't Jews in America go to the countryside to become farmers? Because culture and affinity matter.

Urbanization cannot explain such massive over-representation, which indeed is often superior to Jews' share of the urban population anyway. The causes are most likely superior IQ, affinity for education and white-collar jobs, and ethnic networking.

Tying the ethnic thing into this is to completely miss the actual mechanism of the problem. You like the rural areas that had existed and want them to continue. I understand the romance behind them, but it's over. And it has been for a long time. Capitalism was the executioner.

I suppose the enslavement of Africans by European capitalism was "not an ethnic thing." The fact that Africans remained slaves longer than whites' occasional enslavement/indentured servitude has to do with the whiteness of the capitalists. Exploited whites were less dehumanized than exploited blacks, because white capitalist and white worker are co-ethnics.

Ethnicity doesn't determine everything, but why are leftists so stubborn in not recognizing that it is quite obviously a relevant and often indeed critical factor, in addition to all the others? Why willfully ignore a huge part of human life?

You may be right that nations will inevitably be destroyed and globalism will triumph. It's certainly an open question though. If globalism can be resisted, then your attitude is unnecessarily and counter-productively defeatist.

And by the way, Karl Marx himself was not naïve at all about the relevance of ethnicity. Marxists usually like to brush away such texts with elaborate rationalizations that it doesn't mean to say what it's quite clearly saying.

[wat0n]

It's perfectly normal for Jewish elites to promote Jewish interests, but they should recognize that these can clash with non-Jews' legitimate interests, and they shouldn't criminalize Goyim for defending their interests. Jewish organizations (SPLC, ADL, LICRA, AIPAC, CRIF) argue: We are allowed to defend our ethnic interests, but you whites are not allowed to defend your ethnic interests; we unconditionally support Israeli ultra-nationalism, but any expression of French nationalism must be criminalized. It's the double standard which is unacceptable.

Actually those organizations don't seem to care as long as you don't mistreat other groups, particularly Jews.

The words you typed, as far as I can see, make no sense. Try again. This time, try considering for one minute if Jewish elites have ever been unfair to other peoples or made mistakes. Just as we Goyim, every day, are made aware of the injustices and mistakes of our elites (Vichy France, Nazi Germany, American slavery, etc).

I see, so instead of actually taking care of your ongoing policy mistakes you'll just blame the Jews, am I right?

Well, you'll just be doomed to repeat them I guess. I would actually not care much about it but it turns out that they can have global effects, so I don't have a choice about it.

[Ombrageux]

Actually those organizations don't seem to care as long as you don't mistreat other groups, particularly Jews.

That is plainly false. What about the promotion of the end homogeneous white Christian nations and the rise of Balkanized multiculturalism, for example?

I see, so instead of actually taking care of your ongoing policy mistakes you'll just blame the Jews, am I right?

Well, you'll just be doomed to repeat them I guess. I would actually not care much about it but it turns out that they can have global effects, so I don't have a choice about it.

It clearly takes two to tango: Goy elites have often collaborated and often continue to collaborate with Jewish elites in the control and exploitation of their fellow Goyim. But to the extent Jewish elites have power, and notably control and basically a veto over culture, they are responsible like everyone else. Do you accept that?

[wat0n]

That is plainly false. What about the promotion of the end homogeneous white Christian nations and the rise of Balkanized multiculturalism, for example?

Since when do they promote the rise of multiculturalism, exactly? Do you know what multiculturalism actually is? And no, it's not open borders.

It clearly takes two to tango: Goy elites have often collaborated and often continue to collaborate with Jewish elites in the control and exploitation of their fellow Goyim.

Have Jews been exploited as well?

But to the extent Jewish elites have power, and notably control and basically a veto over culture, they are responsible like everyone else. Do you accept that?

But they don't, so the Jewish elites aren't more responsible than non-Jewish ones.

[The Immortal Goon]

Why didn't Jews in America go to the countryside to become farmers? Because culture and affinity matter.

It matters in that everyone, the Jews, Germans, Irish, Italians, and most others were immediately pushed down by Anglo-Americans that wanted to keep a privileged position. The Germans became farmers because they escaped the Kulturkampf and found a latitude and that worked with crops with which they were familiar. Even still, as the most accepted of the groups of immigrants mentioned (largely due to theories about Aryan-and thus Germanic and Anglo-supremacy), were still shit on the moment the chance arose. Largely this was because they didn't assimilate well to the cities and were forced to do so by hysterical mobs.

The Irish became miners and government workers, nobody accuses them of being involved in some kind of ethnic-based whatever. The Italians became small shop owners, and nobody accuses them of some kind of ethnic-pandering. Jews were not allowed to own land in much of Europe, and were the only people that accepted usury so often went into finances. This was not an ethnic thing, per se. The Italian farmer opened up a shop in New York, the Irish peasant became a fireman, and the Jewish street urchin joined the mafia. None of these were weird ethnic constructions, but constructions based upon availability of capitalist markets.

So you ask, "Why didn't Jews in America go to the countryside to become farmers?" Why didn't the Italians? Why didn't the Irish? In reality, in any significant percentage, it was only the Germans, the Poles, and the Scandinavians.

Urbanization cannot explain such massive over-representation, which indeed is often superior to Jews' share of the urban population anyway. The causes are most likely superior IQ, affinity for education and white-collar jobs, and ethnic networking.

The Italians, in the United States, are massively over-represented in urban areas. I would even argue more so than the Jews. Does this mean that the Italians have superior IQ, affinity for education and white-collar jobs, and ethnic networking?

I suppose the enslavement of Africans by European capitalism was "not an ethnic thing." The fact that Africans remained slaves longer than whites' occasional enslavement/indentured servitude has to do with the whiteness of the capitalists. Exploited whites were less dehumanized than exploited blacks, because white capitalist and white worker are co-ethnics.

But race, in the instance you're using, is a social construct. The Irish were often portrayed as being more bestial than the African.

A gulf, certainly, does appear to yawn between the Gorilla and the Negro. The woods and wilds of Africa do not exhibit an example of any intermediate animal. But in this, as in many other cases, philosophers go vainly searching abroad for that which they would readily find if they sought for it at home. A creature manifestly between the Gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest districts of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland, whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowest species of the Irish Yahoo.

In my notes at my home computer I have far more about it. If your premise is that whites are always nicer to whites, than this is easily disprovable as "white" is a fluid concept that changes based upon, bluntly, economic circumstances. Africans have been as well. The reason Africans were brought over as slaves was because they were resistant to diseases that Europeans had (which the natives were not) and were easily identifiable as slaves (which Europeans were not). Not to mention, there had been a smaller trade that was exploited. But this has nothing to do with the issue...

Ethnicity doesn't determine everything, but why are leftists so stubborn in not recognizing that it is quite obviously a relevant and often indeed critical factor, in addition to all the others? Why willfully ignore a huge part of human life?

Oh, the cry of the arch conservative. "Leftists are obsessed with race and won't stop talking about it!" On Tuesday, on Wednesday, "Why won't leftists acknowledge ethnic factors?"

And by the way, Karl Marx himself was not naïve at all about the relevance of ethnicity. Marxists usually like to brush away such texts with elaborate rationalizations that it doesn't mean to say what it's quite clearly saying.

Did you actually read the text, or are you just producing scary sounding things from right-wing shrills that didn't read it either?

Lest we forget that before the Cold War, this text was smeared as proof of:

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.

Now the text is proof, not that Marx was obsessed with Jews destroying western civilization, but that he hated Jews. The truth is that Marx was a philosophy student and the discussion was a political one about what rights Jews deserve when in countries like Austria or Germany that spiraled out into national verses human rights:

In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation — essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties — and human emancipation. Marx's reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below.

Now, of course, rightwingers that want to put all the Jews into the Middle East so the anti-christ can kill them all faster will point at Marx's supposed anti-semitism because he wrote a text with this name. It is all very boring.

These aren't "elaborate rationalizations," it was Marx commenting on an issue at the time, not inventing the issue at the time.