Will America become more confident as an anti-American country?

[andrea_f...@live.com]

Thus far, US has been largely ruled by white elites. There is a
perception among both the elites and masses around the world that
white people—especially of Northern European ancestry—have been guilty
of imperialism, slavery, and worldwide oppression/exploitation. White
Americans have tried very hard to defend themselves against this
impression, but the fact is the academic and media elite in America
itself now perpetrates this perception. American kids are taught more
about some slave in the 19th century than the great white heroes who
built America. This perception has played a key role in restraining
the power of the white elite in this country in both domestic and
world affairs. But, as America grows darker and its elite becomes
less white, might this not make American more 'imperialist'--
unapologetically so? “People of color” feel no guilt since modern
liberal history teaches us that only white folks are guilty of wars,
genocide, slavery, 'racism', 'sexism', and so on. If America is
indeed a 'neo-imperialist' country—a belief increasingly held even
among the white right, not least because of the perception of neo-con
Zionist 'democratic fundamentalists' having hijacked the US policy—and
therefore must check its own power and be apologetic to the rest of
the world, wouldn't this dynamic change if the rulers of this country
were to become less and less white? Since their ancestors didn't
commit the great historical crimes—at least according to leftists,
multi-culturalists, etc,--why should they feel guilty about
maintaining and benefiting from the American imperial order? Most of
what follows is a meandering free-flow thoughts on this theme. Only
the last two paragraphs are really concerned with this issue, so skip
down if you must.


The Left has gained tremendous influence in American society. Up
until the 60s, liberalism had been dominant, and though it was anti-
conservative, it was still pro-American for the most part. It tended
to be critical of America's failings but still embraced the notion
that America was a great and good nation. But, liberals in the media
and academia were nudged aside with each passing year, and the left
took greater control.
To be sure, the whole process was complicated. In one sense, the Left
failed in the 60s. Their call to revolution didn't inspire most
Americans. Communist nations like the Soviet Union crumbled while
others turned to capitalism for economic recovery and growth—namely
China and Vietnam. 'Socialist' India embraced free markets in the 90s
and has seen astonishing economic success. Eastern European nations
were glad to shed communism. And, there seems to be a consensus even
on the Left in Europe and United States that 20th century communism
was, at best, a great tragedy and, at worst, indeed one of the
greatest crimes ever committed.


So, what is the problem today? Not all radicals had a great change of
mind. They entered the academia or media—or found positions in
foundations ironically funded by capitalists—and have continued to
push their radical agenda on impressionable minds. How influential are
these professors? From what we see in the media and culture, very
influential. No, they seem incapable of inspiring the bulk of new
generations toward radical or violent action. But, even those who
don't take up arms and radicalism buy into the idea that the world is
miserable largely because of the United States, white heterosexual
white males, legacy of imperialism, neo-imperialism, capitalism, and
'greed'. Many of the most intelligent and active members of our
society have come to see the world in terms of 'social justice' vs
conservatism/capitalism/white-power-ism. This is rather odd when many
of these progressives tend to be affluent or privileged—much more so
than your average conservative. Some of these progressives are indeed
successful businessmen who'd been taught in business schools, liberal
arts courses, and media-at-large that successful people must 'give
back' to society—as if creating a business, creating new jobs,
providing goods and services, etc are not social goods. There is still
the Judeo-Christian conviction that business, in and of itself, is not
a good thing. It is a good thing only because it makes us work hard
and then use the fruits of our labor to do 'social good'. This is not
necessarily a bad notion, and indeed, has contributed to American's
superior and more humane capitalism. Even during the era of social
Darwinism, American businessmen felt an obligation to use their wealth
for the good of society. This is in stark contrast to what we see
among Russian capitalists who neglect their own country and prefer to
indulge on luxury imports. Or, consider the Latin American elite,
known for their narcissism and shallow vanity. American rich hasn't
been as trashy as the ones in Venezuela, Brazil, or other countries.
The American rich has been more like those in Germany and modern
Japan. There has been a sense of moderation and social purpose.


But, many of today's affluent, privileged, and successful are
fundamentally anti-American or, at the very least, non-American(aka
transnational in outlook). Of course, anti-Americanism is for idiots
who know little of the world and histories of other nations which are
filled with bloodshed and injustices far worse than anything that
happened in the US. But, for many young people, being anti-American
has become fashionable—as rebellion or cynicism associated with Rock
culture or TV comedies(which are perhaps the most important shapers of
how most Americans see the world). Non-Americanism is trickier, but
in some ways, even more fashionable than anti-Americanism. Anti-
Americanism seems somewhat passe and unhip in its overwrought 'been
there, done that'-ness. To be anti-American implies that there is
still a powerful idea and reality of America to reject or rebel
against. But, this hasn't been the case for some time. The elite of
this country has long felt closer to the elites of other countries.
Indeed, many affluent Americans spend a great deal of time apologizing
to Europeans and others, eager to convince their international peers
that not all Americans are dumb, provincial, greedy, power-mad, and
immature. To be non-American means to be an enlightened citizen of
the world, and in a way, Obama's victory signals the rising trend of
globalism and trans-nationalism. (Rock stars—the most influential role
models for the young--are internationalist, more concerned about
fighting AIDS in Africa or MTV-uber-alles than preserving the
demography and cultural heritage of their own countries. Today, the
yuppies in Chicago are more likely to be familiar with Afro-pop than
know or care anything about Western classical music or 19th or even
20th century American history—unless it's about Martin Luther Bling or
Emmit Till).

This is all very tricky and confusing since anti-global-capitalism has
long been the staple of the Left.
So, why are so many rich/successful people on the Left, and why are
leftists so closely in cahoots with global capitalism? The truth
becomes clear when we understand the macro-leftist world view. Marx
hated capitalism but believed that it was absolutely necessary for the
rise of socialism or communism. Marx believed no force in history was
as productive and effective as capitalism in creating a new order,
generating new wealth, and opening up new potentials. So, according to
Marx's view, capitalism, the enemy of mankind, would create the very
conditions which would eventually empower socialists who would save
mankind. Capitalists would create the new economic order, but
socialists would inherit and run it according to the ideals of
egalitarianism. So, a rich guy with leftist leanings can rationalize
his participation in global capitalism since it is giving birth to an
wholly new world order which will eventually be inherited and
controlled by socialists—preferably and very likely their children who
are sent to the most exclusive—and leftist—schools to be trained as
the future mandarins of the global bureaucratic order. Vito Corleone
built up his economic empire so that his son Michael could become a
senator or governor one day. Today, rich leftists justify their
'greed' because it gives them economic muscle not only to a create a
new world order but to raise a new generation that will inherit it and
fix its problems by socializing it. Obama kinda fits into this mold—an
Ivy League leftist mandarin type promoted to power by the rich liberal
and leftist class, many of them Jews(or goyim brainwashed and/or
castrated by left-wing Jewish indoctrination).


Globalism is to neo-socialism what capitalism was to Marxism.
Leftism has been about creating a new world order unified in ideology,
values, and social/political systems. Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact
nations were supposed to be a vast united empire of liberated and
happy workers. They were supposed to be linked up harmoniously with
their Asian brothers in communist China, North Korea, and Vietnam.
Nationalisms would melt away. Workingmen of the world would melt into
ne. But, it didn't happen. Nationalism continued to be a powerful
force in communist nations. Because each communist nation was ruled
by a paranoid elite clinging to power at all costs, no communist
nation was willing to forgo or relinquish authority to any 'higher'
authority. Of course, there were puppet regimes within the communist
empire, but there was no real trust among the various nationalities
who'd been forced to cooperate and co-exist as comrades. Each people
secretly hoped to break out of the empire. So, despite all the
rhetoric, Marxism failed to create a new world order. Warsaw Pact
nations secretly loathed the Soviet Union. Many republics within the
Soviet Union wanted to break free from Moscow. Russians and Chinese
became mortal enemies in the early 60s despite their shared ideology.
China and Vietnam came to blows over national issues. The only way
to create a united order under communism was to use ruthless force.
Few peoples ever democratically elected communists into power, and
communist nations never freely joined with others to create a new
world order . And, as communist leaders knew that their power was
founded on terror and repression, they were averse to any social
reality or political arrangement that loosened the power of the
national state.


Though associated with the Right, it was capitalism that created the
new world order amenable to utopian leftist agendas. In the 19th
century, capitalism spread throughout the world through violence as
well as trade. But, once barriers were torn down among 'nations' and
peoples, it increased the levels of freedom and interaction
everywhere. It opened the doors to greater political, social,
economic, and cultural freedom. This was true even—or especially—of
non-Western regions forcibly pried open. Consider Japan prior to the
arrival of white imperialists. It had been independent as a nation
but severely restricted and regimented for its inhabitants. Upon the
pressure of Western nations the Japanese elite had lost much of its
sovereignty, but the nation as a whole became much freer and open to
new possibilities. Japanese reacted to this new arrangement in two
diametric ways, often in combination. On the one hand, they were
grateful for the new freedoms and possibilities. They were happy to
see their country grow richer and stronger with Western ideas and
methods. On the other hand, there was a great sense of shame,
resentment, envy, and even hatred. Japanese became aware and
increasingly anxious of their weakness vis-a-vis advanced Western
nations. Also, the more power and wealth Japan attained, the more it
demanded respect as an equal partner. But, even equality wasn't
enough for growing numbers of Japanese, who were convinced that Japan
had become as powerful as most Western nations and could take them on.
Hatred turned into arrogance. Japanese believed that it was not
enough to be an equal partner with Western imperialists in Asia. Asia
should rightfully be dominated by Japan alone.


For much of the first half of the 20th century, imperialism was almost
synonymous with global capitalism. Though trade among advanced
nations was on an equal basis, most of the non-white world traded
with the advanced world under the domination of Western or Japanese
guns. In many cases, the imperialist were not particularly brutal,
the local elites were pliant, and the local mass populations lacked,
as yet, the nationalist identity necessary for the struggle of
'liberation' and 'independence'. (I use quotes because many of these
'nations' were essentially geopolitical and even historical creations
of Western imperialism. It must also be said there had always been
myriad forms of local imperialism within the larger Western empires.
India had its mini-empires in which provincial elites of one tribe
ruled over others. Zulus in Africa were imperialists in their own
right. Even as China came under the pressure and influence of Western
imperialists, it had its own vast imperial control over non-Chinese
peoples. And, when the French arrived in Indochina, huge parts of
Cambodia had come under the imperialist rule of the Vietnamese and the
Siamese. And, of course, American colonists in the 18th century
overthrew British imperial rule only to embark on the imperialist
conquest of the entire continent. And, in the early 20th century,
places like Cuba and Philippines were liberated and occupied
simultaneously. Liberated by Spanish imperialists who were replaced
by American imperialists.)


Anyway, the point is the viability of a unified global community was
realized by 'right-wing' capitalism. (What nationalists had built up
for the sake of national power was judo-tossed to serve the leftist
agenda—similar to Marx's prediction that the wealth created by the
bourgeoisie would be used to fulfill the dreams of socialism.)
Despite all the complaints and criticism of it, there was much that
was appealing about global capitalism to peoples all around the
world. There is an incentive in capitalism allowing for greater
freedom and wealth.

Prior to the rise of capitalism, empires had been created and
maintained largely through force. In many cases, such a vast empire
proved expensive for the imperial center. Because of top-down
economics, the vast regions were not exploited in ways that could make
them profitable—or maintain their allegiances to the imperial system
except through the sword and high taxes. Such empires were not
economically viable nor integrative for longterm survival. Once the
center lost its ability to enforce its will, the subject peoples and
nations and the periphery went their own ways.


But, there arose a new kind of empire created by the West. Many
people credit the success of the Western imperialism to its
technological superiority, but that wasn't as crucial as the economic
advantages it opened up to many peoples—even non-whites. Africa, for
instance, didn't come under Western rule until the 19th century. Up
until then, much of the trade between the West and Africa involved
slaves, which was very profitable to Africans. How could this trade
have lasted for so long if Africans were averse to the European global
order?. In truth, great many Africans were not hostile to trading
with Europeans and whites of the Americas at all. There was a great
deal of fortune to be made by African kingdoms along the Western coast
through the sale of black slaves. The slave trade lasted for
centuries because of its economic benefit to both whites and
Africans. Indeed, the slave trade didn't end because black Africans
realized its evil, but because whites—especially Anglos—came to abhor
it and sought to end it around the world.
Anyway, the point is the new economic order didn't just benefit the
dominant group. Indeed, up until the 19th century, it couldn't even
be said that Europeans were dominant over most of humanity. Europeans
gained dominance in the Americas only because Old World diseases wiped
out entire populations in Central/South America and because most of
North America was sparsely populated by primitive peoples—some of them
still in the stone age. Western nations found much of the non-
European Old World impenetrable or formidable. Africa was vast and had
myriad diseases fatal to the white man—until the rise of modern
medicine. And, without modern methods of terrestrial transportation,
it was near impossible for the white man to trek through a continent
the size of a planet. As for Japan, China, Ottoman Empire, India, and
others, European trading ships preferred not to avoid military
confrontations as those civilizations were populous, relatively
effectively organized under central authority, and, in some cases,
even possessed weaponry to match those of Europeans; they also had the
homefield advantage

.
Anyway, the global order created by the Western world has been long-
lasting—even after the passing of European imperialism—because there
was something for every people or nation. It was not a one-way deal.
In the pre-modern era, the fall of empires was regarded as good
riddance to many occupied or oppressed peoples. In the new era,
economic interests persuaded or even required 'liberated' peoples to
stay within the global world order. (For many nations, their newly
acquired economic status could only be maintained through world trade
overseen by the West. Hong Kong or Singapore would be little more than
poor island or coastal cities if not for the linkage with the world
economy established by the Anglo-imperialist system.)

Consider the fact that United States and the British Empire remained
close on many levels even after the Revolutionary War and the War of
1812. The new world ordert was not only about conflict among empires
but competitive and mutally beneficial trade enforced by laws that
became more universal and fair in execution but recognition. Even
China, a xenophobic empire over the millennia, recongized and
exploited the advantages of trading with the British Empire by
exporting silk and tea. The problem arose when China would not buy in
return, especially opium which was to have devastating impact on the
Chinese--not least upon the elite. This led to Chinese trade barriers
on imports, which then led to the Opium Wars which forced the Chinese
to open up to Western trade. Though Chinese remember this historical
episode with great bitterness, it is true that many Chinese saw the
advantages of new relations with the West. Like all nations forced
into the new world order, Chinese felt a mixture of resentment, envy,
respect, and admiration of the new, foreign, and innovative. This is
true even today as China is eager to learn and borrow more from
foreign countries while, at the same time, trying to maintain their
idea of a proud united China with full sovereignty.


Anyway, pre-modern empire building efforts all eventually failed—
except across huge landmasses sparsely populated by minority groups
(like vast areas of Asiatic Russia)--, or unless the people within the
vast empire were, more or less, of the same racial or ethnic stock—
like China and America through most of its history. If an empire could
be consolidated into and administered as a nation, it was viable as a
great enterprise. Otherwise, it was bound to fall and disappear...
until the system developed in the modern era. (Recall when the Roman
Empire or the Mongol Empire fell, so did the links among peoples and
regions. But, even as European empires fell, the world order they'd
created grew more integrated and powerful. There was something
within modern imperialism that was more powerful and resilient than
imperialism itself; the idea of world trade guided by a set of
economic principles and universal laws ensured that the world system
would continue even with the decline of the original imperialist
powers. The question, then, is this. If the global system was created
by imperialists but still remains even after the decline of
imperialist powers, can it be regarded as imperialist when it comes
increasingly under the control of people who had once been conquered,
colonized, or 'oppressed'?)
Thanks to universal application of laws and mutual benefits through
trade, the global empire system created by the West has not only
survived but grown stronger. Of course, the system is no longer
dominated—at least not politically—by the West. The idea of Western
nations using gunboat diplomacy to intimidate and dominate non-Western
peoples is a faint memory and a fantasy in today's world—the Iraq War
notwithstanding as it was made possible only due to 9/11. Even if
Western military domination were feasible materially and logistically,
the new morality among Westerners would not permit such to happen—
also, Western people don't want their kids to die in wars for
'national glory'. Consider the fact that the invasion of Iraq, even
for the purpose of democratization, was rejected and condemned by
most Western nations. And, even the Coalition nations of Central and
Eastern Europe soon lost interest in the mission—and they'd really
joined to win favors from the US anyway. And, when the war became more
difficult, the majority of Americans called for pulling out as soon as
possible.


But, despite the fall or passing of European/Western imperialism, the
world order they've created has grown more powerful, more fully
realized than ever dreamed possible. What we have today is not an
empire with national centers as there once had been—mainly Britain,
France, and Spain--, but it is connected together west and east,
north and south, in ways that even the biggest imperialists of the
past could not have fantasized. One could argue that it's a center-
less or democratic empire whose greatest forces are the interests of
transnational business elites, cosmopolitan professionals, and the
masses who seek new opportunities and/or cheaper goods in the new
order. It's an empire held together by an Idea and by the appetites of
the entire global population than one controlled by a 'mother country'
over the subject peoples. Of course, theorists of neo-imperialism will
argue that beyond the ruse, the new system is no different than the
old one. Marxists, who focus on economic forces, may well argue that
Western nations are still rich and powerful while non-white nations—
minus Japan—are still backward, powerless, and at the mercy of what
happens in the Western world. But, many non-Western nations don't
necessarily feel that the global economic order is exploitative or
rigged to serve only Western interests(though all are well-versed in
anti-imperialist rhetoric in order to wrest favors from guilt-ridden
rich white countries). As long as they have political and social
autonomy, many non-Western nations have been willing to join in the
global order.
In Europe, most Eastern Europeans(who are kinda like white third
worlders) want to be part of the EU—at least economically. And, after
decades of communist misrule, Vietnamese entered the global economic
system. Nations generally don't feel oppressed by foreign powers as
long as they have political and social self-rule. Also, they believe
that the global system brings investment to their country, opens up
markets for exports, and positions their country on the global stage.
Consider the fact that Venezuela, for all its anti-American rhetoric,
would never dream of stop business with 'imperialist' Americans.
Chavez's 'socialism for the 21st century' depends on selling oil to
capitalist and 'greedy' Americans. More tellingly, Cuba, a fully
communist nation, has long wanted to do business with the United
States, and pro-Cuban leftists have argued for the end of sanctions.

Now, consider the funny logic of anti-imperialist Marxists. They say
that being linked with the global capitalist order is to fall prey to
neo-imperialism. But, they want United States and other rich
capitalist nations to do business with socialist or Marxist nations
for the welfare of the latter—an admission that all countries have
something to gain by being part of the capitalist world order. So,
whether it's a leftist or a third world nationalist, there is a desire
to do business with the First Capitalist World. And, it is the
undeniable advantage of being part of the global system that has
maintained and expanded the new world order created by Western
imperialism/capitalism.
It had been spread by European ships exploring new territories and
forging economic links with empires and peoples around the world. In
the 19th century, with the inventions of new medicines,
transportation, and weaponry, the West was able to not only to expand
trade but enforce it—even upon once formidable nations like Japan and
China.
But, through it all, there was the creation of mutually beneficial
trade even if, for quite some time, the West held the best cards. So,
even when the empire of the gun faded, the empire of trade remained.

This is quite evident in the histories of the United States and
Hispanic America. Both were creations of imperialism. And, the white
settlers in both areas were terrestrial imperialists. They sought to
conquer and/or dispossess the native peoples and establish new nation-
states based on the European model. But, once they settled in the new
land and forged a new identity, they also became anti-imperialists.
American colonialists were imperialists against the native populations
of America yet anti-imperialists against the British King. Even so,
relations between United States and Britain remained crucial because
both sides had much to gain from mutual trade.
Perhaps, this was less so between Latin-American nations and Spain or
Portugal, which failed to create a world trade system as powerful,
effective, and mutually beneficial as the one created by the Anglos.
Even the mighty French who competed with the British neck and neck up
to the 20th century—though generally obtaining the less desirable
real estate—failed to create a global trading system as effective as
that of the British. (Anyway, the fact that the British and the French
were able to carve up the world in relative peace and mutual
understanding based on mature diplomacy may have been one of the bases
for something like the UN in the 20th century—even if not
consciously. The very fact that neither the Brits nor the French were
willing to risk everything for total supremacy was proof that
understanding
on a grand scale between nations can avoid conflicts. Even though
most of humanity had no say in this, it was remarkable that the two
premier powers in the Age of Empire were able to expand and compete
without too much bloodshed. This partly explains why the British
naturally sided with the French against the Germans. Though the French
had been the main competitors of the British in empire building, the
British had come to regard the French as generally trustworthy and
reliable—not necessarily because the French character was more
honorable but because the French were a people the British had grown
accustomed to. The rising Germans, on the other hand, seemed too
eager, hungry, and reckless—nouveau riche without manners who might
break the china. Perhaps, the Germans too would have mellowed in due
time but it would still take a painstaking process of international
readjustment on a massive scale. Ironically, the British effort to
suppress German power in order to maintain the international status
quo led to the very opposite. Two cats that have fought one another
often and know each other's strengths and weaknesses are more likely
to tolerate one another than a new cat on the block.) Perhaps, this
had something to do with the principle of 'fair play' in British
tradition. The Brits embraced Free Trade and stuck to it even with
nations that disregarded or violated it. Had the British been as
mercantile as the rest of the world community, perhaps the global
system we have today would have been far less viable.
After all, it was US which inherited and continued the Free Trade
policy from the Brits when it became the new great world power
following WWII; this was absolutely crucial to the further expansion
of the global world order. There is an unspoken understanding that
the Mother Country—whichever country is most dominant power at the
moment—in the global economy has to be nurturing, generous, and
forgiving to all the other nations(just as a real mother often
sacrifices her well-being for the welfare of her kids). (Of course,
while kids generally feel gratitude toward their mother, this is
generally not the case with nations. For all the good the British
Empire has done for the world, most nations only remember and curse
its guns, arrogance, and prejudice.) In a way, both WWI and WWII
could be seen, to some extent anyway, as the battle between father-
imperialism and mother-imperialism. Germany was the Fatherland,
Britain was the Motherland. Germany was the land of the Kaiser,
Britain the land of the Queen(even when a King was on the throne).
German power meant dominance and self-interests of Germans. British
power meant protection and interests of the world community under
rules of Fair Play. Germans were more harshly realistic, the Brits
were more softly idealistic. Though imperialist, Brits used their
power to end the slave trade; they came up with Free Trade to give
equal access for all countries to the economic system created by the
British. Germans could only scoff at such naivete. Brits could only
sneer at German thuggery. The British imperial mindset became more
nurturing, more beset with guilt and conscience. The German imperial
mindset grew more militant, ruthless, and cold-eyed. Eventually, the
British empire could not stand up to a half naked Hindu who spouted
platitudes in a funny accent. British imperialism was fated to fall
because of its fundamental moral contradiction—it promoted Fair Play
all the while allowing the Brits to be more equal than others. Still,
the world order it created would not only survive but expand under the
leadership of America as the new nurturing country. (When US inherited
the world order after WWII, it had to grow tits to nurse the world.
Uncle Sam because Auntie Sally. Today, US is like a sow pig suckled by
the world community). The world order maintained by America was
essentially created by the British. Though French and other Europeans
had been empire builders, they came to take part in global economic
paradigm constructed by the Anglos and Anglo-Americans—and advanced
further by Jews. This is true of Japan and China—and the rest of Asia—
as well. It's an empire without an emperor even though US is the
greatest power in the world. Because the world order is premised on
Fair Play and on the expected generosity/magnanimity of the richest/
most powerful nations, it's not necessarily advantageous to be #1—it
certainly is the most expensive and burdensome(not least because of
the legacy of the Cold War when the conflict between US and USSR was
essentially ideological; both nations sought to prove their moral
superiority by lavishing huge aid upon third world countries, a game
understood and exploited by all poor countries.) Similarly, the US
president may be the most powerful man in America but he must be
accountable to the people; in this sense, he is the weakest man in
America. He takes some credit when times are good, but he takes ALL
the blame when times are bad.

Britain may be richer and more powerful, but it has no effective
control over other nations in the Commonwealth. If anything, UK is
being invaded by non-white hordes from the Commonwealth nations like
Jamaica. And, white Britons are paralyzed to stop this invasion
because doing so would be 'racist' and against Fair Play. Of course,
non-white nations rarely play fair, but they are forgiven because
rich and powerful nations are supposed to be generous and
compassionate to weaker and poorer ones(despite the fact that poorer
non-white nations are invading European countries and America and
taking over from ground up. The anti-racist Western elites are afraid
to ponder, let alone accept, the truth that demography is destiny. As
long as the rich Western elites can live in affluent and safe gated
communities, it doesn't matter what is happening to the rest of their
country. They can shut off reality and watch PBS documentaries or
Hollywood movies 'celebrating diversity'). An affirmative action
mentality afflicts the global community. There is a sense that since
white nations 'exploited' and 'stole' from the non-white nations in
the past at the point of the gun, white nations must be forgiving with
non-white nations, at least until they catch up to the levels of the
West. But, this affirmative action mentality may long linger even
after the non-white nations rise in power and wealth. There is still
great reluctance to speak honestly of rising black or Hispanic power
in the US. In sports, blacks are now totally dominant, and many whites
are virtually locked out of many positions; but whenever another
position is taken over by blacks, we celebrate it as 'diversity' and
'inclusion'. Following this logic, we should celebrate the
'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'progressiveness' of an all black
football team! Blacks have become victims-for-all-time. Even if
blacks were all to become powerful millionaires and all whites were to
become poor powerless folks, we would see blacks as victims of whites.
Today, poor and working class whites are routinely harassed, attacked,
and robbed by blacks, but we still see criminal blacks of the white-
dominated system. In the case of Jews, the most powerful and the
richest people in the world, we are still stuck in an affirmative
action mentality whereby we are supposed them as helpless ghetto Jews
pursued by Nazis.

Anyway, the global empire is still intact. The difference is that it's
an empire with no real emperor. Consider the fact that there is only a
weak bond between the rich white elites—who are often liberal Jews in
the US—and the white masses. In Western imperialism of the past, the
white elite often justified imperialism as a great benefit and glory
to all whites in the mother country. Today, many of the white elites
in America and Europe feel contempt for the white masses—especially if
of conservative bent—and feel greater affinity for people of shared
sensibilities in other countries—cosmopolitan, globalist, liberal to
leftist. Of course, if you're non-white, you can embrace both
cosmopolitan AND tribal sensibilities. So, Obama could pose as both a
post-racial/post-national candidate AND practice the most brazen kind
of black nationalism by being a member of Trinity Church. There is a
conviction among the liberal white elite that non-whites, no matter
how rich or educated, are justified in their tribalism or nationalism
since they need self-esteem to survive and thrive in a white dominated
world(which explains why Michelle Obama was allowed to graduate with
honors simply by writing some bitchy doctoral thesis on how terrible
it is to be black in Princeton where white people were exceedingly
kind to her! That got her into Harvard where she met another
resentful black asshole who was chosen, groomed, and promoted by the
liberal Jew media to become president). Jews feel much the same way.
Though they preach the virtuese of trans-racial and trans-national
sensibilities to gentile whites, they shamelessly practice Jewish
tribalism via Zionism and work together to promote Jewish power and
interests.

Today, the West is still dominant in the world empire but mainly in
the economic sense. Because its political morality is apologetic and
guilt-ridden, the West is incapable of preserving national power
rooted in demography. The Western elites are afraid of stemming the
tide of non-white immigration into Europe and America because doing so
would smack of racism—that Europe and America belong essentially to
white people. Of course, no non-white nation thinks like the Western
elite, but they all admonish US and European countries to follow the
ideology of color-blindness to the letter. There is a degree of moral
and economic blackmail in all this. Non-white nations throw back at
the faces of pompous Westerners all the sermons about equality and
human rights.
Also, a good many white liberals have built their fortunes on global
trade, and they fear backlash from nations like Mexico, China, India,
and etc where they've invested a good deal. Also, with the Holocaust
as the religion of the secular white elite—both Jewish and gentile--,
anything that pertains to white racial agenda is deemed evil. Jews, as
the victims of the Holocaust neglected or turned away by most nations,
speak as though turning away illegal immigrants amounts to a form of
Nazi-esque bigotry. Gentile whites believe that turning away non-white
refugees and illegals amounts to only a milder, disguised form of old
'racism'. Feelings and ideas about the Holocaust and Racism affect
the core of social and political morality in the Western world. Even
conservatives spend at least half their energy trying to woo Jews at
all cost and beating their chests(and kissing the accuser's ass) to
prove that they are not 'racists'. So, it doesn't matter if the
Western world is still economically dominant. A nation is more than
the riches and vanities of its economic elite. Today, the Western
elites grow richer, but their influence is anti-national. They use the
media and schools to indoctrinate us into the new world ideology.
Consider the fact that though whites are facing demographic
catastrophe, an overwhelming majority of young white people voted for
Obama. Higher education today is higher indoctrination.

Anyway, we've gone far off track. The original point of this piece was
to ponder the nature of American and European power in the years to
come as dramatic demographic changes are likely to occur. Thus far,
because America and Europe have been ruled and shaped by white elites—
gentile in most nations--, there had been increasing moral brakes on
their power, at least since the beginning of the 20th century. Because
of the idealistic nature of the British—and to a lesser extent among
the French with their liberty, equality, and fraternity—, pressure on
Western nations to live up to their own principles regarding all of
mankind intensified. Often, the non-white elites in subject nations
went off to study in France and Britain and absorbed ideas about the
equal rights of man, human rights for all, and so on. In some cases,
many colonial subjects were introduced to ideologies such as Marxism.
But, even those who came to admire the imperial system and accepted
its benefits soon realized that the white imperialist dominated order
wasn't equally open to all. Consider the movie “Gandhi” where we first
see the Indian hero as a young British educated lawyer filled with
admiration for the white-ruled world only to be rudely reminded that
he's less equal than whites.
And, Ho Chi Minh grew disillusioned even with French leftists who,
despite their ideology and rhetoric, believed in the French Empire and
the idea of the white man's burden.


All of this changed with WWII, the revelations of the Holocaust, the
glory of communism in its defeat of Nazism, and the Cold War where
Western nations—European and American—had to demonstrate to the non-
white peoples around the world that they were more enlightened and
freedom-loving-and-promoting than the Soviet Union and Red China.
Though Soviet Union was indeed the evil empire, its ideology of anti-
imperialism, brotherhood of man, and world revolution was appealing to
many third world peoples. Indeed, from the 40s to the 70s, great many
nations might have fallen under communism had it not been for the
brutality and cunning of right-wing or nationalist regimes and their
exploitation of traditional symbolism. Of course, this was mostly a
good thing as the ruthless communists did far more damage when they
came to power. Right-wing dictatorships in Asia and Latin America
could be murderous and brutal, but communist regimes were annihilative
and maniacally ruthless—and committed to spreading the radical virus
beyond their national borders.

Anyway, white man's burden changed after WWII from civilizing the rest
of the world to apologizing to the rest of the world—and proving that
the Free World had more to offer, morally and economically, than
communist nations such as the USSR and Red China. This wasn't easy
because despite all their brutality and crimes, neither Soviet Union
nor China had been involved in empire buildings outside their borders.
Russians did rule over a vast empire but it was all in Eastern Europe
and Asia. The Chinese empire was restricted to the Chinese nation. To
people in Africa and Latin America, Russians and Chinese had not been
the 'imperialist oppressors'. They recalled being dominated by Western
Europeans or by the gringos. On the other hand, communism had a
tremendous disadvantage in many of these countries because it was an
intellectual ideology which didn't make much sense to the illiterate
peoples of the third. Also, communism attacked too many customs and
traditions dear and sacred to backward peoples. There was greater
chance of communism succeeding in third world nations if the
population was more homogeneous. Since there was minimal tribal or
cultural rivalry, communism could be sold simply as 'soak the rich and
get yours'. But, in African, Latin, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations
which had been artificially created by Western imperialists, the
tribal, ethnic, and/or racial tensions and distrusts undermined the
universalist ambitions of Marxism. Poor uneducated people may
understand the appeal of the poor taking from the rich, but they
simply could not identify or sympathize with peoples of other tribes,
ethnicities, races. In a crazy quilt nation, the masses were more
likely to side with the rich/powerful elite of their own kind than
with the poor masses of another tribe or ethnicity. This was the
problem at the core of Yugoslavia, which had been prevented from
blowing up by Tito's totalitarianism. But, 45 years of iron-fisted
communist rule did not resolve the hatreds will exploded in the 90s..

Anyway, white elites, or at least the gentile white elites, were
supposed to feel guilt, and this moral dilemma was supposed to
restrain their power. Today, Western nations are richer and more
powerful than ever. US military has never been as powerful and
advanced as it is today. Yet, Western nations have never been as
apologetic, defensive, and desperately eager-to-please as they are
today.

We see this with both US and Europe. With the US, this outlook is
rooted in both pride and guilt.
Though American colonialists were imperialists in their own right, the
founding of the US brought forth a sense that America was an anti-
imperialist nation, the first to throw off the imperialist yoke and
declare itself a democracy. When European nations descended on China
in the 19th and 20th century, US acted as a kind of neutral player,
even a protector of the Chinese from the insatiable Europeans.
Americans took moral pride in lecturing to the Japanese about their
imperialist ambitions in Asia—which was rather amusing and frustrating
to Japanese who'd been forced into the imperialist game under
pressure from American and European imperialists. Even though the
conquest of the West and the annexation of SW territories were
imperialist in nature, Americans could overlook this fact because (1)
the American West was only sparsely populated and, as such, hadn't
really belonged to anyone before the white man settled it properly (2)
Americans spread democracy and liberty, which absolved them of the sin
of imperialism (3) Americans were well-intentioned and exerted their
power/influence on other nations only for the latter's own good, not
for the interests of Americans. It was these sentiments and beliefs
that made World War II the Good War to most Americans. It was not
just the fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler
declared war on the US. It was the sense that Americans, if they must
fight, fight for idealism, for the good of humanity, out of
selflessness. And, this attitude continued after the war. From Truman
to Kennedy, America pressured European nations to abandon their
empires and treat non-white peoples as equals.


But, it was precisely this idealism—both genuine and pompous—which got
US in trouble. With race problems at home, it looked rather odd for
white America to be morally lecturing to the rest of the world. If
America was for the equality of all nations and all peoples, how come
there was still discrimination in America? The rising Jewish power in
the US exploited the racial issue, and in the 60s it was fashionable
in some circles to see urban black areas as part of the Third World
occupied white imperialist 'pigs'. If Algeria has the FLN fighting
the French imperialists, left-wing Jews in America argued that the
Black Panthers were the brethren of 'people of color' struggling for
independence and revolution all over the world.
Of course, the influential leftists in the West favored Third World
nations ruled by leftist or communist leaders. And, many Third World
leaders were careful to play on the perceptions of the Western elite.
While third world nations could comfortably lean right or anti-
communist and receive solid American backing OR lean leftist or anti-
American and receive Soviet backing, many nations learned the art of
suppressing leftist insurgency at home and maintaining the status quo
all the while speaking the language of progress and revolution.
Leaders like Nasser cleverly played on both the right and the left. As
such, they were wooed by both America and the Soviets. In most cases,
they had to lean more to one side than the other, but they played both
sides. Though the leaders in such nations didn't want radicals to take
over, they wanted to portray themselves as revolutionaries. It was
particularly these nations that were most appealing to Western
European nations.

After World War II, the empires of Western European nations were lost
or soon to be lost. Western Europe was anti-communist and anti-Soviet,
yet it also resented the rise of American power. Europeans
agonizingly came to accept the loss of their empires, but it enraged
them to see—or perceive(rightly or wrongly)--their former empires
being devoured by the United States which dominated the affairs of
other nations in the name of spreading democracy, liberty, freedom, or
stopping communism. As far as the Europeans were concerned, Americans
were merely practicing a bigger kind of imperialism and world
domination disguised in the rhetoric of freedom and fairness.

We saw the resurgence of much the same feelings with the invasion of
Iraq. Many Europeans were convinced or wanted to be convinced that
United States had simply come up with an idealistic set of excuses to
embark on an imperialist conquest of the oil rich Middle East. They
saw it as US taking the Middle East for itself, whereby US oil
companies would get the prize. How Europeans viewed the American
venture in the Iraq and the Middle East is akin to how Americans view
the Chinese adventure in Africa. Chinese, as we all know, speak of
friendship with African nations and fostering mutual understanding
and benefit, but Americans see it merely as a Chinese play for power
and influence.

Anyway, in the post WWII world order, Europeans had prosperity but not
the muscle and influence to control the world. That kind of power was
possessed only by the US and the USSR. So, the one weapon Europeans
had left was moralism and idealism. Their hands washed of 'evil'
imperialism, they could now throw idealism back at the faces of USSR
and USA. Their preferred target was the USA since Americans generally
gained dominance or influence over the parts of the world that had
once belonged to European empires. Also, even though Western Europe
was free and protected by the American military, being within the
Anglo-American sphere of influence made Western European intellectuals
to feel under the weight of American imperialism or colonialism. It
was as if Europe too was subject nation of American imperialism. Not
that American military used violence against the Europeans. But, the
astonishing fact that the once proud and powerful Europeans not only
lost their empires to Americans but were dependent on American good-
will for survival was humiliating and insulting. French felt
frustration the most because (1) it has been a loser nation in WWII
and (2) its main European rival in the post WWII era—Great Britain--
was close to the US culturally and politically. For many Europeans,
the very dominance of American movies, TV, and pop music was enough
evidence that Americans were the premiere overlords of the world.
Hollywood, as far as they were concerned, was American cultural
imperialism.


So, what could Europeans do to gain power or authority in the new
world order? The world order following World War II was intensely
moralistic, perhaps more so than at anytime in world history. If the
British and French empires had competed to see which side would be
mightier and greater, the Americans and Soviets competed to show which
side was morally better. Of course, both US and USSR did ruthless
things to win the Cold War and were allied with many thuggish regimes.
But, it was a war neither side could win by arms or money alone. The
British and the French were not primarily concerned about which side
was nicer or more humane than the other. Their rivalry was about
national-imperial glory—albeit done with some degree of Fair Play and
give-and-take.
With the US and USSR, the fight was over which side offered a more
humane and liberating model for all mankind. This was a rivalry that
one side was bound to lose if it couldn't prove its moral worth. In
the end, most of the world concluded that communism didn't spread or
promote human rights, wealth, and national renewal for peoples around
the world. It was becoming more and more clear that not only was the
USSR a pretty miserable and oppressive place but that its satellite
and client nations were no better or even worse. Even before the fall
of the USSR, China embraced capitalism, and even communist nations
which had fought Americans wanted to do business with the US. We need
only to look at Vietnam.

But, the fact remains that the Cold War was a very ugly affair in many
parts of the world. As such, it was easy and convenient for Western
European intellectuals to nitpick at all the failings, flaws, and
shortcomings of the Americans. Japan did some of this too. Japanese
had swallowed a great deal of pride when they lost the war and their
entire empire in the Pacific War. They convinced themselves that
they'd deserved to lose since Japanese had employed militarism/
imperialism. But, there still remained the resentment of the loser.
Like the Europeans, Japanese regained authority via moralism by
accusing Americans of being the new imperialists in Asia. Of course,
we are talking mainly of leftist intellectuals, artists, and
politicians, but such people were disproportionately influential in
both Japan and Europe since they wrote books, shaped the media, and
controlled the schools. They conditioned entire generations of
European and Japanese youth.


As loser nations in the new world order, their one great advantage was
the moral or the anti-imperialist card. For them, Americans were the
new imperialists. As a way to get back at Americans, this jaundiced
view was adopted by the Right as well. Anti-Americanism was where the
Gaullists and the Leftists saw eye to eye in France. And, even though
the Japanese Right was pro-American in policy, they were deeply anti-
American underneath their skin. The Right in both Europe and Japan
were angry at US for stealing what had been their empires whereas the
Left hated the US for not living up to its professed anti-imperialist
ideals—and standing in the way of communist revolution.

US had indeed fought a good war, defeated fascism, and pressed Western
European nations to free their empires, but US then stepped in the way
to take this empire for themselves—or so the European and Japanese
leftists believed. This is how much of the world came to see the
Vietnam War. We know that US fought in Vietnam not to exploit or
oppress the Vietnamese people but only to stave off communism. The
world saw it as US imperialists using anti-communism as an excuse to
spread American hegemony. Besides, many people on the left felt that
communism was the best deal for Third World nations as a force of
social change, economic development, and overall national good. We've
come a long way, but the world reaction to the Iraq War revealed that
much remained the same; and this anti-Americanism was, in large
measure, shared by both the Right and the Left; both the Right and
Left in European countries also believed that neo-con Jewish power had
a huge stake in the war but didn't say so explicitly since Europeans
had become allergic to any criticism of Jewish power since the end of
World War II—though not as much as Americans(which is rather odd since
Americans have no reason to feel any guilt for the holocaust.) The
narrative accepted by many nations was that USA, being the lone
superpower after winning the Cold War, was out to dominate the entire
world through economic and even military might.

To understand that moral reputations of nations—or at least of
powerful nations—are of utmost importance, we need only look at the
reaction, both international and domestic, to Obama. Many people
around the world wanted Obama to be president in the hope that his
presidency will check imperialist American power. Many people have
this simplistic view that America is run by cowboys and Zionists--the
Bush administration was almost a tailor-made caricature of this
perception. Bush is from Texas and was surrounded by a bunch of neo-
con intellectuals.

The fact that Obama is a black guy with a Muslim/African name meant—to
the world at least—that the power of mad cowboys and Zionists would be
checked with him as president. And, many Americans, especially the
privileged, highly educated, and well-traveled, felt the same way.
They felt guilty and ashamed to belong to America of imperialist
cowboy Bush and his neo-con cabal. Though America is the most
powerful nation in the world, the liberal elite—and even elements of
the conservative elite—believe that American power isn't as important
as how the world regards it. It's more important that the world sees
us as a 'good nation' than to exert our power to accomplish what WE
believe is right. Again, the world is like an empire without an
emperor, without true central authority. In some ways, this is great
progress as it means the world no longer believes in might-is-right.
But, it is also frustrating for the US because, as the richest and
most powerful nation, it is expected to do so much, pay so much, take
care of so much, take the lead so often, and etc, etc... all the while
being ever so sensitive to world opinions which are more often envy
and resentment disguised as idealism-of-little-nations. (Swedes and
Norwegians especially love to pull this shit, taking bogus pride in
the fact that they give more to Africa on a per capita basis than any
other nation. It doesn't matter that their ill-conceived aid hasn't
done any good for Africa as long as they can show off the figures as
proof of their own moral superiority.)
The world community is kinda like Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be the most
read, most influential, and most powerful source of information around
the world, yet there is no central authority. It is accessible to and
controllable by all.


So, the problem of American and European power today isn't so much
their dominance over other nations, which is not only forbidden but
considered morally unacceptable and even evil. The problem of the new
world order is that even if Western elites have most of the economic
power, the increasingly open and porous world system allows all sorts
of people to flood into the First World and change the demographic,
cultural, and social landscape of the entire nation. In almost all
cases, the majority of the people don't want this, but the elites
control the laws. The courts can overturn any majoritarian demand to
control the borders and restore national sovereignty.

Even so, something very strange might happen if current demographic
trends continue. Remember that the only people who are required to
feel any remorse or guilt are white people—and to some extent, the
Japanese. Third world peoples committed horrendous crimes, but they
are not held accountable in the world community. Partly, this is
because they tend to be poor and backward, and it's just not good
sport to knock people when they are down and miserable. Sure, Hutus
killed a whole bunch of Tutsis, but look at the economic status of
most Hutus and you feel pity. Sure, Chinese killed more of their own
kind than the Japanese or Western invaders ever did, but until
relatively recently, China has been poor, and before that, there had
been a history of Western imperialism. Also, some nations simply will
not tolerate any criticism and throw a fit when called on their
abuses. China and Russia routinely act this way, and they can get away
with it because there are enough nations in the UN that side with them
just to torment US and Europe. Let's face it. Most Third World
nations employ moralism not because they are morally virtuous or care
about humanity but because it's an handy way to milk rich European
nations and the USA for handouts. For many Third World nations, China
and Russia are useful as a balance against the United States or Europe
which is often moralizing to the world on human rights so lacking in
the Third World. Considering that most Third World nations are still
run by brutal thugs and populated by even more brutish peoples, the
moral sermons of the West are most annoying to people like Mugabe and
Chavez. Palestinians, for instance, are tired of Americans preaching
to them about peace when Americans looked the other way when Israelis
have abused Palestinians through the years.

.

Anyway, as America becomes darker and its leadership filled with more
'people of color', the world will have to face a paradox—an America
that is at once weaker and stronger. The divisions caused by radical
diversity and multiculturalism will likely weaken unity among
Americans and lead to massive social problems. On the other hand, if
the political, cultural, and economic areas are more and more
controlled by 'peoples of color', there will be less justifiable reason
—at least within the leftist context—for the world to condemn or
denounce the US.

The main moral argument against American power has rested on the
notion that the United States is the creation of white imperialists—
especially of Northern Europeans who are especially held in low esteem
by political correctness. (Whites of Hispanic or Portuguese
background, due to their racial mixture and their having become the
'subject peoples' of Norte Americano Yanquis, can just barely pass as
honorary 'people of color'. Che Guevara was white but is widely seen
as a Third World figure.) As America becomes controlled more by
blacks, Hispanics—the majority of whom are of mixed blood
(substantially Indian-American)--, there is a less of a reason to
condemn it as a world center of white imperialist evil. Indeed, we've
already seen this change of perception take place. Consider the fact
that much of American pop culture is dominated by liberal Jews and
blacks. Much of American export in music is jiveass Rap music created
and spewed out by demented negroes. Though it has conquered and
colonized the minds of young people all around the world, it isn't
condemned as an example of American cultural imperialism—at least not
in the way that American TV shows with white casts or Westerns used to
be. Because blacks are perceived as the oppressed people in America
and because rap music is regarded as the music of the disenfranchised,
US music companies—mostly owned and/or run by liberal Jews—can peddle
that garbage all over the world and rake in gazillions, and yet not be
accused of cultural imperialism.
And, this brings up another issue. Perhaps the white elite in this
country knows this all too well. Perhaps, they find people like Obama
and Oprah useful in maintaining their own power. Rich white folks are
well aware of how the both the elites and masses around the world see
the US as the center of global neo-imperialism. Having the likes of
Oprah and Obama as the prominent face of American politics, power, and
values changes the way the world sees America. The American elite
will largely be dominated by whites in decades to come, but having
Obama as president may give the impression that American power is no
longer 'racist'-imperialist and has become open-and-fair-to-all. (This
may also account for the sudden rise of Bobby Jindal. Even Republicans
want to prove that their party is no longer the bastion of evil white
males by hiding behind a 'person of color' hindu-convert-to-
christianity.) This perception may work to disarm the critics of
America. How evil can America be when a negro is president? This is
especially useful to the Jews. Jews, as we should all know, have
become the most powerful and the richest people in America. On the one
hand, Jews are happy and proud to have all this power. On the other
hand, Jews are awful worried because it means that the world will see
Jews as the main operators of the global American neo-imperialist
system. By supporting Obama and using him as the proxy of Jewish
power, Jews can then make people believe that Jews are not all that
powerful. How can they be when US never had a Jewish president and now
has a black president with a Muslim name and is friends with certain
key Palestinians? In truth, both the Bush and Obama administration is
50% dominated by Jews, for good and bad. I do not suggest that Jewish
power, in and of itself, is evil. It depends on the perspective of
those who might benefit or suffer from the consequences of Jewish
power. Since over 80% of Jews are liberal to leftist, Jewish power is
bad for people on the White Right. If most Jews were rightist, we
would embrace them. To be sure, Jewish leftism has been existential
as much as ideological. Jewish leftism preserves their rightist
instincts to gain and maintain their own power. If rightism is
particularist and if leftism is universalist, Jews found leftism
useful in the service of their particularism. When it comes to their
own power, Jews are tribalist and fanatical. But, Jews make up only a
small minority and cannot easily enforce their will on us. So, their
main weapon has been leftism whose purpose is to weaken the
particularism or tribalism of the goy majority.

Anyway, it's something to think about. As American grows darker, it
will become a more troubled and divided country. A weaker country.
But, if its elite becomes darker—by perception or in reality--,
American position will grow stronger because 'people of color' will be
in control. As we know, only white folks feel—or are required to feel--
any guilt about their historical crimes. If blacks and Hispanics came
to rule America, they would never feel guilty about anything—just as
Chinese feel no guilt about anything they've done. As a 'people of
color', Chinese perceive modern history as imperialist nations having
picked on and exploited China; China has been the victim, and so no
one has the right to criticize the Chinese who are only struggling to
rise up in the world as an 'equal nation'. (Besides, even if the
Chinese committed mass horrors, it was mainly to themselves, and as
such, they didn't technically exploit or kill OTHER peoples and
nations. Their crimes were not 'racist').
Germans felt the same way in the 19th and first half of 20th century.
They saw themselves as hemmed in by the imperialist orders of Britain
and Russians. Both Germans and Japanese—and Italians—saw themselves as
victim-imperialists or victimperialists. They felt that the
established imperialist powers—Brits, French, Russians, Americans, etc
—were not giving them an equal chance to carve out their own
empires..
Americans felt something similar too for much of its history, and this
gave Americans the moral confidence to do as they pleased in
conquering and settling new lands. As long as the narrative said
Americans were freedom loving folks who had cast off the British
imperialist yoke, Americans could always justify their use of power as
former victims who had stood up. So, when Americans took the SW
territories from Mexico, Hawaii, Cuba, and Philippines—either to
incorporate them into the US or to manage them as protectorates--,
they didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing.
And, it has been this sense of victimhood among Jews and the
perception of guilt-ridden Europeans and Holocaust-indoctrinated
Americans that allowed Zionists to get away with the creation of
Israel and the oppression of Palestinians for 60 yrs. Since Jews are
saints who'd been crushed by anti-semites, how can they ever do
wrong? Similarly, when blacks burn down cities, they feel no
remorse since they are victims of history.

So, the future of America will be interesting.