America's Manipulation of Minorities is a Major Threat to Global Democracy
Friday, 25 August 2017

First, a quick disclaimer or, should I say, a clarification:

When I speak of minorities, as I will below, I do that as a person who belongs to a long list of minorities. I was born in a family of Russian refugees. Right there, that makes me part of a (rather small) minority. Furthermore, I lived most of my life in the French speaking part of Switzerland, that again makes me part of a minority. Then, I am an Orthodox Christian. That is also a minority inside of the so-called "Christian" world (in reality a post-Christian world, of course). Moreover, I am a traditionalist Orthodox Christian, a small minority inside the much bigger "world Orthodoxy". And inside that, I am a Russian inside a majority Greek Church. I also lived for 5 years in Washington, DC, which was something like 70% Black and, at the time, openly and often rudely hostile to Whites (I never thought of myself as a color before, but I sure felt like one during those 5 years). And now I am a "legal alien" living in the USA. Anyway, while I am "White" (what a nonsensical category!) I suppose, that hardly makes me a typical WASP. So I am quite used to "being a minority" (and I quite like that, I'd add). Just thought this might be a useful clarification before I engage in the following thought crimes.

Question: why does the US foreign policies always support various minorities?

Is it out of kindness? Or a sense of fairness? Could it be out of a deep sense of guilt of having committed the only "pan-genocide" in human history (the genocide of all the ethnic groups of an entire continent)? Or maybe a deep sense of guilt over slavery? Are the beautiful words of the Declaration of Independence "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" really inspiring US foreign policies?

Hardly.

I submit that the real truth is totally different. My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire. That's all there is to it.

I think that minorities often, but not always, act and perceive things in a way very different from the way majority groups do. Here is what I have observed:

Let's first look at minorities inside the USA:

1.They are typically far more aware of their minority identity/status than the majority. That is to say that if the majority is of skin color A and the minority of skin color B, the minority will be much more acutely aware of its skin color.

2. They are typically much more driven and active then the majority. This is probably due to their more acute perception of being a minority.

3. They are only concerned with single-issue politics, that single-issue being, of course, their minority status.

4. Since minorities are often unhappy with their minority-status, they are also often resentful of the majority.

5. Since minorities are mostly preoccupied by their minority-status linked issue, they rarely pay attention to the 'bigger picture' and that, in turn, means that the political agenda of the minorities typically does not threaten the powers that be.

6. Minorities often have a deep-seated inferiority complex towards the putatively more successful majority.

7. Minorities often seek to identify other minorities with which they can ally themselves against the majority.

 To this list of characteristics, I would add one which is unique to foreign minorities, minorities outside the USA: since they have no/very little prospects of prevailing against the majority, these minorities are very willing to ally themselves with the AngloZionist Empire and that, in turn, often makes them depended on the AngloZionist Empire, often even for their physical survival.

The above are, of course, very general characterizations. Not all minorities display all of these characteristics and many display only a few of them. But regardless of the degree to which any single minority fits this list of characteristics, what is obvious is that minorities are extremely easy to manipulate and that they present no credible (full-spectrum) threat to the Empire.

The US Democratic Party is the perfect example of a party which heavily relies on minority manipulation to maximize its power. While the Republican Party is by and large the party of the White, Anglo, Christian and wealthy voters, the Democrats try to cater to Blacks, women, Leftists, homosexuals, immigrants, retirees, and all others who feel like they are not getting their fair share of the proverbial pie. Needless to say, in reality there is only one party in the USA, you can call the the Uniparty, the Republicracts or the Demolicans, however both wings of the Big Money party stand for exactly the same. What I am looking at here is not at some supposed real differences, but the way the parties present themselves. It is the combined action of these two fundamentally identical parties which guarantees the status quo in US politics which I like to sum up as "more of the same, only worse".

I would like to mention an important corollary of my thesis that minorities are typically more driven than the majority. If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most people.

So we have easy to manipulate, small groups, whose agenda does not threaten the 1% (really, much less!), who like to gang up with other similar minorities against the majority. Getting scared yet? It gets worse.

Western 'democracies' are mostly democracies only in name. In most of them instead of "one man one vote" we see "one dollar one vote" meaning that big money decides, not "the people". Those in real power have immense financial resources which they cynically use to boost the already totally disproportional power of the various minorities.

Now this is really scary:

Easy to manipulate, small groups, highly driven, whose agenda does not threaten the ruling plutocracy, who like to gang up with other similar minorities against the majority and whose influence is vastly increased by immense sums of money invested in them by the plutocracy. How is that for a threat to real people power, to the ideals of democracy?!

The frightening truth is that the combination of minorities and big money can easily hijack a supposedly 'democratic' country and subjugate the majority of its population to the "rule of the few over the many".

 Once we look this reality in the face we should also become aware of a very rarely mentioned fact: while we are taught that democracies should uphold the right of the minorities, the opposite is true: real democracies should strive to protect majorities against the abuse of power from minorities!

I know, I have just committed a long list of grievous thoughtcrimes!

At those who might be angry at me, I will reply with a single sentence: please name me a western country where the views of the majority of its people are truly represented in the policies of their governments? And if you fail to come up with a good example, then I need to ask you if the majority is clearly not in power, then who is?

I submit that the plutocratic elites which govern the West have played a very simple trick on us all: they managed to focus our attention on the many cases in history when minorities were oppressed by majorities but completely obfuscated the numerous cases where minorities oppressed majorities.

Speaking of oppression: minorities are far more likely to benefit and, therefore, use violence than the majority simply because their worldview often centers on deeply-held resentments. To put it differently, minorities are much more prone to settling scores for past wrongs (whether real or imagined) than a majority which typically does not even think in minority versus majority categories.

Not that majorities are always benign or kind towards minorities, not at all, humans being pretty much the same everywhere, but by the fact that they are less driven, less resentful and, I would argue, even less aware of their "majority status" they are less likely to act on such categories.

Foreign minorities play a crucial role in US foreign policy. Since time immemorial rulers have been acutely aware of the "divide et impera" rule, there is nothing new here. But the USA has become the uncontested leader in the art of using national minorities to create strife and overthrow a disobedient regime. The AngloZionist war against the Serbian nation is the perfect example of how this is done: the US supported any minority against the Serbs, even groups that the US classified as terrorists, as long as this was against the Serbs. And, besides being Orthodox Slavs and traditional allies of Russia, what was the real 'crime' of the Serbs? Being the majority of course! The Serbs had no need of the AngloZionists to prevail against the various ethnic (Croats) and religious (Muslims) minorities they lived with. That made the Serbs useless to the Empire. But now that the US has created a fiction of an independent Kosovo, the Kosovo Albanians put up a statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina and, more relevantly, allowed the Empire to build the Camp Bondsteel mega-base in the middle of their nasty little statelet, right on the land of the Serbian population that was ethnically cleansed during the Kosovo war. US democracy building at its best indeed...

The same goes for Russia (and, the Soviet Union) were the USA went as far as to support the right of self-determination for non-existing "captive nations" such as "Idel-Ural" and "Cossakia". I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world is a "Belarusian"?!).

I am fully aware that in the typical TV watching westerner any discussion of minorities focusing on their negative potential immediately elicits visions of hammers and sickles, smoking crematoria chimneys, chain gangs, lynchmobs, etc. This is basic and primitive conditioning. Carefully engineered events such as the recent riots in Charlottesville only further reinforce this type of mass conditioning. This is very deliberate and, I would add, very effective. As a result, any criticism, even just perceived criticism, of a minority immediately triggers outraged protests and frantic virtue-signaling (not me! look how good I am!!).

Of course, carefully using minorities is just one of the tactics used by the ruling plutocracy. Another of their favorite tricks is to created conflicts out of nothing or ridiculously bloat the visibility of an altogether minor topic (example: homo-marriages). The main rule remains the same though: create tensions, conflicts, chaos, subvert the current order (whatever that specific order might be), basically have the serfs fight each other while we rule.

In Switzerland an often used expression to describe "the people" is "the sovereign". This is a very accurate description of the status of the people in a real democracy: they are "sovereign" in the sense that nobody rules over them. In that sense, the issue in the United States is one of sovereignty: as of today, the real sovereign of the USA are the corporations, the deep state, the Neocons, the plutocracy, the financiers, the Israel Lobby - you name it, anybody BUT the people. 

benefit from it. Their perception or their lack of achievements in no way diminishes the role that they play in the western pseudo-democracies.

How do we with deal with this threat?

I think that the solution lies with the minorities themselves: they need to be educated about the techniques which are used to manipulate them, and they need to be convinced that their minority status does not, in reality, oppose them to the majority and that both the majority and the minorities have a common interest in together standing against those who seek to rule over them all.

Striving to remain faithful to my "Putin fanboy" reputation, I will say that I believe that Russia under Putin is doing exactly the right thing by giving the numerous Russian minorities a stake in the future of the Russian state and by convincing the minorities that their interests and the interest of the majority of the people are fundamentally the same: being a minority does not have to mean being in opposition to the majority. It is a truism that minorities need to be fully integrated into the fabric of society and yet this is rarely practiced in the real world. This is certainly not what I observe today in Europe or the USA.

The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other. Everybody else either wants to oppress the "franšais de souche" (the native, mostly White and Roman-Catholic majority) on behalf of the "franšais de branche" (immigrants, naturalized citizens, minorities), or oppress the "franšais de branche" on behalf of the "franšais de souche". Needless to say, the only ones who benefit from this clash is the ruling Zionist elite (best represented by the infamous CRIF, which makes the US AIPAC look comparatively honorable and weak). As for Soral, he is vilified by the official French media with no less hate than Trump is vilified in the USA by the US Ziomedia.

Still, equality and reconciliation are the two things which the majorities absolutely must offer the minorities if they want to prevent the latter to fall prey to the manipulation techniques used by those forces who want to turn everybody into obedient and clueless serfs. Those majorities who delude themselves and believe that they can simply solve the "minority problem" by expelling or otherwise making these minorities disappear are only kidding themselves. To 'simply' solve the "minority problem' by cracking down on these minorities inevitably pushes them directly into the warm embrace of the big manipulators, it turns these minorities into a powerful anti-majority weapon. This is the big danger of movements like Alt-Right or the National Front in France - their actions only serve to "weaponize" minorities. Mind you, this does not mean that the concerns and grievances voiced by these movements are without merits, not at all, it's their (pseudo) "solutions" which are the real danger.

There is only effective way to defuse the explosive potential of minorities:

1. Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
2. Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being manipulated
3. Offer the minorities a future based on equality and reconciliation
4. Put the spotlight on those who fan the flames of conflict and try to turn minorities and majorities against each other

At the end of the day, this is an identity issue. While we all typically have several co-existing identities inside us (say, German, retired, college-educated, female, Buddhist, vegetarian, exile, resident of Brazil, etc. as opposed to just "White") in manipulated minorities one such identity (skin color, religion, etc.) becomes over-bloated and trumps all the others. By restoring a healthy identity balance inside its various minorities and by fostering those identities which most residents have in common a society can counteract the toxic effects of those who strive on conflict, chaos and mayhem. Truly, the latter are our only real enemy and they ought to be treated as such.  //The Saker

 



Widget is loading comments...


Latest News