It doesn’t. What I am saying is — to put it crudely — ‘Death to America’, which is my actual stance in 2017. It’s the only reasonable stance remaining, given the situation as it is.

Just it should not be paraded around on a banner or anything.

Supporting some array of America’s geostrategic opponents, or sabotaging America in general by advocating deliberately ‘bad’ policy preferences as though they are ‘good’, is the only viable option remaining.

No. All of the others you mentioned would have been technically more ideal than Trump, as they all would have presided over the dilution of the economic power which the United States has held since 1945, insofar as they all supported massive offshoring.

Think of it like this. Trump’s ‘#MAGA’ plan, aims to draw economic power back into the United States (through protectionism), the United States being very same jurisdiction which has been captured at every level by the American-Jewish lobbyist community. ‘#MAGA’ thus bolsters American-Jewish power in a real measurable sense.

The best way to have prevented that from happening would have been by ‘killing America’, by creating economic frameworks which would allow American economic power to be diffused and scattered all around the world into other jurisdictions through offshoring, so that productive capacity and the power to set borrowing and lending preferences would be moved to other locations in the global periphery and semi-periphery where world Jewry is not concentrated.

In other words, the most efficient way to ‘kill America’, and thus, to kill American Zionism, would have been to always support whichever political tendency or candidacy was closest to the naked position of say, the CATO Institute.

Well, I’ll break my response into four parts. It won’t be too detailed since this is the comments section after all.

United States:
White America would be in a pretty bad position, and I cannot claim to have an answer for what they should do. Self-balkanisation and ethnic segregation of the US territory might be the only way out for them in such a case. It would be a sad outcome, but every other possibility has been bypassed and things have reached the worst stage possible. They’re just in a bad position.

Europe:
A release of the American economic and financial grip and further offshoring and selling-off, would be helpful for the parts of Europe which have seen a dearth of investment, namely parts of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Balkans.

When people think of offshoring and selling-off, they often think of Asia, but Asia is not the only destination that would benefit from this. Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans are locations that can be explored as well.

I can’t imagine that anyone would seriously argue that people like Poles, Hungarians or Albanians ‘cannot be trusted’ with economic power that is placed within their legal jurisdiction. They can certainly be trusted. These countries — much like Asian states — have relatively responsibility governments and have not adopted Jewish diaspora into the ruling class. I just can’t see any reasonable complaint that White Nationalists would have about that.

Regarding ‘political correctness’ in Western Europe, yes, that would have to be dealt with separately, because that solution to that particular problem does not directly flow from ‘killing America’.

I didn’t say that ‘killing America’ would solve every problem. ‘Killing America’ would solve the problem of global developmental imbalances and the problem of American Zionism continually hijacking the world’s strongest military as a global battering ram for Israel. It wouldn’t solve the problem of say, Angela Merkel being chancellor of Germany. That has to be solved by Europeans actually organising forms of ethno-nationalist politics to go up against the establishment as they have been trying to do in recent years.

Oceania:
Australia and New Zealand can exploit a future trade dispute between the United States and China (which will be initated by Donald Trump of course) to attract economic investment toward themselves. Australia and New Zealand have the easiest economic stance, but they may encounter a defence conundrum as they may need to depend on American collaboration a lot less.

Australia and New Zealand can also provide a trade ‘look in’ for the United Kingdom via bilateral FTAs between those countries (which the UK is totally ready for now, seeing as Brexit is happening), as Australia and New Zealand also join RCEP and later on, FTAAP.

South Africa:
It has to have it’s own category. It’s an actual basket case. Secession and walling-up of a White homeland in South Africa via a race war of secession, or evacuation of all White peoples from South Africa, are the only two real long term viable options. Waiting on the UN to wake up to the scale of the genocide threat posed by the ANC is a non-option.

Well, I think I did address it, I’m basically saying that my aim does not involve helping America to become ‘great’ again.

Additionally, you should’ve been able to gather from my answers so far that I don’t think the world is actually suffering from globalisation, but rather I think the world is suffering from a lack of globalisation — in the sense that we need to attain a multipolar world but we do not yet have such a world.

Naturally, I can completely understand your aversion to this idea, because since you are a White American you are not going to just let that happen because some outsider has asked you to, since you would indeed be hurt the most by doing so.

My contention however is that the rest of us need to support other countries in bringing about that multipolar world by hook or by crook, because unless the rest of us can actually defeat America then we cannot survive. So from your perspective I would be ‘a globalist’ in effect (insofar as that means taking economic power out of America’s jurisdiction and moving it to other jurisdictions), whereas from my perspective you would be ‘a defender of American hegemony’. The two stances are completely incompatible on the ground.

The article that you and I are commenting under is an immediate example of this. If Donald Trump decides to go to war against Bashar Al-Assad in Syria on behalf of Israel, I will absolutely be supporting Syria by whatever means necessary.

I would even want to support to a hypothetical Chinese attempt to undermine the US by supporting re-examination of the legality of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the UN level, if something like that were to become necessary so as to keep the White House’s attention divided and their demographic stability under pressure ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/31/c_136174375.htm ).

If that outlook would cause White Americans to call me ‘anti-White’ at that time, then so be it. It would simply be a necessary part of opposing Zionism. It would simply be a case of doing what has to be done.