An Occupied Country


When people refer to occupation governments or occupied countries, the first thought is often of military occupation—the garrisoning of foreign troops in one’s cities and civil administration by their military executives. The other vision is the trope of a cabal of Haredim sitting in a darkly-lit boardroom with a map of the world on the wall, a dated reading of the Jewish Question (JQ) based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was understandably popularized after the ((((Bolshevik)))) conquest of Russia.

If occupation government means martial law by foreigners or kowtowing to the Chief Rabbi of New York, London, or Moscow, it is a hard sell to suggest this is what we are dealing with. Considering Western countries, especially the United States and those in Western Europe, to be occupied sounds bizarre and conspiratorial to someone with one of these narrow or traditional definitions—likely most people. But despite the inaccuracies of the military, colonial, or ZOG notions of “occupation government” in describing literally what is happening, I think the term is still a useful as a metaphor for conveying the reality of rule by anti-majority.

I will define an occupation government as having these qualities:

  • It is dominated by a hostile, foreign, politically minority or ethnically minority elite. In fact, more realistically,  it may be dominated by a combination of these factions and local collaborators. E.g. overseas Israelis, communists, anti-white liberals (and conservatives), other ethnocentric non-jewish minorities such as blacks, mestizos, etc in the United States. This is not something I have concocted up but something with nebulous historical antecedents, e.g. Austrians and Hungarians being minorities in their halves of Austria-Hungary, the White Raj (British India), the Protestant Ascendancy of Ireland, French Algeria, Mamluk Egypt (Turco-Circassian ruled), the multi-ethnic and multi-faith Ottoman Empire (ruled by Turks and often with Greeks, Armenians and Albanians in high profile administrative, military and economic positions), Apartheid-era South Africa, Alawite-dominated Syria under the Assad dynasty, etc. The list goes on. This is a real historical phenomenon, and minorities or pluralities are rational actors in advancing their interests and collaborating to exercise power and privileges over a majority.
  • In order to advance socially, politically or economically as individuals, the subject population is required to work against their own group interests and to the benefit of the elite. It may of course be argued that we are always working for the benefit of our elites, but the key dynamic here is that the relationship is one of net harm in the long-term. For example, the government is one of the largest employers in the United States, and many processes it hires people to help it run are anti-white, such as immigration, refugee resettlement, affirmative action, equal opportunity compliance, etc. These further the dispossession of the White majority, which will be a minority in the United States in our lifetimes, while at the same time providing a source of employment.
  • The regime possess the ability to implement unpopular policies through diktat or legalism. A classic example of this is passing restrictions on what one might call rights or liberties or privileges—what kind of people willingly renounce those without being pressured or goaded to do so or not oppose the people taking them away? An occupied people of course. Of course we need our speech and right to arms restricted—it’s for our own good! Sometimes the institutions that the occupied people are familiar with—especially legislatures and courts—will be co-pted for this purpose, since it gives an air of legitimacy to the occupation government and makes opposition management easier. For example, if a law in the United States is challenged, it has to be ruled constitutional by a Supreme Court that is one-third overseas Israeli in order for it to be considered legally binding. Such influence is wildly disproportionate and reflects the anti-majority elitist character of the occupation government.
  • Opposition is managed such that it isn’t allowed to spiral out of control and become an existential threat to the occupation. If there are—and there must be—voices against the status quo, the occupation government will to the best of its ability attempt to marginalize and suppress these voices enough that it does not alienate neutral or less hostile voices. Successful efforts to legally ban “hate speech” and historiography of the Holocaust in Europe and similar social attempts to suppress free speech in the United States, the demonization of White ethno-centricism by the media and the chattering class, and ample funding for ethnic lobbies and “hate group” watchdogs are all examples of managing the only meaningful opposition to the occupation government, that is to say White Nationalism. Mainline conservatism (i.e. cuckservatism or reduced-speed liberalism) is also a form of opposition management as it gives frustrated members of the occupied population a safe outlet. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act is struck down, homosexuals are allowed to claim one another as spouses, or we decide on a country to blow up on behalf of Israel and Wilsonian neocons has nothing to do with dismantling the occupation government at all. But it sure wastes a lot of time and energy that could go be better spent opposing say, displacement-level immigration.
  • The occupation is more of a social superorganism than a ruling junta. Even without executive types like Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, ((((George Soros)))), Hillary Clinton, the Bush family, the Rockefeller family, or institutions like NATO, the Bilderberg Group, AIPAC, the ADL, the SPLC or any other number of people or organizations you can name that seem to fulfill the Protocols trope, there would still be thousands and likely millions of people on the full scale of Western society working together deliberately, coincidentally or incidentally towards the same interests that run contrary to those of the White majority of Europe and the Anglo settler colonies. There is a kind of distributed intelligence created by individual government executives, business executives, NGOs, lobbyists, politicians, journalists, bureaucrats and state employees, celebrities, bloggers, human resources departments, academics, educators, diversity compliance… you get the idea. The notion that society is centrally directed from the top-down has become increasingly inaccurate in an era of memes, digitization, globalization and mass media. There are undoubtedly power centers, but also power nodes and conduits which may or may not actively work with one another. A large bulk of dedicated people believe in the memes of diversity, anti-racism (combating White ethnocentrism), increasing the size and scope of the government, disarming the population, and so forth. These people never have to meet with one another and establish best practices or discuss strategy to spread or enforce these ideas, they just do it. Your organs never ask one another to keep you alive. They just do or don’t.

When I say the United States, Britain, Germany, etc. are occupied countries, I am not talking about a room filled with Israeli colonels and Fortune 500 CEOs—though those rooms probably do exist and are important. I am talking about a coalition of minority interests that reward collaborators and run contrary to our interests and exploit us. I am talking about the macro scale of thousands upon thousands of dedicated ideologues and hundreds of thousands if not millions of collaborators, exercising authority and influence over a majority of neutral or fearful people and directing their energies towards making sure the opposition is marginalized, pathologized, hated, hounded and rendered illegitimate. Why do millions of White people commit themselves to the idea of fighting racism, that is to say opposing White ethnocentrism? I believe the answer is extremely simple—the social superorganism of our anti-white elite and their collaborators, or “society,” is telling them to do so through a mixture of  what are sometimes centrally directed signals but more widely speaking attitudes and moods coming from a range of sources considered legitimate. Ultimately, what we call it doesn’t matter—it doesn’t care. What matters is understanding that whatever it is or was, it works against us. It is not a coincidence that indigenous nationalism is suppressed and vitriolically counter-signaled in most Western countries.