When analysing the endless spats in the Middle East my emphasis is always on how it affects White Australians, in order to focus on our own mission and to ignore ClownWord’s distractions. The latest spat between Donald Trump, Giorgia Meloni and the “pope” over the Middle East is a prime example.
From their ABC:
US President Donald Trump has criticised Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni … “I thought she was brave, I was wrong.”
The US president’s criticism, made on Tuesday local time, came on the same day Italy suspended a defence cooperation agreement it had with Israel…
Ms Meloni also pushed back on Mr Trump’s extraordinary back-and-forth exchange with Pope Leo XIV, saying she supported the pontiff’s anti-war stance.
“I express my solidarity with Pope Leo, frankly I would not feel very comfortable in a society where religious leaders do what political leaders say,” she said.
The two public stands against the US and Israel, combined with Italy’s recent decision to deny US planes permission to land at a Sicilian air base, appear to have strained the Italian prime minister’s once-close relationship with Mr Trump.
“I’m shocked by her,” Mr Trump told the Corriere della Sera.
“She doesn’t care if Iran has a nuclear weapon and would let it blow Italy to smithereens in two minutes if it could…
“Meloni doesn’t want to help us with NATO, she doesn’t want to help us get rid of the nuclear weapon.
“She’s very different from what I thought.”
Of course Meloni is different from what she first appeared, but not in the way Trump infers. Meloni the candidate presented as a nationalist, but as Prime Minister she talks tough on “illegal” immigration while opening the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of “legal” migrants.
In this respect she is no different to several generations worth of Australian Liberal Party leaders. Angus Taylor was slammed yesterday for attempting the same “illegal-legal” bait and switch which benefited John Howard in the 1990’s.
Australians (and White people the world over) no longer make any distinction regarding how a foreigner came here. What matters now is race and sheer mathematics. We are being overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of new arrivals every year. We want mass migration replaced by mass remigration, hence voters are flocking to One Nation because it is perceived currently as Australia’s most nationalist option.
Donald Trump the President also appears a far different character to Donald Trump the candidate. Although offical reports indicate that both “legal” and “illegal” immigration are down under his administration, Trump has emphatically broken his promise of an end to the forever wars in the Middle East. Time will tell whether or not America’s masters merely installed a populist President in the hope that it would inspire Americans to die for our greatest ally.
The common thread is that whether a White nation’s rulers are globalist or “populist”, they do not represent the indigenous White people of their respective nations. Globalists don’t purport to believe in race or borders at all, at least for their own countries, while populists falsely define nationality as based on “values” rather than ethnicity. Thus regardless of whom we vote for, White people largely lack elected representatives.
Following on from this, when we see on the news that “America” has blockaded Iranian ports, or that Europe’s leaders were accused of suffering from a “deep moral weakness”, this is inaccurate.
In reality, the manager of the North American economic zone is attempting to exert influence over the Middle Eastern economic zone, with the knowledge that even if much of Earth’s economic infrastructure is blown to bits, his own empire’s infrastructure remains largely intact.
Europe’s leaders failed morally when they decided to replace their populations via mass immigration, not when they failed to pick a side in the Middle East.
Even when the fake nationalist Meloni signals to Catholics against the manager of the North American economic zone, she does so in defence of a fake “pope.”
If the result of a ruler’s immigration policy is that their indigenous White population will be replaced, they cannot be said to be ruling a country, they are merely managing a fief bequeathed to them by their globalist masters. There is no such thing as the “national interest” in such a situation, and “international relations” is a misnomer at best. At worst it is theatre designed to distract us from our own replacement.
Do not take this analysis however as siding with the people of the so-called “global south” or “west asia”. Non-whites, whether they be rulers, academics or ordinary people, near unanimously demand an end to Western imperialism while insisting upon their right to colonise the West.
When, not if, the White man reasserts control of his own dominion, a bargain will most likely be struck with the rest of the world:
Leave our lands and leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone.
Future peace or war will depend on how well the other side keeps the bargain.
