Patent Fights

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It has nothing to do with high trust goyim vs. sneaky Jews. Patent fights are as old as the Industrial Revolution. Bell had them, Edison had them, etc. When America was 100% “high trust” WASP they still had patent battles. That’s how our system works and is supposed to work – you file a patent, competitors contest it, the courts ultimately decide. If you choose to infringe there are potentially big penalties so you do so at your own risk. If Farnsworth was not emotionally/financially equipped to fight this kind of combat, that was on him. When Bell invented the telephone he understood immediately that he had to have financial backers and that a good chunk of the capital he needed to raise would have to be used defending his patent. Patents are not self-enforcing. Just being a boy genius is not enough. Maybe in a different, better world it would be, but not in this world.


* Poor Joan Rivers couldn’t keep her mouth shut about the Obamas’ “orientation” and promptly did not survive a minor surgical procedure.

* Ever notice how often she insinuates Barak is not very manly? It’s meant to be simple ‘self-deprecation’ from the Obama Inc. perspective, but it seems a bit more. Lots of hints about his dorky, white-boy demeanor. He’s got a big intellectual appeal, and now wealth and riches, but I can see how she finds him wimpy.

* All the MSM polishing and buffing will n0t change that Michelle Obama is an angry inner city black lady who rode affirmative action literally as far as you can go. Obama was way better packaged and hid the ghetto politician.

Reminds me of Avon’s sister from “The Wire”; always accepting the good stuff from the family business, but not really wanting to know what that really is all about.

* It’s an awful thing, to be thought of as being an angry black woman, merely because you’re angry, black, and a woman.

* She recently revealed that her children were born via IVF treatment. Sort of adds credibility to all the stories regarding her husband being light in the loafers.

* Orthodox Jews are close to 40 percent of NYC Jews. Add 200K Russian Jews and you might have an absolute Jewish majority of Obama unfriends. Orthodox cohort skews very young however, (%75 of school age Jewish children in NYC are Orthodox) so it will take a few years until they will be a voting majority.


* “Russia can’t invade Europe, because Russian tanks don’t comply with European emission standards. That would be illegal…”

* Russia is a one-trick oil pony that has insane levels of corruption sucking away at every sector of society. It’s basically Mexico with nukes, hyper-competent intelligence services, and a legacy mathematical educational system that still produces the best programmers, mathematicians, etc.

* Russia is a one-trick oil pony that has insane levels of corruption sucking away at every sector of society. It’s basically Mexico with nukes, hyper-competent intelligence services, and a legacy mathematical educational system that still produces the best programmers, mathematicians, etc.

It doesn’t come off quite as clear as it should because many European countries… don’t bother having proper armies at all, and Russia does. But Russia can’t project power quite like the old USSR could. The USSR could only be contained by a European-wide alliance from pursuing expansionist aims: aims that were also implicitly dormant in the ruling ideology at the time. Putin’s Russia, by contrast, is only capable of really projecting hard, military power in areas with ethnic Russians or traditionally highly friendly client states like what used to be Syria. It’s a pathetic shadow of what the Soviet Union was capable of.

I suspect Putin knows this more than anyone else, and his goal in power is to first and foremost stay rich and stay on top. Nothing more, nothing less.

* Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along. But as it got richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.

Initially, Germans unified to create a nation. But it became the most powerful nation, and power has a way of expanding. So, nationalism can be the base of imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.

The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, it sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t work, but it moved Westward to take land from Indians and then waged war on Mexico. So, the theme of US is both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spain to grab more territory. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spain collapsed into nationhood. But the horrors and cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough’ and meddling in other places will lead to more headaches. But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, to not further develop them. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State are addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.

For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political regions were always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of unity with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you never meet in life. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than unite with capitalist Italy or France. West Germans and East Germans shared ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians.

Imperialism today would be insane, but it had its place in history as a constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world. Most of the world would be ruled by elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades. In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants were beneath them and stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, and that led to the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model where the people would not be subjects but fellow countrymen of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. So, the Western fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees. The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that called for something new. But because the native elites came to be seen as puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost respect and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people.
If not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who prevent any change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.

At any rate, whatever good imperialism did in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by imperialism. So, we have to give imperialism its due.
Also, globalism would be fine as long as it meant the world trading and communicating with one another. But it has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means smashing of borders by masses of migrants who’ve been given the greenlight to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.

Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism and nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire can be friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, the European Christendom in WWI is the stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.)
French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism.
Though China and Japan are not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation seeks alliance with a great imperial power to gain leverage against the bigger national power. So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear.

There have been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.

Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions but if he murders a homeless person, he’s in big trouble. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples.
European Empire was the biggest the world had seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it and felt it was fundamentally wrong. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind.
Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers just trampling on subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elites who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this led to death knell of Western Imperialism.

Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project. But the UN is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity Non-whites valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights. As the non-West was so less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to seek hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message to the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.

But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The non-West went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.

It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better. Instead, they are glue to TV beaming false fantasies of US as paradise of Cool and Wealth. Or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire.

While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (
This entry was posted in America, Nationalism. Bookmark the permalink.