Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Chauvinism of Jews, Greeks, & Romans and the Mediterranean Sea as the Petri Dish of History — Why did Northern Europe come to Civilization later but later make unprecedented progress? — Britain as New Rome and Its Problematic Template for Anglo-Americanist Globalism

We've been told over and over, we need to support Israel because it's part of Western Civilization even though, ironically enough, Jews are at the forefront of unraveling whatever that has held the West together as a people, culture, history, and territory.

We have a situation where Jews, who are said to represent the West, push mass non-white immigration on the West, making the West less Western but in the name of 'Western Values' that apparently have nothing to do with race, history, or territory but only a set of beliefs and 'principles' that are supposedly 'universal' in application. These ideas, though having originated in the West, are understood as having implications far beyond the West, thereby encompassing all of humanity that, in order to attain progress and liberty, must also embrace those ideas as their own. I suppose there is a kernel of truth to this as what the Greeks embarked on was a search of objective truth(based on observation and logic) as opposed to cultural subjectivity(based on customs and visions) and the idealization of man as a seeker of truth and justice than mere receptor of tradition or creature of tribalism. Greeks were mighty proud and chauvinistic, but ironically, their pride of achievement rested on breaking freer from cultural gravity than other peoples who remained more mired in their customs, myths, and lore.

Jews were similar to the Greeks in one way. They too came upon a universal concept — the one God of truth and justice for all the world — but insisted on tribal chauvinism, one where they are the Chosen bound in a special Covenant with God. Both peoples were universal in imagination but tribal in pride. And history would have been very different but for the fact that the Greek Way and the Jewish Way came together like chocolate and peanut butter in the Roman Empire. Far more than Alexander the Great(whose dream of Hellenistic Empire fractured and dissipated), the Romans took Greek Ideas and turned them into Imperial Principles. Also, the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.

Of course, the Romans too were awful proud and aggressive, but far more than the Greeks and Jews, were willing to allow non-Romans a stake in the new imperial order. Though considered as part of Western Culture and History, had the Roman Way been allowed to continue and prevail, Rome would have been less the foundation of later European Civilization than the center between the West, East, and South. After all, at the height of their power, Romans had far greater regard for peoples of the Near East and North Africa than for the Northern Barbarians. Though many people invoke the Fall of the Roman Empire as a warning about the future West, it was probably a great thing for the white race. Germanic tribalism prevailed over Roman Imperialism that would likely have served as a bridge not only of Europeans into non-Europe but non-Europeans into Northern and Eastern Europe. Of course, much that was good about Roman Civilization was destroyed, but there was no guarantee of civilizational health even if Romans had prevailed over the Germanics. After all, Rome was decaying from within, and if the Eastern Byzantine Empire was any indication, civilizational longevity is no guarantee of health and vitality. Indeed, it's possible that the fall of Western Rome was like a forest fire that made the future soil of Europe richer for something like the Renaissance. Also, the fall of Rome(as the bridge between the West and East/South) made the North safer from invasion, thus more racially and territorially secure. And over time, the North came to greatness because it had both the security of homogeneity and the fruits of diversity from the South.

Initially, Southern Europe with its 'diverse geography' had a great advantage over cold Northern Europe that was isolated from trade routes. In contrast, the Mediterranean was the greatest Petri Dish of cultural ferment as it allowed trade in goods, exchange of ideas, and clash of inspirations among the various peoples/cultures of North Africa, Near East, and Southern Europe. Isolation was impossible even if desired. There was a constant flow of ideas, goods, and peoples, friendly and hostile. So, naturally the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of Northern Europeans of both the North-West(Germanics and Celts) and North-East(Slavs).
But, the problem of geo-diversity was instability. With so many great powers in near proximity to one another, massively destructive wars were commonplace. Also, even with relative peace, the clashes and frictions among peoples with different myths, customs, & values and of different colors & looks didn't lead to much of a culture of trust and cooperation. So, diversity led to a lot of sparks but also lots of fires that burned out of control. Diversity giveth but also taketh away. (Still, it must be said the Mediterranean Sea was a divider as well as unifier. It's possible that, had there been no Med-Sea and had Southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa been just one land-mass, there might have been less civilizational spark. Med-Sea was 'small' enough for various peoples to travel & trade and big enough for them to maintain relative security. Indeed, the bigger threats to the Greeks came from land than from sea. Also, it's telling that Jews regarded the sea as divider or isolator than unifier. In the Noah story, a righteous family is isolated in the ark from sinful humanity. The point of the ark is to survive and keep intact a family and culture, not to set out on voyages to unknown lands. And in the Moses story, the Hebrews cross the sea on foot under the divine protection of God, whereas the Egyptians perish under the waves. And Jesus walked on water. And Jonah's experience with the sea was with a whale as a kind of spiritual ark.)

But when the foundational ideas forged in a world of Diversity made their way up to Northern Europe, it was like the best of both worlds. The ideas could develop and grow uninterrupted in a relative world of homogeneity, stability, and security. Then, it's hardly surprising that the Ancient Foundation reached its greatest apex in the isolated kingdom of Britain. On their own, the Brits would have remained isolated barbarians. But equipped with ideas that arose in a world of diversity, they could push those ideas much further as the result of their trust culture made possible by greater homogeneity(relatively speaking) and territorial security. What the Romans ultimately failed to do, the Brits did do. Brits created the greatest empire of not only military power and economic wealth but cultural achievement and scientific progress. They were like the ultimate Romans, and yet, ironically, the source of their power wasn't merely rooted in Classical Civilization but racial consciousness forged through eons of relative isolation. So, in a way, the Anglos had something in common with Greeks and Jews as well. They perfected the Imperial Formula for uniting the entire world, indeed far more than the Spanish(who soon began to stagnate) and the French who could never make up their mind if they wanted to dominate Continental Europe or compete with the British for World Hegemony. Though unprecedented as imperialists who came closest than ever before of creating a universal world order, the Brits were racially proud and chauvinistic, much like the Ancient Greeks and Jews. British Empire was about bringing the brightest light of the highest civilization to all the world, but what that light shone to the world was "Look at our superior white Anglo faces, respect and obey." The British were more ambitious and conquered more than the Romans could ever dream of, but they were far more race/ethno-conscious than the Romans.

So, it took a rebellious offshoot of the British Empire, the United States, to finally detach the universality of British Imperialism from Anglo pride, arrogance, and chauvinism. Though the American Republic also began as a race-conscious nation, its founding principles were far more amenable and even attracted to universality. Perhaps, this owes to Anglo identity never having formed into something distinct and special, something it had in common with Roman identity. After all, Jewish identity and Greek identity survived beyond Ancient Times, but Roman Identity vanished and was replaced by mixture of funny folks called the Eye-Talians. Indeed, despite all the race-mixing and confusion, Spanish identity survived with more distinctness than the Anglo kind. What accounts for this?

Was the rise of the Romans and Anglos too swift and sudden, too identified with power above all else? After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power. And the same was true of Greeks whose culture developed organically for some time before their rise to greatness. In contrast, what were the Romans before they became great? It seems Romans came to define themselves primarily by their greatness. In this sense, even though Macedonians under Alexander the Great came to be regarded as 'fellow Greeks' who expanded Greek power far beyond what Greeks could manage on their own, they had more in common with the late-comer Romans who, if anything, followed their example with certain imperial improvements(that favored systems over personalities) that assured greater stability. That Greek identity survived whereas Macedonian and Roman identities did not tells us something. (Likewise, what is 'Manchu' identity and culture today?) It goes to show cultural resilience owes less to might and money than the formation of a powerful identity rooted in ethnos, narrative, and mythos. Jews and Greeks had a more powerful culture even before they gained power, whereas the Romans had a weaker culture and, upon coming to possess a formula for great power, associated Roman-ness mainly with might, conquest, and glory.

To be a Roman was glorious as long as Rome was the center of the world, but its fall meant loss of everything. In contrast, even in defeat the Greeks and Jews believed their identities and cultures were nevertheless superior and this superiority owed more to tradition and truth than something so crude and transient as political/military power. It could be one reason why American Empire has become so obnoxious owes to a hollow sense of American Identity. Meaning almost nothing and yet everything — anyone from any part of the world can come to the US and, within five years, become 'as American as Apple Pie... or pizza, taco, chop suey, gyros, bagels, etc." — American sense of pride only comes with money and power, especially as democracies are now dime-a-dozen around the world. (When the US was one of the few democracies in the world, there was the pride of being a beacon of liberty. But when millions of Asian-Indians come to the US, they are going from democracy to democracy, and the only difference is US offers more money and is militarily far more powerful; it's just human nature of Will-to-Cower for people to flock to something more richer and more powerful to be part of it.) It's like a person with a strong sense of self in terms of identity, individuality, conviction, and meaning is less enamored of money and possession as matters of pride. While a person of strong identity may still want money and power(indeed lots of it), his core self is nevertheless defined by something other than what he possesses. Thus, even if he loses it all, he still has meaning. In contrast, a person with no meaning tries to compensate with money and power, but without money and power, he feels zero self-value. Jews are a people of strong identity who are obsessed with power and money; the thing is, even were they to lose all the power and money, they'd have meaning in what they are, a part of an ethnicity, spirituality, history, and culture. In contrast, white goy elites seem to possess nothing but the status, success, prestige, money, and/or power as the definitive markers of who they are. But that means they are NOTHING without earthly things(or social status), and perhaps this accounts for white elite class bigotry for the the Deplorables, a bunch of 'loser whites' with little or nothing. (Jews and white goy elites sneer at Rural White America but, for some reason, we must all care so much about Desert Semites in Israel.)

Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom. Unlike Japan that eventually united as one Japanese Folks, the idea of Great Britain or United Kingdom was founded on the prestige and glory of power. When wars came to an end in a united Japan, the idea was that all the Japanese people were rightfully under the rule of the most powerful Japanese clan with the blessing of the divine lord, aka the Emperor. In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples 'agreed' to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things. So, if all Japanese bowed down before a greater sense of Japanese-ness, various folks in Britain consented to de-emphasize their core ethnicity in pursuit of greater power, wealth, and glory that would come through their mutual cooperation. And this meant that not only would the Scottish restrain Scottish pride but even the dominant English wouldn't over-emphasize English pride. Of course, one could argue that Japan too had its distinct sub-ethnicities like Britain, but the difference is the central power in Japan insisted that everyone in Japan is Japanese and must submit totally to the central authority and the Emperor, whereas British Political Arrangement was founded on mutual understanding. Thus, British-ness was bound to be more political and theoretic than Japanese(or German) identity. It was like a business partnership where various families agree to forgo extreme clan loyalty for the good of the whole under unity and cooperation. But like business ventures, such an 'identity' could only be justified by success and growth.

After all, if there were no material benefits in the arrangement, why should the lesser 'kingdoms' go along with the greater or united kingdom? So, the seeds of Americanism were already there in British History. Such compromise may have contributed to the rise of class consciousness that prevented the full-blown emergence of a race-consciousness. As racial-minded as the British were, it's telling that they were off-put and disturbed by the German concept of Blood-and-Soil rooted in Kultur. In a way, the British treated race like a class, or a 'rass', and thus they were more rassists and than race-ists. Brits didn't so much considered themselves as the superior race as the better class of race. In a way, the failure to develop a strong sense of British Ethnicity(as Britishness was a compromise position among the various 'ethnicities' that were, by the way, almost homogeneous genetically) meant that the Brits would have to opt for the more generic notion of 'whiteness', which came to define America.


1 comment:

  1. Nice informative history lesson. I daresay we are entering some very dark times and need to address surviving these dangerous times. Have you heard about the "Deep State Dogs" ?