Sunday, August 15, 2021

Element of Will and Fear-and-Respect in the Successes and Failures of Political Systems and Civilizations and What It says about the Afghan Situation — Lack of Will in South Vietnam — Imperialism's Suppression of Nationalism in Soviet and American Empires

The recent collapse of US-backed Afghan government hints at something about History. The Afghan military has lots of men and tons of the best equipment in the world supplied by the US. But after 20 yrs and 2 trillion dollars of so-called 'nation-building' by the US as the lone superpower, the Afghan Regime is crumbling like a house of cards, and there's hardly anyone around to support or defend them. US dominated with things, with material support, but not with themes, with spiritual meaning. There was talk of 'democracy', but if democracy is about majority rule, Afghan version wasn't going to be like the 'liberal West'.
Some compare the Afghan debacle with US retreat from Saigon, and indeed South Vietnam had more people and more material than North Vietnam. Even when US cut off aid to South Vietnam, it still had more than enough people and arms to fend off the North. They had lots of things but not a compelling enough theme to unite and inspire the people to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

Now, will, unity, discipline, and morale alone don't ensure victory. Germany and Japan in World War were united and hardy but still lost. In terms of iron will and determination, Germany met its match in the USSR. And Japan couldn't compete in things with the US that, furthermore, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, had all the determination, unity, and morale to destroy the 'Japs'.
Still, so much of history has been decided by the lack of will despite sufficient men and availability of resources. Somehow, the link between the elites and the masses was lost. Also, the masses no longer regarded themselves as one people united by common values and shared themes; they no longer worshiped the same gods and hated the same devils — consider there was a time when even most white Liberals worshiped God and looked upon homosexuality as a grave sin or clinical sickness.

Once a regime loses the respect for the people, the latter is less likely to follow orders from above. They are less likely to be good citizens and more likely to look out for their own interests without much sense of the public good. And once a people lose fear of the elites, they are less likely to comply with its dictates. The people of North Vietnam feared but also respected their government. It was this combination of fear and respect that made the NVA so formidable.
After all, respect alone doesn't cut it. Even if you respect a certain power, you may not choose to risk your life for the cause because it's natural for people to choose life/happiness over death/agony. Plenty of Russians saw the need to fight the Germans in the Great Patriotic War, but how many would have stuck out their necks if not for the fear of their own regime? It was patriotism against German invaders + fear of the Soviet regime that drove so many Russians to march into battle. So, respect alone isn't the magic formula. (Likewise, National Socialist Germany was so formidable because Germans both feared and respected the regime.) But then, fear alone isn't effective in the long run either. If you're operating only on fear, it's no different from bank tellers giving money to the bank robbers. It's purely motivated by fear, not loyalty or respect. Anyone can make anyone do something by holding a gun to his head. Real loyalty is when the person is willing to serve you even when you don't hold a gun to his head.
North Vietnamese feared their government but also respected its legitimacy earned from resistance against French Imperialism. This combination of fear and respect made for powerful loyalty. Also, communism, while stifling and stagnant in the long run, was a powerful tool of centralization, organization, and indoctrination in the short run. So, while the capitalist economy of South Vietnam would have far surpassed the communist economy of North Vietnam in the long run, the North had the 'spartan' advantage in the short term, the window of opportunity the North needed to prevail over the South.
The problem of the US in South Vietnam owed to its schizo nature. US did lots of terrifying things to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of bombings and terror campaigns. But the US also turned Saigon into Surf City and promoted laissez-faire-ism that made them more like tourists with guns than real soldiers. So, while the US military could be fearsome in combat, it seemed loose and lost in the urban setting. South Vietnamese soon came to navigate around Americans, who seemed to be all about dollars and cents, coca-cola and sex(and lots of drugs). Thus, the US struck fear only with bombs and bullets. They could be negotiated with. So, there was little need to fear the Americans unless one was suspected of being a Viet Cong in the rice paddies of Vietnam. As Americans came across as tourists with guns, they didn't get much respect either. Not much fear, not much respect. Hardly ingredients for loyalty.
As for the South Vietnamese regime, how could it win much respect when it relied on foreign occupation for defense of territory? ("We need to be occupied by foreigners to be protected from our own kind.") Also, American values had a destabilizing impact on South Vietnam. If American values are about freedom, then freedom in South Vietnam meant dissension and opposition to the US-backed regime. The opposition could come from not only communist elements but various other groups, idealists and opportunists alike. While a strong and stable regime could weather dissension, a weak regime could only be hobbled. Of course, US knew this and backed an authoritarian regime, but then, this seemed like a betrayal of American values. America preached freedom while propping up a 'dictatorial' system. (At the very least, the Romans who propped up Herod didn't pretend to be for freedom and liberty.) Because the system was authoritarian than totalitarian, there was just enough freedom for various groups to make trouble for the government while the government used just enough force to crack down and be labeled as tyrannical. Thus, it undermined both genuine popular participation and effective enforcement of authority.
Perhaps, in the long run, absent an existential threat(like communist-totalitarian North Vietnam), an authoritarian system of semi-freedom could work out, e.g. Taiwan evolved from authoritarianism to democracy(though it is still a political and ideological puppet of the US). But it was fatal for South Vietnam that was free enough for social chaos and repressive enough for condemnation by world opinion because of the threat of North Vietnam. This was also the problem in Latin America, though the US mostly succeeded in destroying Marxist-Leninist insurgencies there(except in Cuba and Nicaragua). US backed right-wing military regimes that allowed just enough freedom for insurgencies and used more than enough violence to alienate world opinion.

But then, the US couldn't support full totalitarianism because it would be too un-American. And US couldn't support nascent fascist regimes because they might be too independent-minded and insist upon national sovereignty, at odds with US hegemony. But then, US couldn't support a full democracy and civil society either as popular will may turn out to be Anti-American(and Anti-Jewish, not to mention Anti-Globo-Homo these days). Democracy in Chile led to the election of Salvador Allende. In Venezuela, it brought Hugo Chavez to power. So, the US usually struck deals with the kind of regime that rules Egypt today: A weak regime with just enough muscle(backed by US money and arms) to make the masses cower. Still, despite Egypt's dependence on US largesse, its government was domestically formed than installed by foreigners. The Afghan regime, in contrast, is totally the creation of the US that, by the way, didn't even bother to scour the country for the best people. Instead, they found the most pliable flunkies and third-raters willing to whore themselves out to foreigners for a price.

Nationalism is a problem for empires all over the world. Stalin was anxious about Mao's independent will. He fretted Chinese communism would ultimately challenge Soviet Communism(which did happen after Stalin's death). And Tito's independent streak led to bad blood between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Soviet Union wanted stable and forceful regimes in Warsaw Pact nations but not powerful ones(in the sense of national independence). A communist nation could abide another communist nation, but a communist empire had problems with the independent streak of other communist nations. Thus, despite their ideological affinities, there were cases of some communist regimes leaning closer to the Capitalist West as insurance against Soviet Power. Mao met with Nixon. Tito embarked on neutrality between East and West. And Ceausescu was courted by the West, especially as Romania didn't take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Ideal would be a powerful nation respecting the national sovereignty of weaker nations, and such examples are plentiful around the world. Not every powerful nation exerts muscle on weaker nations. But an empire is about a dominant power maintaining hegemony over weaker ones. Thus, the nationalism of weaker nations is seriously compromised, if tolerated at all. US spoke of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan, but it was really empire-building, a process of turning the country into a far-flung satrapy of the Zio-American Empire. It could work as long as the US empire was willing to exert its influence. But it could fail(and the Afghan regime is falling faster than we can write about it) once imperial authority is withdrawn. US didn't do any 'nation-building'. The Soviets did in the 1980s, which is why its clientele regime lasted three years even after the Soviet pullout(and may have lasted longer if not for Yeltsin's total cut off of aid, surely under US pressure).

Granted, Soviet nation-building didn't necessarily ensure survival. Even though Warsaw Pact nations were puppets of USSR, they were stable national entities with functional bureaucracies, disciplined militaries, and effective police force. But the regimes all crumbled the minute the Soviets decided to pull out. Oddly enough, the regime downfall was especially violent in Romania, relatively an independent communist nation, whereas the fall of regimes was mostly peaceful in those that had been occupied by Soviet troops. Yugoslavia, another relatively independent communist nation, also experienced extreme violence, one that actually lasted for some years. Perhaps communist nations under direct rule of the Soviet Union had zero legitimacy. The people overwhelmingly wanted something new and got it right away. In contrast, precisely because Yugoslavia and Romania had staked some claim of independence and national sovereignty from USSR, the powers-that-be were more self-assured of their survival.

Though Afghanistan is being compared with Vietnam and Soviet withdrawal, current events seem more evocative of the sudden downfall of communist regimes the minute Gorbachev declared withdrawal of Soviet Military. In a way, it was even more shocking and took the world by surprise. Whereas most predicted that the Taliban would soon regain power once the US left, most experts in the 80s thought communism would last several more decades, and many conservatives refused to believe that the Cold War was effectively over following Reagan and Gorbachev's summits.
Still, there is one key difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the Afghan regime. Even though communist as ideology was suddenly kaput, Eastern European nations continued to be ruled by many of the same people who'd been at the helm. Indeed, many former communists rebranded themselves as 'liberals', 'nationalists', or 'social democrats'. Many kept their bureaucratic posts. And some of the most powerful people of the new order were former apparatchiks. True of Russia as well. Putin was once KGB, and many people in his regime were once loyal members of the Soviet Union. In contrast, it seems everyone involved in the US-backed Afghan Regime are really out of power and scattered to the winds. Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe, but many communists rebranded themselves and held onto power and even amassed huge fortunes. No such luck for the Afghan cucks.

The problem for Eastern European nations turned out to be a case of 'out of the frying pain, into the fire'. They were relieved to be free of the Soviet Monster and expected to join the free democratic West. And who could blame them in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was decrepit economically and when communism was repressive and colorless? Also, even in the 1980s, Western Europe seemed free, reasonably patriotic, and mostly stable(especially with the tumultuous Sixties receding in the rear-view mirror). No one bleated about globo-homo. Even though the immigration problem began after WWII, Europe was still solidly European. No one back then would have thought London would turn into Londonistan or Londongo or that Germany would be ruled by someone like Angela Merkel who flung open the gates to refugee-migrant invaders. And the premier Western Power, the US, was still ruled by the 'greatest generation' types who were white and Christian. Back then, most US politicos and diplomats(other than vicious Jews) wouldn't have been appalled by someone like Viktor Orban or Polish Catholic nationalists. Though US empire had its own form of hegemony during the Cold War, the US was willing to acknowledge that different nations have different peoples, traditions, cultures, and values.
But things changed drastically when Jews took over as the new elites of the West. Also, the sacralization of the Shoah meant that Jews were to be regarded as wise men and gurus. They were the new holy men of the West, and white elites in both sides of the Atlantic listened with rapt attention at whatever the Holy Holocaust People had to say. Of course, Jewish Wisdom, for all their highfalutin talk, really amounted to, "Hmmmm, Is it good for the Jews?"

Today, the Jewish-controlled US empire cannot tolerate any powerful, independent, or genuinely patriotic leader in its satellite states. Someone like Charles DeGaulle would give the US deep state a heart attack. It has to be someone like Hollande or Macron. And look at the worthless leaders of UK, total cucks to Jews. Gone are the Christian-Democrats. All that is left are Globo-Homo-Cuckrats. If the US were still ruled by the kind of people dominant in government in the 70s and 80s, it's likely(though not for sure) that the US would have good relations with current Hungary and even Russia. But with Jews at the helm, it simply isn't possible. Jews are hostile to nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity in Russia, Poland, and Hungary for the same reason they are hostile to them in the US.

In the 80s, the newly liberated Eastern European nations were glad to be freed from the Soviet Empire and looked toward a future where they could have democracy and national sovereignty. But as Jews took over the US and gained control of Western elite minds, the whole situation turned into one big bait-and-switch. Globalism demands that Eastern European nations abandon their sovereignty, impugn their nationalism, welcome tons of Africans/Muslims, encourage sluttony among women, and plant the Jewish-Victory globo-homo flags all over, especially inside churches. We saw what Jews did to Russia by funding Pussy Riot to desecrate churches. If Taliban are purists who blow up Buddhist statues, Jews are puerilites who use anarcho-tyranny to desecrate icons and symbols sacred to white and Christian folks.

Anyway, back to the matter of will...

The Romans could still have prevented the downfall and the sack of Rome. They still had the men and the material. But they failed to. They lost the will. Russians in 1917 still could have prevented the Bolshevik takeover. Most Russians weren't that radical. But Romans had lost the heart to unite and fight.
Today, we see a similar lack of will among whites. It could be apathy, fear, confusion, disillusionment, hedonism, or whatever. But one thing for sure, so many whites are no longer willing to take action. Even white patriots in the South do NOTHING while their monuments are attacked and taken down. And white Europeans must know that endless immigration will lead to White Nakba and bring about the end of European civilization. But most of them have no will to fight for blood and land. Indeed, many welcome the destruction or replacement of their civilization as 'salvation'. And even though Jews are at the heart of the beast attacking the white race, few dare name the Jew.

Perhaps, one reason for the lack of will and general apathy/confusion is the veneer of political continuity. After all, most people in the US and Western Europe believe that they are living in the same democratic political system, the one they'd known for their entire lifetime. In the US, the democratic system is 250 yrs old. In Western Europe, it either goes back centuries or were established after WWII. And given how democracy served the US pretty well and also did wonders for post-war Europe, perhaps most whites in US and EU believe they must stick with the system.
But this is really an illusion. The Jewish takeover of the West profoundly altered the ideological and cultural landscape. The institutions may be the same, but the internals are fundamentally different. West has gone from liberal national democracy to mandatorian tribal supremacy. Western Europe and Canada can no longer be considered free or liberal. They are ruled by Jewish supremacist anarcho-tyranny. Free speech is dead in EU and Canada by Law, and it is effectively dead in the US because of deep state collusion between Jewish Big Tech, Jewish Media, Jewish Finance, Jewish control of courts & law firms, and Jewish State. And of course, Jews control academia and push stuff like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, and whatever other nonsense to neuter white identity and power.

Suppose the Catholic Church remained intact institutionally but the personnel changed from God-fearing Christians to Devil-worshiping Satanists who replaced holy icons with globo-homo symbols. From sacrament to excrement. Same church but entirely different doctrine and agenda. Of course, pope Francis is a servant of deviltry, a crypto-globo-homo psycho-freak who takes it up the arse from the Jews. Catholic Church is no longer what it is; it is now all about serving satanism.
Jewish Power maintained the shell of (liberal)democracy but altered the rules so profoundly that the West is no longer what it was. So, people need to wake up and stop believing they are living in the same democracy. It is really a 'demonocracy' controlled by Jewish supremacists. It's like Twitter isn't Twitter anymore. It appears to be the same social platform, but its Terms of Services changed so much that it can even ban the President of the US and shut down information because it doesn't comport with Jewish Supremacist 'schwience'.
It's like THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING. In both movies, the outer features of the victims remain the same but they've been fundamentally altered at the core, at the soul-level. When idiot whites ceded power to the Jews(as the Holy Holocaust People), Jews used their shylockery to tear out the heart of the West in a ritual far more consequential than any Aztec sacrifice. And the original heart was replaced with another one, the cuck-heart. It was a stealth revolution, and unless whites wake up to this fact and Name the Jewish Supremacism, there can only be slow death for them.


No comments:

Post a Comment