The Militarism Canard... or the 'Civilian' Actors Have Been More Dangerous

 

One thing for sure, one needn’t be of the military to be militarist as, often is the case in the West, the civilian leadership(or puppetry of the oligarchy) tend to be more militarist, whereas a considerable number of military men often warn against excess adventurism. It goes against the grain of the popular narrative(via academia and mass media/entertainment) that the warmongers are embedded in the military. How often have we heard about the role of Japanese MILITARISM in the series of impossible wars that brought death and destruction upon mainland Asia and finally upon Japan itself?
The early Cold War Narrative often pits relative peace-seekers like John F. Kennedy against the War State, which some have suspected in the assassination of the former. Films like FAIL SAFE, DR. STRANGELOVE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY have military men plotting to bring about World War III in the name of defeating communism. And of course, the great bogeymen of World War I(or the Great War) have long been the German MILITARISTS.

But, some of the biggest warmongers have been in the civilian sectors of government, business(like William Randolph Hearst who beat the drums for what came to be the Spanish-American War), and the intellectual class(later to set up their various think-tanks). Most Jewish-Zionist Neocons, including women like Victoria Nuland the Cookie Monster of Maidan, never served a day in the military. (Tulsi Gabbard did and is less enthused for endless wars.) The near-epithet of ‘isolationism’ was cooked up by the intellectual class to shame and/or purge those calling against aggression or conflict via interfering in foreign affairs. Oftentimes, it was the civilian types blaming the military types for an unwillingness to engage the world in a warlike manner.

The Jewish, as well as the homo, angle is rather interesting in the phenomenon of civilian-militarism, or ‘civilitarism’. Many peoples/cultures throughout history have been depicted as warlike: Macedonians, Romans, Germanics, Mongols, the Turks, and etc. But not the Jews, renowned more for spiritual pursuits and aptitude for business. Of course, one could argue that the art of prophecy, of which Jews became masters, is a kind of spiritual declaration of war on the souls of humanity, its modern variant being the radical-secular ideology, such as Marxism that inevitably instigated wars and counter-wars.
In a sense, Jesus and Muhammad were the biggest warmongers of history even if by accident. So many wars in their name. And of course, one could argue that business, driven by ruthless competition, fuels aggression and expansion that could opt to resolve matters by war, or war as a continuation of business by other means.

At any rate, we’ve often been fed the impression that Jews, who tend to be cerebral, found themselves surrounded by warlike goyim. Even Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has been characterized as a man of peace at odds with the militarists who want to blow up the world.
To be sure, there’s been the figure of the Jewish radical or revolutionary, one committed to violent means, but the distinction(convincing or not) is nevertheless made in his favor as someone who uses violence as a means of idealism, whereas militarists supposedly love war for war’s sake(as in the case of PATTON the movie). Revolutionaries supposedly fight wars to save the world, whereas militarists fight wars to beat the world up.
In lobbing bombs, anarchists believed themselves to be working for justice/peace, i.e. the institutions are oppressive and tyrannical, and one must dismantle their structures to bring forth a world of everlasting peace and justice.

Of course, the revolutionary is the inheritor of the prophetic mindset, what E. Michael Jones calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Mindset’, and it has obscured the warlike nature of the Jewish Way. No matter how many bodies pile up, the Jewish narrative speaks of ‘tikkun olam’ or ‘healing the world’. Some trace the warmongering of the Neocons to their Trotskyite origins, and perhaps there is something to that, but given the near-universal support of the Wars for Zion among the entire spectrum of Jewish elites from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, the Trotskyite origins are probably more a footnote than the main thesis of the Jewish Worldview.

A key difference between the Jewish radicals/revolutionaries of old and the Jewish-Zionists Neocons/Neolibs of today is that a good many of the former were willing to join in the fight. They were true believers in the new prophecy(such as Marxism), for which they were willing to give their lives. It was a redeeming facet to their fanaticism, whereas the current hegemonists of World Jewry have no concept of the Good other than Jewish Supremacist Power, i.e. they are too good to expend their own precious lives.
As such, they prefer to expend any number of subhuman inferior goy lives to realize their own agendas. What do Zelensky of Ukraine and Netanyahu of Israel have in common? Their reckless provocations seek to draw the US into a wider war. Make goyim fight goyim. Make Slav fight Slav, make Western Europeans fight Eastern Europeans, make American goyim fight Russian goyim. And Netanyahu’s wet dream is to make the US take on Iran and the rest loathed by Israel.

Even the sheen of Jewish warrior spirit and courage has gone from Zionism. One appeal of Zionism to the Jewish(and sympathetic goy) imagination was that, unlike the stereotypical Jew of yesteryear who cowered before their tormentors(and were herded into trains to the camps during World War II), the founders and defenders of Israel stood firm and fight like lions and hyenas, the mythos behind EXODUS the novel and movie. The Six Day War narrative had little Israel besieged by hostile Arabs preparing for The Holocaust the Next Chapter, but proud and heroic Israeli Davids, all on their own, smote the Arab Goliaths in a mere six days. Jews sure could take care of their own!

But with the grueling quagmire in Gaza and given that Israel’s neighbors aren’t quite the pushovers they used to be, Zionism is less about Jewish Spartanism that Smartanism, or how to cleverly manipulate the US to enter the war and fight Israel’s enemies so that precious Jewish lives don’t have to be sacrificed.
Amusingly enough, Jewish feelings about whites aren’t all that different from their feelings about the Palestinians — they are all inferior subhuman goyim — , but various goyim are under the delusion of being favored by the Jews, the rightful master race. It’s like a bunch of dogs believing that they will be spared and rewarded if they serve the Asian master who kills and eats dogs; it doesn’t occur to them that THEY may be the next in the pot. So, even though Jews did the Palestinian Nakba and are now pushing White Nakba, white shabbos goy dogs hope and pray that Jews will spare and reward them as the ‘good dogs’ if they bark and bite at the ‘bad dogs’. But even Palestinians like Rashida Tlaib could be so deluded. She denounces what the Jews are doing to her people but earlier played cheerleader to the Jewish War on Russia via Ukraine as proxy.

Of course, some will say that the stereotype of the passive Jew who got beaten up by bullies(before Zionism revived the warrior spirit of the Israelites) has been something of a stretch. Passive Jew? Jews have long been known for being ‘pushy’, hardly a passive trait. And the criminal world has been filled with ‘Tough Jews’ in both Europe and the US. And Bolshevik Jews, before Zionism became a thing, amply demonstrated how blood-curdling they could be. Even though the Jewish schlemiel-weakling isn’t as fantastic as the Noble Magic Negro, it too has been something of a false stereotype that lend the dubious impression of Jews being hapless victims or nincompoops in tight spots.

Video Link

Given the reality of Jewish life and history, it’s hardly surprising that the Jewish ‘civilian’ sector is rife with aggressive tendencies, the kind that may lead the world to Chutzpacalypse Now. Besides, if perceptions and passions precede action, the vitriol that often spews forth from the Jewish community against white goyim, Christians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and now even the Chinese is a sure sign that much of Jewishness is a raging cauldron of arrogance, fear, resentment, and paranoia. Many Jews relished in ‘Punch a Nazi’ and ‘Trump is Literally Hitler’ antics that often led to violence, culminating in Antifa and BLM wrecking entire parts of cities in 2020, though in the case of Ukraine, Jewish violence opted for ‘Hug a Nazi’, if only to hurl the ‘Nazis’ at the Russkies.

Outwardly, homos also come across as unlikely warmongers. The common image of a thug, bully, or warrior is that of an alpha male tough guy, like Colonel Kilgore(Robert Duvall) in APOCALYPSE NOW. Arnold Schwarzenegger in CONAN THE BARBARIAN was no pansy fairy but a testosterone-filled slayer of men and humper of women. Homos have often been portrayed as victims of macho-man bullies and ‘God Hates Fags’ patriarchal types.
In truth, homos tend to be vain, and vanity seeks privilege, a domain of power, and the nature of power is aggressive, expansive, and coercive. Once a part of the power elite and/or the deep state, homos have sought to impose their neo-aristocratic will on everyone else, out of revenge if not haughty delight.
It is then hardly surprising that the US deep state, run by Jews and homos as the top elites, has become even more warlike than in the days of the ‘hawkish right-wingers’, the types who overestimated or exaggerated the Red Menace but nevertheless regarded it as a genuine threat, whereas the current pro-war mania merely and cynically invokes ‘muh democracy’ as a cover for an agenda that is entirely ethno-supremacist and homo-hegemonic, as if the entire global economy must be dictated by Jewish bankers and all the world’s institutions, secular and spiritual, must hoist the ‘gay’ banner.
The quasi-aristocratic homos sneer at the straight world as the peasantry that must bow down to the superior tooty-toots. Like Tim Roth’s feline character in ROB ROY who loves to cut down the lower-class dogs.

Video Link

Though true that plenty of gung-ho types in the military rattle their sabers at perceived enemies while plenty of peacenik types in civil society chafe at overseas(or neo-imperialist) ventures, the fact remains that, by and large, the most adventurist and reckless figures driving the world to the edge(of even Nuclear Armageddon) tend to be in the ‘civilian’ sectors whereas the military brass generally harbors a sober and cautionary attitude on foreign policy, if only because they feel responsible for their men.
It’s the reverse of developments in Japan in the 1930s when the civilian government’s attempts at diplomacy went undermined by the military that was hellbent on war as the only solution.
The so-called Greens in Germany, once associated with the Peace Movement, are now among the most vociferous beaters of war drums even at the risk of World War III with Russia(and its partners).

At the very least, many American civilian-leaders in the past had served in the military(and even participated in war) and had few illusions about what it was about. Even those who hadn’t chosen military careers had direct experience of violence. John F. Kennedy suffered from pain all his life. Dwight Eisenhower as President, head of the civilian government, grew increasingly anxious about where the Cold War may lead, as World War III could involve nuclear weapons.

In contrast, most civilian hotheads today have no military experience, and this could be said of most of their family members, friends, and associates as well. As such, they tend to see military men as pawns and toys than as fellow comrades, the kind of people with whom one once rubbed shoulders.
Furthermore, there’s an ethnic component to the civilian-military dynamic in the current order. The Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist types who dominate the civilian government tend to see goyim as expendable, less than fully human. It’s no wonder that they are so blasé about casualties, military and civilian, in wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine, or about the victims of US-led sanctions, like the 500,000 Iraqi children whose deaths Madeleine Albright deemed as ‘worth it’; indeed, even when Jews carry out wholesale massacres in Gaza and spread terror throughout the region, the main narrative from the Jewish-controlled media is “What can be done to protect Israel?”
But then, Jews, who tirelessly heap abuse on whites, Christians, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Venezuelans, Hungarians, and etc. and defame entire nations & cultures, are the first ones to bitch about ‘antisemitism’ and how they need ‘protected group’ status despite constituting the most powerful and destructive force in the world.

As for cuck-minded goy maggots like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, they crave approval and plaudits from Jews as their masters and bark like attack dogs. (Given the pathetic nature of so many goyim, Jewish supremacist attitudes are understandable to a degree. If all those around you acted like lap dogs vying for your approval at every moment, would you respect them?)

The so-called civilian ‘democratic’ regimes of the West demonstrate that militarism can thrive outside the military as a mindset of excessive confidence and arrogance of force. The Neocon/Neolib administrations are totally militarist, far more so than the average officer in the Army or Navy.
The Iraq War was the brainstorm of the civilian government led by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who figured that the surest way to increase Jewish allegiance to the GOP was by giving Zion the war it wanted, especially with ‘liberal’ Jews in the media also hankering for the so-called War-on-Terror.
Needless to say, Jewish Power played it smart. It got the war it wanted while also criticizing Dubya as a reckless cowboy, useful as plausible deniability. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq War, but when it went badly, claimed to have been duped by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

While the German militarists have been named as the chief culprits of the First World War, the conflict was as eagerly embraced by the civilian sectors of society. And the civilian government in France had been itching for war, if only to avenge the defeat at the hands of Bismarck. At the very least, the Germans, militarists and civilian authorities alike, believed that the war was a matter of survival or national integrity as Germany was squeezed between vengeful France and increasingly hostile Russia. They regarded it as much a war of defense as of offense(as the best defense). The most gratuitous and unnecessary participant in the war was Great Britain, ruled by a civilian government, with which Germans sought no conflict.
Even in the Pacific War, the Asian sphere of World War II, it is too simplistic to lay all the blame on the Japanese militarists as evidence suggests that the civilian FDR administration was trying to bait Japan(and Germany) into war. And near the end of the war, prominent military figures like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur detested the use of the atomic bomb, the decision of Harry Truman, the civilian head as commander-in-chief.

The myth of Camelot(of John F. Kennedy), which stems in part from the Cuban Missile Crisis and America’s involvement in Vietnam, usually pits the idealistic Peace Corp president against the right-wing military generals or the military-industrial-complex as the bogeyman(while blithely overlooking the fact that Eisenhower had originally meant to call it the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex’ to highlight the civilian aspect of the beast — today, more fearsome is the Military-Intellectual Complex whereby Jews cook up the ideas and agendas to be executed by goyim-golem in the military). Liberal opinion at the time was of the mind that, but for Kennedy, the world would have been embroiled in World War III and with nukes. This tough guy attitude that talk is weak, diplomacy is delusional, and only overwhelming force will thwart the enemy was seen as dangerous, even pathological. But then, the Liberals set the template in the late 1930s and early 1940s that war and only war could resolve the issues with Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the right-wing Cold War mentality was essentially a continuation of war-only mindset.

General Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE is a precursor of ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan but at the global level: Diplomacy, like legal process, is for ‘liberal’ wimps, and it is time to grab the gun and pull the trigger. Again, the anti-militarist satire is rather ironic as the very people(of Liberal persuasion) who denigrated the hardcore Cold Warriors as paranoid and psychotic had been the ones who’d insisted on the absolute and total destruction of the enemies in the buildup to and during World War II. Anyone calling for peaceful solutions were tarred as ‘unpatriotic’. And figures like Oppenheimer were hellbent on speeding up atomic research in order to turn German cities into ashes. (And the Liberals, Jews and Goyim, hardly opposed the theft of US nuclear secrets by Israel that ignored or violated all international rules and norms and even cooked up scenarios like the Samson Option. If anything, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Jews alike have demanded that American politicians of all stripes stand behind Israel no matter how bellicose its foreign policy.) Today, the supposed heirs of this ‘no appeasement’ school invariably denounce any diplomatic solution in conflicts involving Russia, Iran, and increasingly China.

While there were hardliners in the military, especially in the early part of the Cold War, the kind who even pressed for first-strike on Russia, hawks were also to be found among civilian ideologues, and it wasn’t just the likes of Barry Goldwater. Indeed, the gloom-and-doom specter of the right-wing demagogue often masked the warlike nature of the entire spectrum of American Politics. LBJ appealed to voters as the Peace Candidate contra the madman Goldwater, but he was the one who escalated the war in Vietnam. (In our time, voters were warned that Trump was too unstable and dangerous on the world stage, but it was the Jewish-heavy administration of Joe Biden that unleashed new wars. As long as the ‘right-wing demagogue’ trope remains potent in political discourse, the actual warmongers can evade responsibility by pulling the alarm on the ‘far-right’ or ‘fascist’ threat. They pose as counter-bullies to the right-wing bullies, domestic and foreign, in the name of ‘democracy’ or whatever, even though they are now the most hegemonic bullies in the world.)

Many military men, having witnessed the horrors firsthand in the Second World War, have advised against aggressive actions in the Cold War. In US history, generals who became presidents — George Washington, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower — tended to be sober-minded on matters related to war. Indeed, America’s involvement in the bloodiest wars — The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq War — owed to presidents whose closest advisers were ideologues or businessmen.

The ‘industrial’, as well as the intellectual/ideological, feature of the military-industrial complex was far more decisive in the formulation of agenda. Regarding the current bloodbath in Ukraine, the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for more death and destruction are in the civilian sectors than in the US military. The business elements are ecstatic about profits, and the intellectual/ideological(mostly Zionist) elements are fanatical in their dream of conquest of Russia as the final trophy in the hegemonic design of World Jewry.

While Oliver Stone’s revisionist film JFK shows Lyndon B. Johnson being prodded into escalation in Vietnam by military types, the real drivers of policy were the so-called ‘The Best and the Brightest’, the know-it-all mandarins with their high concept of ‘defending’ the Free World.
Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, and FAIL SAFE propped up the useful scapegoat of the US military when, in fact, the bigger danger lay in the civilian sector.
For sure, it was the rising prominence of Jewish strategists of varying worldviews, which more or less converged on ‘neoconservatism'(or Nulandism), that would turn the US into a full-blown imperialist power that has simultaneously managed to frighten and alienate much of the world. Ironically, most of these saber-rattlers never served in the military or even fired a gun.
The Ukraine catastrophe and the looming disaster in Taiwan are the brainchild of civilian ideologues and think-tankers or political shills. Whether it’s Nancy Pelosi visiting globo-homo Taiwan to provoke China or Lindsey Graham accompanying the likes of Victoria Nuland to Ukraine, civilian rule hasn’t ruled out militarism.

In retrospect, 20th Century Wars weren’t generally the conflagrations started by militarists. The most notable militarist-led disaster was Japan’s ventures in mainland Asia and eventual clash with the US, and it may have owed to Japanese militarism being rooted in Japanese culture and ethos going back to the samurai. Even after modern Japan abolished the samurai caste, the vision of the military as the true embodiment of the spirit and honor of Japan remained, thus fueling a ‘sacred’ sense of mission absent in most militaries(premised on professionalism) around the world.
Otherwise, however, military men were often the peace-makers or at least peace-keepers. Kemal Ataturk of modern Turkey had no ambitions beyond the national. Franco, upon victory in the Spanish Civil War, was careful not to become entangled in alliances that might drag Spain into a larger conflict. Ultimately, Charles De Gaulle ended the bloody war in Algeria. Generally, it appears those who’d held higher ranks were more judicious than those who’d held lower ranks. Hitler, after all, was only a corporal.

Fascists have often been confused with the military, not least because fascist leaders donned military gear. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler dressed and acted the part of military commanders. Actually, both came into their own as intellectuals, ideologues, and activists.
Unlike most military men who specialize in tactics and logistics(and are thereby acutely aware of the limits of power based on availability of men and material), the intellectual/ideologue types tend to base their worldview on Big Ideas or the ‘vision’ thing.

Perhaps, fascists are the only people who’ve been demeaned and scapegoated more than the military for the wars and destruction of the late modern era. While the militarists(usually depicted as military men though anyone can qualify) have often been impugned as thick-skulled and overly blunt in their approach to foreign affairs, they weren’t necessarily depicted as sadistic, cruel, and/or evil. Not knowing any better, they’re prone to solving crises with violence and aggression. In their lack of ideas(and even brains), they may be childish and stupid in their violence-first or violence-only approach, but at least they aren’t inspired by Evil Ideas.

In contrast, fascists are reviled as people of ideas, all bad. Such a characterization is somewhat understandable given the romanticism of war by certain Italian Fascists and Hitler’s brutalist vision of the world, humanity and history locked in a constant flux of struggle and violence.
Still, fascist-bashing is usually a form of scapegoating by dumping the blame of history on the fascists when, in fact, capitalists, communists, liberals, and etc. have hardly been amateurs in war and aggression. FDR was the true father of the military-industrial-congressional complex. Winston Churchill plunged the British Empire into a war it could easily have avoided. While Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro were generally cautious, figures like Leon Trotsky and Che Guevara were globe-trotting revolutionaries committed to stoking conflict wherever and whenever. Communism, even more than fascism, blurred the lines between revolution and war, between civilian and military.

Not only have the fascists been blamed for virtually everything, but even when non-fascists have resorted to aggression and violence in politics, they were smeared as ‘fascist’, thus placing the blame on ‘fascism’ than on the actual parties involved. It’s like Christians blaming Satan for everything that goes wrong, thereby absolving themselves and their religion for the failings, i.e. even when they did it, the ‘devil’ either did it or made them do it.
So, when Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump did the bidding of Jewish Neocons, they were often condemned as ‘fascists’ when, in fact, their policies were the logical extension of Western capitalism, decadent liberalism, corrupt conservatism, and ethnic nepotism(of the Jews).

By calling one another ‘fascist’, both the ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ can go on pretending that they themselves aren’t the problem, which supposedly lies with ‘fascism’. So, Clinton the Democrat wasn’t really responsible. It was Clinton the closet-fascist. Or Bush the closet-fascist. Or Obama or Trump the closet-fascist. What a convenient way to exonerate the system of its failings. Just call everything bad about the American System ‘fascist’, and Americanism is spared condemnation. Instead, the problem is the ‘fascism’ that has somehow managed to infect the pristine US system. You see, it was the ‘fascist’ bug that messed up the system. This way, one sector of American political discourse can always pretend that Obama-ism or Trump-ism isn’t just another manifestation of Americanism but an errant ‘fascist’ mutation that seized power against the spirit of the Constitution and Apple Pie.

The Irish Conundrum, or When Nationalism Is Globalized Into Suicidal Inanity

 

Given ways things are going, Ireland is over, no less than Great Britain is. The demographic trends are dire, made all the worse by the Irish ruling elites, intellectual class, and the educated middle class lending their moral support to what is effectively White Nakba and using threats and coercion to discourage any authentic nationalist reawakening and resistance against the demise of the Irish as a people, culture, and territory.

For the longest time, Irish pride of identity derived in large part from the resistance to British Imperialism, but it was a narrative with caveats. Not only did the Irish adopt much of British culture, values, and attitudes but they were genetically indistinguishable from the Britons. In time, English became the language of the Irish, and furthermore, it’s hard to think of another people who were bigger beneficiaries of the empire, other than the British themselves of course.
Indeed, one could argue that the Irish came to greatness through the British Empire, directly and indirectly. Not only did countless Irish join in the imperialist ventures and gain political/economic advantages but they benefited immensely from the mass immigration to the United States that, despite its independence from the empire, was a British creation and, in time, the closest ally of the Anglo Empire. (Granted, one could argue that black Africans were even bigger beneficiaries of the empire because contact with the White Man transformed them from jungle primitives and savanna bunnies to citizens, and ultimately sacred cows, of the richest and most powerful country on Earth, the United States. Afro-Anglo interaction made the real difference as blacks in Latin America gained far less.)

So, even though official Irish historiography propped up the image of the plucky underdog Irish standing up to British tyranny, no less true was the fact of tremendous Irish gains under the empire(and its creations).
This has led to a certain schizophrenia in the political mindset of the Irish. Are they blood-brothers with the British who recruited the Irish(as their closest racial cousins) in the imperialist ventures or are they soul-brothers with all the peoples, especially nonwhites, who stood up to ‘racist’ British Imperialism and other forms of Western domination?

It was further complicated because the Irish, due to their lower status in the British hierarchy, were often assigned the dirtier work that led to resentments and prejudices(to both uppers and lowers). Indeed, the haughty British often admonished the Irish for being overly crude and bigoted towards the imperial subjects while they themselves affected magnanimous postures. The master hires the overseer to whip the slaves but then lectures the overseer not to be so brutal. It’s like Jews using white goy cucks to destroy Muslim countries and Arab lives but then pontificating about ‘Islamophobia’.
Often finding themselves closer to the imperial subjects in the British colonies, the Irish had fewer illusions about the ‘wogs’ and ‘niggers’. But in constantly being given the dirty work, they also grew to resent the British. (And during World War II, the anti-British feelings led to Irish neutrality, which could be spun today as “letting the Nazis kill all those poor innocent Jews.”)

The ethno-dynamic was somewhat similar in the US, despite its independence from the British Empire. The ruling class was mainly composed of Protestant Anglo-Americans while Irish Catholics were lower in class hierarchy. Thus, the Irish came in closer and more troubled contacts with other ethnic groups(such as Jews, Italians, and Polacks) and the blacks. Even though the Anglo-American elites established the socio-economic order, they often talked down to the Irish and other lower-class types as being bigoted in their inter-ethnic relations and racial attitudes. In the film RAGTIME(directed by Milos Forman based on the E.L. Doctorow novel), the tormentor of the fancy Negro looks like a typical drunken Irish-American.

Video Link

So, over time, the Irish were both more likely to growl about “those damn niggers” AND more likely to identify with groups perceived as exploited or tyrannized by the British or the Anglo-Americans.
Not surprisingly, the Irish who turned out to be least prejudicial were in Ireland itself, which was once virtually all Irish and white. If the Irish in the US and various parts of the British Empire at least had an eye-opening first-hand encounters with the ‘natives’ or nonwhites, the Irish in Ireland increasingly came to rely on the Jewish, Liberal, and/or Leftist-dominated media and academia for their worldview.

When Ireland had been fixated on the national obsession for independence and reunion with Northern Ireland, the larger world didn’t matter so much. Also, being one of the poorer nations in Europe with a healthy birth rate, the priority of the Irish was to improve their own lives, not to play the role of the saviors of the world. In this period, the politics of resistance was mostly nationalist, even though some Irish caught the revolutionary bug and conflated the Irish struggle with international movements against imperialism, even participating in rebellions or revolutions in other countries.

At some point, gradually and then suddenly, the mythos of Irish resistance took on a globalist color. It was less about the Irish resisting the empire to restore and secure Irish nationhood than about the Irish joining in(and even leading) the world community or movement against ‘racism’, ‘colonialism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘apartheid’, and so on. Thus, Ireland as a national entity in and of itself came to matter less as too tribal and petty. The elements of the national struggle were extracted and formulated into a global crusade. It encompassed the entire world, and the Irish were now part of this ‘universal’ movement, and so, it no longer mattered if Ireland was preserved as a nation or culture or land. All that mattered was that the Irish be on the side of the Global Good against the Global Bad. So, if masses of nonwhites arrived in Ireland and became the ‘New Irish’, what did it matter as long as it cemented Ireland’s position as a ‘progressive’ vanguard in the world?

Partly, this owed to the change in the political landscape following World War II, especially in the US, the dominant superpower to emerge(and relatively unscathed) from the ash heap of mid-century. Not only did the US media come to dominate the Free World but the US had a huge contingent of people of Irish stock, indeed even more than Ireland itself.
The predominant political narrative of post-war America comprised the Negro Problem, the Civil Rights Movement, the evils of ‘racism’, the commanding oratory of Negroes like MLK, and the magic of black popular music(even as a liberating agent for uptight whites with frozen souls).

If the Irish in America at least had to contend with the black problem first hand in the forms of street crime, school violence, and workplace pathologies, the Irish in Ireland received a filtered reality via the Liberal/Jewish media that presented the problem as wholly one of white ‘racism’ and black ‘victimhood’ and ‘resistance’, i.e. it was the KKK versus MLK, when it was often the case of whiskey-swilling-potato-munchers being terrorized by fried-chicken-watermelon-devouring neo-savages. For the Irish in Ireland, the race problem was so far removed from their immediate lives that they could afford the luxury of their own illusions.
For example, if white Americans got both the fun and fright from black-dominated boxing where black pugilists routinely beat up white boxers(that mirrored racial violence in real-life), the Irish and most Europeans of the period tended to interpret black victories in sports as merely a kind of social-racial justice, an expression of black pride, with which they could sympathize given the history of Western Domination over Africa. Also, given the post-war European inferiority complex vis-a-vis the rich and powerful US, the Black Issue was the one area on which Europeans could glibly feel morally superior toward the Americans. “We might have brought about World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, Fascism, Communism, but at least we didn’t have Jim Crow laws in Europe.”

The Irish also fancied themselves as a soulful and musical people, especially in contrast to the uptight and repressed British, even though, ironically enough, Great Britain and Ireland witnessed explosive successes in pop music around the same time inspired by heavily black-inflected American Rock n Roll and Rhythm n Blues. Some Irish even got to thinking that blues and soul music was a kind of black ‘Irish’ music, and there was probably a kernel of truth to this in that American Southern music had roots in the Irish and Scotch-Irish tradition. After all, something like the blues didn’t develop in Latin America or in Africa itself. In the American South, a Negro might have observed some sourpuss Irish bitterly drinking and cussing the night away and mimicked the style in his own manner: “Why massuh done make me pick all dem cotton and shit?”

The Irish conceit assured itself that, whereas the cold-hearted Britons were thawed by the Afro-American soul, the Irish merely connected with their soul-brothers, black counterparts of the soulful Irish.
In other words, if British Rockers were merely imitating or drawing inspiration from black music, the Irish were arriving at a singularity with their long-lost soul-cousins: “We Irish and them blacks, we know pain and suffering, we both have deep wounded souls, and etc. and through musical prowess, we’ve maintained our pride and dignity.”

Indeed, it’s telling that U2, the biggest Irish Rock Act, has done more to idolize and champion blacks than its own kind. Their songs about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement are more famous than anything written about the trials and tribulations of the Irish themselves. And, Bono basked in photo opportunities as a kind of Irish-Messiah standing tall among the black children of Africa, apparently dearer to him than the children of Ireland, that is unless Ireland is Africanized. Bono and others like him condemn any attempt to preserve the native racial and cultural roots of Ireland as their vision of the holy is shaped, disseminated, and enforced by anti-white Jews.

Ironically, the divisive internecine crisis of Northern Ireland once had a nationalizing impact on Irish politics. So much energy was invested in reincorporating Northern Ireland that less attention was diverted to global matters. Even though Sinn Fein and other radically-inclined Irish factions forged partnerships with ‘revolutionary’ groups all over the world, the main focus was on Ireland itself, about dealing with the pesky Protestant traitors who’d chosen to collaborate with the British refused to relinquish a vital piece of Ireland even long after the sun had set on the empire.

But once the Northern Ireland issue was more or less resolved, Irish politics drifted increasingly toward the global. The leftist-nationalist parties, in order to remain relevant and secure funding, gravitated to new issues. While the Irish had controlled the national narrative, the global narrative had been taken over by the Jews, and that meant the Irish seeking a place in the global order found themselves adopting the crypto-Jewish talking points on what constitutes ‘progress’.

Furthermore, there was a period of rapid economic growth with massive infusions of capital, as also happened in Poland in the aftermath of the Cold War, and this led to an emergence of a prosperous status-conscious cosmopolitan class, the main ambition of which was to be accepted into the EU club and be treated as one of the ‘equals’ among the advanced Western nations headed by the US. This meant adopting the attitudes and ‘values’ of the West, much like Spain had done since the death of Franco.

Even though Spain and Ireland found themselves, more often than not, at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum through much of the 20th Century — Spain largely associated with rightist Franco and Ireland often associated with leftist or revolutionary sympathies — , the educated elites of both nations came to similar conclusions: Excessive investment in nationalism and reliance on Catholic authority had held society back, thus preventing a more meaningful participation in the Western community of nations.
Apparently, whether it was traditional rightism or classic leftism, Spain and Ireland had missed the boat of full prosperity and progress. No wonder then that Spain came fully onboard the EU ship, often trying to outdo other European nations in their ‘progressive’ credentials. Likewise, Ireland was the first European nation to adopt ‘gay marriage’ by majority electoral vote. And of course, there has been a total collapse of Catholic Church authority in both countries as the new messianism revolved around ‘sexual liberation’, GloboHomo, and Tolerance. Ironically however, the very forces that had undermined respect for the Church by exposing the sex scandals(involving minors) later came to champion the sexualization of children, thereby opening the door to future legitimization and legalization of pedophilia.

In a way, despite their conceits, the new elites of Spain and Ireland were little more than slickity hicks. Just like a country bumpkin in the city tries to overcompensate by out-slicking the city slicker, the newly minted globalist cosmopolitan classes in Spain and Ireland(along with their insufferable Polack equivalents) went out on a limb to show that they too are well-showered and perfumed in scent of ‘progress’. Such mindless eagerness to shed their hick odor was actually rather hick-ish as only a hick-at-heart would be so simple-minded and single-minded in his anxiety to win plaudits.
We see the same fixations among small town types who make it to a college town or the city. As if ashamed of their ‘humble’ origins, they go out of their way to prove that they are now part of the ‘edgy’ crowd. It also explains why the Southern Elites in the US are such useless and servile dogs, cheering along with the ‘woke’ crowd at the desecration of Southern heritage and history.

Nothing wrong with opening one’s mind to the world and appreciating wider horizons and bigger opportunities of urban life, but only a fool would blindly assume that something is truer or ‘more advanced’ simply because the urban elites happen to fancy it at the moment. Consider the Radical Chic of the Sixties and its delusions. Or the BLM mania of 2020, and the Jewish/white elites propping up Kendi X as a ‘great thinker’. Or, all the lies printed about race, sex, and world affairs in the pages of the New York Times.
Contrary to the narcissism of the educated class, much of elite thought is the product of indoctrination than intellect, taboos than thought, and consensus(& status) than contention.
The hysterical or ‘triggered’ reaction of the so-called educated elites to unorthodox ideas is ample proof that they fear honest discussion of controversial topics(most of which shouldn’t even be controversial in a society of open debate). In their lack of nerves, they prefer narratives, just like many families now rely on pre-cooked meals than bother to cook on their own with fresh ingredients. The idea is that we shouldn’t look at the ingredients that make up the narratives but just consume them as ‘healthy’ for us.

The Irish dilemma isn’t anything new. At various moments in history, the local, tribal, or national was amplified into the universal. Indeed, that was the beginning of Christianity. The tribal crisis of Jews under the Roman Empire spawned a new spirituality that reformulated elements of tribal Judaism into universal Christianity. If Jews insisted on the Old Testament as a tribal ethno-narrative, Christians(the early members of whom were all Jews) interpreted its events and happenings as preparations for the universal faith of Jesus the Messiah.

In the modern era, certain local or national events were mythologized to have larger meaning and repercussions, not least because most modern movements tended to be fueled by Enlightenment Ideas. Thus, the local events of the American Revolution or ‘1776’ came to reverberate far and wide, a shot heard around the world for liberty. The French Revolution soon became the template for the liberation of all of Europe. And, the Russian Revolution was promoted as epochal and global, its seismic energies meant to rearrange the power structures of the entire world. Even the Mexican Revolution had such an appeal, with non-Mexicans flocking there to take part, as also happened with the Spanish Civil War wherein the international brigades didn’t see it merely as a local Spanish affair but a war for all humanity. And many in the West have been made to feel that way about Ukraine: You see, it’s about ‘democracy’ and ‘Western values’(like celebrating homo-fecal penetration and fisting) against revanchist Russian autocracy and the ambitions of Putin as Putler, or New Hitler.

No doubt the Palestinian Struggle has similar implications around the world. Rather than regarding it as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians, many on the Left see it as a form of Anglo-Zionist neo-imperialism and the insatiable bloodlust of the war industries; and many on the Right see it as yet another manifestation of Jewish Supremacist madness to dominate the world, i.e. all the goyim of the world are figuratively ‘Palestinians’ endangered by Jewish Supremacist power and perfidy.
Palestinians themselves understand the global value of their struggle even though the Jews control rules of ‘globalism’. Thus, Palestinians must at once keep the struggle intensely national(ist), as their priority is to reclaim parts of what was once Palestine, and engage with the world community for sympathy and support. But the danger of globalizing or universalizing any local or tribal struggle is that its priorities may be altered, lose sight of the original objectives, and become subsumed into a generic agenda, much of which is at odds with nationalism. It certainly was the case when the Jewish struggle against the Roman Empire turned into Christianity that transcended all tribal loyalties. While your tribal folk may appeal to the world community for support, the world community may expect and even demand your folk to favor its generic global agenda over a ‘narrow’ nationalist one.

Ireland succumbed to the globalization of nationalism, whereby the New Irishness is defined not by Ireland-for-the-Irish and the preservation of Irish history & territory but by national purpose rendered into a universal abstract, one that could apply to just about anyone. In other words, anyone who speaks the words of ‘resistance’ and ‘decolonization’ may be deemed ‘spiritually Irish’ and welcomed to Ireland as its future citizens. Thus, Irishness is no longer about roots and continuum but about trends and fashions, more about attitude and posturing.

In a way, the spread of black music hastened this change in consciousness. If the Irish who imitate blacks see themselves as essentially or soulfully black, who’s to say anyone who adopts an abstract form of Irishness isn’t Irish? Just like Americanism is now shorn of roots and simply means anyone willing to adopt the latest fads in ‘American values’, Irishness is no longer about race, ethnicity, culture, and history but about ‘resistance’ and ‘revolution’, the themes of which are now dictated by the global academia/media that are controlled directly or indirectly by Jews.
Thus, Irishness is now indistinguishable from Britishness, German-ness, Spanishness, Swedishness, American-ness, Mexican-ness, and etc. that are all about the same set of idols and narratives: Judeo-Centrism, GloboHomo, and Negrolatry. The Irish may still be pugnacious in their peculiar way, but it’s more like ‘cucknacious’ as their current rages have been predetermined by others, especially the Jews, to ultimately destroy Ireland and turn it into yet another variation of Soros-Land.

It’s all a bit strange as the Irish, more than most Europeans, have been rather resistant to the Judeo-centric view of things, especially as their struggle had long been aligned with those of the Palestinians, black South Africans, and others at odds with the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Even to this day, the type of the Irish who are the most vocal supporters of the Jewish Supremacist globalist agenda may be heard mouthing slogans that are anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. In most Western countries, the goy-globalist elites are almost entirely pro-Zionist and prone to caricature the Palestinian struggle as little more than ‘Hamas Terrorism’, but the discourse is somewhat different in Ireland, even in high circles(though, to be sure, there are plenty of total cucks of Zion there as well). Perhaps, it’s just lip-service among most Irish political figures, as is the case among most Arab elites in the Middle East: All Talk, No Walk.
The political discussion is so often confused. When the Irish condemn the actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians, which side do they associate the Irish with? Are the Irish like the Palestinians, what with their own experience of victimhood under colonization and imperialist tyranny? Or do they feel that the Irish(or at least Irish Nationalists) are akin to the Zionists given their hostility toward the nonwhite newcomers? If Palestine was wiped off the map due to ceaseless Jewish immigration, might not the Irish meet the same fate as the result of mass immigration? Or the Irish being white, do the Irish feel that they too must atone for ‘white privilege’ and open their small nation to the Third World?

But even if sincere on the part of the Irish, it’s indicative of the devious mechanisms of Jewish Power that, when it cannot secure direct support outright, uses proxies to make the defiant entities support Jewish-controlled agendas nevertheless, thereby making them at least partly entangled and indebted to Jewish guidance and largesse.
It’s why GloboHomo has been so crucial to Jewish Power. By turning the Irish into a bunch of cucks to Sodomania, Jewish Power weakened Irish national power and unity, rendering them easier to manipulate at the global level. Besides, plenty of Irish surely drank the Kool-Aid that Jewish Israel is preferable to those ‘Muslims’ who don’t celebrate ‘Pride’, which is now more sacred and dear to the majority of the Irish than the Catholic Church ever was.