It’s often been said that the woes facing the current West derive from the disasters beginning with the Great War, or World War I, which opened the floodgates to the communist takeover of Russia, followed by the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, which led to World War II, the aftermath of which was the wasteful Cold War that drained the energies and resources of the two superpowers. Besides, during the interwar period there was the Great Depression, minus which World War II wouldn’t have happened, not least because the National Socialists rode to power on the coattails of the economic crisis and the American Military Industrial Complex was seen as the answer to the Great Depression. Undoubtedly, titanic events cast long shadows across the future landscape, and it isn’t rocket science to add up the great problems resulting from those disasters.
Indeed, entire tomes could be written about how the West(and the Rest) suffered from the crises resulting from the wars, economic downturns, radical movements or revolutions, and etc. throughout the 20th Century. World War I alone has been identified as the source for much that followed, not only World War II but the Great Depression, demographic decline, British imperial doom, and of course communism and fascism, neither of which had much chance of success but for the schisms caused by the war and/or its aftereffects.
Perhaps, the worst consequence of World War I was the decline of Pan-Germanic influence spanning from Russia across Central Europe to the United States that had welcomed a large and talented German population with outsized contributions to the country. The war made enemies of Germany and Russia, then of Germany and the United States. As a result, German politics turned radical and hostile, at once insular and aggressive, setting the grounds for World War II. Who knows what constructive role the German diaspora could have played if not for the Great War? It could have served as a balancing and mediating force between the two giants, the United States and Russia.
Still, the West survived the horrors of World War I, the Inter-War crises, and the madness of World War II. And despite the wastefulness of the Cold War, the West largely thrived during this period. And the communist world also made steady gains, at least until the late Sixties, no mean feat for Russia and Eastern European countries that had suffered unprecedented losses in men and material in the war against Nazi Germany.
Indeed, the true decline of the West began several decades after World War II, and the dire trends accelerated after the Cold War, which seems counter-intuitive given that the World was sold the narrative of ‘The End of History’(Francis Fukuyama’s pet theory), the dawning of a global golden age with the last negative vestige of the 20th century, communism, finally overcome.
The general narrative held that political mismanagement, aristocratic vanity, and imperial ambitions led to World War I. Then, radical politics led to communism and fascism. Capitalist excesses led to the Great Depression, made worse by the willful suppression of the German economy via the Versailles Treaty. Things came to a head in World War II, and the better guys beat the worse guys, but the problem was still unsettled because the real good guys, the Liberal Democratic Capitalist West, still had to contend with the totalitarian Communist East, maybe not as bad as the fascists but ‘evil’ just the same. And so, the Cold War commenced, and it finally came to a dramatic resolution with the collapse of the Soviet Union(and China’s transition from Marxism to markets). In other words, the end of the Cold War signaled the total triumph of the Liberal Democratic Capitalist West as not only the king-of-the-hill but the last-man-standing. The delusional dream of radicalism was shattered at long last as a dead-end destiny to totalitarian destitution. With the culmination of consensus on The Good and What-Works-Best, all of humanity would march together into a new era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, of liberty and the rule of law, from Moscow to Warsaw to Berlin to Paris to New York to Chicago to Los Angeles to Mexico City to Santiago to Tokyo to Shanghai to Istanbul.
Granted, the Neocons insisted that the End of History had one more obstacle to clear: Islamism, aka ‘Islamofascism’, of special significance because so much oil lay beneath of Arabs/Muslims. Thus, the true End of History necessitated a ‘democratization’ of the Middle East, and this set off another round of interventions, blowbacks, more wars, and more interventions. By some accounts, the project has cost north of one trillion dollars and worsened America’s global standing in the world. Others see success, with the US having expanded its foothold in the Middle East, with only Iran left as a major obstacle to the New World Order. So, while project of democratization may have failed, the hegemonic project actually succeeded, even if Libya and Syria remain a ruined mess.
Of course, people now wonder if the US acts in accordance to ‘The End of History’ principles or to the might-is-right rulebook of 19th century Western Imperialism. If the latter, the West’s ‘liberal democratic’ principles have been exposed as a sham to disguise its irrepressible imperial lust.
It now seems pretty clear that ‘spreading democracy’ or ‘fighting terror’ was just a pseudo ideological propaganda ruse cooked up by Zionists(and their goy cuck flunkies) who used the US(as the lone superpower) to destroy any Arab/Muslim rival to Zion. Indeed, if democratization and modernization were the true goals of the War on Terror, why were secular states usually targeted whereas the ultra-religious Wahabi ones(most closely tied with terrorist attacks, not least on 9/11) were either spared or recruited as allies? It’s likely that even the Jihadis involved in 9/11 were patsy-dupes led along by the nose by Zionic agents.
The What-If macro history of the 20th Century goes as follows: The turn of the century hailed the apotheosis of the West. The British Empire, French Empire, United States, Germany, and etc. were all at their height. The future seemed bright, fast-advancing but stable and orderly. Europe had managed to avoid major wars since the fall of Napoleon, a sure sign of civilizational progress. It also prevented something like the bloody French Revolution with a balance of conservatism and liberalism that maintained continuity but also allowed for reform.
And so, there was a century of peace.
The United States did experience the cauldron of the Civil War, but Union victory was decisive and the country was united in purpose and direction, to grow as a global power in friendly competition with the British and the French, thus avoiding head-on-conflicts. The US would respect the colonial properties of the British and the French while working toward naval parity with the great powers, reserving its aggression toward mostly easy pickings, like the remnants of the moribund Spanish Empire, resulting in a war that ended nearly as soon as it began. Perennially backward Russia had nevertheless chosen the path of Westernization/modernization and was making steady gains in industry. Japan, an exception among non-white civilizations, modernized and gained the respect of the West, which found it a useful partner in the colonization of China and the checking of Russian ambitions. While tensions existed everywhere, a workable balance of world powers seemed at hand.
Therefore, the What-If history posits, IF the West had managed to avoid World War I, THEN the rest of the century could have been a golden age of nonstop progress amidst peace and prosperity and growing liberty and democratization. The sheer folly of the war, how it came about and why others got involved ‘unnecessarily’, unraveled the shining what-might-have-been. Not only did the war destroy countless lives but even the winners found themselves seriously depleted in money and manpower. Some say the British Empire was effectively doomed as the result of World War I, the next war merely finishing off what was left. For France, it was a Pyrrhic victory, memorialized more as tragedy than triumph. (Besides, France was on the winning side only because Germany had to fight Russia, Britain, and then America as well.) The German defeat was humiliating but far from absolute, therefore creating ripe conditions for the stab-in-the-back narrative that fueled the path to World War II. In Russia, the ultra-radical Bolsheviks seized power amidst the war that had destroyed all faith in existing authority.
Without World War I, British finances wouldn’t have been depleted, France wouldn’t have lost so many young men, Germany would have had economic expansion than depression(and a politics defined by something other than revanchism), and Russia wouldn’t have turned communist. In other words, no great depression, no World War II, and no Cold War. Instead, there might well have been a century of peace and prosperity for the West, with its successes trickling down to the Rest under enlightened imperialist rule or self-generated efforts at modernization and progress.
Also, think about all the lives(among them precious talents) spared with the avoidance of World War I, communist mass deaths, the Nazi killing fields, and World War II. And think of the surplus wealth that could have been reserved for social improvement without the Cold War that fueled the military-industrial complex. At stake weren’t only tens of millions of lives killed but hundreds of millions never born to soldiers who died before they could be husbands and fathers. And in terms of wealth, think of the trillions that wouldn’t have been wasted on military budgets in a constant climate of fear and paranoia.
Historians and culture critics have wondered how the West, approaching the summit of civilization, could have thrown it all away with the folly of the Great War. But then, it was precisely the Long Peace since the Napoleonic Wars that had made the Europeans unrealistic about the consequences of war. As for the West vs the Rest, it led to confidence bordering on arrogance, as it was common for the kill ratio to be anywhere from 1-to-100 to 1-to-1000 between whites and the ‘wogs’. Most imperial ventures led to turkey shoots, with natives quickly quelled into compliance.
Germany, which had gone from strength to strength in the 19th century, hoped for a dramatic victory, as both France and Russia lagged in industry. France, with the backing of Russia and possibly Britain, aimed to deliver the punishment that upstart Germany deserved. Even those not disabused with the illusion of a quick war had forgotten how hellish war could be. Those living in the Napoleonic era wanted nothing more to do with wars, but a century later there was a degree of nostalgia about the Great Man and his feats.
In a way, the Long Peace or the Century of Peace was itself something of a grand deception. The Franco-Prussian War had all the earmarks of a prolonged and massively destructive conflict, and the same could have been said of the profoundly consequent war between Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Few thought that Prussia would so quickly demolish the far larger Austro-Hungarian Empire and forge what came to be the modern nation-state of Germany. But then, few had thought that Prussia would so decisively defeat France, perceived as the premier land power in Europe, in a matter of mere six months. Those should/could have been long drawn-out wars, many times bloodier than the American Civil War. But the Prussians brought both conflicts to relatively quick ends, and the impression of a prolonged peace was maintained, and with it the illusion of an enlightened Europe that wouldn’t tolerate mass slaughter. Perhaps, had the Franco-Prussian War been more drawn out, regardless of which side won, both France and Germany would have thought harder about plunging into another conflict in 1914. But given what had happened, Germans hoped to replicate the earlier success, while revanchism took hold of France that, though badly humiliated, had been spared the full-blown trauma of war.
Even though the West in the first half of the 20th Century was devastated by the horrors of war, burdened with prolonged economic crisis, and shaken by radical violence and in the second half of the 20th century was defined by the dark clouds of the Cold War, the fact remains that the West emerged from all those tragedies and setbacks more or less intact.
Also, there were invaluable lessons about economic policy, international affair, the radical challenge, and the means to construct more stable international orders via a system of rules. Rather than being defeated by the tragedies, the West and much of the world ably overcame them and emerged with a degree of wisdom. (To be sure, the fate of the West might have been profoundly different had it not been for the US as the bigger and more powerful bulwark of Western values, also one that was territorially unscathed by the scars of World War II, a great advantage over the Soviet Union. Had the US not existed, the West would have been composed of only Great Britain and Continental Europe, which might have succumbed directly or indirectly to Soviet power without the US to back them up. But then, given what happened in the US in the course of the 20th Century, perhaps it had less to do with ‘Western Values’ than Russia and its communist satellites did; after all, Americanism led efforts to globalize the West via Judeocentrism and Negrolatry.)
And it wasn’t just the West that emerged from the ashes of World War II. Japan was devastated, with one-third of its industry laying in ruin and over a million civilians killed, followed by years of economic duress and political uncertainty. Yet, the Japan that rebounded and grew in GDP and demography was quite remarkable. Korea suffered even a more devastating war in the first great Cold War confrontation with three million dead, yet both its southern and northern parts recovered after the war in terms of population and economics. And later Vietnam would undergo a similar trauma, once again with the US involved, but for all the death and destruction, Vietnam has been among the biggest success stories in the last three decades, whereas simultaneously, the far more developed Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have grown more decadent, less confident, and mired in demographic crisis.
As for China, its history has been one of the greatest tragedies in the last two hundred years. The humiliation at the hands of European, Russian, American(and then even Japanese) imperialism, the mass death event of the Taiping Rebellion, the failed republican experiment, the warlord era, the Japanese invasion, and involvement in the Korean War, for which the newly founded People’s Republic was ill-equipped to fight. Then, just when the Chinese people hoped for prolonged stability under the communists after a series of disasters, Mao unleashed the Great Leap Forward, soon followed by the Cultural Revolution, plunging China into hellish chaos even in peacetime. Given all these tragedies and great losses in life, one would think China would be politically and economically debilitated for centuries. And yet, even under the impoverished conditions of Maoism, the Chinese population kept growing and, post-Mao, China began to replicate the successes of the ‘Asian Tigers’ on a spectacular scale.
It’s been said that the West lost its compass and confidence after World War I. Many wondered how the most advanced civilization in the world could have dived head on into a fratricidal blood-bath. Whether the governments were aristocratic/autocratic or liberal/democratic, they all called for war, and their peoples enthusiastically cheered it on. Plenty of intellectuals and artists supported it and romanticized it. A kind of ecstasy of patriotism took hold of so many, from the educated to the uneducated. Privileged or poor, the communal sense was limited to one’s own nation and failed to extend to the European community as a whole. There was a sense of cooperation and sacrifice, but only for ‘my nation’, not for the whole of civilization that was Europe from Russia to Germany to France to Britain.
But, there was a ‘spiritual’ element in the reverie as well, with the war offering a kind of ‘rapture’ and ‘salvation’, a sign that all was not well in the culture and spirit of the times if indeed so many men welcomed the war as a kind of modern crusade. Adolf Hitler and many others recalled how the declaration of war was like a calling, a liberating rupture from the alienated doldrums of life in a world where material conditions were improving but the culture was growing increasingly anxious and confused, with Europe balanced uneasily between the fading old order and new one yet to be born. The war simplified and clarified everything. Even heroic death was preferable to life without meaning.
Had there not been rough parity between the opposing sides, it might have been a quick or quicker war, hardly the kind to shake civilizational confidence. Had it been France vs Germany, the latter likely would have won within a year. Had it been Germany vs Russia, the outcome would likely have been the same. Had Great Britain remained out of the war, Germany might have won in about two years against France and Russia. Destructive to be sure but far less so than what actually happened. In the end, it was like a grueling match between two tough boxers, lasting to the final round with both fighters exhausted and pushed to the limit. More like Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier than Mike Tyson vs Marvis Frazier.
Given what happened in the Franco-Prussian War, France formed alliances against Germany, which found itself in a vice-grip between France and Russia. In the end, Germany was ganged up by not only France and Russia but another great power, the British Empire, and also minor powers like Italy. In the end, its alliance with the Ottoman Empire might have been more of a liability, much like the rather useless alliance with Mussolini’s Italy in World War II where the Germans had to bail out the Italians time and time again, thus diverting forces from the Eastern Front.
Anyway, the war happened, and the crises that followed were not only political and economic but philosophical, spiritual, moral, and cultural. Supposedly, the war and its aftermath left many to question the very foundation of Western Civilization. It led to the loss of faith in one’s nation, culture, and institutions. The sudden collapse of the aristocratic order in Central and Eastern Europe left many peoples facing an unfamiliar future with as yet untried political systems.
But then, even France and Britain that had been accustomed to republican traditions were shaken to the core. Not only did the masses lose confidence in the elites but the elites lost self-confidence, especially among the intellectual class, some of whom would turn to radical politics, ‘far right’ or ‘far left’ in their conviction that the center couldn’t hold for long in what seemed like times of unending crisis.
(But such a loss of confidence may have been the inevitable product of modernity and ‘progress’, especially in peacetime, with the better-informed-and-organized masses asking more questions and rejecting old modes of reverence for authority. Indeed, one reason why the elites of all sides welcomed the war was in the hope that it would bind the ruled closer to the rulers exactly at the time when mass politics increasingly challenged traditional power and privilege. Likewise, the GOP elites in the aftermath of 9/11 welcomed the War on Terror as the next big opportunity to get the ‘patriots’ behind the ruling powers-that-be without question.)
What appealed to certain intellectuals(and artists) was the sense of certainty in the radical ideologies and movements. The aristocratic order was gone for good, but the liberal-democratic order seemed weak, confused, messy, and in gridlock, especially with the onset of economic woes. The German experiment with Weimar Era democracy appeared doomed and decadent while even the well-established democracies seemed polarized between the right and the left(especially true in France) or incapable of surmounting modern challenges, with laissez-faire capitalism running out of favor as Europe and then eventually the US fell into deep depression, which also sent a shock to Japan.
There were ideas, philosophical in tone, that the West had reached its civilizational dead-end, its spiritual graveyard, either due to the tragedy of World War I or regardless, i.e. even had the war been prevented, Western Civilization had run its course and could only decline henceforth. Others saw signs of rebirth in communism or fascism, a revitalized sense of meaning and purpose. Anything-is-possible/permissible nihilism inherent in modernism was embraced by some as a new vitality, new sign of life, but bemoaned by others as a tell-tale sign of civilizational exhaustion culminating in the mad fusion of senility and infantilism.
The United States managed to navigate between the status quo(seemingly moribund liberal-capitalist-democracy) and radical transformation when Franklin D. Roosevelt took over with the New Deal, thereby maintaining political continuity while enacting profound changes that, psychologically at least, made the people believe that something was being done.
Given the pessimism resulting from World War I, one would have assumed the negativity following World War II would have been far worse. Yet, it wasn’t so. Was it because the result of the war was absolute with clear winners and losers, whereas the ending of World War I, despite the German surrender, was inconclusive? Was it due to the greater moral clarity of World War II, where the bad guys were made out to be truly evil, whereas the sense of aristocratic honor hung over World War I, whereby the narrative wasn’t so clear-cut as a Good vs. Evil struggle. Whatever political uncertainty and moral confusion that lingered following World War I was swept aside by the myth of World War II as the Good War where the Good Guys totally won and the Bad Guys were utterly vanquished. So, if the great loss of human life in World War I seemed pointless, the even greater loss of life in World War II at least seemed well worth the sacrifice.
And if Germans felt bitter about their defeat in World War I, apparently snatched from the jaws of victory by back-stabbing politicians, they not only totally accepted their defeat in World War II(as Germany proper was totally crushed and conquered) but wholly accepted moral responsibility for having supported such a ghastly regime that was guilty not only of the war but unprecedented war crimes.
Thus, they could accept their military defeat as a moral victory, a loss for the nation but a gain for the world community, which the German people would rejoin.
World War II was more horrendous but provided moral clarity and conclusiveness lacking in the First World War. Of course, it helped that most of Western Europe actually suffered less in World War II than in World War I, mainly because of the sudden fall of France(and Italy’s switching of alliance when the going got tough) and because the war between Britain and Germany was limited mainly to air campaigns, avoiding something like the trench warfare that was the bane of all sides in World War I. As the West dominated the global post-war narrative, its limited destruction may explain the relative optimism of the post-World War II era.
As for Eastern Europe and Russia where the greatest horrors took place, it was a different story. But it also imbued people in those areas, especially Russia, with great meaning and grand heroism. If Russians weren’t sure what exactly they were fighting for in World War I, they had no doubt in World War II. Germans came to enslave and to exterminate. It was a matter of fight or die. If the clash with Germany could have been avoided in World War I, there was no such option in World War II.
And despite great loss of life and materials, the victory was resounding and owed mostly to Soviet sacrifices and successes. Besides, the totalitarian and ideological character of communism ensured a singular narrative for all. Thus, the official consensus was established: The Great Patriotic War was beyond tragic, the great test of endurance, but also unsurpassed as a triumph for the Russian people & their allies and for communism. It was more about the nobility of the human spirit in face of invasion and extinction than about the futility of endless wars cooked up by empires, a pervasive take on World War I. Even today, it remains a compelling and unifying narrative in Russia. It illustrates how the spirit-of-the-times owes as much to psychological factors as to material ones. People who suffered a lot more can feel justified and hopeful, whereas people who’ve had it better can feel dispirited and depressed.
What now seems obvious wasn’t so during the Cold War, especially prior to the social revolutions and cultural upheavals of the Sixties, a pivotal point in Western(and thereby World) history. Incredibly, the precipitous decline of the West has taken place during prolonged peace and prosperity, and the process only accelerated following the end of the Cold War, aka ‘The End of History’. In other words, the West, in its most triumphal moment, economically-morally-culturally-whatnot, chose to embark on a path to civilizational suicide and embrace racial and demographic doom. Does that make sense? Perhaps, it’s not as strange as it seems and could be the latest reiteration of timeless dynamics since the beginning of time.
After all, the Bible is full of stories of how the Hebrews(and other peoples) come upon good times, only to be undone by privilege and abundance. Romans were beset with angst about losing the old ways of stoicism and thrift amidst growing wealth and power that led the elites to prioritize privilege and vanity at the expense of all else. A key reason for the relative decline of China on the eve of Western aggression owed to centuries of complacency, which bred the delusion of being a self-contained civilization that could go on ignoring the outside world. Even when a civilization is embroiled in ceaseless conflicts, like the US since the end of World War II, as long as the troubles are contained overseas the core system and populace come to take peace and prosperity for granted.
If peace and prosperity are ideal, then civilizations thus blessed should go from strength to strength, progress to progress. Yet, ‘outdated’ Biblical prophecies keep demonstrating their timeless cautionary relevance. From the vantage point of now, who can deny that far greater harm has been done to the West(and the westernized parts of the non-Western world) in the last fifty years of peace and prosperity than in the first half of the 20th century when the West was beset with horrible wars and seemingly insurmountable economic distress? While the wars, revolutions, and depressions frayed the political fabric and social stability of the West, they didn’t threaten the survival of civilization itself, even if they resulted in millions of deaths, extensive labor riots, bloody political street battles, and the like. In contrast, if the trends of the last fifty years continue for another fifty years, we can effectively write off Western/European civilization for good. And despite American predominance that is likely to last for another century or two, the USA fifty years from now may hardly resemble Historic America with its three major themes: (1) Europeans, especially Northern ones, settled and founded a new civilization in North America (2) Prior to white arrival, America was the sacred hunting and burial grounds of the indigenous pre-American ‘Indians’, a people deserving of reverence (3) Sub-Saharan Black Americans were brought as slaves but later struggled for a position of respect in American Society.
Perhaps, we need to rethink the Sisyphus story. His curse is apparently the boulder always rolling back down just when he nearly pushed it to the top, But perhaps, the worst thing is the boulder reaching the top and staying put. Having finally succeeded, what else is there for him to do? Suddenly, his life becomes purposeless. With the advent of A.I. and robotics, we are told that the problem of labor has finally been solved by technology. So, what is the role of humanity in the new order?
God smites the ass-boys of Sodom
How is it that the most advanced and accomplished civilization now faces doom after a prolonged period of unprecedented peace and prosperity? Why have the responses to this crisis been so tepid(in defense of the West) and so virulent(in hastening the doom)? What does this imply? Did Europeans(and Westerners around the world)somehow lose their bearings just when they achieved and implemented the best formula for peace and prosperity?
It’s often been said that the resilient and resourceful Europeans survived two world wars, great depressions, the evils of fascism and communism, the loss of empires, and etc. but emerged more-or-less intact, even triumphant, to rebuild their societies and redirect priorities so that their populations ‘never had it so good’ and benefitted from unprecedented levels of freedom, peace, and the good life. When push came to shove, they settled for the wise and/or courageous options, let go of what was no longer feasible, made the best of what they had, and arrived at new arrangements with the world to mutual benefit. Thus, even seeming setbacks, like the dissolution of European empires, paved the way for new economic relations with former colonies, less revenue wasted on military ventures, and/or moral redemption in the belated adoption of secular universal principles that originated in the West but were reneged for reasons ranging from rampant greed to imperial rivalry to realpolitik pragmatism.
Given the great success of the West in the several decades following World War II, some lamented that a golden opportunity was lost as the result of the political and economic follies of the first half of the 20th century. What might have been if the West had avoided World War I that not only led to World War II but spawned the political victories of Bolshevism and Fascism(and related ideologies)? The great gains across the West following World War II(despite the costly struggle known as the Cold War) could have been realized much earlier and without the loss of so many lives, each of whom could have contributed to Western power and progress.
But what if the seeds of destruction were already sown in the West, waiting to sprout, grow, and bear poison fruit during a prolonged period of peace and prosperity? Maybe the Belle Epoque wasn’t so ‘belle’.
The ‘Fin de siècle’, as the 19th Century gave way to the 20th Century, was a time of optimism but also anxiety, not always of the sober and cautionary kind as an element of modernism relished in anarchic nihilism. Decadence was hardly unknown to the aristocracy, which had been in precipitous decline concomitant with rise of the bourgeoisie and new centers of wealth(separate from agrarian land ownership), but the aristocrats, at the very least, had mastered the appearance of nobility and dignity long long ago. They had the style even minus the substance. The bourgeoisie with their newly accumulated wealth were no less tempted with indulgence and decadence, but they mastered the art of respectability. Thus, even in moral/cultural rot, they kept up appearances.
At any rate, the accelerating pace of change was bound to leave the aristocratic remnants in the dust; their last hurrah was the Great War that ultimately undid them. Changing times were also making a mockery of the bourgeois ideal. What was this ‘facade’ of respectability and maintaining appearances when history was hurling forward at breakneck speed? The bourgeoisie increasingly seemed like the stuff-shirts around whom the Marx Brothers, as representatives of unfettered ultra-modernism, ran circles around.
Could it be that the great disruptions of the 20th Century’s first half, tragic and destructive as they were, forestalled the suicidal tendencies inherent in the system? In a way, the 1920s, aka the Jazz Age, anticipated what would fully burst forth in the 1960s, the Rock Age. A decade of economic boom and boundless optimism, it was a time when the culture turned carefree and people cast away long-held inhibitions. The urban attitude was ‘anything goes’, and a kind of glitzy primitivism defined the Zeitgeist in music and dance, even the fine arts. And, what came to be known as ‘Pre-Code Hollywood’ was racier, transgressing one taboo after another.
The boom years in America impacted Europe as well. Even Germany, despite the punitive economic blows stemming from defeat in World War I, told itself that conditions would improve as long as its economy was linked with the seemingly limitless United States as the guarantor of loans and markets. Culturally and socially, Weimar Germany was even more excessive than Jazz Age America in an atmosphere of party-all-the-time. In this period, the urban gangster became something of a folk hero, regarded as more honestly representative of the true spirit of capitalism. Unsurprisingly, the neo-puritan crusade of the Prohibition lost its fervor, and the moralists fell out of favor as they came to be regarded more as party-poopers than social reformers, a bunch of repressive squares out of sync with modernity. As gangsters made their fortunes by peddling liquor to everyone from the elites to the masses, organized crime was made quasi-respectable while moralism seemed either repressive or hypocritical, practiced by sourpuss prigs or two-faced cynics who politically upheld the law but socially indulged in(and even profited from) the ‘business’. The Prohibition was a clear case of making the problem worse by fixing it. (Tom Buchanan of THE GREAT GATSBY may be an ass, but at least he has concerns other than having a good time, though, to be sure, he isn’t averse to indulging himself. He genuinely worries about his race and culture, whereas everyone around him seem lost in whimsy and trivialities, nothing on their minds but “where’s the next party?” One shouldn’t be a jerk like Buchanan, but no people can long survive without deeper concerns and a vision of the past and future, which, though shoddily managed by him, is nevertheless his saving grace.)
But Prohibition or no Prohibition, the times, buoyed with easy money and general optimism, became increasingly dismissive of sober outlooks on society and values. Apparently, the mood was that things could only get better and better no matter what. Why worry about anything? Why not just drop the outdated hang-ups? Why not uncritically welcome new fads & fashions and fixate on the moment as what really matters? Such attitudes could make way for positive growth and change but also make people callous and frivolous, resulting in an inversion where morality became ‘sinful’. (Fast forward to today, and opposition to ‘gay marriage’ is regarded as intolerable, even ‘evil’.)
On the one hand, the highbrow philosophical pessimism, mainly centered on the inevitability of civilizational degeneration and the trauma of World War I, created an atmosphere of gloom, futility and paralysis. On the other hand, the social optimism fueled by economic boom and exuberance of consumer culture(amplified in unprecedented ways by electricity, which especially vastly expanded the reach of popular music and culture via radio and movie houses) enlivened multitudes around the world, from elites to the masses, to plunge into the new (dis)order of neon-lit Babylon. In such times, people became less tribal, less suspicious, more casual & tolerant, and more welcoming of the new and different. Novelty for novelty’s sake became de rigueur, marked by a restlessness in constant craving for new stimuli, even if nonsensical. Not necessarily a bad thing but not always a good thing.
Now, if the West had managed to avoid the Great War, there might have been no Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, therefore no conservative and establishmentarian backlash in the form of support for fascist movements as bulwark against communism. Without World War I and its distorting effects on all facets of Western society in general, there still might have been economic downturns but nothing as severe as the Great Depression. Without National Socialists ruling Germany and Bolsheviks ruling Russia, there would likely have been no World War II. And of course, no Cold War. Most likely, the remaining aristocracies in Europe would have evolved into something akin to the constitutional monarchy in Britain.
The hypothetical alternative outlined above sounds great, a golden opportunity thrown away by the mistakes and misjudgments that led to World War I and all that followed. Had the ruling elites been a bit wiser and avoided the Great War, the flowering of peace and prosperity might have spread across the entire West throughout the 20th Century, and so much more could have been accomplished in every field. That’s surely one possibility.
However, given the trends and trajectories in the West during its prolonged peace and prosperity after World War II, made even more peaceful and stable by the closing of the Cold War, could another alternative have been possible? All the pathologies that took hold of the West and are now leading it toward doom might have gained a foothold much earlier and spread like cancer, in which case the West would be dead already.
One way to explain the cultural decadence and moral degeneracy of Weimar Germany is as products of the trauma of war. With the ignominy of defeat and sudden collapse of the old order, in the political malaise of weak government and violence in the streets, a kind of social anarchy took hold in a new (dis)order characterized by amorality and its escapist thrills. Humanity abhors a vacuum, and the sudden absence of age-old authority and the gridlock of the new ‘liberal democracy’ led to a free-for-all rivalry and all-is-permissible revelry by all sides in politics and culture. Resulting from this melee was a spiteful kind of freedom, a kind of war of all against all.
On the other hand, perhaps the Weimar Era had far less to do with the trauma of World War I. It could well have been the ‘natural’ progression of modernity in times of peace and prosperity. After all, the Weimar Era reached its peak just when Germans thought the economy was under control and things would only get better, especially as the German economy was pegged to the rapidly expanding American financial sector flush in cash to loan out to the world. Maybe, something like Weimar Culture might have been even more excessive had there been no Great War.
Without the wars, economic depressions, and radical challenges from the left & the right, the Western bourgeoisie might have grown even more decadent. And the various ‘liberations’ associated with the 1960s might have emerged earlier. Youth culture, hedonism, women’s lib, ‘gay rights’, open borders, Negrolatry, and etc.
Now, certain virtues come into play only in times of peace and plenty. Animals that are violent in the wild may, under human supervision and provision of food and comfort, behave friendly toward other animals, i.e. ‘natural enemies’ become ‘artificial friends’.
Likewise, generosity, a good thing, comes to fruition as social practice when people feel sound and secure. Why not be nice to others, even strangers and foreigners, when one has nice things? Better to be kind-hearted than to be like Scrooge or the Grinch. Under such conditions, the sentiments associated with tribalism, nationalism, and race-ism tend to wane, giving way to the values of tolerance, curiosity, and open-mindedness. And once the institutions come under control of these more ‘liberal’ types, their favored ideals are instilled in the minds of the impressionable young, spreading like dandelion seeds and sprouting new generations of ‘meatheads’. In the TWILIGHT ZONE episode “The Shelter”, good decent neighbors turn into bitter rivals when faced with apparent doom. It was meant as a warning that what we take to be our innate values of goodness could vanish in an instant if survival is at stake, in which case we’re likely to revert to our animal/tribal instincts. But the warning could be reversed, i.e. peace and good times make us forget our truest nature, which, though ‘ugly’, is an essence without which we can’t survive. Humans must strive to be more than animals, but they are animals, a fact they must never forget.
If uninterrupted by the crises of the first half of the 20th century(and the pressures of the Cold War), could the decadence and degeneration so pervasive in the current West have come to fruition much earlier? Even if we include World War I into the hypothetical narrative, what might have been had the West steered clear of the Great Depression? The Jazz Age mentality might have spread farther, wider, and faster. Weimar Culture would have ‘progressed’ unabated without Hitler in power, meaning there would have been no World War II either. There would also have been less challenge to Jewish Power, especially in the form of National Socialism. (However, no World War II means no Holocaust, the most effective Jewish tool to morally browbeat critics of Jewish Power and suppress ‘antisemitism’. History might have remembered the Bolshevik crimes, with radical Jewish input, as the greatest of the 20th century.)
Granted, Russia would still be communist(as the revolution took place before the Great War ended), but communism as a worldwide movement(in the absence of World War II) would have posed a far less threat as it would have been restricted to Soviet Union, which came to incorporate Eastern Europe into the communist sphere only as the result of German defeat in World War II.
The social, cultural, spiritual, and ‘moral’ trends that accelerated(especially in the 1960s) in the peace & prosperity of the post-war era might have gained momentum earlier, and perhaps the condition of the West in the 2020s might have been achieved by the 1980s, in which case the 2020s in this hypothetical scenario would already mean lights-out for the West, at least as a racial-cultural-historical continuum.
Had the boom years of the 1920s continued unabated, white people would have grown more complacent and tolerant, less guarded and cautious about life and reality. The expanding freedoms would have led to louder demands for ‘justice’ and ‘equality’, with Women’s Lib catching on sooner and achieving its goals, resulting in lower birthrates among whites, which would have resulted in calls for more immigration to solve the labor problem. With similar demographic trends in peaceful and prosperous Europe, the laws would have been changed to allow for more nonwhite immigration.
As things actually unfolded, the power of Big Labor and the Great Depression dampened prospects for increased immigration, perceived as depressing wages and taking jobs from ‘native’ Americans. But if the US(and Western) economies continued to rapidly expand following(or in the absence) of World War I, there would have been greater pressures to allow for more immigration. (It must be noted however that the highly restrictive Immigration Act became law in 1924, fully five years before the Great Depression. Labor was a far bigger force back then, plus the fact that the US was unabashedly a race-ist country that openly defended the preservation of a Historical America.)
Besides, with growing prosperity, ‘native’ whites would have aspired for middle class status for themselves and their children, thereby eschewing much of the labor sector as menial, lowly, and dirty, which would then have to be filled by blacks and foreigners. And if something like Women’s Lib had gained traction, more women would have gained professional parity with men, meaning that the mating and marital choices of women would have grown more discriminating, resulting in fewer marriages and fewer births, especially among lower-class white men.
The prolonged and expanding good times would have led to more of a consumer mindset, ‘prematurely’ bringing forth the rise of Youth Culture, easily manipulatable to favor novelty and fashion over tradition and heritage. Even earlier in American history, individual rights would have trampled the sense of collective roots. With young people being far more impressionable and vulnerable to the hidden hand that manipulate society — notice how the so-called ‘Color Revolutions’ usually recruit the restless, impatient, and ‘idealistic’ young to foment strife to destabilize and/or topple governments and institutions at odds with the Jewish Supremacist Global Agenda — , the pace of social change or ‘progress’ would have gathered steam at the push of the button by the controllers of the news media, educational system from kindergarten to college, entertainment complex, and status-laden institutions.
Indeed, consider how easily Jewish Power turned the Millennial generation against all-things-Russian, to consecrate Globohomo as the quasi-religion of Limpwristianity, to elevate BLM as the new gospel, and canonize George Floyd as the greatest saint-martyr ever. As Mao Zedong opined on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, young people are like a blank sheet of paper; you can write anything on it.
So, even though Youth Politics has often been associated with rebellion, idealism, radicalism, and anti-establishmentarianism, the mindlessness of youth has also been a great boon to the powers-that-be, something that can easily be molded and manipulated. Even if the young are generally more idealistic, they have no means to generate their own ideals, which means their ‘progressive values’ are handed to them. No wonder then that the powers-that-be set up countless well-funded organizations that cater and pander to youth, mimicking and appropriating youthful energies to turn them toward goals that really serve the interests of the well-established. What has TPUSA been but a youth-oriented organization with the express purpose of steering young conservative passions toward serving Israel, Israel, Israel?
Granted, the more idealistic and radical types have gravitated to the Left, but the powers-that-be long ago set up and funded various ‘progressive’ organizations that were either supportive of or mute on Israel, less enthused about economic issues, and mostly focused on the bogeyman of ‘white supremacism’ and the miraculous wonders of the LGBTQXY Globo-Homo cult, whereby young people were led to believe that everything must be ‘christened’ or ‘limpwristened’ through the Gay Rites of Sodomy Worship and Tranny transcendence. By design, GloboHomo has often been invoked as the ‘spiritual’ justification for the ongoing Western ‘crusade’, i.e. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and etc. must be destroyed for not kneeling at the altar of the Holy Homo Anus.
Initially in the Sixties the powers-that-be were taken aback by the politics of youth, a new force that exploded on the scene, irreverent and unruly, less likely than the youth of yesteryear to defer to authority, emoting and acting as if youth constituted a new demographic(with little thought that the young of today will soon be the adults of tomorrow and then oldsters facing retirement). Because this kind of youth sensibility was unprecedented and sudden in manifestation, the powers-that-be were initially flustered with the Boomers and didn’t know what to do with them; but as the Boomers aged into adults and filled the institutions, what they cherished of their youthful years was formulated into new forms of control that proved to be invaluable in their approach to the young, especially beginning with the so-called ‘Millennials’.
If the rather aptly branded ‘Generation X’ proved to be more immune to such controls(or apathetic in general), it was because they came of age when the clueless ‘Greatest Generation’ types were nearing retirement while the Boomers, with their savvier understanding of youth culture(and how to manipulate it), had yet to take over the institutions. If the ‘Greatest Generation’ types saw Rock culture as an affront to authority and hierarchy, the Boomer successors shaped it into just another means to rile up Americans for neo-imperial dominance. During the Vietnam War, the Woodstock moment was Anti-War, but the War since the end of the Cold War had been rock-n-roll-ized, or turned into Shock-and-Awe, like a title for a Heavy Metal concert; and in due time, especially during the Obama years, a bunch of Pop Idols made music videos idealizing the US military.
The advent of Youth Culture was delayed by the great events of the first half of the 20th Century. World War I channeled youthful energy in service to nationalism & imperialism. And then, the radical movements of Bolshevism and Fascism captivated the hearts of the youth disillusioned with the status quo; but, as members of highly disciplined movements, young participants adhered to hierarchy and obedience to authority and dogma.
Something like a youth culture was emerging in the Jazz Age era in America, but the Great Depression redirected national attention to graver matters of basic survival and sustenance. It wasn’t a time for youthful hijinks, and there wasn’t the freedom/opportunity(and allowance money) for young people to forge their own fanta-reality.
Furthermore, the serious stresses of the times forced the rich and privileged to be more mindful of their influence on the larger society, as well as its perception of them, which grew darker by the day.
And then, World War II recruited countless young men to hurl their bodies and energies into titanic battles. Despite the United States having suffered far less relative to other countries, the country entered into a war economy with its shortages and sacrifices. As wars(and there was no war bigger than World War II) are a matter of life and death, the defining themes of the era were on the side of sobriety and solemnity, ones associated with patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, and maturity.
The spirit of Americanism had long been youthful but within the realm of adulthood, i.e. young adults of drive and ingenuity should pursue their dreams unhampered by outdated authority of the Old Guard. Still, young adults were still adults, whereas Youth Culture, which eventually emerged in the mid 1950s, was centered on teenagers, a crazy notion upon a modicum of reflection. Just think. The most advanced and complicated civilization of science & industry, of ideas & imagination, that was constructed by mankind, yet it decided to define itself on what most appealed to a bunch of pimple-faced and hormonally unstable high-schoolers. Thus, the core culture became juvenilized. Not only did the culture become obsessed about what tickled the teens but had the overall impact of stunting cultural maturity by encouraging adults to constantly look back on their teen years as their defining moment. No surprise then that we have men in their fifties and even sixties still performing rap concerts. No wonder then that even adults take stuff like Christopher Nolan’s BATMAN movies and STAR WARS TV shows seriously. And under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump, American Politics has been like a variation on FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH and MEAN GIRLS, or High School Politics. At the same time, it encouraged children to grow much faster as the message was, “Once you enter high school, it’s party all the time with Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll”, resulting in the sexualization of children reaching down to pre-puberty levels.
The most astounding truth of the past fifty years has to be the realization that the West may well be headed over the cliff after a period of prolonged peace and prosperity, indeed when political philosopher after another proclaimed the Triumph of the West following the collapse of communism, still regarded by some as the last obstacle to ‘The End of History’.
The realization is so counter-intuitive that it’s been tempting to lay the blame of current woes on the horrors of the first half of the 20th Century, i.e. despite the successes of stability & growth in the post-World-War-II era and the containment policy against international communism in the Cold War, the trauma from World War I to World War II was such that it was only a matter of time before its long-term effects would undo the West. Some connected the post-war demographic decline to the demographic losses in the two great wars and the depression. Some associate the loss of civilizational confidence to the horrors committed in those two wars(and committed in the name of revolution, whether far-right or far-left).
However, if past trauma paralyzes a people from moving forward, things should have been worse in the immediate decades following World War II than later on. Yet, there was rapid recovery all across the West. Not only in unscathed North America but all across Europe that suffered heavy losses. Russia, of course, suffered the greatest population loss, but the recovery in all fronts was quite remarkable.
Outside the West, there was Japan that was smashed to smithereens in the war, with much of its industry and over a million of its people killed. Yet, Japan too rapidly recovered, and its population grew healthily in the several decades following the war.
Or take China as a special case. More than most parts of the world, which were miserable in their own ways, China suffered one calamity after another since the mid-19th Century. Tens of millions died in wars and famine and every misfortune under the sun. The first half of the 20th century was just as bad, possibly even worse, with tremendous losses of life. National unity and stability were finally achieved with the communist victory in 1949, but Mao’s harebrained project of the Great Leap Forward destroyed countless lives.
Yet, despite all that, the population continued to grow under communism, and there was no lack of energy and motivation when the system finally liberalized under Deng. If anything, the steep demographic decline in China, as in the rest of East Asia, has become a reality after decades of continuous stability and economic growth, with spectacular expansion of consumer society and middle class culture.
In the long view, if China is headed toward the kind of demographic & cultural collapse that has gripped Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, it will have happened during a prolonged period of economic growth and general peace. Imagine that, China having survived one calamity after another for a century and half, only to consign itself to civilizational erasure in times of peace and prosperity.
Some argue that whites in the West are breeding less due to rising diversity, i.e. whites ask themselves why they should have kids in an increasingly alien and/or hostile environment; but, the precipitous decline in birthrates began when the West was racially homogeneous. If anything, there were increasing calls for more immigration precisely because the native population wasn’t breeding enough. It may well be that increasing Diversity further dis-incentivized white people from breeding, but the West(and the current East) have demonstrated that ethnically homogeneous societies can produce conditions that lead to demographic collapse all on their own.
East Asia, after all, is still far more homogeneous than the West, but its birthrates have plummeted even more. Indeed, the low birthrates in East Asia and among Americans of East Asian descent suggest that, regardless of homogeneity(of East Asia) or diversity(of America), something has profoundly changed in the outlook among East Asians in times of peace and prosperity.
Until recently, Vietnam, though poorer than Japan and the ‘Asian Tigers’, maintained replacement birthrates, but trends suggest it’s heading in the same direction, again in a time of unprecedented peace and growing prosperity.
Now, the decline in birthrates in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, especially if societies multiply faster than the economy can sustain. In the past, the problem of East Asia was a runaway demographic explosion, made worse by the arrival of modern medicine, and it was good that concerted efforts successfully decreased birthrates across Asia. The real problem is the continual decline in birthrates below replacement level, and it’s as if every East Asian country is competing with one another in the game of national-demographic suicide.
It’s almost surreal. Just consider, East Asia, which witnessed so many horrors in the 20th Century, finally got its act together. Arguably, it’s the only part of the non-white world that more-or-less caught up with the West, even besting it in some areas; and yet, it has decided to embark on a path of civilizational collapse just when it achieved a measure of peace and prosperity.
The problem in the past was mass deaths by violence, disease, and hunger, a challenge that was at least counter-balanced by a healthy birthrate. Now, virtually no one dies by war, famine, or disease, but no one’s being born either. It’s like natal-genocide or ‘natacide’, or reproduction-genocide or ‘reprocide’. When things were far worse in the past, people still produced new life, but now that living standards are much better, few are interested in having children and ensuring the future of the nation. Henry Kissinger was reputed to have said, “It’s ‘dangerous to be America’s enemy’ but ‘fatal’ to be its friend,” and a variation might apply to modernity: Bad times are dangerous, but Good Times can be fatal.
In the case of Japan, it’s tempting to blame the demographic woes on the long and seemingly never-ending recession since the early 1990s when its economic bubble burst. It’s a dubious argument because Japan embarked on massive deficit spending to sustain its living standards and ranking as one of the biggest economies in the world. Even though the economic setback was real, there was nothing like a great depression. Besides, the demographic trends have been the same in South Korea and Taiwan that outpaced Japan in various fields and economically expanded just when Japan seemed hopelessly mired in stasis.
China is often mentioned as an alternative to the East Asian system developed under US tutelage, one more viable and self-confident as a sovereign state, but the demographic trends there are the same, hardly different from ethnic Chinese trends in Singapore. It’s as if East Asia strove to outproduce the West in goods in the second half of the 20th century and is now striving to underproduce life in the first half of the 21st century. China and East Asia sure know how to make things, but they’ve forgotten or neglected how to produce life. It’s as if East Asia caught all the bugs of the West and made it even worse with its hyper-elitism centered on Exam Hell culture and status-fetishization. Still, what’s most remarkable is that this death spiral of civilization is the culmination of great successes in development and reform that initially filled the populations with pride and confidence. But once the peak was reached, it’s been a steep race to the bottom in cultural meaning and demographic viability.
Without the seismic shocks of the first half of the 20th Century, it’s possible that the degenerative tendencies intrinsic to late modernism would have gained traction much earlier, unobstructed by the sobering challenges of economic duress, radical challenges, wars, and reconstruction(as the arduous task in the first decade following the end of World War in Europe and Asia).
Granted, such tendencies have long threatened civilizations throughout history, as told in the cautionary tales of the Bible and the example of the Roman Empire, the decline of which soon followed its greatest victories that apparently sealed its dominion over vast territories for all eternity.
The key difference between now and then is the modern world changes much faster. A decline that might have happened over centuries can happen in a matter of decades. The pace of change in the 21st Century is faster than at any time in the 20th Century, with even vast hordes in Third World countries communicating via smart phones and with unprecedented numbers having access to air travel, once reserved mostly for the affluent in the West and parts of the East. (To be sure, there’s a sense of cultural exhaustion and repetition, e.g. pop music has sounded more-or-less the same for the past 25 years, and there has hardly been any break-through in the various artistic fields and genres.)
As a case in point, contrast the decline of the British civilization up to the 1980s to its precipitous fall since then. It was no secret, to British and other observers, that the empire wouldn’t last forever with London as the center of the world. Yet, the process was sufficiently gradual for the British people to adapt to new realities and accept its new role as an important power than a great one. Besides, there was the sense that the British people were still in control of their destiny despite the diminishment in power and prestige.
However, especially since the Tony Blair years, Great Britain has lost all sense of autonomy and agency. Its gates have been flung wide open for all the world to come and claim. Anglo elites have turned into total whores of World Jewry, the new ‘religion’ of Britain consists of Negrolatry & Sodomy-Worship, and the vast majority of native/real/authentic British people are either demoralized(as the cucked elites are utterly unresponsive to their demands and needs) or demented(as having imbibed the globalist ideology hellbent on destroying native peoples and cultures, except those of Israel, of course, but even there, only Jewish roots & claims to the land matter while the native Palestinians with ancestry going back millennia are regarded as untermensch ‘savages’ to enslave and/or eradicate).
How alarming that all this happened at a time of peace and relative prosperity? For all the talk of economic problems, surely living standards in the UK and Europe have long topped everywhere except the US(and pockets of East Asia and United Arab Emirates). Indeed, the reason why so many in Africa, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East continue to emigrate to Britain is for a better life.
When faced with the tidal waves of global hordes headed their way, one might have thought the British, from the elites to the masses, would have united to guard and keep the good things they have. Yet, the elites opened the gates, and the masses mostly grumbled without taking any meaningful action. Worse, a good number of the people ecstatically welcomed the immigrant-invaders and threw tantrums if certain segments of the British population voiced skepticism or opposition. In other words, the deracinated Americanization of Britishness says that ink-on-paper trumps blood-in-veins as the marker of identity. And things are just as bad or even worse in Ireland, which goes to show that regardless of one’s history being defined by empire(Britain) or struggle against empire(Ireland), racial-and-cultural dissolution has become the global mission of every Western nation. Margaret Thatcher once said that America is defined by ideology, Europe by history. No longer.
But then, the total deracination of American Identity was also a relatively new phenomenon, as most of American History was marked by a powerful sense of race. Indeed, in some ways, race mattered more in America with the fading of various ethnic identities, made even starker in contrast to the American Indians, blacks, and the Mexican browns. Once white Americans forgot their ethnic heritages, all they had left was the biological reality of race. Likewise, as the various tribal identities were erased among Sub-Saharan Africans brought over as slaves, they came to identify racially as ‘black’ than along ethno-tribal boundaries, which, however, has somewhat resurfaced via gangsta-ism, e.g. the Crips vs the Bloods, or the East Coast Rappers vs. the West Coast Rappers.
Now, none of this is to suggest historical disasters are blessings for civilizations. In order for a civilization to thrive, it must move past misfortunes and work for peace and productivity. There’s no denying that the boom years following World War II were a great time in modern history, not only in the capitalist world but the communist world, which also rapidly recovered from the devastations of war. In such times, however, memories and lessons of hardships are still fresh, and people tend to appreciate the stability; they don’t take anything for granted, nor do they harbor outlandish expectations of society. And given the general sobriety, they are more likely to respect tradition that lends a sense of continuity with the past.
But as peace and prosperity lead to greater freedoms and choices, attitudes tend to change, obviously for the good but with unforeseen or willfully ignored signs of danger. Increased tolerance, a good thing, can turn into a mindless and careless acceptance of the Other. More leisure can turn into excessive hedonism. Prolonged youth can foster a culture of immaturity. ‘Raised’ consciousness about social ills and moral failings, which can lead to self-reflection and necessary reform, can turn into a hysterical and sanctimonious cult of ‘justice’ as a kind of new religion. Increased sensitivity regarding minority groups and deviant behavior, the natural outgrowth of and workable arrangement in the liberal-democratic order, can turn into cult-like adulation of certain favored groups and the inversion of norms, with perversions like ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’ promoted as the ‘New Normal’.
As for national identity, it can go from the core population’s generous offering of equality under the law to all citizens(regardless of race, creed, or color) to the dissolution of the very core, even with its suicidal compliance(once its members have been reprogrammed by the academia/media fallen into the control of hostile minority forces). Consider the official mantra of “Diversity Is Our Strength”, so often wielded against white identity and interests. Of course, Diversity must take a backseat when at odds with Israeli actions, as white cuckservative maggots have been trained to unconditionally serve their Jewish Masters, i.e. Jews can use Diversity against whites, but whites must side with Jews against Diversity. (Donald Trump’s MAGA turned out to be another form of maggotry. Trump’s deal with the Jews is as follows: Jews end the lawfare on his family and shoe him back into the Oval Office, and he will let Netanyahu, even more than usual, use the US government as his private anus to sodomize as often as he wishes.)
Now, some may argue that there has been no decline of the West, only change for the better, a view similar to historians who reject the idea of the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ and merely see a transition to the next stage of Roman civilization in which the Germanic tribes were incorporated under the widening spiritual reach of Christianity, i.e. the empire became Germanized, and the Germanics became Roman-Christianized.
Likewise, some argue that the West is merely undergoing another transition, a natural and healthy process in tune with the logical progression of End-of-History globalism. It’s only right that the West(and the Rest) reject the ‘debunked’ and ‘atavistic’ notions of race, ethnicity, & heritage and opt for open-borders and ‘open society’ where everyone is a ‘free individual’ with equal access to all corners of the globe as places of residence, business, and leisure.
From this perspective, what’s happening isn’t so much the fall of the West as a macro-adaptation to a new global order as favored by wisemen-wizards such as George Soros and Yuval Harari. Besides, why should only the West be ‘the West’? If, as we’ve all been repeatedly told, Western Civilization is about a set of ideas and principles, then any number of people who adopt ‘Western’ ways should be included as part of the West, and in time, the West shall expand beyond its traditional categories. After all, if the United States and Australia are part of the West regardless of their geographical locations, why shouldn’t Asia, Africa, and Latin America also be part of the ‘West’, the meaning of which isn’t territorial but ideological, much like ‘Christian’ applies not only to the birthplace of the faith but to any part of the world that adopts the Faith. And so, we have the likes of Piers Morgan saying, “So what?” to the prospect of Great Britain being majority non-white. To the likes of him, that’s not the end of Britain but the continuance of British civilization and history with new arrivals from all over absorbed into British culture and manners, the only true arbiters of Britishness. Of course, given that the three biggest themes in current Britain in Jew-worship, Negro-worship, and Homo-worship, the only way to become properly ‘British’ these days is to support Gaza Genocide, indulge in Jungle Fever, and ecstatically celebrate penises-in-anuses.
In truth, the ideal formula when it comes to matters of diversity is to deal with it or come to terms with it but NEVER EXPAND IT. As no society is absolutely homogeneous, the majority population needs to work for a fair and just arrangement, even compromise, with minority groups. In some cases, the diverse groups have settled matters by means of secession/separation, as happened with Czechoslovakia(peacefully) and Yugoslavia(violently). Some have opted for the federation model whereby the various regions, each with a dominant ethnic majority, remain within a single national framework but maintain considerable latitude and autonomy. Some societies have tiny minorities, some have considerable minorities. Some lack a majority and are a patchwork of minorities; these are usually the product of careless nation-constructions by imperialist powers, especially problematic in the cases of Africa and the Middle East.
One thing for sure, the ruling majority of a nation should never do anything to increase diversity, which can only lead to further divisions and tensions. Unfortunately, such tendencies are fatally baked into the cake of globalism, especially in the so-called advanced world where life is usually out of balance, especially evident in the inability to maintain replacement birthrates and sustain a viable labor force. This out-of-balance-ness might be called ‘qatsism’, after the film by Godfrey Reggio, KOYAANISQATSI, the Hopi world meaning ‘life out of balance’.
Also, as globalist elites identify with one another across national borders, they strategize in terms of pan-privilege than of connection to their national folk, especially those of lower status. They favor social policies and economic arrangements that maximize their own wealth, power, & privilege with hardly any regard for the masses who grow increasingly dispirited and demoralized, made worse by a steady diet of decadence and degeneracy, which accounts for many among the have-nots caring more about the ‘rights’ of trannies and illegal aliens than of their own kind. As such, the native birthrate dips, and there is a call for more immigration to replace the ‘loser’ population.
Even though the real elites constitute a tiny share of the population, elite priorities and ‘values’ are normalized far and wide through mass media and education. The ‘mass’ phenomenon has in important ways democratized and vulgarized the elites, but it has also ‘elite-ized’ and ‘snob-ized’ the masses. As more people attain ‘higher education’, even those denied access to elite positions are nevertheless implanted with elite-status attitudes, i.e. they espouse certain ideas and express certain views to belong in the club, at least culturally if not socio-economically.
This has been a great advantage to elite privilege because even so many educated-but-unprivileged types partake of elitist-globalist attitudes that are harmful to the masses, for whom nationalism is the best bet. Nationalism pressures the elites to connect with and care for their national folk. It places a demand on the elites to see the national folk as a larger family than merely as economic units to be replaced with new ones from abroad, aka immigrants.
The elites once came under the greatest pressure when leftism and nationalism were joined at the hip, indeed going back to the French Revolution. But, the new norms of globalism encouraged and allowed the elites to transcend nationalism in the name of embracing all humanity in the conceited spirit of ‘citizen of the world’, but its true impact has been the abnegation of ties and responsibility to their national kin, e.g. why should white British elites care about the white British working class when the former, as ‘more evolved progressives’, identify and care about ALL OF HUMANITY(especially the homosexuals of all colors around the world)? Indeed, for all the lip-service about universal human rights and ‘diversity’-‘inclusion’-‘equity’, globalist open borders have only depressed wages and opportunities for the national folks while cynically exploiting cheaper immigrant labor to increase the wealth of the elites.
The gravity of the problem owes in large measure to the fact that even so many non-elites think and feel as do the elites, i.e. they reject nationalism as ‘racist’ and ‘right-wing’, but it only advantages the elites who also hate nationalism as a ‘noblesse oblige’ drag on their uber-libertinism and global opportunism. Besides, in a state of open borders, contrary to the brown masses allying with white masses against the trans-national globalist elites, the elites merely use divide-and-rule among the growing Diversity, further maximizing their own position.
Perhaps, people are doomed to be eternally foolish, amnesiac and forgetful of what really matters; and as such, they can relearn only through hard lessons, hard times. No amount of good advice will do as it goes ignored once people take good times for granted. For that very reason, the economic boom-bust cycles were useful throughout history. Just when everything seemed to be going great, people were once again faced with hard times, reminded of what really matters, that nothing can be taken for granted and one must appreciate the essential things of life.
The optimism(bordering on hubris) in the West of having overcome the boom-bust cycles may prove to be a curse as well as a blessing. Not only does it indefinitely stall the sucking out the bad blood from the economy but a sense of perpetual stability and prosperity keeps generation after generation taking things for granted, thereby unlearning the hard lessons of humanity.
Even though there have been economic shocks in the US, EU, and Japan in the past decades(the kind that led to great economic hardships in the past), various financial institutions have managed to pump up the economy and convince their populations and the world at large that everything is under control. Usually, the ‘solution’ is printing or borrowing more money, but there are now fancy jargons for such things. There was once a trend in academia to infuse more jargons into social/philosophical discourse, thus rendering it more scientific, objective, impartial, and neutral, thereby overcoming the biases and prejudices inherent in language handed down through the ages. Thus, armed with a more exacting terminology purged of old modes of communication, the academia(and media in turn) would be better adept at challenging power and privilege. In essence, what really happened is that the powerful and privileged, especially in the economic departments, appropriated the art of jargonology and cooked up intellectually-and-scientifically-sounding BS for every one of their ploys. ‘Quantitative Easing’ indeed. Or, how about ‘enhanced interrogation’ for torture?
In a sense, the tragic 1990s came with a silver lining for Russia. As devastating as the period was, it had the effect of splashing cold water on the Russian elites and the people into seeing globalism for what it really is. Had Russia been allowed to make an easier transition to a market economy and ‘democratic’ system, it might have been buttered up for takeover by the West.
Prolonged good times have a paradoxical impact on society. The conservative types tend to become complacent and apathetic, overly confident in the status quo and weaker in fighting spirit. They’re prone to ‘The End of History’ outlook, e.g. the Triumph of the West, Victory for Capitalism, ‘Greed is Good’, ‘self-interests’ will take care of everything, and etc. They become like the court of King Arthur in EXCALIBUR once Camelot has been established. It’s as if all dragons have been slain, and good times are forever… just because. The much heralded victory of Reaganism turned American Conservatism into a country club(albeit with ‘health club’ vibes) mentality.
Contrary to conservatives, ‘progressive’ types in good times come to see fault in everything, i.e. they’re prone to make mountains out of molehills. When times are truly bad, leftists and progressive types wrestle with real problems. Thus, they focus on big issues and ignore minor ones as hassles and annoyances. But when times are good over a long stretch, ‘progressive’ types, in the absence of real challenges to absorb their energies, tend to obsess over just about everything. Think of all the hysterics about ‘micro-aggressions’ and whatever might ‘trigger’ college students. Thus, the left, which used to deal with tragic matters, adopts a therapeutic approach and calls on society to lie on the psychiatric couch and submit to endless examination. Is it true that society is no longer ‘racist’? But, what about the possibility of ‘subconscious racism’ or ‘systemic racism’. And so on and so forth. Prolonged good times tend to put conservatives to sleep while turning ‘progressive’ types into insomniacs constantly ‘woke’ to every perceived or imagined infraction.
Now, one may wonder if the prolonged peace and prosperity following World War II might not have been so deleterious had it not been for certain factors, the Jewish one being most important. Given the nature of the American system, despite its myriad biases and prejudices, it offered Jews the unprecedented opportunity to shoot for the top and gain total domination. The implications of Jewish ascendancy were profound given that the US was the undisputed superpower in the world, indeed even during the Cold War rivalry with the USSR. US vs USSR was somewhat like the British Empire vs the French Empire from the end of the Napoleonic Era to the start of World War II, with the former being considerably more powerful in industry and all-important naval might(that secured the most prized colonies around the world). Therefore, increasing Jewish control of the US had huge repercussions around the world, not just in Europe but in all spheres of American influence and even beyond — notice even the enemies of the US/West try to justify themselves along ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ laid down by the global metropole, the main scribes of which are the Jews and their cucks.
If Jews hadn’t been so hostile, paranoid, contemptuous, and vengeful toward whites, the post-war Western History might have been rosier. But, too many Jews, for reasons of radicalism, resentment, neurosis, tribalism, and/or subversive or nihilistic transgression, decided to employ their various powers and influences to undermine the foundations of white racial-cultural civilization. Thus, the meaning of the ‘West’ came to be at the whim and mercy of Jewish interests, often driven by animus and paranoia. So, if Jews insist that the ‘West’ is all about ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, it has to open its borders and indulge the vices of minorities. But then, if the very same Jews decree that the ‘West’ is all about reverence for Jews(as the spiritual foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition), then the West must support whatever Jews do in Israel, even if it’s ultra-tribal, racial-supremacist, and genocidal. But then, if the very same Jews argue that the ‘West’ is about secularism with no room for religious favoritism, then it must be so, except in cases where the particular brand of Christianity happens to be totally supportive of the Jewish-promoted neo-religion of GloboHomo or of the Judeo-Nazi regime of Israel. ‘Liberal’ Jews will bless Mainline Christian churches that consecrate sodomy while the likes of Ben Shapiro will bless Christian-Zionism that holds that Jews are the Chosen-Master-Race. In other words, with Jews in control of the US, ‘Western values’ are whatever comes out of the mouths of Alan Dershowitz and Bill Maher. And, the same goes for ‘Americanism’? It is whatever Jews say it is in-the-moment. If the moment changes, so does the meaning of Americanism. Take ‘free speech’ for instance. Most Jews insist it is the speech they are willing to tolerate. Americanism in the current year is simply, “Israel is our greatest ally”, “Jews know best”, “Jews are better than goyim whose purpose is to appease and please goyim”, and “sodomy is next to godliness”.
With Jews at the helm of the US(with its great sway over the world), the benefits of peace and prosperity were disproportionately used to expand hostile Jewish power and further its toxic agendas that can only lead to the demise of the goy order. Just ask the Palestinians, whose plight was merely the prelude for what Jewish Power has in store for all groups, not just white Americans but white Europeans and Latin Americans and East Asians and of course the Arabs and Iranians.
Possibly, the only people Jews grudgingly concede a degree of respect for are the Hindus who’ve demonstrated the power to generate their own gods and holiness, whereas most other goyim are locked within the ‘sacred’ universe invented by or originating from Jews, be it Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Freudianism, Randian Objectivism, Hollywood, Negrolatry, GloboHomo, Casinology, and Pornucopia. Both Jews and Hindus have proven their resilience in face of great pressure. Jews, despite being surrounded by Christians and Muslims, retained their identity and spirituality, and Hindus remained Hindus despite five centuries of Muslim rule. So, both groups have a certain autonomy at their deepest core, whereas white Christians, for all their history of ‘antisemitism’ and pushback against Jewish Power, have accepted at their spiritual core some Jewish Man as the gatekeeper who decides if goyim enter Heaven or Hell.
Some argue that the woes facing the West derive from World War II, especially the Holocaust Narrative that burdened white folks and Christendom in general with the guilt of ‘antisemitism’. But, there is no single way to interpret historical events, which certainly don’t narrate themselves. Any incident or event can be spun in a million different ways. Take Christianity for example, perhaps the greatest spin in world history. Jesus clearly lost. He got whupped real bad and nailed to a cross, stripped naked and jeered by a mob. No one can lose worse than that. Yet, the faithful spun the death into a resurrection tale, one of great victory. The biggest loser of all time was turned into the King of Kings, the equal of God Himself. (Jews are experts at the spin. Despite the vileness, there’s an element of awesomeness in the way Jews spun Sodomy, a deadly sin, into the highest sanctity in the West, indeed to the point where countless whites believe that god and jesus are subordinate to the turdy glory of Barney Frank’s anus. Either Jews are very good at the spin or white goyim are a bunch of numbnuts.)
All said and done, there is no single way to interpret an event as complex as World War II. Given that the Soviet Union did most to defeat Germany, one would think the Capitalist West, along with World Jewry, would have expressed utmost and eternal gratitude. But, almost as soon as the dust settled, the US-led West made the Commies out to be almost as bad as the Nazis, in effect the ideological foundation of the Cold War.
If white goyim had maintained dominance in the post-war West, they could have exerted pressure on Jews to express profound and undying moral indebtedness to the US and UK for their key roles in the defeat of Nazi Germany. White Americans and the British could have made a self-serving back-room deal with the Germans for global Anglo-Germanic domination but instead chose to do the right thing and fought against their racial cousins the Germans in the name of higher principles. No Faustian pact with the devil.
To further illustrate the malleability of narratives, consider how the Holocaust guilt was once limited to the Germans, and it was considerably later that all of the West was burdened with collective guilt for having either collaborated with the Germans or not having done enough to obstruct Hitler’s genocidal plans.
The narrative case of Japan proves the point that events matter far less than who gets to narrate them. The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan that was on the verge of surrender, but the Japanese don’t control the US. Thus, Americans have been able to perpetuate the self-serving narrative that the nuking of Japan was morally justified and even good for the Japanese, who should actually be thankful that there was no invasion with millions dead. Whether one agrees with the assessment or not, the point is any event can be spun in just about any manner. Take the War on Terror, which soon became the War with Terror. The US, Israel, and their allies installed Jolani the Al-Nusra thug in Syria but call it a great success for ‘peace’ and ‘democracy’. Or consider how Jews spun the narrative on Ukraine so as to convey their alliance with Sub-Nazi elements as a moral crusade against Putin, the worst monster since Hitler and Stalin.
So, while it’s true that the World War II narrative has done much to damage White/Western/Christian self-image, it need not have been IF white patriots had retained power and privilege to control the institutions and churn out official and mainstream narratives to their own advantage. The case of Israel is a clear example. Why did Americans come to condemn Apartheid South Africa while supporting Israel with far worse abuses of ‘human rights’? Because the Jewish-run media spun White Afrikaners as irredeemable ‘racists’ and ‘white supremacists’ whereas most news coverage of and narratives on Israel ranged from pro-Jewish to neutral(conceding some ground to the Palestinian side while simultaneously presenting most Israelis as decent people caught in a tough situation).
For as long as we can remember, Western narrative has been a baloney sandwich prepared by Jewish whim.
White ‘liberals’ were led to support Israel on grounds that it’s the most cosmopolitan and ‘gayest’ place on Earth, an oasis of liberal democracy surrounded by Arab medievalists and ‘Anti-Semites’. (Of course, the reason why white ‘liberals’ came to idolize homosexuality was itself the outcome of Jewish intellectual and cultural manipulation via media/academic control.) At the same time, white ‘conservatives’ were led to support Israel as akin to a Judeo-Christian Crusade to take back the Holy Land from the swarthy Arab-Muslim hordes, in other words the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy via Scofield. So, is Israel a secular state vibrating with hedonic reverie or a religious state on the verge of heavenly rapture? Jewish Power will sell whichever to any number of suckers, of whom there’s no shortage among idiot whites.
It’s been argued that white racial identity and interests came to be impugned as ‘racism’ as the result of World War II where the US and UK foolishly sided with the egalitarian-ideological commies against the awesomely white supremacist Nazis. According to this line of thinking, with the defeat of Nazism and related ideologies of white supremacism, it was only a matter of time before the remaining European empires and racial discrimination(especially against blacks) in the United States came under scrutiny to be marked for demolition. As such, victory in World War II handed the opportunity of a century on a silver platter to supposedly leftist universalist-egalitarian Jews.
But upon closer inspection, later developments in the West were more the product of Jewish domination than the (ideo)logical product of World War II. After all, the United States entered World War II as a race war against the ‘Japs’, and Jews in the media spread anti-Japanese propaganda that was as ‘racist’ as Nazi propaganda against the Jews. And the US never felt any remorse or made any apology over the mass killings of Japanese civilians, nor for the millions more in Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. Also, if ‘racism’ fell out of favor, why did Israel, clearly a racial supremacist enterprise, gain such favor among Americans? And why did most Americans yawn when American intervention in Latin America led to civil wars that killed 100,000s of people? Why wasn’t Madeleine Albright kicked out of polite society when she stated that it was worth it to kill 500,000 Arab children via brutal sanctions? So much for the logical progression of society based on past events.
Unfortunately, the power of logic and memory seems weak in the general populace and even among the educated elites(who are status-obsessed brown-nosers besides). They’re adverse to connecting the dots on their own; therefore, the ‘thinking’ has to be done for them by so-called pundits, columnists, and news anchors & their vetted guests. This is why both American ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ routinely get behind the most illogical and inconsistent policy agendas. Notice how the morons of the MAGA movement have been led to believe that an attack on Venezuela, piracy on the high seas, and stealing Greenland from an European ally are all part and parcel of ‘American nationalism’. Or consider how the very Democrats, who condemned George W. Bush’s wars, were totally onboard with Obama’s wars. Or how the supposedly secular pro-homo advocates long opposed religious-based opposition to the ‘gay agenda’ but then have no qualms about Christian churches hoisting ‘gay’ symbols and reciting queer slogans as the new sacrament. It doesn’t matter, ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, as both sides have shit for brains. How else does one explain how American Conservatism came to embrace ‘gay marriage’ as ‘conservative’ value? It’s because Jews connected the dots for them, a bunch of craven turd-headed idiots.
Prolonged peace and prosperity, by rendering the populace more complacent and generous(to the point of pathological self-harm), may pose eventual danger to any order, but the rapid decline of the West may owe to the levers of power passing over to the Jews who, like the slippery semi-god Loki of Germanic mythology, posed as both white and un-white, thereby often going unnoticed in their nefarious plots. If Jews were clearly marked as a different race, like ascendant Hindus in current America, white Americans might have been more aware of the dangers. It’s reasonable to argue that, more than any other factor, the Jewish takeover of the US hastened, if not created, the regressive trends usually merge during times of prolonged peace and prosperity.
The historiography of the Red Scare is further proof that the narrator matters more than the narrative, or the narrator IS the narrative. Regardless of what one thinks about Joseph McCarthy and the era of ‘red-baiting’, the fact is that there were Soviet spies in the US who caused grave harm to national security. (Nowadays, just about anything falls under the rubric of ‘national security’, which is usually invoked to cover up the crimes of the mafia-like deep state and its minions. In contrast, national security was seriously compromised by spies and subversives in the early years of the Cold War.) Among the biggest traitors were agents who transferred nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. So, even if the anti-communists did abuse their power and went too far, one could easily argue that the far greater danger was the threat posed by communist spies and infiltrators.
Yet, because a good number of those traitors were Jewish, the Jewish Power Network in media and academia went out of their way to spin the Red Scare era as one of ‘paranoid’ and ‘authoritarian’ far-right wanna-be-tyrants who set their targets on mostly innocent and well-intentioned leftist and liberal community. So, the culpability of treason by the left(and Jews) was minimized while the abuses by the anti-communists were maximized.
Now, imagine if the Nazis had prevailed in Russia, and the Cold War was between the US and the Nazi Empire dominating Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals. Suppose Joe McCarthy were a Liberal politician who abused every law in the book to smoke out every crypto-Nazi, quasi-Nazi, and fellow-traveler-Nazi in the US government, and as a result, tons of right-wing figures got blacklisted and ruined. What would the Jewish-dominated media and academia have spun their tale regarding the era? The narrative would likely have made out the hypothetical liberal McCarthy as a great patriotic hero who saved the republic from the Evil Nazis and related treacherous goons, all of whom deserved to be blacklisted and ‘canceled’.
Indeed, the very Jews who’ve been warning us about the dark years of McCarthyism ran with the Russian Collusion Hoax, creating a climate of panic and hysteria. The entire first term of Trump’s presidency was derailed as the result of this fantastical fear-mongering. Will all these Jewish ‘Joe McCarthys’ who spread the Russian Hoax madness be vilified by historians? It’s been noted by conscientious commentators that anti-Soviet rhetoric during the Cold War wasn’t as heated as anti-Russian vitriol since Putin refused to comply with every demand of World Jewry. Today, Jewish ‘Joe McCarthys’ or Jewish-Joes are openly bragging about their monopoly control over entire platforms to suppress criticism of the racial supremacist and genocidal state of Israel. Jews, who once spewed endless vitriol about Joe McCarthy as the specter of far-right paranoid tendencies inherent in American Conservatism, are now proud to be a bunch of Jewish-Joes threatening the entire country with censorship and ruined careers/reputations unless they get down on their knees to suck off Bibi Netanyahu and Larry Ellison.
What about the Cold War? Did it have a degrading impact on the white world, with White America and White Russia pandering to nonwhites within and beyond their spheres of influence in an ideological war based on foolhardy universal principles? Granted, some would argue that Russia is not a white country, especially those with retro-wet-dreams of ‘white’ Germans conquering untermensch mongrel Russians in World War II. But then, the whiteness of America also could be challenged on account of its large black population, rising rates of interracial mixing, and increased absorption of nonwhites since the immigration ‘reform’ in 1965. And while most peoples living under the Soviet Empire were white — Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, and even most Muslims in the Caucasus region — , a great many people within the American Empire were not, especially in Latin America long regarded as Uncle Sam’s backyard.
At any rate, both empires appealed to the blacks, browns, and yellows of the world against the Other White Empire. Soviet propaganda made out blacks in America to be horribly oppressed under ‘white supremacist’ racism, as if the KKK with a chapter in every US county was organizing the lynching of Negroes. And the US resorted to arming Muslim Jihadis to destabilize the Muslim-heavy underbelly of the Soviet Union.
It’s been said the Arabs under Muhammad saw their opportunity after the Byzantine and Persian empires weakened one another through constant warfare, and a similar argument is tempting in regards to the Cold War, with the US and USSR weakening one another to the long-term advantage of countries like China.
But, one could just as easily argue that the Cold War had a salutary effect in keeping both empires more ‘real’, more sober and serious. Indeed, American Conservatism was kept alive largely due to the communist threat. Despite Reagan/Bush grabbing the lion’s share of credit for the victory in the Cold War, the American public soon went with Bill Clinton and grew tired of Republican-style conservatism once the communist threat was gone. The end of the Cold War proved to be more beneficial for the ‘liberals’ than for the ‘conservatives’ who lost their bogeyman.
Minus the communist threat, American/Western society grew laxer and more tolerant(with tolerance soon turning into tyranny, with mandatory and official celebrations of and reverence for GloboHomo and other Jewish-made ‘gods’). Also, without the communist world defining leftism in class-centric or economic terms, the Western left degenerated into a series of decadent fetishes about ‘gender’ and whatnot. Things got sillier and sillier.
The Cold War had been like a cold shower. It energized the conservative base against Godless communism(though given its dislike for Liberation Theology, American conservatism feared Godly communism even more). Also, even white ethnic Americans(e.g. Dumb Polacks), who voted Democratic on labor issues, were likely to support Republican presidential candidates on account of their being more anti-communist. Additionally, the crimes of communism set the Western Left back on the moral front. So many 60s radicals in Europe and the US who’d idolized Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Zedong were later distraught by the great crimes of communism in the Third World, as well as by its economic failures across Eastern Europe and Russia.
The baleful influence of Jewish Power aside, the other most destructive and/or degenerative influences on the West have been homosexual and black. The homosexual element may be included as part of the Jewish package as the ‘gay agenda’ took off with the special protection and favoritism of Jewish Power. In times of peace and prosperity, the culture tends to grow more decadent, thereby providing a leeway for homosexual interests, but the kind of GloboHomo adulation that has swept the West is surely unprecedented, very much the product of Jewish Power using its dominance to sway and pressure all sectors toward bending over and taking it up the arse from the ghost of Harvey Milk.
While black power and Negolatry also got a giant boost from Jewish Power, the black thing would have been problematic even without Jewish favoritism. This has less to do with numbers than with certain traits prominent among blacks. After all, ‘Latinos’ and ‘browns’ overtook black Americans as the largest minority group in the US, but their impact on American Society has been far less.
The danger posed by blacks was evident in the early part of the 20th Century and well throughout the so-called Jazz Age. The first black heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson demolished the pride of white manhood and asserted his blackness as the future template for race and sex in America.
The logic of Americanism was both repulsed and fascinated with Johnson. The race-ist aspect of Americanism clearly saw him as a threat: The tougher and rougher Negro beating up white men and reducing them to pathetic sacks of putty and taking white women who see the Negro as the savage liberator from the ‘bourgeois’ repression of civilization. But there were also the egalitarian and the winner-ist aspects of Americanism. The egalitarian ethos said, “May the best man win, regardless of race, creed, or color.” So, if a black guy beats all comers, let him be the champion. However, what if it wasn’t just a case of a black individual winning, with a good chance that individuals of other races may win in the future, in which case Johnson-ism didn’t pose an eternal threat? What if there were racial differences that genetically ordained that blacks are far more likely to win in sports? Thus, American egalitarianism soon gave way to American winner-ism. As blacks kept winning and winning in sports, despite racially discriminatory practices, the American mindset shifted toward a special awe of the blacks as the true superior race. It went from “let the best black guy win” to “blacks are better than whites and always win”, implying that whites should get on their knees and worship blacks and make offerings of white wealth, reverence, and women to the Negroes. When black athletic advantage was combined with their musical savvy and bigger dongs, the white race just flipped out and succumbed to Negrolatry, not just in the US but across the EU(and elsewhere, as mulatto athletes are taking over Japan too).
Jazz Age America was still rife with racial discrimination, but the pace of social and cultural change was breathtaking; and had peace and prosperity continued without the cataclysms of the Great Depression and World War II, it’s possible that the Negrification of society would have advanced much earlier.
In the 21st Century, Negrolatry is one of the pillars of ‘Western Civilization’. Whites worship MLK, Mandela, Harriet Tubman, and even George Floyd more than any great white man of the past. If anything, the monuments to the great white men have been torn down, generally with zero opposition from whites; if anything, plenty of whites cheer on the iconoclasm. Millennials were raised on the pornification of culture and interracism, with terms such as ‘cuck’ becoming prominent, especially meaning the white male’s surrender of white women to Negroes. White girls grew up idolizing the Kardashians, and the signature expression has been ‘twerking’, imitating the simian movements of black buttocks. The national ritual for most Americans is watching black-dominated Super Bowl where the majority of TV commercials are Negrolic to the max. Or whites are glued to MMA fights where black guys routinely smash the faces of white guys. Even the white supremacist ‘racist’ Nick Fuentes campaigned for the presidency of Kanye West, aka Ye, a flamboyant practitioner of interracism.
These are all civilization-destroying trends, perhaps even more so in Europe which is now easily accessible to black African migrants who multiply like jungle bunners and arrive by boats and airplanes to become ‘New Europeans’, yapping “Where da white women at?”, in response to which white women yell back, “We’re over here!”, while white guys mutter, “Black guys and white girls, that’s so wonderful. You see, I’m not a ‘racist’.”
Given the racial dynamics between whites and blacks, these trends were always simmering under the surface. But one wonders if the trends would have caught steam much earlier if the 20th century hadn’t been turned upside down by the two world wars, the great depression, and the Cold War.
When the country was faced with great trauma and hardships, matters of hedonism were pushed to the backburner. Authority mattered more, and of course, authority was with white men back then.
It was when the hard times faded one by one that the whites began to grow less guarded and either more generous in spirit or more reckless in abandon. Some strove for greater idealism in the name of racial justice without pondering the havoc that might result from real racial differences — but then, the post-war dogma among the educated classes held that ‘race is just a myth’. Some opted for more fun, and they found black music irresistible and liberating; for the historians of Rock Music, 1955 is like Anno Fats Domino, the year when Real History began with the ‘empowerment’ of white youths who dug blackness without reservation.
Now, why are people reluctant to discuss this phenomenon? Part of the reason is the cult of ‘anti-racism’, especially pertaining to blacks. Many people have been conditioned via education, evangelism, and entertainment not to harbor any negative views about blacks, akin to proscription against ‘antisemitism’, as in “Even when Jews are committing genocide in Gaza, never ever condemn Israel because it is ANTI-SEMTIC!” Of three groups, namely the Jews, Negroes, and Homos, we must entertain only positive ideas and opinions about them… lest we be ‘Anti-Semitic’, ‘racist’, or ‘homophobic’.
But there could be another reason for the unwillingness to address the issue of blacks. It could be that it’s just too embarrassing, as well as apparently ludicrous, to admit that a great civilization could be brought down by oogity-boogity. Philosophers prefer to discuss Big Ideas, paradigm shifts, and matters of grave importance and complexity. Economists see the world in terms of complicated patterns of data and numbers, the global dynamics that make for productivity and wealth. Foreign policy specialists see the world in terms of military might and power projection, e.g. which countries have the biggest navy, the most advanced weaponry, the best trained men, as well as the most skilled diplomats and experts. Scientists and engineers see the world in terms of research and development, smart investments and transformative projects. All require a great amount of education and training.
So, the idea that a bunch of ‘crazy niggers’ and ‘nigger lovers’ may bring down Western Civilization seems beneath serious consideration. The elites and smarties want to believe that the future of mankind will be determined by complexity of ideas, science & technology, and evolutions in human organization. As such, they hope that even the race problem, mostly a black one, can be solved by new approaches and solutions based on Big Think and Smart Investment.
But upon surveying what blacks have done to Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, and so many other urban areas and towns, aren’t the Big Think elites under the delusion of false norms? ‘False norms’ here means the projection of the norms of one’s own group(and similar groups) on all of humanity, even those genetically wired to be different in talent and temperament, e.g. more savage and wild. After all, what works among dogs doesn’t work with wolves. What works among a bunch of Jewish and Asian geeks doesn’t work with a bunch of blacks who are like Mike Tyson and Snoopy-Dogg. After countless hours and dollars spent on Big Ideas and Big Projects to fix the ‘inner city’ problem, when have they ever worked? The last big push was in 2020 in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death — all institutions pledging to root out ‘systemic racism’ and funneling unprecedented funds to black leaders/influencers and black causes — , but most blacks just took the money reserved for BLM and spent it on bling and fried shrimp. And Black America is just the same as ever.
Now, America with a 13% black population is bad enough, but what happens with more immigration from black Africa? Will the US become like Brazil that has a much bigger race problem with crime many times worse than in Baltimore? And what happens to Europe as its cucked elites say the declining native populations must be replaced with newcomers, mostly Muslims(who are backward but at least civilized) and black Africans(who will make of Europe what they’ve made of their own ‘societies’).
Since the Enlightenment, the prevailing Western attitude has been that any problem can be solved with reason and resolve. And this has been more or less true of most peoples and cultures. Europe not only survived the two world wars but rebuilt their societies and enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity. East Asia largely caught up to the West in terms of technology and economic productivity. The Arab/Muslim world achieved less, but there are nice places there as well, as long as the Jewish-run West isn’t fomenting strife and chaos, like they did in Libya and Syria. And there are success stories in Latin America as well, especially among whites but among browns too. So, given all these successes, the modern attitude is that anything can be corrected, anything can be overcome with good governance and smart adoption of technology. And, because ‘anti-racism’ is the favored ideology, surely the happy news is applied to blacks as well. The ingenuity of modern man can fix any problem, and it’s only a matter of time before blacks join the rest of humanity in development and social order. But the racial reality says otherwise. It’s now undeniable that black IQ is generally lower while black impulsivity is higher, and less intelligence + more aggression isn’t a working formula for modernity. It’s made worse by blacks being more muscular. Too many whites fear to speak the truth lest blacks kick their butt.
More worryingly, there are modern attitudes at odds with the conceit of fix-all rationalism. There’s also the Western spiritualist and hedonist fixation on blackness. As the morality and spirituality of American History became embroiled in the issue of slavery and as the troubled history culminated in the ‘martyrdom’ of Martin Luther King(and as the American Narrative became globalized via mass media, Hollywood, and official proclamations), a good part of the world sees blackness as synonymous with spirituality, emboldened further by the cult of Nelson Mandela. Of course, it goes back to UNCLE TOM’S CABIN with the saintly Negro as a christ-like figure who dies for the sins of white folks. So, the Black Problem is imagined in terms of whites carrying the black cross and blacks carrying the white cross until both sides arrive at some kind of rapture. It’s as silly as Christian Zionism and the Magic Negro cult, and, needless to say, fantasies cannot solve real-world problems.
If the rationalist heroics is Apollonian and if the spiritualist hope is messianic, the third hope is Dionysian or hedonist, a trashy vulgarization of Freudianism. It assumes that the white race is the Ice People, frigid and cold, repressed and soulless, and that’s why Western Civilization has become a mechanization of world conquest and mass death. Therefore, the only hope is to thaw the white soul and bring it to light under the warmth of the Negronic sun. The Negro will loosen the tight-assed white boys and girls and teach them to dance and smile and boogie and ‘twerk’, and such partying-all-night-long will be the salvation of the West, with black soul men saving white hole men.
Now, whites have enjoyed lots of black music, but did Motown save Detroit? Is the popularity of reggae among white elites in the EU going to save the continent from the onslaught of black African migrants? The way things are going, the West is going to be squeezed between Jewish gangsters from the top and black thugs from the bottom.
The idea that the Noble West will be undone by Afro-Jigric energies seems too undignified, too ridiculous to entertain as a serious idea. Even those addressing it fear to advance it. They’d rather imply than spell things out. Consider Steve Sailer’s ‘most important graph in the world’ that shows rising demographics in Sub-Saharan Africa concurrent with steep declines elsewhere. Sailer notices the Black Problem but then leaves it others to connect the dots. Why? Most likely because the dire consequences of current global demographic trends aren’t fit for polite and/or politically correct society.
For example, we prefer the fall of a great man or great power owing to tragedy of Biblical proportions or some great flaw. For example, the story of a great businessman destroyed by failed vision and investment. Or of a great military leader undone by hubris, as in the case of Napoleon. Or of someone like Hitler crushed by the nemesis unleashed by his insatiable ambition. Or of communism finally worn down by the impossible idealism of egalitarianism.
But if a man of respect(or respectability) lost everything on account of a mad obsession for a harlot, now that’s embarrassing. It’s why the fall of Humbert Humbert in LOLITA is beyond sad; it’s downright pathetic, in some ways even more so than the disgraced scholar in THE BLUE ANGEL. (Indeed, it’s amazing how so many great WASP families were undone not by something tragic but by something stupid and pathetic, with reputations and fortunes undone by trivialities.) Few dare to read the ‘secret diaries’ of the West out loud.
In a similar vein, the idea that the West may fall because of its Negrolatric lapse is someone no one wants to touch. Besides, the Negronic threat is deceptively invisible. Unlike Russia, China, and even Iran that are major countries with large populations and technology, blacks tend to be socially depressed in the West, and Sub-Saharan Africans, even more than North Africans(who are pathetic enough), have always been a basket-case. Thus, in the minds of many Westerners, blacks are objects worthy of pity and compassion, hardly posing a threat like Russia with its many nukes and China with its growing industrial economy.
Now, as a mass, it’s true that Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and just about any other people, even Mexicans, can achieve far more than a bunch of blacks. If a mass of Chinese were to engage in war with a mass of blacks, Chinese would beat them easily. But popular culture and sports aren’t about mass, united, or concentrated power but about star power of individual athletes, even true in team sports where certain figures like Michael Jordan, Jim Brown, Babe Ruth, or Wayne Gretzky stand above the rest. Pop culture is about celebrity, which is always about idolatry of the individual, the one over the many. In any Rock concert, 99% of the attention goes to the star on stage, virtually none to the faceless masses in the seats.
So, even though blacks are pretty powerless and hopeless at the mass level(except when it comes to occasional riots where black looters rampage around like chimps and baboons), they dominate at the idolatric level, and this has seductive, even spellbinding, impact on the white masses who come to elevate blackness onto the altar of awesomeness. Now, it’s true that most blacks aren’t great athletes, musical performers, orators, or whatever. But once whites come to idolize certain black individuals as demigod-like figures, blackness itself attains a kind of deification, not unlike Jewishness that is now sacrosanct among whites who either worship the Judeo-Christian prophecy or the high IQ that produces so much wealth and power.
Once whites come to associate blackness with specialness, they lose the backbone to say “No more blacks”. Why, such an attitude would be an affront to the black heroes, demigods, and prophets whom they worship. Then, it’s no wonder that Europe has a difficult time saying NO MORE to black African migration. Dare say NO to the race of Peles, Muhammad Alis, Bob Marleys, Mandelas, Oprahs, and etc.? It’d be worse than ‘racism’, which is against humans. It’d be like an affront to the gods, as blacks are objects of worship to cucky-wucky whites.
Because historians and academic experts think in terms of economics, military power, political organization, power of religions, and clash of universalist ideologies, they’re ill-equipped, intellectually and emotionally, to grapple with more slippery factors that may have profound impact on society. It’s more dignified for people like Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Adam Tooze, and etc. to discuss the great powers, the great men of history, economics, war games, and diplomacy than to approach the topic of how Jungle Fever may undo the West.
Even dissident figures like Steve Sailer prefer to present the dots than connect them. If we connect the dots, the ‘most important graph’ really means as follows: Blacks are tougher, meaner, more muscular, and more aggressive. They are wilder and more psychopathic, more likely to be thuggish. As such, they pose a threat to the white race. But because of relative black poverty and backwardness, which even led historically to the white exploitation of black labor, whites have this habit of regarding blacks as ‘children’ in need of compassion and aid. Also, even as blacks are thuggish and criminally-oriented, they’re colorfully intuitive in manipulating white emotions, playing them like an instrument in a Jazz club. Whites may be more intelligent, but rationality suppresses their intuitive defenses so vulnerable to a wily strategy of slipping through the cracks, like how a basketball player does through the defense. Consider all the well-educated white liberal suckers who got hoodwinked by black rogues and criminals in the Sixties.
Those blacks were lesser in IQ but savvier in ‘reading’ emotions, feeling out what buttons to push.
Furthermore, as time passes, the logic of Western sports culture and pop culture leads to white males surrendering to the championship of black males, while white women succumb to Jungle Fever. As such, the West finds it virtually blasphemous to say NO MORE to the blacks who are exploding in numbers in Sub-Saharan Africa, and that means more blacks in the West will arrive and beat up pathetic cucky white males and hump more white women, and their mulatto kids will spread anti-civilization black pathologies that will bring down the West.
That’s what the ‘most important graph’ is really about, but people like Sailer and Charles Murray would rather not spell it out because it sounds so crude, gross, and embarrassing. They’re like people who can study the anatomy of digestion as a graph cleanly illustrated in a book but lack the stomach to discuss the actual processes involved with feces, bacteria, and smell and etc.
Anyway, just like a ‘great man’ who was brought down by a putrid scandal involving his uncontrollable ‘boing’, the Great West may well be undone by the stupidest factors. (In CITIZEN KANE, the protagonist was slated to become governor as a step-stone to the presidency, but his entire political career was derailed by the stupidest of scandals.) This is what people like Steven Pinker are averse to discussing. Pinker’s book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” is valid insofar as he discusses the West as a self-enclosed entity. Despite the horrendous wars and great tragedies, the modern West advanced from triumph to triumph. Even its evils, such as religious extremism and political radicalism, had basis in serious ideas and grand visions. Indeed, the fact that Western man could cause destruction on such an unprecedented scale has been a testament to his organizational ingenuity. A bunch of savages couldn’t have carried out Operation Barbarossa or completed the Manhattan Project and dropped two big ones. The very same talent could be used to build cities and construct bridges to a peaceful future, and indeed post-war Germans used their energies to rebuild and prosper.
What Pinker overlooks is that prolonged peace and prosperity have bred decadence and complacency, a lack of seriousness at the core of the West where an entire generation of kids took their cues from the Kardashians, where the ruling elites have been molded more by pop culture than real culture and ideas.
Such a decadent order is apt to embrace something as retarded as GloboHomo with its fatally demoralizing impact on society; it’s also apt to embrace Negrolatry, a crazy cult that goes far beyond the already foolish notion that whites and blacks are equal in everything; in effect, Negrolatry says that blacks are superior to whites and that’s a good thing, and white salvation depends on Negrolics, which accounts for all these British movies re-imagining not only the British past but the entire Western past as Negronic, e.g. the supposed ‘conservative’ Christopher Nolan is retelling the Greek mythology of THE ODYSSEY with blacks and mulattos in key roles.
It’s as if whiteness is deficient on its own and depends on blackness as a key ingredient for completion. Many white Christians and HBD-types, for reasons of Chosen-Worship or IQ-worship, believe Jews are ‘better’, and therefore, it’s the duty and mission of whites to serve and appease the Jews(in order for whites to be ‘complete’), and a similar dynamic pervades among many whites who see blacks the same way. More than anything, the West will be undone by such retarded assumptions.
When the Japanese and Nazi Empires fell, it was by defeat in war, horrible but not entirely ignoble as it entailed the epic struggle among brave and tough men. When the Soviet Empire collapsed, it was the end result of a great battle of ideas. Even in defeat, there was no shame on the communist side for having aimed for utopia. But how does one spin the farce of the West(and other parts of the modern world) falling because the white race decided to suck up to a bunch of Mark Levins and Ben Shapiros as ethnic, moral, and spiritual betters? Or the idea that cucky white and jungle-feverish white females allowed for the conditions of mass black-African migration into the West that finished things off?
Well, it’s so embarrassing and pathetic that no one wants to connect the dots. Pinker would rather pontificate about ‘the better angels of our nature’ than ‘da bouncier buns of da sistaz’. He’d rather deal with Big Think than acknowledge that the cultural expression of the current West is ‘twerking’. Likewise, Sailer provides the dots but doesn’t connect them for us because the resulting picture will be a bigger-donged black guy kicking the white boy into a cucked-out wimp and humping white women who produce mulatto Obama-babies as the future of the West.
In a way, the intellectual inhibition on these matters is rather odd given the vast expansion in academia and media of topics previously considered puerile, perverted, salacious, and unworthy of serious attention. Homosexuality, once deemed either a sin(by the church) or a sickness(by psychiatry), is openly displayed everywhere as ‘pride’ and even serves as the official symbol of the ‘Liberal Empire’. There are all manners of ‘gender’ studies with endless discourses on the sexual proclivities of ‘queers’ and the like. Jungle Fever is part of the cultural currency, with ‘memes’ about big Negro dongs. Even kiddie culture has been pornified, with Disney ‘grooming’ young girls to be skanky starlets. A new strain of leftism, sometimes associated with the Frankfurt School, argued that Marx must be wedded to Freud, and discussions of power these days usually involve gender/sexuality, as well as the politics of identity(also tied to sexuality), and of course, the likes of Michel Foucault pushed similar ideas to the max. And Philip Roth and other authors, disproportionately Jewish, expressed Jewish social psychology in relation to their sexual obsessions, i.e. Jewish History isn’t just about morality, spirituality, ideology, and economics but about sexual neurosis that fuel so much angst and frustration.
Yet, despite all these developments, almost no one’s willing to address the darker implications of Negrolatry that has a crucial sexual component, obvious even long ago when Jack Johnson was thumping white men and humping white women, when D.W. Griffith directed THE BIRTH OF A NATION that dramatized the dangers of Negrification of white society. But then, stuff like gender and queer studies don’t encourage critical thinking and free discussion; instead, they foster discourse only to praise and glorify sexual deviancy of the homo/tranny/interracist kind. Thus, it’s more like theology than science.
Perhaps, the intellectual/cultural class is still stuck on the notion of ‘liberation’ in relation to sexuality, i.e. more ‘queer’ & ‘gay’ excesses and more Jungle Fever can make society only freer and cheerier, all the while ignoring the oppressive aspects of sexual politics, which were evident in the 1960s when goons, gangsters, and thugs took full advantage of the ‘liberated’ but vulnerable young girls wandering the streets of in Haight-Asbury, the kind of social pathology featured in TAXI DRIVER by Paul Schrader & Martin Scorsese.
The emasculation of white males at the feet of Jewish Power and black prowess has serious consequences for the world. Today, white males undergo the annual self-debasing ritual of watching black guys dominate the sports field, kick white butt, and take white women. And they behave like trained dogs at the feet of their Jewish masters. When Donald Trump, who branded himself a ‘nationalist’ and ‘America Firster’, makes a cuck-spectacle of himself as a sappy dog to the Adelsons and Netanyahu before the Knesset, we know white male pride has been deflated to the point of impotence. Jews exploit the dog-like shame of diminished white-male-dom by providing the safety valve of an aggressive foreign policy, of course one dictated by Jews. Thus, American white males, who lost their manhood to Jews and blacks, can fantasize about regaining a piece of machismo by saber-rattling against the ‘Russkies’, ‘chinks’, ‘ragheads’, ‘spicks’, and the even bigger cucks of the EU who can’t even defend Greenland, i.e. white males in the US may be cucked, but they can still beat up on the white males of the EU who are even more cucked.
Thus, white males of America, who lose everything to Blacks and Jews(and their Diversity agenda), can lick their wounds by telling themselves, “Hey, at least we beat up brown ‘spicks’ in Venezuela and got Greenland.” It’s truly beyond pathetic. Still, it is dangerous to the world because Jews are manipulating wounded white male pride by directing its ire against the Other. Jews castrate the white male and reduce him to a pussy boy but then pump him full of testosterone to attack Iran; the white male, so dog-like submissive before the very Jew who castrated him, goes barking and biting at Iran to regain his manhood. What a white dummy or whummy. Jews figure, if white goy males must cuck sheepishly to Israel, let them assuage their wussified egos by tough-guy Chuck Norris antics against Iran. Just look at pansy Lindsey Graham, usually a wussy dog at the feet of Zion, always ready to suck Netanyahu’s cock, with zero hint of manhood. But by encouraging him to bark at Iran, Jews provide him with an outlet for his battered pride. Look at ‘tough guy’ Graham shaking his fist at the mullahs, ooh what a man! Of course, such white machismo is deceptive; far from truly being a sign of pride and courage, it’s just another manifestation of white male cuckery to the Jews.
Historians and political commentators usually comment on big events and serious trends, but the decisive factor with long-term consequences may be hidden or deemed insufficiently ‘serious’ or ‘dignified’ to address. Furthermore, even the biggest events don’t have long-term effects. Germany rebuilt from the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt from the atomic ashes, and someone ignorant of World War II would hardly realize that the cities had once been pulverized. The attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 didn’t have long-term impact either, at least in the sense that recovery was swift and overwhelming, and life went on as usual. For this reason, tying together the series of big events in the study of history yields only limited results in our understanding. Similarly, a car crash is far more eventful than the habit of smoking or illicit drug use, but a survivor of a car crash can recover and carry on(almost as if the accident never happened). However, an addiction to drugs, though uneventful, may well lead to disease and death. But being a quiet habit and/or illicit act, it may go unnoticed or hidden, thereby causing harm in ways no one, including the user, suspects.
Now, historians, social scientists, and culture critics do address certain trends, but those deemed taboo or somehow ‘trivial’ usually go ignored. But the real or bigger danger may be embedded in what goes unsaid. Take, for example, the history of the 21st century. Surely, the election of George W. Bush will be mentioned, along with the eventful 9/11 attack, which led to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be discussions of the influence of a political faction called the Neocons. In other words, ample discussion of big events, leading figures, and certain influences & trends. However, the deeper truth of the new century cannot be understood without exposing the phenomenon of white cuckery to the Jews. The full import of Neoconservatism isn’t simply about how some individuals, disproportionately former leftist Jews, managed to present compelling arguments and persuade the wider political community into embarking on a particular foreign policy. It’s really the manifestation of the white elites having decided that the Jews are the true Master Race, the ultimate winner of the American game of power & wealth, the most awesome people on Earth at whose feet whites are obliged to grovel like a pack of pathetic dogs.
It is literally and figuratively the total white sexual surrender to the Jews, and as such must be understood as a psycho-sexual phenomenon. Whether it’s Donald Trump or Joe Biden figuratively taking it up the arse from Netanyahu(and Mike Huckabee getting down on his knees to suck off Jonathan Pollard) or it’s the children of white elites marrying into Jewish families(and even ‘converting’ to Judaism in rejection of Christianity as a secondary and inferior religion), it’s about whites accepting their roles as dogs and/or whores to the Jews. Trump’s daughter and Clinton’s daughter both married Jews and do the bidding of Zion, and their fathers spent their political careers bending over and taking Jewish dongs up their bungs while squealing like a pig, like Ned Beatty’s character in DELIVERANCE. The modern West is a political pornography, an endless orgy of sucking off Zion, and only a ‘portnoic’ approach to the current reality will yield useful answers.
Given the factors of Jewish and black influence, one wonders how the prolonged peace and prosperity might have panned out had whites kept the power in the aftermath of World War II. If Jewish subversion and black savagery had been checked from cancerous growth, could the West have avoided the trap it fell into, now threatening to engulf the entire West and white folks into the quicksand of racial and cultural doom? One thing for sure, things wouldn’t have gotten so bad so fast.
Still, history has shown time and time again that prolonged stability can lead to decadence and degeneracy, not least among the privileged elites, even without the involvement of hostile bad faith actors to muck things up. Consider Chinese civilization that for so long believed itself to be secure and mighty as the Middle Kingdom. But it was during such prolonged stability that Chinese elite men grew their fingernails long and became effete and pansy. Meanwhile, nearly half the Chinese women took to foot-binding as a sign of ‘beauty’ and ‘refinement’. The Chinese had no Jews and Negroes(and GloboHomo) to worry about, but their civilization rotted from within with elite decadence and cultural degeneracy. Truly, a civilization that finds the ‘bound’ and crippled feet of women to be ‘beautiful’ has serious issues, but that became part of the mainstream culture of China.
Thankfully, something so grotesque as foot-binding didn’t catch on in the West, but there are signs of degeneracy everywhere. Take the spread of tattoos like the worst case of skin cancer-graffiti. Or the trend of educated women dyeing their hair green, purple, pink, or some other silly color. Or sticking pieces of metal through noses and tongues. As if those aren’t sick enough, there’s the educated/elite conceit that trans-sexual nuttery is the New Normal, indeed next to godliness. The ghastly sight of all those affluent parents taking ‘pride’ in their children’s decision to ‘transition’ and mutilate their sexual organs to attain some gross fake ‘vagina’ or ‘penis’… what can be said about that?
Westerners, who were once appalled by find foot-binding in China, are now totally okay with the Frankenstein ‘medicine’ of tranny-sickness.
At the very least, we can credit Hitler’s radical politics and World War II for applying the brake on Weimarism. And communism could be credited for holding back degenerative tendencies inherent in capitalist-consumerism culture of vanity and excess. And for a spell, the Great Depression and another World War kept the people in the West more sober and mature.
In a way, the problem of modernity is the misunderstanding and misapplication of the liberalization process. Liberalism has unleashed the energies trapped in civilizations, much like energies released from the burning of coal and petroleum products. The liberal fire has made the modern world, but for there to be fire there has to be something to burn. What is burned cannot be burned again. Ashes to ashes, nothing more to be done. Liberalism, so focused on releasing or liberating energies from matter, is usually fixated on the fire or heat, not the very stuff from which the energy is extracted. With exaggerated appreciation for the burning process without a proper regard for what is being burned, liberalism eventually runs out of material to burn and soon looks elsewhere for burning material.
Of course, the most essential ‘burning material’ is none other than people, the new generations to take the place of aging generations and the dead. But the constant message of self-interest, self-centeredness, individuality, vanity, hedonism, the moment over the future, and faddishness depresses the kinds of values and priorities that direct people toward family formation, the source of new life.
Liberalism operates like someone who sets fire to everything around him without planting new trees(for firewood) and/or mining for more coal. Once everything’s been reduced to ashes, he seeks firewood and coals from other places that still care to produce them. The Third World may be more backward in most areas, but they still produce life, and the Liberal West aims to recruit those people to release their energies and heat. But once these people fall under Western Liberal influence, their birthrates also plummet, as is now the case all across the modernized-and-liberalized East Asia. The trend has also hit vast areas of Latin America and even the Muslim Middle East, leaving only black Sub-Saharan Africa as the producer of surplus population, the problem being that the kind of punkass coal produced by the Dark Continent is useless for lighting up civilization. That, plus Negrolatry, may lead to Europe and Asia importing tons of blacks to replace the world devoid of new life as the result of excessive liberalization. Not all coals are alike, however.
Too often, the discussion of modern history and the modern world has excessively focused on the wonders of progress and change, too often failing to appreciate the existing modes and continual values that have sustained civilizations. The conceit is understandable given so many advantages that came with revolutions in all fields by way of Westernization/modernization. Take Japan, which undoubtedly profited so much in countless fields as the result of modeling itself on the modern West. But this line of thinking can lead to the fallacy that all things old are useless while all things new are valuable. But the success of Japan owed to there being a civilization already intact before the coming of modernization. After all, if the Japanese had been a bunch of stone age savages, what could they have made of the modern challenge? They would likely have acted like Papua New Guinea huntsmen.
Indeed, this goes for the West itself. Because modernization originated there, there’s the tendency to think of ‘Western’ as synonymous with ‘modern’, but so much of what has sustained the West even in modern times are ideas, values, and visions that long predated modernity. In other words, modernity added to the West but isn’t the bedrock or foundation of what the West has been for most of its history.
The cult obsession with progress has blinded people to the essential and integral roots that have held the civilizational tree in place. Late liberalism seems hellbent on cutting off every part of the tree and burning it for fire, and then pulling out the roots for drying and burning as well, and these suicidal tendencies have spread far and wide, indeed so much that when Russia insists on being a civilizational state defined by something other than ideology, fashionable idolatry, and the latest fads, it is seen as an affront to all things associated with ‘progress’. “Russian civilization, gimme a break!”, scoffs the angry ‘progressive’ or piss-ant globalist. Apparently, there’s no such thing as civilizational virtue/value, and Russia, like the rest of the world, should toe the line and be captive to global fads and fashions of the empty minds and shallow souls living in the moment.
But then, the exception is always made of the Jews and Israel. If Hungarians invoke their identity, culture, and roots, they’re ‘far right’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘atavistic’, even ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’. But if Jews say they have heritage and history worthy of preservation and protection, the Liberal West suddenly complies and agrees 100%. Obviously, current ‘liberalism’ isn’t only shallow and stupid but hypocritical and delusional, but then so is ‘conservatism’ that argues for abstract principles for white goyim while insisting on ethnicity and heritage for the Jews. To your typical ‘conservative’, conservatism for whites means lower taxes and less regulation, not white identity, heritage, and roots. But when it comes to Jews, yes, we must honor and respect their ethnicity, roots, and history. But then, what goes by ‘conservatism’ is just another demented variation of current ‘liberalism’. Liberalism worked as well as it did for a long time because there were still traditional forces and elements that kept generating more material in the form of new generations to burn. But with every generation, liberalism increased the pace of ‘liberating’ the energies of every last vestige of tradition and continuity. Today, decadent liberalism gets to the young as early as possible. It tells young girls to act like whores as soon as possible, and it tells boys to remain boy-like even into adulthood, hooked on videogames and superhero movies. Things are fatally out of balance in modernity.
