Monday, December 31, 2018

Commentary on "Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part One"(by Andrew Joyce)

Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part One

Look all around the media and academia, and the the elites believe spreading falsehoods is okay(and even necessary) because, according to PC wartime logic, lies in the service of the Holy Crusade are more justified than truths in the service of Evil Tyranny. The value of the Noble Lie.

It's the mindset during wartime. Wars are so extreme that truth is secondary to winning. Both Right and Left agree on this in times of war. US and USSR told tons of lies in World War II, but because the overall understanding was that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were so utterly Evil, all means and methods(even deceitful propaganda) were justified in taking them down. (And of course, Germany and Japan did the same, often sacrificing truth for their own formulation of the Noble Lie.)

Now, if there had been no war, truth might have been favored over 'us and them'(or 'good vs evil') mentality. But the war was on, and the enemy was seen not merely as a rival or competitor but Evil Incarnate. This was why so many on the Right were willing to tell lies about the Soviet Union and communism. Even if they peddled in lies and half-truths, such were apparently justified because the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire. Its defeat was so necessary that even lies that served against communism were preferable to truth that suggested the USSR wasn't all bad(thereby weakening the righteousness of anti-communist moral furor; besides, moralism or moral-high is addictive like drugs; people love to 'vape' on that stuff).

The central fact of PC is that it is on war-footing as Jonathan Haidt pointed out.

It's like Sonny Corleone laments that Tom is not a wartime consiglieri. Tom is 'business'-minded and believes that negotiation is still possible with the other side. He feels that what the Tataglias and Sollozzo pulled wasn't evil. Nasty yes and very ugly. But it was 'business' and all sides have done similar things. In contrast, Sonny(and later Michael in a more calculated way) believes it's a matter of us or them. Only war, not peace, can settle the differences. One side must win, the other side must lose. When Michael takes power, he removes Tom from the role of consiglieri. Michael will only pretend to negotiate but really gear up for war and go for blitzkrieg take-out of the heads of the Five Families.

While NPCs or SJWs make the most noise, they are mere 'buttons' and 'buffers' of the ultimate power of the GLOB(that is dominated by Jewish Power). Jewish globalists see the world in terms 'We rule and they obey'. Goy autonomy is like a slave rebellion to Jewish Globalists who've achieved the summit of power. No other option is tolerable.
Of course, if Jewish globalists laid out the the terms of PC in such brazenly tribal and supremacist manner, no one would follow them. If anything, NPCs or SJWs will turn against Jewish Power as being nazi-like. So, Jews have masked what is essentially an us-versus-them tribal agenda with a good-versus-evil universal calling. Thus, most people are blind to the struggle between Jewish Hegemony and Goy Autonomy AND instead see the world in terms of Diversity & Inclusion versus 'Racism' & Nazism(which today means even Hungarians and Poles who want to be left alone) It used to be that Nazism represented the invasive force while anti-Nazis represented defensive resistance. Today, however, Europeans who resist the globalist bankers and third world hordes are the 'nazis', whereas the invasive forces -- Zionist-controlled US military or African mobs -- are the crusading angels against 'hate'. But then, we live in a world where a man pretending to be a woman is said to be 'properly gendering' himself whereas someone who sees him as still a man is 'misgendering' him.

War warps the mind. As the saying goes, "First casualty of war is truth." In some ways, the motto is a complaint, but it's also an admittance of the usefulness of 'necessary evil' in extreme times. After all, there are moments when lies are justified. If some thug is out to rob you and hurt your loved ones, does it make sense to offer up any truth that will advantage him? No, you'd be justified in telling any lie to survive, keep your wealth, and protect your family. In crime movies like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and HIGH AND LOW, lawmen use deception against the crooks who are seen as undeserving of fair play; they are criminals who violated the social contract after all.

The problem is such a mentality can outlast the 'war' context and come to poison politics by continuing to warp reality by appeals to wartime footing. (Since the context no longer exists, its facsimile is projected onto the world via the media and think-tanks that inform the political culture.) Sharper or more experienced minds saw how this played out in the aftermath of the Cold War. Finally, the world could breathe a sigh of relief and hope for better relations all around. But the Neocons, Anti-Communist nostalgists, and Warmongers had to cook up new cold wars(that even led to hot wars) by projecting Cold War mentality onto a host of other conflicts(actually of limited regional relevance). But then, this mentality could be sourced back to the aftermath of WWII, what with Jews and Interventionists invoking 'new nazis' and 'new hitlers' to justify their power move. (For a time, many Jews felt Joe McCarthy and the American Right were the 'new nazis', whereas hardline anti-communists argued that the Soviet Union was just as dangerous as Nazi Germany.) Iran has become the perennial 'New Nazi nation', and there is now a 'new cold war' with Russia because its opposition to 'gay marriage' is apparently neo-Stalinist.

In GOODFELLAS, Paulie tells Henry that he looked the other way on the drug-dealing because Henry was in a tight situation and had to do whatever was necessary to survive while in prison. But now that Henry is a free man on the outside, he mustn't get involved with narcotics because the risks are too high. So, what was justifiable in one situation isn't in another. In the end, it's the drug trade that brings down not only Henry but all those fingered by him. Paulie was right.

The truth that must be recognized is that the predominant Jewish Power sees the world in terms of Us versus Them, or we Jewish Superiors who deserve to rule versus You Goyim Inferiors who exist to serve us. Because Jews are so vastly outnumbered by goyim, they feel they mustn't ever let up on their War on Goyim. But then, since Jews cannot win an openly Jews vs Goyim War, they use PC to re-frame it into Diversity(and Social Justice) versus Nazis(and White Supremacism), though in the Middle East and North Africa, the Narrative is re-framed into Forces-of-Liberal-Democratic-values(that includes white American soldiers in battle gear to mow down tons of Muslims and Arabs) against tyrants and oppressors(such as Assad and rulers of Iran). Use whites against non-whites in the Middle East in the name of spreading 'Western values' & 'liberty' AND use non-whites against whites in the West in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Both agendas serve Jewish Hegemony, but whites are fooled into believing they are spreading 'democracy', and non-whites are fooled into thinking they are upholding the magic of 'diversity' by fighting 'racism'(even though their immigration patterns of favoring white nations over their own would indicate that they believe whites are better than their own peoples and cultures; shouldn't that count as 'racist'?)

Anyway, because Jewish Power is in constant war-footing, they use their control of finance, media, academia, and government to push wartime mindset in journalism and think-tanks. Jews in media and academia know what the real game is(though some idealistic Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal rebel against this), and goyim in journalism schools are trained to be attack-dogs than tracking-dogs. So much of journalism is about mindless frenzy of hunting the enemy and tearing it from limb from limb than about tracking down the truth. Fact-hunting in today's journalism isn't about tracking down the truth as the highest good but about mauling any 'inconvenient fact' into shreds to send a message that certain views simply cannot be allowed to inhabit the media-sphere and academisphere. In recent years, certain exiled or banned facts made their way back through internet platforms, but the Jewish ethno-monopoly is now working to hunt them down to extinction as well.

Because Jewish Power sees everything in terms of Us(who deserve to win and rule) versus Them(who only exist to serve us) AND because NPCs or SJWs(usually goyim who've come under Jewish influence in media and academia) see everything in terms of war between Resistance and the Nazis, they favor the lie over the truth IF the lie favors their agenda. They will favor facts and truth when such are apolitical, neutral, or advantages their side, BUT when given the choice between the lie that favors the agenda and the fact that validates the Enemy, they will choose the lie every time because their mentality is totally in war-footing mode. To Jewish Power, Trump(even in his lame cucked-out state) represents the awakening of white consciousness for autonomy from Jewish hegemony; and to NPCs or SJWs(brainwashed by Jewish-controlled media and academia), Trump represents 'racist' and 'white supremacist'. The mentality of your average goy NPC in media or academia came to light in, of all places, a vape shop. Look at this virtue-vaper who won't sell products to a Trump-supporter.

But the American Right shares something in common with NPC or SJW-types. Because there's been so much emphasis on God and guns in US conservatism -- and mindless flag-waving for the military -- , too many American Conservatives have been as easy to dupe and manipulate as the NPC-types. If NPC's can be made to see 'nazis', 'racists', and 'white supremacists' everywhere, the guns-and-God American Conservatives could be counted onto support any new hate-fest or even war against whatever is deemed the New Evil Empire. Looking back, too many on the American Right were duped into over-zealous anti-communism and support of insane wars and sanctions-policies since the end of the Cold War that only served Zionist-globalist and military-industrial interests. It's good to see that Tucker Carlson and even Ann Coulter have come to see the stupidity of such mindset. (As for certain elements of the 'far right', their wartime mentality against Jews is so strong that they can't see anything admirable about Jews and can't see evil in something obviously insane like Nazi Imperialism. Warped by War Path.)

Ideally, people should favor the facts over falsehoods(and truth over lies), and I think all people, regardless of political ideology, agree to this. But, most people, again regardless of ideology, believe that there are extreme situations or conditions when winning matters more than anything because losing means the failure to survive or the triumph of evil.

Survival is less a moral issue than a life-force issue. All organisms want to live, 'good' or 'bad'. Even in movies about criminals and outlaws as 'heroes', we find ourselves rooting for those trying to survive and make it out alive(as in escape-from-prison movies). There is an instinctive animal-part of us that makes us identify with anyone or anything that wants to live for another day. Even Jews watching DAS BOOT(German film about a submarine crew in WWII) can understand the all-too-human-animal desperation of men struggling to survive.

When it comes to the elemental matter of survival, truth-or-false is secondary to live-or-die. It's like Winston Smith is willing to betray even the woman he loves to be spared from the ravenous rats in George Orwell's 1984. There is a part of Jewishness that forever feels like cornered rats trying to survive, ranging from desperate Jews hiding from Nazis during WWII to globalist overlords trying to maintain their tribal-imperial domination over all goyim. In the past, Jews tried to survive as Jews; today, Jews try to 'survive' as Jewish Supremacists as they've become addicted to Total Power.

The OTHER reason that makes people favor Falsehood over Facts has to do with Sacro-Mentality. We see this in both religion and PC(which is a form of quasi-religious secular cult that views esp. Jews, Negros, and Homos as the Holy Three). When something is held to be sacred, its infinite worth cannot be contested with facts and/or reason.
It's like faith is beyond facts. You can lay out all the logical argument and hard evidence against the existence of God or miracles, but those with Faith will continue to believe even against all factual evidence. To true-believers, God or Jesus(or Muhammad) is so sacred and holy, so above everything, that they cannot be bothered with 'petty' facts or details that go against Faith. Facts wilt in the face of Faith. PC is a neo-faith with Jews, Negroes, and homos as sacred cows. So, facts don't matter to the idolaters of PC. It's like no amount of scientific facts can persuade religious people to lose or compromise their Faith. This is even true of relatively higher IQ people. Nick Fuentes is a smart educated guy but, like Patrick Buchanan(another smart person)who has always rejected evolution(as an affront to Christian theology), is willing to play dumb about scientific facts -- such as Earth revolving around the Sun than vice versa -- to prop up some archaic Christian Orthodoxy about the cosmos. As for PC pod-people, too many have undergone 'communion' with Diversity to harbor any skepticism about it. 'Diversity is our strength' or DIOS is one of their core catechisms. So, even when increasing Diversity is destroying the fabric of their societies, they stick with the Faith than face up to Facts.
In summary, animal instinct for survival(of basic self or dominant position) and spiritual inspiration for sanctity both militate against facts that come together into the truth. Jewish mania for survival(as hegemonic supremacists) and NPC/SJW fanaticism for self-righteous sanctimony are the core animating factors at the nuclei of PC.

When Jews purport to support 'refugees', they are really pushing for De-population of Arabs in the Middle East. Jews want more war in Syria... so that Jews could grab territory in there ... or to drive Palestinians in West Bank into Syria.

Jews want to empty parts of the Middle East so that Zionists can create Greater Israel. And Jews want to fill up the West with more non-whites in order to play divide-and-rule among goyim. When Jews say 'Diversity is OUR strength', they don't mean All of Us will benefit. 'Our' just means Jewish.

If Jews really cared about refugees, they should first acknowledge that the main problem(or crime) is people being forced to become refugees in the first place. So, real humanitarians should try to prevent wars that turn people into refugees. But notice how Jews NEVER address that issue. If anything, Jews have been pushing for endless Neocon warmongering policies that turned the Middle East and North Africa upside down. Jews also worked with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to foment a refugee crisis there as well.
So, Jews see nothing wrong with using their power to spread wars and/or economic destruction(via sanctions especially) that turn millions into refugees. Turning goyim into refugees is okay, indeed wonderful. Jewish Moralism on the Refugee Question is never about preventing people from becoming refugees but about how the West(but never Israel) must welcome the refugees. And we must never ever mention the fact that those refugees are fleeing from war zones created by Zio-globalist policies carried out by the US-Israel-Saudi Axis. (Saudis are turncoat Arabs who will harm other Muslims to maintain their artificially vaunted place in the Middle East.) Libya and Syria would be stable nations if not for the fact that US-Saudis-and-Israel(and Turkey in a spectacular act of miscalculation) conspired to aid and arm Jihadi lunatics. Of course, this entailed violation of border security in Libya and Syria. So much for the wonders of Open Borders. In Syria, it led to 10,000s of terrorists flowing freely from all sides. I guess the West must take in millions of refugees while Syria must take in tons of Jihadis. The wonders of Open Borders(or Broken Borders).

Jews say the West must accept refugees because them poor folks are just like Jewish 'refugees' in the 20th century. But if we go by the earlier history, the sober lesson should be 'taking in refugees is a bad idea'. Palestine took in Jewish refugees, and guess what happened? Jews took over the territory and now treat Palestinians like subhuman cattle in West Bank.
US took in Jewish refugees, but Jews took over America and are now gloating about how they're gonna replace the white population. Boy, aren't Jews so grateful to whites for having been welcomed into America.
Even Jewish 'refugees' from the Soviet Union in the 1980s turned out to be vile scum like Max Boot and Julia Ioffe who hates people saying 'Merry Christmas' to her. (Btw, if Jews hate Christmas so much, how about a law that forbids Jews from profiting from Christmas? Jews rake in so much cash from the Christmas season but bitch about how much they hate Christians and the Christian holiday.)

Jews always mention evil Hitler and how the world didn't do enough to save Jews from Nazis. But when millions were dying in genocides in Ukraine, China, Cambodia, or Rwanda, how many Jews volunteered to save innocent lives from mass slaughter or famine? (Has anyone met a Jew who thinks the Jewish race should nobly sacrifice their own to save members of another kind? Jews would laugh at such a notion. When millions of Ukrainians were dying in the Great Famine, how many Jews
urged fellow Jews to sacrifice their own lives to save those poor Ukrainian goyim? NONE. Also, whenever Jews invoke altruism, it is never at their own expense but at the expense of others. Jews tribalize the sanctimony but universalize the costs. Jews make a big show of caring about refugees, but the burden is pushed onto goyim. Jews use Western Power to invade & destroy the Middle East and then encourage more immigration/migration of non-white 'refugees' to use against white goy 'racist-nazi-xenophobes' in the West.)

Also, even though the Nazis were clearly evil, maybe the fact that there was yet another outbreak of anti-Jewish violence had SOMETHING to do with Jewish perfidy? Given Jewish behavior in the US and Russia since the end of the Cold War -- Jews surely knew how to rape the entire economy of Russia in the 90s -- , is it a stretch to assume that Jews in the past acted like they do in our time? While there's no doubt that the Nazis over-reacted, they meted out violence not to a saintly innocent people but a vile, hateful, murderous, and contemptuous people.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Implications of White Flight from Black Fight — Nature of Globalist Elitism and its War on the National Covenant — Upper-Class Consciousness among the Globo-Homo Elite Class — National Unity vs Global Diversity

White Flight After the Greater Migration:

"The Great Migration of 6 or 7 million African-Americans from the South to Northern cities in the 1940s-1970s contributed heavily to white flight to the suburbs. With sub-Saharan Africa forecast to quadruple in population to 4 billion over the rest of the century, first world countries need to be thinking seriously about what would be the impact of a Greater Migration of blacks out of Africa of one or two orders of magnitude greater than the Great Migration that caused so much havoc in 20th Century urban America."

White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.

Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)

In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.

But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.

Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.

A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.

We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).

Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.

Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.

Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.

Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.

Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)

Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.

Monday, December 24, 2018

Some Thoughts on "An Open Letter to the ‘Alt-Right’ and Others" by Ron Unz -- Charlottesville, Jewish Power, Richard Spencer, and Deplatforming

For the Ron Unz article: "An Open Letter to the ‘Alt-Right’ and Others", click the link:

Some on the Alt Right do raise alarm about Brown Violence, but 'Latino' crime isn't their main worry. They believe that, even if all browns are good people, the demographic transformation will profoundly alter the national character of America. Also, even if most browns are rather nice and make okay neighbors, they supply votes for the globalist elites who, ensconced in power, wage more wars abroad, promote cultural decadence as the New Normal, and push economic policies that concentrate more power at the top. The effect of immigration in CA has been a one-party dictatorship with the biggest socio-economic inequalities and PC lunacy, especially when it comes to issues of 'gender'.

After all, Alt Right doesn't believe Asians are criminals or terrorists but opposes Asian immigration too because, again, Too Many Asians alter the national character of America. Also, given that Asians tend to be servile to the Existing Power and obsessed with status, they are likely to become the managerial class for globalism, like Francis Fukuyama, Amy Chua, Nikki Haley, John Yoo, Sarah Jeong, etc. The result will be Jewish globalists lording over Asian upper-middle class as commissars over the white masses.

Trump's alarmist rhetoric about Mexican criminals and Muslim terrorists actually appealed more to Normie Conservatives. But then, Trump didn't start this rhetoric. Hollywood has been making lots of movies featuring Muslims as terrorists. The SICARIO sequel begins with Muslims crossing the US-Mexican border and blowing up US shopping malls. In the 90s, the movie villains were usually South African 'racists' or Muslim Terrorists. And who can forget RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that is downright genocidal in its message toward Muslims over there. KILL THEM ALL. Even before 9/11, many white working class kids grew up watching Hollywood movies with evil Muslim villains. So, when they entered the military, they were more than happy to go over there and kill them 'savages'.
While some in the Alt Right like to pass around the Muslim Terrorist and Mexican Gang meme, this is much more the feature of Alt Light and God-and-Country Conservatism. The anti-Muslim stuff is actually a way to gain sympathy from Jews(and homos), i.e. Jews and homos(and even feminists) should side with the Right because Liberals don't care about Muslims who want to wipe Israel off the map, enslave women, and throw homos from roofs. Alt Right cares far less about this line of argument because it cares far less about forging alliance with Jews, homos, and feminists. Alt Right's position on Israel is 'none of our business'. Some in the Alt Right cheer for Palestinians just to 'return the favor'. Also, Alt Right believes that Jewish power and influence in US and EU are so baleful that alliance is near-impossible. And Alt Right thinks feminism is terrible and rejects the homo agenda. It is the Alt Light and 'cuck' Right that go for the "Liberals are the true anti-Semites, Homophobes, and misogynists because they don't condemn Muslims" polemic.

Also, even though Alt Rightists are aware of Muslim Terrorism(esp in Europe), most trace the problem between the West and Muslim World to Western invasion of Middle East & North AFrica(that angered and radicalized Muslims) and immigration policy controlled by Jews and globalists(that let in millions of Muslims into the West). So, while the Alt Light and Normie Cons tend to blame Muslims, Alt Right is more likely to blame the People behind the Invade/Invite Strategy that turned the Middle East and North Africa upside down and then 'welcomed' all the refugees and other riff-raff(pretending to be 'refugees') into the West. While Alt Right has its share of bozos and morons, its overall understanding of foreign policy tends to be more sophisticated than that of the Alt Light and Normie Conservatives who are stuck in 'Liberals are the real racist' mentality. Alt Right's view of foreign affairs is probably closer to that of the Saker or Paul Craig Roberts even though neither is part of Alt Right.

In Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, we do see some Alt Right influence on their views of foreign policy... though, to be sure, one could trace their change of views to Paleo-Conservatism as well(of Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried) or Libertarianism(of Ron Paul). Both Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter waved the red, white, and blue during the Iraq War. Coulter's warmongering fever was so out-of-control and hyperbolic -- turn them 'muzzies' into Christians -- that National Review let her go. It was the hope during the Bush II years that, if the American 'Right' does something spectacular in the Middle East and remakes the whole region into an oasis in which Israel will especially be safe, the American Jewish power will move over to the GOP. Never let a crisis go to waste, and 9/11 offered an opportunity for GOP Wasps(fast losing power) to make a move to recruit Jewish Power by doing the bidding of Neocons as middlemen power-brokers between GOP wasps and the larger Jewish Community. The idea seemed so tantalizing that even NYT and Liberal Zionist Media came to support the Iraq War based on WMD hoax. (The massive protests against the war probably had more to do with the trepidation that it might indeed be a great success and lend credibility to the GOP-Neocon Right.) But the whole thing blew up spectacularly, and Bush II ended his presidency as one of the worst presidents ever. The economy also collapsed. Still, the fact is the GOP and people like Coulter had tried so very hard to do whatever to win over the Jews. But most Jews went for Obama. Worse, feeling that the GOP as the white party was dead forever, Jewish Liberals(and even Neocons) began to show their true face and spew anti-white vitriol not unlike Tim Wise. The OBAMA CONQUEST Newsweek cover said it all. While 'cuck'-servatives remained timid and servile, figures like Ann Coulter just about had enough. Even though she has always known that most Jews were on the 'left', she had no idea how much the great majority of the Jewish community really hated, hated, and hated the white goy majority. The anti-white rhetoric became ever more strident and boastful with sadistic glee at the prospect of White America's demise. Jews, who'd been demanding that whites respect Jewish identity and support Israel, were gloating not only about the fall of White America but, incredibly, even the Islamo-Africanization of Europe, the ancient homeland of Europeans.

Though neither Coulter or Carlson is Alt Right, their main concern was demography, not crime or terrorism. Sure, because it's deemed 'racist' to defend the preservation of White America, people like Coulter and Carlson will tend to mention issues pertaining to social/economic costs of immigration, but their main worry is End of White America. They can't and won't say it(though Coulter flirts with outright racial consciousness), but it is where their views intersect with the Alt Right. Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson say it has nothing to do with color of the skin and only with values -- the problem is not the race of the newcomers but the values they bring with them -- , but Alt Right disagrees. Alt Right and Jared Taylor(not quite Alt Right) have an emotional or near-spiritual attachment to White/Western Civilization. Alt Right tends to see Jews as the Other, whereas Taylor wishes for Jews to be partners, but for them, Western Civilization isn't merely about moral values and monetary value but about genetics and aesthetics: Western culture is an expression of European blood in both spirit and form. So, Western music is an expression of the white soul, and Western art depict the unique beauty of the white race. It's not just about what's in the head but what's in the heart, face, body. This is why Faith Goldy opposes Asian immigration in Canada. Most Asians are not criminals. Many study and work hard and contribute to the Canadian economy. And because most Asians(especially from East Asia) tend to be bland and servile, they readily soak up the latest PC fashions in 'Western Values'. They assimilate all-too-well to current fads and fashions of the West. But, they are still racially different, and too many of them will permanently alter the European character of Canada.

Now, some white people don't care about such things. They either see all peoples as just individuals/economic units OR believe that whites are so uniquely guilty of historical 'sins' that their nations deserved to be taken over by non-whites. (As for white elites, they figure their vaunted positions are secure and that newcomers will mainly serve them. Their main identity is 'elite' or 'privilege', not white. And, their idea of fighting 'white privilege' is not surrendering their own privilege but beating up on un-privileged whites as 'racist' for not being properly welcoming of mass-immigration to replace the white population and loyally serve the 'progressive' white elites.) Anyway, while one can argue with Alt Right ideas, one cannot argue with Alt Right passions. Ideas exist in the mind, passion exists in the heart. It's like reason is a mind-thing, whereas religion is a faith-thing. Even though Alt Right is essentially a secular movement, it has 'faith' and soulful passion for European identity. It's the same with Zionists, even secular ones. They can argue and debate about ideas and values, but the notion of Israel as a Jewish state is 'sacred' to them, a historical covenant. It's a matter of the heart. It is non-negotiable. It is like a mother to them. Not for debate, not for sale, not for compromise. Israel MUST be a Jewish State to them.

Now, in some ways, the debacle at Charlottesville wasn't really unique. There was extreme violence in Berkeley(or was it UCLA?) when Milo was scheduled to speak. The violence was comparable to what happened in Charlottesville. And it took heavy police presence to allow Ben Shapiro -- an ardent Zionist enemy of Alt Right -- to speak at one of his college events. Even Charles Murray was attacked by a college mob.
If Charlottesville got more attention, it was because the Alt Right guys were bolder and cockier. Gentlemen like Charles Murray seemed confused and flustered like Mr. MaGoo. Milo's speech was scrapped. Ann Coulter also canceled her speech soon thereafter. And many college professors self-censor themselves out of fear of the NPC mob. Steven Salaita was fired from U of I for expressing rage about Israel's attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein's career at Depaul was derailed by Dershowitz and gang. And recently, a Palestinian-American female teacher was fired because she wouldn't sign an anti-BDS pledge. (It almost seems as though what Jews did to Palestinians was dress rehearsal for what they are doing to white people. But white cucks go out of their way to suck up to Jewish Supremacist Power. White Nakba is happening all over, but these white cucks suck up to Jewish Power that does to whites in Texas what Israel does to Palestinians in the West Bank. The cucks must really be well-paid, or maybe they are so dumb blind as born-again Evangelicals that they regard Jews as holy Chosenites no matter how many times Jews shit on them. They are like dogs that serve the master after being kicked over and over. Consider how the Jewish media raked John McCain over the coals in 2008, but he spent his remaining years doing nothing but serving Jews, Jews, Jews.)

Now, a worthless idiot like George Hawley, the so-called scholar of the Alt Right, will say all sorts of nasty things about 'white supremacism' and 'racism' but will not say ANYTHING about Jewish power and its abuses or how homo supremacist activists have destroyed lives and careers all across America. So, what happened to Alt Right guys at Charlottesville was part of a pattern, except that the hammer came down much harder because Alt Right didn't back down as it burst on the scene. So, the only way to deal with the movement was to smash it like God destroyed the Tower of Babel. Especially because Populist Trump was seen as the bold unapologetic candidate who rode to victory on the Alt Right magic carpet, the Power decided to use Charlottesville as an opportunity to wipe the Alt Right off the political map. So, the Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech were denied by the powers-that-be in full collusion with the corrupt media.

That said, the Unite the Right was a moral disaster as well. Spencer, filled with vanity as edge-lord 007 enfant-terrible hero, allied with some really loathsome characters. Many of us didn't know then, but we know now. Chris Cantwell the Cantaloupe-Head is a deranged 14/88 clown. And Fat Matt Heimbach turned out to be not only a neo-nazi idiot but a perfect Jerry-Springer-show guest: "I fuc*ed my father-in-law's wife." The fact that Spencer allied with such idiots meant his brand of Alt Right, which got the most media attention, was scraping the bottom of the barrel than patiently building a new political and intellectual base. Ramzpaul saw the writing on the wall earlier at Hail-Gate(or Heil-Gate) when Spencer foolishly emboldened some of his minions to give the Hitler Salute. It's likely that Spencer didn't foresee the reaction, but it was an embarrassing moment for not only people like Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor but for Donald Trump and Steven Bannon. Being edgy is one thing, Nazi crap is another. The whole point of the Alt Right was to find a new path away from both Neoconservatism and KKK craziness, but Spencer the edge-lord, eager for bad boy notoriety, just couldn't help himself. Not long after 'Heil-Gate', he was speaking seriously with Andrew Anglin. And it now seems his group was operating more in the manner of ANIMAL HOUSE or STRIPES than TAPS. (The misguided boys in TAPS fail, but they did put up a serious resistance.)

That said, despite the unsavory character of some of the scheduled speakers at the Unite the Right rally, the fact is the fiasco was almost entirely due to the Jewish mayor and black police chief who shut down the event and pushed the UTR attendees into a gang of Antifa goons who were let alone to tear the city apart. So, if Spencer and others had really been smart, they would have done everything to shape the narrative. With cheap video technology, they could have made their own documentary on the subject. But all that opportunity was lost. As the story of Jesus shows, even defeat can be spun into victory. It all depends on who does the storytelling. Kubrick was half-wrong about SCHINDLER'S LIST when he said Holocaust was about failure whereas Spielberg's movie is about success. True, the Holocaust was a tragic failure for Jews who were killed, but the Holocaust Narrative was a success that 'sacralized' Jewish victims while burdening Germans(and other Northern European racial cousins of Germans) with the Burden of Guilt forever. In the end, the story of the event matters more than the event itself.
But for the most part, Spencer and others did little to shape the post-Charlottesville narrative. ONLY NOW, Spencer the fool is trying to run with the Charlottesville-as-moral-victory narrative. After Charlottesville, most Alt Right people were not deplatformed. It was Daily Stormer and few other sites. Spencer and his cohorts had many months to come up with their own narrative and hammer it home over and over. But they dropped the ball and focused on other matters.

This is all too bad because if the Alt Right had remained more in the mode of Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor, it could have done so much more. After all, Ramzpaul(who has one foot in edgy politics and the other in Normie culture) and Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson came to more-or-less same conclusion on the JQ though Coulter and Carlson can't spell it out. Coulter feels betrayed not only by the Jewish community but by Neocons whom she had loyally served for so many yrs. She feels abused, like a sex slave. She feels that her kind did everything to wave the Israeli flag, vilify the enemies of Israel, and love Jews. Like John McCain, she growled at whatever Jews hated. But in recent yrs, she has stopped barking at Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, and etc.
Despite all that Coulter & co. had done over the years for Zionism and Jewish Prestige, what did Jewish Power finally give to America? Obama, Homomania, and endless push for Diversity to replace whites. Worse, it wasn't just New York Times and CNN but Neocons and National Review as well. Even Neo-'conservatives' blasted Trump and called for white replacement. Coulter came to see Neocons as weasels and came to see most of GOP as spineless 'paycheck conservatives' who only do the bidding of oligarchs: Paul Ryan and etc. And that is why she was so invested in Trump, the only candidate who denounced foreign wars, the need for walls, and immigration reform. And he was the only GOP candidate who openly supported European nationalists and bemoaned Merkel's decision to open the gates.

So, there was a chance of greater convergence between some in the Conservatism Inc. and the Alt Right. But Spencer, too full of himself, decided to play politics like Mission Impossible. If he really wanted to be bold, he should have written a book on political philosophy than hold quasi-Nazi tiki-torch marches and make common cause with a psychopath like Cantwell and moron like Heimbach. As for guys like Mike Enoch, they have value as 'shitlords' targeting PC shibboleths on podcasts; they have no value as leaders. It's like Howard Stern and Steve Dahl can make it as shockjocks but can't be taken seriously as anything else. But somehow, Enoch took leadership position. Nazi larping can be ironic in a podcast, not in the streets when crowds gather in earnest to make a political statement. Give a nazi salute in that context, and it's a political expression, not a joke or prank.

As for people in Silicon Valley or other super-rich cities, they may not live in Gated Communities, but it's safe to say that much of the area is like an Extensive Gated Community or Gated City(or Golden Gated City). The houses are not gated like rich homes in South Africa or Venezuela, but there are social and class barriers demarcating the super rich from the very rich from the rich from the middle and the rest. It's like there is no gate around Hyde Park community in Chicago, but it is among the safest because most professors and students are white or Asian and also because there is super-heavy police presence to suppress black crime. Also, home prices make it impossible for most blacks to live within the community.
Still, because there are no actual walls or gates to protect the rich from the hordes, it's true enough that many affluent people may feel that all-is-well in America. Since they are 'good' and 'intelligent' people who've made it, everyone else who didn't make it must be lazy or stupid. And yet, there is a contradiction in their attitude because, while they dismiss the problems of the white working class and underclass as products of their own failing, they employ PC rhetoric to gush about all those poor immigrants who must be given a chance. But if white losers have no one to blame but themselves, then aren't non-white losers around the world also responsible for their own problems? Aren't the brown losers in Mexico and Guatemala merely the 'Latino' counterparts of white losers in the US? Apparently not according to elite PC attitudes. While white working class and middle class(continually sinking) that voted for Trump are reviled and ridiculed as 'populist losers', the endless hordes of browns who want to break into America are romanticized as 'dreamers'. Rich whites look down on whites who have less but idealize browns who have less. Instead of trying to boost the livelihoods of whites who have less, they focus on 'saving' the browns who want to start anew in America. Now, many rich whites didn't feel this way in the past, so maybe it has something to do with who controls the media/academia. Or, maybe it's just the sense among the rich that the poor immigrants are motivated to work harder(more compliant, less complaint) than working class whites who are now either too demanding or even downright degenerate. (The utter vulgarization of the white middle class and working class culture cheapened their moral capital. Tom Joad vs Jim Goad. One is a noble character, a champion of the meek and down-and-out, the other is a real-life punk personality who's wallowed in depravity all his life. When the image of the working-class becomes Jerry-Springered and Jim-Goaded, it loses moral capital. Jim Goad is an interesting writer and a courageous enemy against PC, but what is he FOR? Freedom to do what? To act and talk like utter shit. Not that the elite image has been so great either, what with their mindless worship of anything homo and tranny. And given the vulgarization of Jewish Culture -- Harvey Weinstein and Amy Schumer -- , American Image has become sick and demented from top to bottom. And one of the problems of Trump is that he makes an odd hero of the people given his rather sordid life story of never-ending self-indulgence.)

But then, there was also a contradiction within the Alt Right of Richard Spencer(who pretty much came to own the label after 'Heil-Gate'). He grabbed it as MY TOY! Given the class split between white elites and white middle class/working class, the most natural priority for the Alt Right would have been to reach out to whites who feel stranded without leadership. This would have called for patient grass-roots activism. But Spencer, a spoiled boy of privilege, has a knee-jerk revulsion of the hoi polloi. His idea of white power is all about white elitism. He is fixated on personal power. His supremacism is more of the Anglo-Imperialist brand of Rudyard Kipling -- White Man's Destiny and Burden -- than that of Nazis, but his head is so up in the clouds with dreams of power and glory that he is bored by real problems of the white masses who feel left out. They didn't read Nietzsche and don't understand the true philosophy of 007.
Indeed, Spencer's real problem with the current elites is not their hyper-elitism or super-privilege per se but that they are not his kind of people. Similarly, his problem with globalist neo-imperialism is not that it is globalist or imperialist but that it is controlled by Jews. His dream is not to end imperialism in favor of nationalism but to practice an even grander imperialism ruled by Anglos as the Faustian Race or something. Because Spencer's mindset and outlook are so narcissistic and stuck-up, he's been incapable of shaping the Alt Right into a movement that could actually mean something to masses of whites who feel like a body without a head. So, the burden of Alt Right grassroots fell to someone like Matt Heimbach the dummy whose idea of mass politics is swilling endless cases of beer, wearing a Nazi helmet, and bumbling around with his bubble-butt.

If the problem of Paleo-Conservatism was it was filled with too many old people, the problem of Alt Right has been its youth. Youth is full of energy and optimism, but it's also rash and impulsive. So, just like 60s Yippies and Black Panthers wasted their political capital on stupid shit, so did the members of the Alt Right. In a way, the failures of both the New Left and New Right were similar in kind. The New Left, liberated from the 'stalinism' of the Old Left, turned to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. It burned out. (The members of the Left that did gain power tended to be humorless in their long march through the institutions. But did they really win? By the time they were in positions of power, communism/socialism had failed, Democratic Party had gone over to the ultra-rich oligarchs, and military-industrial-complex was stronger than ever. So, all they could do was compromise with the ultra-capitalists and settle for Homomania. It was just 'subversive' enough for radical vanity and sufficiently useful to the Rich Class that had no more use for politics of class struggle.)
The new movement of the Alt Right, liberated from the organizational strictures of Conservatism Inc or grim humorlessness of White Nationalism 1.0, rushed into action like kids into summer break on the last day of school. It had energy but no organization, discipline, or hierarchy. Just like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bill Ayers, and rest of them were not exactly Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin, the leaders of the Alt Right weren't exactly the Founding Fathers or even the National Socialists(who were pathological but had remarkable strategic sense). And Spencer, a spoiled rich kid who was showered with affection and all-the-toys from childhood, had this magical Harry-Potter mentality that wishes would turn into reality with the power of his Faustian will.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Is Reincarnation a sound spiritual and moral idea? Some thoughts in relation to the debate between Kevin Michael Grace and Jennifer Scharf.

In the Counterculture 60s, many Westerns expressed interest in Eastern Mysticism. Hinduism was studied by artists, seekers, and scholars for insight and inspiration. Hare Krishna and Buddhism caught on with certain sectors of Western Society. Some came to favor reincarnation over the cosmology of the Bible. There is no doubt that Hinduism and Buddhism are great religions with rich culture and history. But could there be a problem with reincarnation and its implications? If so, what could they be?

For starters, the idea of Reincarnation negates the idea of 'you' or 'me'. According to Judaism or Christianity, there is a specific and unique 'you' or 'I'. Your soul is yours alone. It came into existence with your birth(or conception) and it either dies with your's passing or continues in afterlife. So, you are you, body and soul. There was no you before you(birth), and there will not be another you after you(death). And, other peoples have souls too, but it's their own souls, no one else's. Christianity says there is an afterlife where your soul can be with God, but again, it's your soul and your soul alone. Your soul can be with other souls in Heaven, but each soul is unique and belongs to one being. So, according to Christianity, there is a unique and particular 'you' or 'I' for each person.

If we follow the logic of reincarnation, there is no unique 'you' or 'I'. 'You' or 'I' would merely be a vessel through which an ever elusive and evanescent soul moves in and out of. 'You' or 'I' would merely be a shell. If a soul reincarnates from person to animal to person to animal to person to animal, then each person or animal is merely a 'clothing' for the soul. Each person or animal would possess no individuality or uniqueness. It would just be the latest in a series of vessels that holds the soul. It's like your clothes and shoes have no unique identities on their own. If you go through a hundred different pairs of shoes, those shoes only serve to support you. On their own, they are nothing. If souls reincarnate and pass from creature to creature, then each of us is merely 'clothing' or 'shoes' that holds the soul that moves in and out of endless series of ‘containers’. Suppose a soul passed from a frog to a turtle to an aardvark to a Hindu(named Babu) to a butterfly to a lion to a Mexican(named Pedro) to a catfish to a Negress(named Skankura) to a mold to a snake to a pigeon to a rat to a Frenchman(named Pierre) to you in the present form. And then, after you die, suppose the soul that had been in your body passes to a spider to a monkey to a Vietnamese(named Nguyen) to a mole-rat to an alligator to a bacterium to a squid to a penguin to a Catholic(named Kevin) to a hyena, and ad infinitum. Such process would indicate that the soul isn't any of those things but merely passes through them as temporary shells(like hermit crab goes from shell to shell). Each person or animal would merely be a ‘box’ that momentarily ‘houses’ the soul that keeps moving to other ‘boxes’. So, no human or animal would possess a soul that is unique unto himself/itself. They would merely be a series of puppets through which a 'soul-hand' passes through. Imagine a hand that goes from hand-puppet to hand-puppet. Each hand-puppet would have no agency or uniqueness. It would only seem to be 'alive' when the hand slips into it. But once the hand slips out(and enters another hand-puppet), it would be nothing, and another hand-puppet would be animated as the new vessel for the ever-migratory hand. It's like each of the Muppets on Sesame Street has no unique identity or soul. They are mere vessels animated by the creative soul of Frank Oz with his many voices.

In other words, if reincarnation is true, there would be no unique soul that belongs to Jennifer Scharf alone. Jennifer would merely be the latest sockpuppet through which the ever wandering soul happens to pass. Also, it'd be misconceived to say Jennifer was 'such-and-such person or animal in HER previous life'. All those earlier lives would have been mere sockpuppets through which the soul traveled. Given the fluid and ‘promiscuous’ wanderlust nature of this soul, it would be independent of all the life-forms it passes through. So, the soul in Jennifer would not be HER soul but an independent soul that merely sought temporary shelter in her body.

According to Christianity, each soul is unique to the person who possesses it. While the soul can transcend the body-after-death, it cannot transcend individual identity. So, according to Christian cosmology, Jennifer would believe that her soul came into existence with her birth, and after her body expires, her soul can reach Heaven and be with God. From her birth to the end of time, it would be her unique soul and hers alone.
However, if reincarnation is true, Jennifer would be soulless. What now seems to be her own soul actually isn’t hers. Indeed, this soul that is currently within her would exist even if Jennifer had never come into existence. This soul had been passing through countless series of animals and humans through the eons. If Jennifer didn’t exist, the soul would be in some other body, either of human or animal. It's like virus. A virus moves from organism to organism to organism, be it human or animal. Virus doesn't need Jennifer to exist. It can use other humans and animals as hosts/vessels. So, if reincarnation is true, it means each of us is not unique, special, or necessary because souls would exist independent of any of us. If Jennifer didn't exist, the soul that is now within her could be inside a mule, dog, cat, German, Palestinian, Jew, Russian, rat, rabbit, or Negro. Jennifer isn’t unique but ultimately superfluous. The soul that is within her isn’t hers but merely using her body as a host/vessel, and after she dies, it will pass onto another host. Indeed, this soul was in countless other animals and humans before it found residence inside Jennifer. So, according to reincarnation, each of us is not a temple or a home for the soul(that is bound to its address/identity) but merely a hostel or motel through which the soul passes like a salesman.

Personally, I'm a non-believer and always has been, but the idea of soul in Judaism and Christianity seems more reassuring because it says your soul is yours. It is unique to you and has a special relation to God and time. It's like your own toothbrush than one that goes from person to person to person. If I were a religious person, I would like to believe my soul is mine alone. Why would I want a hand-me-down soul that had been through rats, cats, pigs, pigeons, worms, ticks, Gypsies, drunken Irish, and Negroes?
According to Christianity, YOUR unique soul could enter Heaven and be with God. So, there is a special you, a unique you, after all, and your soul would always be bound to your identity. Your soul would be like a loyal dog that belongs to you alone than a stray dog that goes from place to place without being bound to anything to anyone.

Unlike Christians, Jews don't believe in Heaven, so their souls cannot ascend to the divine realm. Still, even though a Jewish individual’s unique soul fades with death, something of his essence is passed down through his ancestors, each of whom is born with a soul unique to him or her.

Finally, one might argue that the Jewish cosmology is actually closest to how the science of biology works. For starters, Jewish Covenant takes into account the roles of puds & poons and importance of blood. Jewish pud is blessed by God and meets with Jewish poon — the meat must meet — to create Jewish children through whom the Jewish blood/essence continues to flow through time. So, even though Jews cannot pass their individual souls down to future generations, they can pass down their blessed blood/essence through marriage-and-sex that births new Jewish bodies-and-souls. According to this Cosmology, every Jew has both soul and essence. Souls belong to unique individuals and cannot be transferred, but essence passes down through the generations. The passage of the essence from parents to children through sex allows for the creation of new individuals with souls. While souls belong to individuals and are un-transferable, the essence is transferred down the generations from parents to children through the act of sex(ideally within marriage). While this essence isn't the soul, it holds the secret key to creating new bodies with souls.

Now, when we study biology/science, the way of life seems closest to the Jewish Cosmology. Reincarnation says the soul, the core substance of being, can go from species to species. So, the soul within a monkey can move to a rat and then go to a human and then to a snake and so on. Biology doesn’t work like that. Now, one may argue that all of life are interconnected and recycled from the same matter, and this is true enough in a material sense, especially in what we eat and excrete. We eat animals, and their flesh are broken down into nutrients and absorbed into our bodies. And when we die, our bodies decay and become fertilizer for plants. So, there is a cycle of life where animal matter becomes human matter that becomes plant matter that becomes animal matter and so on. The proteins in your body are recycled matter from meat you’ve consumed. Even vegetarians consume animal matter because plants absorb nutrients from dead organisms. All true enough.

But the unique essence of a species — why it is the way it is and different from other species — is really in the DNA, and this is passed down through the generations WITHIN, NOT ACROSS, the species. So, if we were to trace back Jennifer's ancestry, we’d take into account the DNA she got from her mom and dad, and then, the DNA her mom and dad got from their moms and dads, and the DNA of their moms and dads ad infinitum. So, even though we materially absorb other life-forms — carrots, cows, pigs, chicken, and etc — through what we eat and digest, the reason why we are human is because of our DNA, and the human DNA code was passed down through the generations of human ancestors. Human DNA didn't leap from species to species. Granted, humans evolved from apes that evolved from monkeys and etc, but even there, we see a unique line of ancestry through which the DNA gradually progressed. Because Judaism emphasizes the importance of ancestry — the stuff of reproduction, blood, family, and remembrance — it is closest to how biology really works.

Furthermore, reincarnation would suggest that one’s special bond and intimate connection with one's parents and children are merely illusory. According to Judaism and Christianity, you are the product of your parents(who are the product of their parents and so on), and your children are the direct products of you and your spouse. Your body and soul emerged from the love of your parents, and your children’s bodies and souls emerged from the love of you and your spouse. So, family relations are real and deeply meaningful.
But if reincarnation is true, it means your core self doesn’t really owe its origin to your parents. Your soul didn't arise from the love between your mom and dad but merely slipped into your body after having been through a series of bodies, be they a monkey, rat, cat, dog, spider, Mexican, hyena, Negro, and etc.
So, your soul isn't really connected to your parents. While your parents created your body through sex, the very soul within you(which is never 'your soul' since it has traveled through countless bodies through the eons) came from elsewhere because reincarnation says souls are not uniquely linked to individuals or even species. The soul within you could have been inside a scorpion or barracuda in its earlier migration.
Therefore, you’d have no soul-connection to your parents or to your children. Only a physical connection. So, even though you, your parents, and your children are all members of a family, the soul within your father could have come from a spider, the soul within your mother could have come from a dead Hindu, the soul within you could have come from a dead cat, the soul within your husband could have come from a dead slug, and the soul within your child could have come from a dead Negro. Who needs a soul that left a dead Negro?

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Luke Ford vs JF Gariepy on World Jewry and World War II — Were Jews responsible for World War II?

On 33:22 of the video below, Luke Ford decries Jean-Francois Gariepy for subscribing to the view that World War II began, for all intents and purposes, in 1933 when the National Socialists came to power and were met with what was essentially a declaration of war on Germany by World Jewry. Halsey English then derides Gariepy for spewing nonsense and says ONLY ONE Jewish-owned newspaper ran a headline to that effect: "Judea Declares War on Germany".
So, which side is correct? Is Luke Ford right to stick with the conventional Narrative that WWII was the result of Adolf Hitler’s madness, or is there something to Gariepy’s position that Germany was forced into what became WWII by hostile Jewish machinations?

On the face of it, I would have to agree with Luke Ford that Gariepy is peddling a dangerous(and loathsome) canard. There would have been no World War II without Adolf Hitler and the fanaticism of those in his inner-circle. Even though Hitler amassed huge support among the German people, the great majority didn’t want war. If they cheered Hitler’s military successes, it was in the hope that the tensions would come to an end with the latest victory.

Granted, the general public has been fed a cartoonish version of history where crazy villain Hitler just decided to invade nations to fulfill his ambition of ‘conquering the world’. In truth, as Patrick Buchanan laid out in his tome UNNECESSARY WAR(much of which I don’t agree with), there was considerable rationality and pragmatism(under international pressure) in Hitler’s decisions. Often, he acted like a masterful statesmen in the game of political chess. Sometimes, his regime was acting like the elites of any other great power. Also, there were times when hard decisions were forced upon by Germany by changing circumstances, not least because Germany was situated between Western great powers and the great Eastern power, the USSR. So, it wasn’t like Hitler-as-evil-master-of-the-world was causing all the problems and forcing events on saintly nations. Still, World War II could have been easily avoided if it weren’t for Hitler’s rashness, megalomania, and deeply rooted pathology. Consider that the Great Powers had allowed Germany to retake the Rhineland. The union of Germany and Austria was tolerated, not least because the majority of Austrians enthusiastically welcomed the outcome. And given Sudetenland was over 80% German, it was allowed to merge with Germany as well. But then, Hitler moved onto Czech territory. Prior to that invasion, Hitler’s moves had been mainly one of Germans reuniting with Germans. Austrians, being Germanic, were happy to join with Germany. Therefore, prior to the invasion of the Czech nation, Germany held the moral high-ground, and that was part of the reason why the Great Powers didn’t protest too much. But the annexation of Czech nation into Greater Germany was different. It was clearly an act of Continental Imperialism, and the Great Powers felt obliged to do something. But, they let it go. So, if Hitler had stopped there and then, war could have been avoided. Or, if Hitler wanted to press further for more territory, it should have been for Danzig, a city next to East Prussia and with a population that was over 90% German. No matter what might have happened as the result of Hitler’s hypothetical move on Danzig, the Germans would have at least had a valid moral justification. After all, it would have been a case of Germany reclaiming a city that was rightfully theirs, one that was heavily populated with Germans(who wanted to be part of Germany) and steeped in German history and culture. But what did Hitler do? He made a diabolical pact with the USSR, and the two imperial powers invaded and divided Poland in half. It was then that the great powers, UK and France, declared war on Germany. Historians have marked this event as the beginning of World War II, but this only makes sense in retrospect. The fact is World War II didn’t begin with the invasion of Poland. For one thing, despite UK and France’s hostile declarations, they hardly did anything. There was a kind of ‘cold war’ between Germany and UK/France, that is until Germany decided to attack France. The German victory was so swift and sudden that it hardly expanded the scope of war. If anything, with France under German Occupation, there was greater stability in Western Europe. It was no longer France vs Germany but France with Germany. UK, the other great power held out, and the fighting continued back and forth between Britain and Germany, but as neither side had any real hope or will to defeat the other, it was limited warfare at best. Now, if Hitler had maintained the status quo at the stage in the game, there would have been no world conflict.
World War II really kicked off into high gear when Germany invaded its ally the Soviet Union. Had Hitler maintained peace with USSR, there would be no mention of World War II in today's textbooks. German annexation of half of Poland and victory over France would be remembered as a limited European war, not a World War. But in 1941, for whatever reason, Hitler decided to attack the USSR, and that is what set off a global conflict, not least because Japan, upon observing Germany’s spectacular early triumphs, was convinced of German victory and felt emboldened to strike at the US navy at Pearl Harbor in the same year. So, World War II really began with the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, and Hitler must take the blame. If Hitler didn’t want another World War, all he had to do was keep the peace with the USSR.
Now, there are some alt-historians who argue that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany and that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was to beat Russia to the punch, but unless there is a smoking gun to back up such claims, we are better off with the conventional narrative.

Anyway, given these facts, it was irresponsible of J.F. Gariepy to say that WWII really began in 1933 when World Jewry declared war on National Socialist Germany. The fact is it was within Hitler’s means to prevent tensions from reeling into a conflict on the global scale. He'd gambled in 1939 by moving into non-German territories, thereby incurring the wrath of UK and France. But he found a new ally in the USSR, and besides, Germany’s quick neutralization of France made it less likely for a burgeoning war. At the time, Germany had allies in Italy and Spain. And most Eastern European nations were ruled by right-wing regimes that were favorable to Germany. And Scandinavian nations sought neutrality and did business with Germany. (Germany did invade Norway but to preempt the planned British invasion.) On top of that, Germany was allied with the USSR. So, if Hitler wanted to avoid a cataclysmic war, all he had to do was run out the clock with the UK while maintaining an alliance with the USSR. But he did attack Russia, and it would be wrong to blame the Jews for Hitler’s craziest move. So, Luke Ford and Halsey English are right that one cannot blame Jews for WWII.

And yet, if we assume Gariepy was using hyperbole to make a point and modify his statement somewhat, there is truth to the claim that World Jewry did declare war on Germany in 1933 and that this had serious ramifications and repercussions unforeseen by Jews(and everyone else at the time). According to Halsey English, Gariepy's claim lacks merit because there was no nation called ‘Judea’. If anything, Jewish populations were dispersed around the world. As such, there was no single Jewish national entity to declare war on Germany. This is technically true, but a great power need not be national. It can be an imperial-network, and this was true of World Jewry. Indeed, historians have often failed to acknowledge the true extent of Jewish power because it wasn’t concentrated in one nation but spread out over cosmopolitan urban centers of various nations. Now, if all these various Jewish elites lacked Jewish consciousness or a sense of shared Jewish interests, it wouldn’t have mattered much. If that were the case, British Jews would have served only British interests, American Jews would only have served American interests, French Jews would only have served French interests, and so on. But in fact, despite differences in cultures and languages among World Jewry, there was a shared sense of interest among the Jewish elites(and Activist Jews) around the world. One thing for sure, during the Russian Civil War, Jewish-Americans(even capitalist ones) lent support to Jewish-Russian communists. Both American-Jews and Russian-Jews regarded Traditional Russia with the same kind of loathing. So, even though there was no single Jewish nation to declare war on Russia, a kind of worldwide Jewish Network did work in concert to aid the War on Traditional Russia. There was a kind of silent global Jewish declaration of war on the White Forces in Russia during the Civil War. Now, many Jewish communists didn’t see it as a war between Jews and Russians. They were ideological true believers(and they sometimes terrorized even religious Jews). But the fact that even non-communist Jews around the world lent support to communism in Russia had something to do with the perception that communism was good for Jews in Russia. So, even if there was no independent Jewish nation called Judea during World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II, we can still acknowledge that there was a Jewish Imperial Network, one that might be called the Empire of Judea.
Indeed, this is how empire works. British Empire was more than Great Britain. Its power was spread out and embedded in all its colonies. The power was not only in the national center but in the global network. And consider the Roman Empire. It initially spread out from Rome but continued even after Rome fell to the Barbarians. The surviving Eastern Roman Empire was centered in Constantinople and had a vast network from the Balkans to parts of North Africa. Thus, Roman Imperial Power had gained reach and influence beyond Rome and Italy itself. It took on a life of its own, thus surviving and expanding long after the destruction of Rome.
Jewish Power also kept expanding and spreading despite the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Despite the loss of the Holy Homeland, Jews spread out all throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. And over time, they gained mastery as middlemen and became influential advisers to kings and noblemen. Of course, unlike the British or Romans, the Jews were never the official Masters of the World. But their skills in money and business were such that they were able to gain tremendous influence in both the West and East. And even after periodic pogroms and expulsions, Jewish power and influence eventually spread out again because of the Jewish Network. So, if Jews lost out in place A, they might find support from Jews in place B, C, D, or E. Or if Jews were kicked out of B, C, D, and E, they might rebound on their feet with support from Jews in F, G, or H. Jewish Diaspora was both curse and blessing. On the downside, Jews were spread thin all over the world. But on the upside, if Jews got squashed in one part of the world, there were Jews in other parts of the world to lend a hand or offer sanctuary. Jewish eggs were never in a single basket. Also, because Jews were spread out across many regions, they became more informed of the larger world through networks and contacts. In World War II, if the US had decided to nuke all of Japan and kill all Japanese, that would have been pretty much the end of the Japanese race. But because Jews were spread out over the world, their power could rebound quickly even after a massive disaster like Shoah.

Now, not all Diaspora Peoples have collective identity or work in concert. There are people of Spanish descent all over the world. In Spain obviously but also all throughout Latin America. But how often have Hispanic peoples worked collectively as a Tribe? It seems most people of Latino descent don’t care about others of their kind in other nations. As Catholicism has been central to Spanish culture, most Latinos are likely to think more in terms of culture or values than of identity and blood. In contrast, Jewish identity is centered around the concept of the Covenant that says all Jews are uniquely bound by blood. In other words, Jewishness isn’t merely an idea or value-system but a matter of unity of blood and spirituality. Christians have to drink the universal blood of Christ to feel holy. In contrast, Jews feel holy just by having Jewish blood course through their veins. So, it makes sense to speak of World Jewry as a political power in its own right.

Now, that doesn’t mean that all Jews around the world feel a strong sense of Jewishness or care about other Jews 24/7. And surely, many Jews became attached to certain nations and ended up fighting other Jews in other nations. During WWI, French Jews could end up killing German Jews on the battlefield. And during the Cold War, many American Jews were loyal to USA while many Soviet Jews were loyal to Russia. Still, to the extent possible, Jews around the world have identified more with one another than with fellow goy nationals. So, even though Polish Jews learned Polish language and gained knowledge of many things Polish, they felt closer to Jews of other nations than to Polish Catholics. It’s fair to say that most Jewish Americans feel closer to Israeli Jews or Jews in France than with ‘white trash’ Deplorables in West Virginia, Mexican-Americans, and Muslim-Americans. Indeed, the more diverse the US becomes, there will be a weaker sense of common Americanism, and it’s possible that many groups will become more like Jews in identifying more with others of their kind in other nations than with fellow Americans of different races or ethnicity. It seems many Mexicans in California and Texas identify more with Mexicans in Mexico than with non-Mexican Americans. But if most goyim have weak identities — most non-white Jews in the US just became generic ‘white Americans’ — , Jews have maintained a powerful and unique sense of identity that has made them feel special as embodiment of human treasure(the 'Chosen') and human tragedy(the targeted). Jews admire themselves more than any other people do but also pity themselves more. And it is for this reason that we can’t discount the real power of World Jewry as a collective global power and presence. Especially because Jews have mastered world-wide communication and mediation, they became better connected with one another across many national borders than any other people. For one thing, because Jews were so heavily invested in currency and money-lending, they had to be ahead of the next guy(especially the goyim) in news and information. Without the edge, Jews could lose out to middlemen competitors such as Greeks or Armenians. Then, it shouldn’t surprise us that World Jewry had a collective agenda and coordinated strategies in events like the Russian Civil War. While most goy elites were hell-bent on nipping the Bolsheviks in the bud, World Jewry thought otherwise and did everything possible to lend aid to the Reds. Consider how Winston Churchill, early in his career, noticed the obvious Jewish role in the Russian Revolution and sounded the alarm about Jewish radicalism. One thing for sure, the Bolsheviks could have been defeated if all the great powers had aided the Whites. And for a time, various Great Powers sent troops into Russia to do just that. So, why did they soon give up and let the Reds win? Did it have something to do with Jewish influence in those nations? After all, Jews controlled banking around the world, and politicians could be bought(or blackmailed by Jews who obsessively collected data on everyone). Also, with Jewish control of a large sector of the media, both intellectual ideas and public opinion could be shaped and swayed by the Jewish agenda.
There is no question that World Jewry could work in coordination to target certain nations. Powerful Jews in banking, media, academia, and even the underworld had great pull among goy politicians(even ones who disliked Jews) because rich Jews spread the money around and could use the rumor mill of the media to defame those individuals deemed hostile to Jewish interests.

Now, Jewish Power in the period between World War I and World War II wasn’t what it is today, but Current Jewish Power seems like a fuller expression of eternalist Jewish Supremacist tendencies that had once been closeted. It's likely that Jews of earlier times felt much the same as Jews feel today, and the only real difference is that Jews back then were more careful not to ‘rock the boat’ lest the goyim get angry and ‘go Hitler’ on them.
After all, Germany was considered to be one of the less ‘antisemitic’ nations in Europe. For a long time, France and Russia(including Poland as part of the Russian Empire) took the cake as the most anti-Jewish nations. In contrast, many Jews in Germany felt more accepted and assimilated. Then, why did relatively tolerant Germans become the most virulently anti-Jewish people in Europe? To address that question, we need to ask what did Jews do during the Weimar years when so many Germans were suffering. Many Jews were pimps, gangsters, and weasels. It’s often been asked, "Why did a people as intelligent, educated, and cultured like the Germans turn to something like Nazism? To answer this, one must also ask, "How did a people as intelligent, cultured, and possessed of long moral tradition as the Jews come to murder so many people with radical communism in Russia and spread filth & degeneracy among the Germans during the Weimar years?" After all, even though it is true that National Socialism did become an evil ideology that committed unpardonable crimes, it wasn't as if millions of Germans decided to just go crazy one day for the hell of it. Rather, they were reacting to hard times and ugly Jewish behavior. It was an over-reaction to be sure — like the US nuking of Japan and the plan to nuke 10 more cities if Japan didn’t surrender — but an understandable reaction to horrible Jewish behavior, just like US violence against Japan was a reaction to Japanese madness and aggression.

The problem with our understanding of Jewish responsibility in world affairs is due to the very point raised by Halsey English: Because Jews didn’t have a literal nation of their own(at least prior to the creation of Israel), all Jewish actions got bundled together with the actions of goy-majority nations. So, even though Jews were the main peddlers of opium to the Chinese, it just got bundled together with British Imperialism. And even though Jews played a key role in the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of communism was seen as a ‘Russian’ thing. Now it’d be wrong to say Jews were the ONLY movers and shakers behind great historical events. British Imperialism would have existed without Jews, and there were plenty of non-Jewish radicals in Russia of various stripes. Also, even without Jews, socialism and anti-war politics would have been popular among Russians, most of whom were poor, backward, and tired of losing their sons to what seemed like a pointless unwinnable war(against Germany). Still, there is no doubt that Jewish bankers played a key role in financing much of Western Imperialism, for good or ill. And Jews were vastly over-represented among gangsters and underworld figures, something most people know little about because Hollywood has usually featured Italian hoods as gangsters. The book RED MAFIYA is a welcome corrective. (It took directors of Italian descent, especially Francis Ford Coppola with THE GODFATHER PART 2 and Sergio Leone with ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, to address the issue of Jewish gangsters.) Indeed, the fact that Jewish intellectuals, financiers, media people, and even gangsters all worked together to pressure the Great Powers(even the Soviet Union under Stalin) to support the Zionist Project was a tell-tale sign that Jews wielded immense influence around the world. Even when World Jewry couldn't wage war on certain nations/peoples on its own, they sometimes pulled the strings to make goy nations to do its bidding. Thus, the Jewish Hand was often gloved in Official Goydom. Unlike Jews today, Jews in the past didn’t have the dominant position in society, but they still had a lot of clout with goy rulers and elites, many of whom depended on Jewish money and connections in business. (And after WWII, what with the Holocaust gradually becoming the neo-religion of the West, Jews became like sacred objects in the Western Imagination, and Western Elites naively hoped that Jews would become oh-so-nice IF whites were to go out on a limb to hug Jews and weep. Jews didn’t reciprocate kindness with kindness but with contempt for soft-hearted and weak-willed goyim.) Therefore, even though Halsey English is correct to say there was no real nation called Judea to declare war on National Socialist Germany, there was nevertheless a worldwide Jewish network that constituted a Great Power in its own right. Indeed, this is the essential fact of globalism. Because Israel exists, many people(especially those on the far-right) tend to think Israel is the center of Jewish Power. Actually, it isn’t. Israel exerts great influence only because it is protected by World Jewry. After all, what would Israel be without US and EU support? And why do US and EU support Israel? Because Israel itself is all-powerful? No, it's because Jews in the US and EU have tremendous power. So, even if Israel were to vanish from this earth, Jewish power would still be immense because the Jewish globo-homo networks control so much of media, finance, and whore-politicians. While Jewish power from WWI to WWII wasn’t what it is today, it was still, pound for pound, the most powerful force back then as well. And because Jews had clout in many nations, it was difficult to defeat Jewish Power. Germans suppressed Jews in National Socialist Germany, but there were powerful Jews in France, UK, USSR, and the US. Germany conquered France, but there were Jews who had the ear of Winston Churchill who'd become dependent on Jewish money. And there were powerful Jews in the US. And even though Stalin purged many of the top Jewish Bolsheviks, the fact is there were lots of Jews in high places even during the Stalinist period. There were powerful Jews in capitalist nations and socialist nations. And prior to Italy’s alliance with Germany, 12% of Italian Fascists were Jews(even though Jews were just a tiny percentage of the Italian population; to be sure, most Jewish Italians of radical political bent were on the Left). So, Halsey English is technically right but essentially wrong about the nature of Jewish Power. This is why Jews today love globalism and hate nationalism(at least among goyim). Globalism means more power to the worldwide network and less power to goy nations to say NO to the George-Sorosian agenda. (Of course, Israel gets Passover exemption from condemnation of nationalism. Even as Jews denounce goy nationalism, they insist that all goy nations must support Jewish nationalism in Israel. To be sure, there are times when Jews will selectively support nationalism in goy nations, usually the case when Jews feel a need to pit one goy nation against another. So, Jews are okay with Ukrainian and Georgian nationalism against Russia. And Jews are okay with Polish nationalism as long as it’s directed against Russia. But Jews are not okay with Polish nationalism when it is directed against Third World invaders and Globo-Homo PC funded by Jews and executed by their cuck-collaborators.)

Now, returning to the topic of whether Jews started World War II, the answer is NO. World War II must be blamed on the megalomania of Hitler. And we must keep in mind that WWII really began with Germany’s invasion of the USSR. If not for that most unnecessary action, history books today would not be mentioning an event called 'World War II'. Jews didn’t force Germany to invade Russia. Hitler did that.
Of course, one could make a roundabout argument and say Hitler attacked Russia because Jewish influence in UK made it difficult for the British to make peace with Germany. This school of thought says Winston Churchill, essentially owned by Jewish financiers, resolutely refused to come to peaceful terms with Germany and carried on with a pointless war in which neither side could win. And because Hitler could not persuade the UK with diplomacy, he decided to attack and destroy the USSR to send a clear message to the UK that it is all over, with Germans as the undisputed masters of All of Europe, in which case UK has no choice but to come to the peace table. This school of thought says Hitler admired the Anglos, wanted peace with UK, and sought equal partnership with the British in world dominance. Therefore, it would have made good sense for the Brits to ally with Germany. After all, Nazi Germany had no designs on the British Empire, and there was no people Hitler admired as much as the British. So, why did the British refuse to make peace with Germany, esp when Germany had no designs on British Imperial possessions? Some would argue that it was Jewish influence. Too many British politicians were under Jewish pockets. (There was also the factor of haute British contempt for vulgar displays of power by Nazi Germany. The manner of power mattered as much to the British as the power itself. During the war, Jews did everything to flatter the British sense of dignity that ideally shouldn't tolerate something so lowly and crude as Hitler and Nazis. Of course, AFTER the war, British Jews did everything to subvert the whole notion of British dignity as snobby and phony. So, British snobbery was good when directed at Germans but bad when used against pushy and irreverent 'money-grubbing' Jews.) Nevertheless, Hitler still wanted peace and partnership with the British, and the ONLY card he had left was to destroy the USSR. As long as the USSR remained(even as uneasy ally of Germany), the British would have tried to turn Stalin against Hitler. But if Germany defeated the USSR, then it was all over. Germany would have dominated all of Europe, and UK would have had no choice but to cut a deal with Germany that only wanted friendship with the British. (Even though Germany was allied with Russia and at war with England, Hitler's ideal hope was to be allied with racially 'superior' Anglos against the 'Asiatic' Slavs, whom Hitler really despised. Nazi Germany was like a man married to a woman he wanted dead while at odds with a woman he really wants to woo and marry. Anglos were a fatal attraction for Hitler.) This school of thought, promoted mainly by John Lukacs, may have some validity, but it requires too much speculative psychology as to ‘what Hitler was REALLY thinking’, something we will never know. What is absolutely clear is that Hitler gambled everything when he attacked the USSR that was an ally at the time. It was a spectacularly reckless decision, a risky zero-sum game. Once the invasion happened, Germany could gain everything or lose everything. Hitler went for double-or-nothing, and he ended up with nothing. So, despite circumstances in which Jewish power may have played a part, Hitler must bear the blame because he did what he didn’t really have to do. He was undoubtedly under pressure from UK(and the US), but he was not forced to invade the USSR. He did that of his own volition, and that’s when WWII really began and spelled eventual doom for Germany.

Anyway, even though J.F. Gariepy is dead wrong to say Jews started WWII by declaring war on Germany in 1933, he does have a point if we use ‘World War II’ in a looser way. If he means that World War II was the result of larger circumstances surrounding Europe at the time, there is some truth to this. But if one uses this line of argument, one can say the seeds of WWII were planted long before 1933. One can say Jewish role in communism was a declaration of war on traditional Europe. One thing for sure, it was the fear of communism that drove so many bourgeois and conservative elements in many European nations to support right-wing, reactionary, or fascist movements as the lesser evil. Surely, all such people heard of communist atrocities and Jewish role in Bolshevism, not least because ‘antisemitism’ wasn’t taboo back then. And given what communists, Jewish or otherwise, did to Christianity in Russia, many Christians(especially the Catholics) became fiercely anti-Jewish as well as anti-communist. Many people associated communism with men like Leon Trotsky and Bela Kun. Also, many(majority in some cases) communist leaders and intellectuals in nations like Germany and Hungary were Jewish. And during the Weimar Period, there was a Jewish War of Perversion on German Society. Jews were the leading pimps, gangsters, pornographers, and underworld figures just like Russian Jews came to dominate gangsterism and ‘white slavery’ in the post-Soviet period. And then, there was the financial war during the Weimar period in which Jewish speculators with insider-knowledge rigged the system to rake in vast sums while so many ordinary Germans were on the verge of starvation. Jews will say this is all an ‘antisemitic canard’, but Jews did it again in Russia in the 90s, rigging and looting the entire economy to the point where a handful of Jewish oligarchs came to own 50% of Russian wealth. And we know what Jews did in the 2008 Wall Street meltdown. They got their whore-politicians, with puppet Obama at the helm, to bail out the ‘banksters’, the very people who'd been most responsible for the massive bubble. So, Jewish misbehavior tended to create a climate of distrust and hostility. If Jews hadn’t acted so radically ruthless in Russia and so greedily gross during Weimar Germany, a movement like National Socialism wouldn’t have come to power. While it’s wrong to blame EVERYTHING on Jews, Jews need to be accountable for their own actions. If not, goyim eventually scream 'Enough Is Enough' and seek out counter-radical solutions. If Jews don’t want goyim to be rabid and crazy, they themselves must stop being rabid and crazy. But Jewish Power insists on doing as it pleases while denouncing any reaction on the part of goyim that finally says NO MORE. None of this is to excuse Nazi craziness, and Hitler was a pathological nut. Some on the far-right seem to think ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ because Jews were so rotten. But as the saying goes, "two wrongs don’t make a right". Jewish rabidness was wrong but so was German virulence. Ironically, both Judeo-centrists and far-right goyim think alike. Judeo-centrists think, "because Nazis were so evil, Jews were so perfect and innocent." As far as Jews are concerned, the fact that Nazis were evil meant that they must have targeted the most innocent and wonderful people, the Jews. Far-right goyim of antisemitic bent think, "Because Jews were so evil and vicious, Hitler and National Socialism must have been totally good because they waged war on Jewish-Evil." But such is fallacious thinking. Just because A is evil and B is against A, it doesn’t naturally follow that B is good. There are many cases of evil vs evil(such as Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union in WWII). Much of Jewish power has been on the side of evil, and National Socialism eventually manifested itself as a form of German Evil. Just like gangsters fight other gangsters, evil can fight evil. And the forces that led to World War II were German Evil and Jewish Evil. Too many Jews acted crazily as communist, financial thieves, pimps, and gangsters. The excesses of the Weimar Period led many Germans to support National Socialism as a socio-political restoration of health and decency, but as events made clear sooner than later, Hitler and his key cohorts were pathological nuts themselves. The dog that mauled the rabid Jew was rabid itself. It’s like the spread of hyper-rabies to everyone in David Cronenberg’s RABID. Jews and Aryans can both be rabid, and when their rabities rub against each other, the whole world can be engulfed in flames.

The proper lesson from WWII should be all peoples should take care not to grow rabid, but Jews never got the messsage. Germans and Japanese got this message and renounced imperialism and war. The GERMAN QUESTION, long a worrisome problem for other nations, was finally resolved with Germany deciding to become a 'normal nation'. Defeated by all sides and burdened with shame & guilt, Germans had no choice but to reassess themselves and arrive at a more balanced existence.
Countless Germans and Japanese were killed in the conflict, and they learned their lesson. Millions of Germans and Japanese were victimized in World War II, but they also faced the fact that they’d victimized millions of other peoples. They paid a heavy price but also cost other nations dearly. It was a good lesson to learn.

Unfortunately, Jews never got the memo along those lines. By turning the Shoah into some kind of neo-religion, the Jewish Narrative is that of totally innocent, pure-as-snow, and wonderful Jews being attacked and killed by Nazis and other ‘anti-Semites’ for NO GOOD REASON. Jews overlook the fact that World Jewry constituted a great power in its own right. Even though Jews didn’t have a nation of their own, they had their claws sunk into several key nations that dominated much of the world back then. Jewish influence in US, communist Russia, UK, France, and etc. was considerable. And because Jews had close connections with some of the most powerful people in media, business, and politics, they could exert extensive influence. Also, there was a vast worldwide network of Jewish gangsters(who had close ties with Jews in the legitimate world). Indeed, even within Nazi Germany there was Jewish influence to persuade the regime to support Zionism. So, if Jews could exert some degree of pressure even on Nazi Germany, imagine the kind of pull they had in other nations. And much of Jewish financial meddling(then as now) was dirty and lowdown. When we take all of this into account, Jews weren’t just some innocent and hapless victims but ONE OF THE MAJOR PLAYERS in world power. Those who play with fire can get burned, and Jews got burned along with other peoples who also died in the 100,000s or millions: Germans, Japanese, Soviets, British, French, and Americans, all of whom were in the Game of Empire. (Indeed, the notion that the Empire of Japan attacked the US that only wanted peace is also hokum. While it’s true that most Americans were non-interventionist, FDR and Liberal elites were just itching for war and empire to pave the way for the American Century. Indeed, it was the US and UK that had been most instrumental in goading Japan early in the 20th century to join the Imperial Club as counterbalance to the Russian Empire and to suppress rising Chinese aspirations). Now, this doesn’t mean that all sides were equally to blame for WWII. Hitler and Nazi Germany were mostly to blame by far, and anyone who doubts this is a liar, fool, or retard. But it’s not like Germans decided to go utterly crazy in a sane world. Rather, Germans went crazy in a world filled with craziness, and Jewish Power was one of the craziest drivers of world madness, especially with communism in Russia and financial robbery & gangsterism in the West. If you torment a bear with a stick long enough, it might lose its temper and tear you limb from limb. Now, the bear was still wrong to overreact, but you wouldn’t be exactly innocent either.
But Jews seem to think they have some divine right to beat people with a stick... and even shove a ‘rainbow’ stick up people’s arse. Today’s Jews, so full of themselves as the Holy Holocaust people, seem to think whatever they do is wonderful and anyone who reacts badly is an ‘anti-Semite’. So, never mind that Jewish globalists economically looted Russia in the 90s. Just pretend that Jews did nothing wrong, and how dare the Russians support a man like Vladimir Putin who is New Hitler because he restored some resemblance of national sovereignty. (Unlike Hitler and Nazis, Putin’s Russia is friendly to Jews and protects them. It only went after the worst of the Jewish oligarchs, BUT Jews are still fuming and up-in-arms because they favor even total a**holes Jews over goyim victimized by a**hole Jews).

Anyway, there is no denying that there was indeed a coordinated worldwide Jewish agenda to harm National Socialist Germany as much as possible. And from the Jewish perspective, it would have made sense since Hitler’s Germany was indeed virulently anti-Jewish to the point of blaming Jews even for things they weren’t responsible. From the viewpoint of Jewish power, pride, and honor, it was the most responsible and sensible thing for Jews around the world to unite in their anti-German campaign. After all, World Capital did much the same against the USSR. While there were capitalists(especially Jewish) who were sympathetic to the Soviet project, most of Worldwide Capital sought to strangle communism in its cradle. From the capitalist perspective, this was a most rational objective since communism’s stated goal was to stamp out private property.
And of course, socialists and communists around the world formed Popular Fronts across many nations to build a worldwide bloc against capitalism and fascism. From the radical leftist perspective, capitalism was an evil form of exploitation that had to be stamped out to create heaven on earth for the Common Man. Therefore, all leftists around the world should coordinate their activism to subvert capitalism in every nation. Likewise, the perspective and policy of World Jewry were essentially rational and sensible on the basis of Jewish identity and interests. Given National Socialist Germany’s blatant antisemitism, why shouldn’t World Jewry have worked in concert to put forth a united front against Germany?

Now, one could argue that such efforts on the part of Jews further radicalized Nazi Germany and made it even more anti-Jewish. One might also argue that Germany felt cornered because of the Jewish-led campaigns, and this led to actions that were more out of exasperation than any diabolical plan to conquer the world. And there is a kernel of truth to this. If World Jewry had been less hostile and more accommodating to Germany-as-a-great-power, maybe Nazi Germany would have eased its policies on Jews. And maybe Germany would have been more willing to negotiate with other nations than go down the path of war. After all, ideological or racial enemies can be friends or allies on the basis of shared interests and compromise. Hitler had no love for the Asian race — indeed, one of his reasons for despising the Slavs was they were supposedly tainted with Asiatic blood — , but he formed an alliance with Japan. And Saudis and Israelis, despite despising one another, have formed an alliance against Iran. And the US and Red China came to see eye-to-eye on the Soviet Threat. So, maybe Jews should have been less hostile toward Nazi Germany and more diplomatic for the sake of pragmatism. After all, Germany was a great power(and getting stronger by the day), and as the Rolling Stones sang, "You Can’t Always Get What You Want." Besides, Jewish Power back then was considerably less than what it is today. Though Jews had access to key figures in many powerful nations, they still didn’t occupy the commanding heights that they do today. As such, even as they could pressure various nations to censure and condemn Germany, they had no means to making them attack and destroy Germany. Consider that when Leni Riefenstahl visited the US, she was welcomed by Walt Disney despite being snubbed by Hollywood moguls. And the powerful anti-war lobby in the US(heavily represented by German-Americans and many Wasps) was very effective in keeping the US out of conflagrations in Europe and Asia. It only took Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the US that roused enough Americans to support war.
Given all these factors, maybe World Jewry was rash in overestimating its power to affect world events. It had a lot of power but not enough to destroy Germany. So, its overt hostility only emboldened the Nazi resolve to hurt Jews.
But then, given Hitler’s character, it’s unlikely that a nicer approach on the part of Jews would have changed events much either. Hitler was the kind of psychopath who didn’t appreciate good will. He tended to see such as weakness or stupidity, and more often than not, he took advantage of the kindness of others. So, if Jews had taken a softer approach to Nazi Germany, Hitler would likely have wiped his feet on it like a doormat.
But then, that is also a problem with Jews. There is something about the Jewish personality and character that ill-appreciates goodwill and kindness of others. Because Jewish culture developed to intellectually and economically dominate, any sign of goodwill on the part of goyim is usually seen as a weakness to exploit. Consider Jewish behavior in the Anglosphere world. Notice Jews gained the greatest success in Anglo-made nations, but Jews never show any appreciation, no gratitude. Instead, they spew endless bile at Wasps and Anglo-ized whites as the Source of All Evil. Jews would not be ruling the world today if Anglos hadn’t allowed them to piggyback on the triumphs of the British and American Empires. Without the Anglo Horse for Jews to ride, where would Jews be? But what do Jews do to the Anglo Horse? They dig their spurs into the Anglo flesh and show utter contempt(and pleasure at Anglo agony). Indeed, given Jewish behavior in the US and post-Soviet Russia, one can’t help that the National Socialists were at least half-right. They clearly went too far in their Jew-Hatred, and their genocidal campaigns cannot be justified on any grounds, but it’s about time we asked this question: If Jews, with their great power, recently did so much to harm White America and Russia with weapons of cultural degradation and financial robbery, why would Jews during the inter-war period have acted all that differently? Granted, a people’s attitude and behavior can change over time, but it’s also been the case that various peoples tend to exhibit certain dominant traits and behaviors consistently over time. So, whether under monarchy, democracy, National Socialism, communism, or capitalism, German people have tended to be disciplined, thorough, and efficient. In contrast, Russians have been known to be lazy, slovenly, and crude regardless of the dominant ideology. And people have noticed similar attitudes and behaviors in Swedes in Sweden and Swedish-Americans in the US. If such is true of goyim, it could also be true of Jews. And given Jewish behavior in the US from the 60s to the 90s — rancorous, subversive, nasty, irreverent, arrogant, contemptuous, venomous, hateful, hostile, and self-righteous — and in Russia in the 90s(what with all the gangsterism and financial swindling done in concert with Harvard Jews as ‘advisers’), would it be such a stretch that the same kind of attitudes and behaviors were prevalent among Jews in the Weimar period? Based on historical evidence(though often suppressed by Jew-run academia and media), there seems to be ample proof of Jewish bad behavior in economics and culture in Germany of the time. While some Jews were on the far left aiming for violent revolution, others were steeped in the most subversive and degrading manifestations of urbanism and capitalism. Jews dominated gangsterism, white slavery, pornography, and the drug trade. Also, Jewish power was doing much to create dissension among the goy populations. We see this today as Jewish media have long promoted feminism to drive a wedge between white men and white women. Jewish-controlled feminism tells white women that they are oppressed by white men and should side with People of Color. Also, Slut Feminism drives a wedge between young girls and parents. It tells young girls that they are ‘empowered’ if they dress and act like sluts who go with Negroes. And we know Jewish Power has been most instrumental in pushing the sickness of Homomania.
Now, not all Jews are behind this, and many decent moral Jews are appalled by the madness, but the fact is the great majority of Jews are with the program. It’s like not all Germans were pro-Nazi, and many of them opposed Hitler’s madness, but they didn’t have to power to stop the wars and mass horrors. And there were anti-war Japanese who warned against militarism and imperial ambition, but they were in the minority and couldn’t stop the madness that led to destruction and defeat. Good decent Jews are in a similar strait. They want to stop the madness of crazy evil globo-homo Jews, but nearly all the elite Jewish power is globo-homo, and the great majority of Ordinary Jews support the crazy agenda. Granted, Jews are different from most groups. For example, only a small percentage of whites, blacks, and browns belong to the elites. Most goyim are just regular people. But given that 50% of Jews make $100,000 or more, a far larger percentage of Jews are in elite ranks. If, say, 5% of whites could be said to live in the upper-ranks of society, the figure is probably like 25%-30% for Jews.

Anyway, there is no doubt that Jews around the world, or World Jewry, have worked as a team against other groups. This doesn’t mean that all the powerful or consequential Jews were communicating 24/7 or hatching a plan in some dark room. Indeed, no such conscious collusion or conspiracy is necessary when so many people see eye-to-eye on things. On certain matters, even Jews who never met or know of one another’s existence could be doing the very things that culminate in actions in favor of Jewish interests. But this is true of any group. Most Muslims in the US never met one another and don’t know each other on the personal level, but on issues such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict or Muslim Immigration, a lot of Muslims all across the US will be saying and doing the very things that serve what they construe to be Muslim interests. So, even if a Muslim in Florida never met another Muslim in NY who never met another Muslim in Michigan, the kind of things they say and do will likely serve an interest that has special meaning and purpose for the Muslim Community. And this was also true of Anglosphere nations. Even though the US broke away from the British Motherland, and even though Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed separately from the US(and eventually grew independent from Britain), they tended to be closer to another than with other nations because of the Anglo-glue. And prior to the Jewish-takeover of the US, there was a certain sentimentality among many Americans who regarded Great Britain as the motherland. So, despite the bitterness of the American War of Independence, the shared blood and culture made UK and US closer to one another than, say, the US and Mexico even though Mexico is closer to the US than UK is. So, even without conspiracies or conscious coordination, peoples around the world with bonds of blood and culture tend to, wink-wink, understand each other better and get along together. Same might be said of the World Sinery(or World Chinese). Even though there were bitter disagreements over ideology and economic philosophy between Mainland communist China and capitalist Hong Kong, Taiwan, & Singapore(and Overseas minority Chinese in Southeast Asian nations), at the end of the day, when the historical dust settled, there remained a kind of mutual understanding among the Chinese communities all over the world. This doesn’t mean that World Sinery all gather together in some banquet hall in Beijing to hatch some plot to dominate all of humanity, but it still means that many Chinese in the mainland and around the world feel an innate sense of Chinese-ness and Chinese interests that motivate them to think, speak, and act in ways that culminate in what amounts to Globo-Sino-Interests.

Then, why would it be any different with Jews? While it’s true that there is a network of powerful Jews all around the world — with globalism, worldwide communication is easier than ever, and Jews have been more invested in communication and news than most other peoples — , much of Jewish Power derives from the fact that many Jews instinctively act in ways that serve Jewish interests. So, many of these Jews don’t have to meet with other Jews or even know them on a personal basis. What matters is that most of them, even on their own, act in ways that are most beneficial to Jewish interests. So, one could be a Jewish professor in some elite college without direct connections to those Jews in the Deep State. But as a Jew, he may feel that Diversity serves Jewish interests because it gives the ruling Jewish elites the opportunity to play divide-and-rule among the goyim. So, in his role as professor, he may publish articles or teach classes that push Multi-Culturalism. And if he persuades a bunch of readers and students, he will have done his part in the interests of World Jewry. Or one could be a Jewish financial operator. He may not be part of any cabal or know anyone in Pentagon or Harvard. But, he may still donate a good sum of money to a Democratic candidate who pushes the Homo Agenda because he is convinced that the ‘gay agenda’ is good for Jews by promoting minority-centrism(where the majority comes under pressure to defer to certain select minorities, and of course, most Jews surely know that the Homo Agenda has been essentially funded by Jewish money and promoted by Jewish-run media). Even without conspiracy or elaborate collaboration, the actions of many individual can constitute an ethnic agenda IF most of those individuals are ethnocentric and mindful to say and do things that they deem to be good for the group or tribe. And in a way, elections work just this way. When you vote, you do it alone, and you don’t know most people who voted like you did. But if you voted for someone/something that you deem to be good for your people and if others of your ethnicity made similar decisions in the voting booths, then the cumulative effect of all those individuals is an ethnic agenda. Then, why would it not make sense that Jews around the world act in Jewish interests, especially since Jews have historically been more ethnocentric than other groups(indeed managing to survive as a distinct people in exiled diaspora), more informed of world affairs, and highly ambitious as a people. Surely, an ethnocentric people will use their knowledge to serve their own interests. And an ambitious(and even arrogant) ethnic group will try to achieve great power and privilege for itself. If Jews were lazy, low-IQ, unambitious, and lacking in strong identity(rooted in deep culture, history, and spirituality), then perhaps most Jews would show little interest in anything except short-term personal gratification. But in fact, Jewish pride has been rooted in the Covenant of blood, spirituality, and history. Given that kind of collective egotism — "We are the Chosen People of the One and Only God" — , why would it be surprising that Jews around the world would have a powerful sense of who they are, where they came from, and where they must go to remain one of the great peoples of the world? No people are as ethnically conscious as the Jews are, but then, no people get as touchy when people notice this powerful sense of Jewish interests(often at the expense of other groups). The only reason why Jews survived as a people and culture for 1,000s of yrs, especially in exile, is because they had a strong Covenant-Consciousness. In contrast, a people such as the Japanese didn’t have to try hard at being Japanese since Japan was isolated and safe for most of its history. A Japanese was naturally Japanese just by living in Japan and doing Japanese things.
In contrast, Jews were surrounded by various other tribes and great powers always breathing down their necks. Even prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Jews were in a precarious condition as they neighbored so many other tribes and kingdoms. And over history, most of the Ancient Tribal identities have disappeared. Whatever happened to the Babylonians or Hittites? We don’t know. They just became some other people. Their identities weren’t strong enough. In contrast, Jews developed the most powerful identity via the Covenant and thereby outlasted many peoples who were many times more powerful than the Jews. This is a great feat of the Jewish people, but it has also made them arrogant and contemptuous of other peoples, the goyim, who lacked the Covenant. In the case of Christians, Jews came to hate them as the people who stole the God of the Jews. How dare the goy Christians, under the influence of renegade Jews who passed the fire of the Jews to non-Jews, pretend like they possess the New Covenant while blaming Jews for having killed the Son of God when, if anything, there would be no Jehovah to speak of if not for Jewish spiritual vision and sacred texts?
So, while there’s no denying that the Jews are a great people, the terms of this greatness also made Jews a very difficult and dangerous people to the goyim. While there are good Jews and bad Jews — just like there is good and bad among all peoples — , the demands of the Covenant push even good Jews to favor collective Jewish Interests above all other interests. This constant psycho-cultural pressure encourages even good Jews to side with bad Jews than side with good goyim against both bad goyim and bad Jews. So, even as Jews demand that good goyim reject bad goyim, the good Jews don’t carry out their end of the bargain of casting out bad Jews. But can good Jews remain good when they are so close to bad Jews? If good tolerates the bad, it turns bad also. And then, if good goyiim join forces with good-Jews-gone-bad(by sticking closely with bad Jews), don’t even good goyim turn bad? Even if good goyim reject bad goyim, if their main allies(or masters) are good-Jews-gone-bad, they too will only end up serving the bad.
This is why the world is so messed up. Jews say good goyim must say NO to bad ‘racist’ & ‘supremacist’ goyim and side with good Jews. But good Jews support bad Jews who practice ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’ in the Middle East. If good Jews stick with bad Jews, aren’t they also bad? It’s like cops who work with gangsters are also, de facto, gangsters by association and cooperation. If good Jews stick with bad Jews and if good goyim stick with good Jews who stick with bad Jews, the end result will be both good goyim and good Jews doing the bidding of bad Jews. Goodness fades, and all that is left is Jewish badness.
Now, we can argue as to what is really ‘good’ and what is really ‘bad’. We can argue globalism is the real evil, in which case nationalist Jews would be the good guys. Then, good nationalist Jews should condemn bad globalist Jews and work with good nationalist goyim against bad globalist goyim. But many staunch Zionists in the US, EU, and Israel who are all about nationalism for Jews will work closely with bad globalist Jews who are pushing for Open Borders in Europe and the West. During the ‘Refugee Crisis’, Israel(that refuses to take in any refugees) sent rescue delegations to Europe to welcome Arab ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ washing up on shores. So, good Jewish nationalists who support Israel as a Jewish state work with bad Jewish globalists to inundate the West with Muslim and African ‘refugees’. Again, if good works with bad, it too becomes bad. If ‘good’ Jewish nationalists act this way and refuse to condemn bad globalist Jews(and, if anything, work with them), what’s the point of good European nationalists working with ‘good’ nationalist Jews? If ‘good’ nationalist Jews are joined at the hip with bad globalist Jews, then any good European nationalist who is allied with ‘good’ Jewish nationalists will also be indirectly in service to bad Jewish globalists.

Anyway, the point is Jews, good or bad, tend to favor tribal power over universal principles EVEN as they demand that goyim reject ‘petty tribalism’ in favor of higher universal principles. But if Jews refuse to reject their own ‘petty tribalism’ and form a domineering alliance with goyim who have rejected their own tribalism and embraced universalism, the end-result will be a death knell for universal principles since goyim will have to support the tribalism of the Jews. Even though goyim will have forsaken their own identity, they will still be serving an identity because Jews will have clung to theirs.
This is the current moral crisis of Globalism. No people preach more about universal principles than Jews do, but then, no people insist so much on the importance of their own identity and power as well. Jews tell goyim to trust Jews because Jews are so wise, idealistic, compassionate, and caring of all humanity. And the Jewish advice to goyim is "Abandon your identity & pride and embrace all peoples as part of one ‘human race’." Goyim trust Jews and follow up on the advice. Deracinated and Diverse, goyim are to no longer see color. But then, what is the Jewish demand on goyim? It is "Admire us Jews, serve us Jews, worship us Jews, kill for us Jews, die for us Jews, hate whomever we hate, endorse whatever we endorse, and etc." In other words, Jews aim to erase the identities of goyim not to end all tribalisms but to make all post-tribalists serve the one and only remaining Tribe, the Jews. Jewish message to White Christians is not, "You give up your white/Christian identity, and we’ll give up our Jewish/Semitic identity." Rather, it’s "You give up your white/Christian identity and come serve our Jewish/Semitic identity." Whites are to abandon their 'petty tribalism' to aid Jewish 'petty tribalism' in beating up Palestinians and other perceived 'enemies of Israel', a notion as malleable and fluid as the idea of 'hate speech'(which usually means whatever Jews hate).
It’s like someone who says, "You take off your clothes while I keep mine on" or "You give up your money while I keep my own money... and take yours as well since you gave it up." This is down and dirty. So, yes, Jews are a great people, but it’s understandable why so many peoples have come to use the epithet ‘Dirty Jew’ because Jewish hustling, double-crossing, and backstabbing are truly venal and lowdown.

When we survey world events today, who can deny that World Jewry has worked together time and again to wage all sorts of wars, ranging from cold to hot? The main conflicts are not between Israel and its neighbors but between Jewish Globlalism and whatever stands in the way of total Jewish hegemony. Who can deny that World Jewry has pretty much declared war on Russia? This doesn’t mean Israel declared war on Russia. If anything, Israel and Russia have cordial relations as Jews often hedge their bets. But ever since Vladimir Putin rose to prominence and re-instituted some degree of national sovereignty & expelled the worst of the Jewish oligarchs, there has been a concerted effort among many powerful Jews around the world to isolate, defame, encircle, and strangle Russia. Jews should feel themselves to be lucky that Vladimir Putin isn’t someone like Adolf Hitler or Tony Montana. Indeed, Putin’s response to Jewish animus goes to show that Jewish hostility need not lead to a world war. Putin has remained sane & balanced and sought out closer ties with China and Iran against the power of US and EU controlled by Jews. Also, he has no imperialist ambition to conquer other nations. He even decided not to invade Georgia in 2008 despite Georgian provocations. So, just because World Jewry declares war on your nation doesn’t mean that your nation must engage in actions that lead to a world war. Jewish power is far greater now than in the 1930s, and Russia is feeling far more heat than Germany did from 1933. But notice that a world war has been avoided because Putin is a sane and cautious man. And Hitler could have played the game more soberly as well. The problem with Hitler was that, even as he resented Jewish pressures on Germany, his own ambitions were also on the dark side. He wasn’t just a German patriot trying to defend his fatherland from International Jews but a German imperialist whose grand ambition was as monstrous as that of the worst Jews. In contrast, Vladimir Putin has limited ambitions, which are mainly to safeguard Russia’s borders and revive a healthy traditionalist kind of nationalism. And one could say the same of the leaders of China and Iran, both of whom are far saner than rabid & virulent Jewish globalists and their pathetic craven goy cuck-collaborators.

Anyway, it is a fact that World Jewry orders hits on certain nations. In the case of Iraq, the Jewish Neocons, in collusion with Liberal Zionists and Israel, cooked up insane lies to manipulate the US, the lone superpower, into declaring war on Iraq and invading on false pretexts. So, yes, Jewish Power can be aggressive, imperialist, and pathologically destructive. It can be Nazi-like. But because Jews are now protected by American Power, the greatest in the world, they can get away with so much bad behavior.
In retrospect, American invasion of Iraq was a far greater crime than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan, driven to desperation, sought to neutralize the US navy in Hawaii to buy some time to grab more of Asia from Western Imperialists. Japan too was a brutal and imperialist power, but it was fighting for its life and position in Asia. In contrast, the US was not threatened by Hussein’s Iraq. Furthermore, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and, if anything, had done his part to suppress Jihadi terrorist elements in his country. So, what sound reason did the US have for invading Iraq? It was really to serve Israel’s interests in the region. Zionists wanted another modern Arab nation destroyed. Of course, even prior to the declaration of war and overt aggression by the US, there had been an economic war against Iraq that killed so many innocent women and children. The reasons given were about ‘human rights’, but this from a nation that aided Zionists in the Nakba progroms that wiped Palestinians off the map. Also, US had hardly cared about Hussein’s ‘human rights’ abuses in the 1980s when he was at war with Iran.
In the case of the Iraq Invasion, Jewish Power used the US to overtly declare war. But Jews have used the US to declare de facto Cold War on Iran even though Iran, unlike Israel, has no nukes and allows inspections of its nuclear facilities. Also, what nation has Iran invaded recently? None. It has been far more peaceful with its neighbors than Israel with its. Even the Iran-Iraq War was started by Iraq(with encouragement from the US). Under Obama, the Jewish-controlled US and EU mobilized NATO to bring down Gaddafi and turn Libya into a hell-hole. And why would the US have worked with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to funnel in Jihadis and weapons into Syria to blow up that country? Who was bound to benefit the most? Sure, Saudis and Turks had their own reasons, but why did the US get so closely involved? Do Saudis and Turks control US policy? No, Jews do. Jews made Obama mess up Syria because they thought a divided and tattered Syria would be good for Israel. And when all this mess led to massive migration-invasion into Europe by Muslims and Africans, World Jewry essentially declared demographic war on Europe. Soros and the Jewish-controlled World Media praised Cuckette Merkel as the moral leader of Europe for allowing the invasion and destroying her own country.
So, there are various ways by which Jews declare war on other peoples. It can be overt(as with Iraq or Libya) or covert(as with Syria and Ukraine). And if not for Jewish power, would US-Russia relations really be so bad? I mean, what group in the US has this toxic animus against Russia? Eskimo-Americans? Mexican-Americans? Chinese-Americans? Cuban-Americans? Irish-Americans? Now, Polish-Americans may have some bitter feelings about Russians, but Catholic Poles do not control US media, finance, academia, and Deep State. It’s really the Jews. Jews hate certain nations & peoples and recruit the most craven cuck-puppet goy shitheads like John Bolton, Hillary Clinton, Nikki Haley, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and etc. to do their bidding. Just like Vito Corleone said "It was Barzini all along" in THE GODFATHER, we must say the ‘new cold war’ is about "It’s been the Jews all along." So, in the wider sense of Jewish War on Goyim, Jean-Francois Gariepy is right. If Jewish Power today wages wars, overt or covert, on so many perceived enemies of the Jews, why wouldn’t Jewish Power in the 1930s have behaved in a similar manner? And just like Israel expects the US to fight its wars, Jewish Power has often used proxies to get its way. Jewish power uses goy nations as hit-men or bouncers against other goy nations. In the 1930s, World Jewry did everything possible to turn the elites of UK, France, US, and USSR against Germany. Hitler was aware of this and came to hate Jews even more. Still, given his own crazy imperial ambitions and pathological hatred, he wasn’t merely reacting to Jewish hostility but actively trampling on the rights and freedoms of other peoples and nations. While he had every right to be angry with Jews and make counter-moves against the strategy of World Jewry, he didn’t have to invade Czech nation, grab half of Poland, and finally invade the USSR, then an ally. Hitler wasn’t merely reacting to events made worse by others — as Putin is currently doing against the moves of US & EU under Jewish control — but pro-actively encroaching on other nations to fulfill his own grand dreams of empire. And that is what J. F. Gariepy has chosen to overlook. Gariepy is right to say World Jewry did pull every trick in the book to set the great powers against Germany, and that Hitler took this badly and grew even more anti-Jewish than he already was. But this alone would not have led to World War II IF Hitler hadn’t nursed crazy imperialist ambitions of his own. Too often, because the Jews acted so terribly, there’s been a tendency among far-right lunatics to whitewash whatever Hitler did as heroic and noble struggle against evil Jews. But then, equally, there has been a total whitewashing of so much Jewish wickedness in world affairs because Nazi Germany acted so abominably and killed millions of Jews. Of course, the latter outlook is far more prevalent in our world that is so very much controlled by Powerful Jews with near-monopoly-stranglehold on key institutions and industries. Also, because Jews own the Narrative of their Holy Victim-hood that has become the ‘spiritual’ benchmark of Western Morality since the end of WWII, they wield influence even over industries and institutions that they don’t directly own or control. Because ‘antisemitism’ is such a cardinal sin in our Jewish-controlled world, even the richest white goy will find his enterprise and reputation destroyed by accusations leveled by Jews or their cuck-attack-dogs. While disgusting Jewish moguls like Sheldon Adelson can funnel billions of dollars into Zionist causes and projects(that do untold harm to Palestinians, Arabs, and others) without political opprobrium or outrage, imagine what would happen to Bill Gates if news came out that he personally donated a mere $100 to Richard Spencer’s NPI. All the Jew-controlled media and their brainwashed cuck choir would howl for Bill Gates’ head and destruction of Microsoft, in which case Gates will either be destroyed or just barely salvage his reputation and company by profusely apologizing, sucking Jewish cock, and donating billions to Zionist causes and for building more Holocaust Museums.
Here we see the power of prophets over profits. People don’t live on bread alone. They want to feel righteous, and those who control the terms of righteousness control the hearts and minds of the elites and the masses.
This is most evident in the power of Homomania, which is surely one of the most interesting(as well as diabolical) social experiments of all time. Jewish Power decided to consecrate homosexuality into some kind of angelic holiness sparkling with ‘rainbow’ colors. Spread via media and academia, so many people came under the proselytization of ‘gay rights’ into Gay Rites. Homosexuality went from a mere deviant lifestyle to be tolerated into a human condition that is next-to-godliness. It became something to be righteous about, and of course, when people feel righteous about something, they grow intolerant and hateful toward anyone who won’t share in the ‘spiritual’ passion. It becomes a matter of "We are Born Again because we worship Holy Homo, whereas you are cursed with ‘homophobia’."
Now, what is Homomania but a Jewish Culture War on the world? It is a war on normality, biology, Christianity(and all great spiritual traditions), goy morality & decency, and majority power & dominance. It is a Culture War, Moral War, and Spiritual War in favor of Minority Supremacism of Jews and homos against non-Jews and Straights. The fact that so many people around the world fell for this globo-homo Jewish filth goes to show how much the world has been hollowed out by the spread of soul-eviscerating Pop Culture and mind-scraping PC, both of which are mainly controlled by Jews.

So yes, J.F. Gariepy is right about the way of World Jewry. It is a great power in its own right, and it will go to any lengths to wage wars, overt or covert, political-financial-cultural, against whatever and whomever they don’t like. We see this now in the tensions between US and Russia, Iran, & Syria. And who can deny that US has been at war against the pitiful Palestinians since the Nabka pogroms. No matter what the Zionists did to crush Palestinians, the US has been right there alongside Jewish power.
So, we need to be very much aware of Jewish power, its nature, and its agenda. But that still doesn’t mean that the hostility of World Jewry against National Socialist Germany beginning in 1933 made World War II inevitable. If Jewish nastiness necessarily leads to World Wars, then there would be a world war between the US & EU and Russia, Iran, and China. Granted, it’s possible that Jews are now so confident of their control of US and EU that they will use their cuck-proxies to instigate the first military strikes against Russia, China, and Iran, in which case we can truly blame the Jews for starting World War III. But that is, as yet, far from certain, not least because the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran, unlike Hitler, have played the game sanely and responsibly against the dangerous moves of the globo-homo Judeo-Nazis.
But in the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler played a crucial role in pushing events to the brink of World War and then pushing them all the way to total destruction. Hitler didn’t merely push back against Jewish power but pushed way beyond to realize his own insane dreams of a Nightmare Empire.