Even though Francis Fukuyama has become a butt of jokes and punching bag for many commentators, it is understandable why he arrived at such a thesis. And it should be noted what he meant by ‘history’. He didn’t mean history as most of us understand it: political back and forth, big events, triumphs and tragedies. He meant the grand struggle of ideas in the Hegelian sense. As such, a better title would have been The End of Ideology.
Ideology aside, the rise of modernity had vastly undermined the power of the church and traditions. The rise of mass politics meant there was no return to monarchy and aristocracy. What came to define the modern era was the conflict of ideologies, especially after the remnants of the Old Order were finally swept away in the West, especially in Kaiserian Germany and Tsarist Russia(and it would end in Japan as well following its defeat in World War II).
In the wake of the demise of old power structures, there was the contest of ideologies, the most spectacular being Fascism vs Communism, especially in the war between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Empire. With World War II destroying the various forms of fascism and severely wounding communism(with horrendous human cost), it was a golden opportunity for the Capitalist West to seize the moment, especially as its biggest behemoth, the United States, was untouched by war, had boundless natural resources, and a giant talent pool to draw from(not least emigres from the ruins of Europe). The US also benefited from the collapse of European Imperialism in the Third World. As the British, French, and others were about to recede from their overseas empires, matters were arranged so that the spoils would go to the US as the ‘benevolent’ hegemon over the new world order.
One wonders how history might have panned out if things had gone somewhat differently. Suppose Russia, like Italy and Turkey, had gone quasi-fascist after World War I. And suppose Germany followed in the fascist path soon after than following the prolonged Weimar Period that radicalized German politics to bitter extremes. Suppose history had come down to a contest between a fascist union of Russia and Germany against the West. Which side would have won the War of Ideas? Or, suppose war had been averted between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union in 1941 and suppose Germany continued to access Russian raw materials while Stalin, becoming more pragmatic, ditched hardcore communism in favor of mixed economics on the fascist model.
One thing for sure, communism lost the economic and material war with the West DESPITE the vast amounts of manpower and raw materials because its command structures went against the laws of efficiency; there was also the problem of incentives, or lack thereof. Because the Communist World lost in peacetime to the Capitalist West despite availability of manpower and materials, one could argue it lost the ‘ideological’ war, or History as Fukuyama defines it.
If two sides have equal amounts of manpower and materials and if the side utilizing capitalism decisively outperforms the side practicing communism, one could say the capitalist model emerged as victor. But such logic cannot be applied to ‘fascist’ German-Italy-Japan because they were vastly outmanned by the Allies that also had a tremendous resource advantage. (There was also the problem of historical lag, i.e. all three countries were later to industrialize. As such Japan and Italy were, at best, semi-industrial, while Germany, though fully industrialized, was absent of an empire and control of sea lanes that might have secured access to essential materials.)
Therefore, capitalism vs fascism or communism vs fascism in the 20th century is without the essential Control Group, or the ‘all things being equal’ factor. Of course, one could argue that fascism, being inherently rash, aggressive, impatient, warlike, and centered around a demagogic figure, was destined for reckless policies and self-ruination. But some may argue that the fascist powers were squeezed into desperate straits with little elbow space. (Besides, the problem wasn’t so much the arrogance and recklessness as the powers that the fascist regimes went up against. Whereas Anglo-British and Anglo-American Histories were also full of rashness and/or adventurism, the Anglos usually went up against third-rate powers. So, Anglos crushed them or, even upon failing in their objectives, remained untouched at home, i.e. the US withdrawals from Vietnam or Afghanistan weren’t followed by Third World juggernaut invading and wreaking vengeance on the US. In contrast, Germany and Japan got embroiled in wars with powers that could not only turn the tide but invade their homelands and decapitate the regimes. At any rate, one doesn’t need to be a fascist to get involved in rash unwinnable wars. Napoleon proved it, and so did the Confederacy. So did all the kings & noblemen and democratic parliaments in the buildup to World War I. And Chiang Kai-Shek’s decision to meet the Japanese challenge would be his doom, no less than for the militarist government in Japan upon taking on the US.)
Could the Liberal West have won History(as Fukuyama defines it) without the United States with its vast natural resources? Also, did American power really owe to Liberal Democracy? If so, why was the other big winner in the second half of the 19th century autocratic Germany? And why didn’t the spread of ‘liberal democracy’ translate into economic growth and military power in many parts of the world, including Southern and Eastern Europe?
As Fukuyama himself acknowledged, democracy and elections alone don’t make for a productive and/or functional modern society. There has to be effective harnessing of ability, rule of law, property rights, social trust & cohesion, sense of shared/common purpose, and the like. But then, does a society have to be ‘liberal’ or ‘democratic’ to encourage talent, enforce a system of laws, guarantee rights of property, and operate within a culture of trust? Pre-liberal Northern-Germanic societies and Singapore suggest otherwise. (It seems the ‘national character’ and cultural traits that pushed Northern Europe and its colonies to high achievement predated the institutionalization of Liberal Democracy, the success of which grew out of those features that had been developed under an hierarchical order of discipline, hard work, sense of duty, and honor, i.e. whatever individual initiative that came to thrive later via liberalization owed to the existence of an Order maintained by something more than ‘muh freedom’ and laws on paper. The secret of success was less freedom per se than freedom within and from an Order that held it all together. Though Order alone represses the necessary freedom that allows for innovation and experimentation, freedom needs to operate within a structure, much like the loose flesh that depends on the bones that hold the body together. Without the vertebrae, we are mere slugs. In this sense, all successful liberal democracies grew out of sub-fascist foundations. British, Germanics, and Japanese were especially disciplined, orderly, and hierarchical before loosening up in the modern era.)
Pre-democratic Modern Japan made great strides, which could also be said of post-communist China(though still under CCP rule). Of course, it could be argued, even though illiberal orders proved they could select and implement the best ideas of the liberal order, they are less likely to be the originators of new ideas and innovations. While various peoples have shown themselves capable of succeeding in the American Way, only an adventurous people such as the Europeans, Anglos in this case, possessed the foresight and fortitude to embark on a great journey and create something out of nothing. Followers can do as well as the leaders, but without leaders, they are no followers, whereas even without followers, leaders forge ahead. It’s the difference between the pathfinder and the path-user.
Thus, the liberal outlook certainly had advantages over the autocratic. It was
open to new possibilities and new worlds and, furthermore, more willing to tap into the talent pool of individuals. Indeed, the competition between the Spanish and the British, while demonstrating that a conservative power can also be adventurous, proved decisively that an order that encourages individual talent gains over one where the sovereign lays claim to everything and favors men based mainly on blood or loyalty.
But then, how many people got to(or were fit to) practice the rights of individualism in Britain? How truly liberal was the British Order? It’s worth noting the meanings of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are always contextual in time and place. So, even though Britain was more liberal than most of Europe, it remained conservative and communal(than individualist) in many respects, and the true power of Britain derived not only from liberalism or individualism but its concert with other values, habits, and tendencies. On its rise to power, British Society was a liberal hierarchy steeped in racial individualism. It was more open to innovation but also mindful of heritage and tradition.
And even though things loosened up in the newly found American Nation, most of its history and rise to greatness owed to a system of Racial Liberal Patriarchal Democracy. It was free relative to Europe, much of which was still under monarchical and aristocratic rule, but its politics was dominated by East Coast elites and Southern gentry, and the West came under the control of big ranchers and railroads. Individuals had more leeway and opportunities, but the relative freedom of opportunity(and unrestrained ‘greed’) led to oligarchs far richer than any king or nobleman in Europe.
Furthermore, freedom operated within a racial hierarchy, making the US a Race-ist Democracy for most of its history(and today, it is just another kind of Racial Democracy that, instead of favoring Anglos and whites, favors Jews and blacks, along with homos, meaning that the much-loathed white males must be trannies or take it up the ass to possess any innate decency).
The New Narrative argues that, yes, US History was far from perfect, but it has either overcome its ‘racist’ sins(the favored ‘conservative’ line) or trying so very hard to overcome them(the ‘liberal’ line), and that makes America an ‘exceptional’ country. It all sounds optimistic or hopeful, but despite the undeniably darker aspects of America’s Racial Democracy, didn’t it ever occur to such voices that America drew its strengths and advantages not only from ‘liberal constitutional’ principles but its racial consciousness and cultural prejudices? For example, would a truly White Racial Democracy have allowed blacks to turn Detroit(or Baltimore or any big city) into what it is today? Had the US remained a White Racial Democracy, would it be pathetically cucking before something like the George Floyd Riots of 2020? And with past cultural convictions(and prejudices, often moral in nature), would the US have allowed the degeneracy of globo-homo and other trashy expressions to fester, spread the rot, and define the meaning of ‘Western Values’?
Especially since the Sixties, American History(along with the Western Narrative) has been written to argue only one point: The founding principles were wonderful, BUT whites implemented them only incrementally(and we still have a long way to go); still, whatever good came out of the American Experiment owes entirely to the principles of universality and liberalism(and to NOTHING else); now, that the West is committed to fully realizing its principles, the future can only be better for all.
Such logic would have validity if indeed the only reason for Western/American success was liberalism, especially modern-day Liberalism, but what if the West’s success owed to other factors as well? In other words, even though liberalism was certainly essential to modern progress, its success owed to a balancing act with other forces, some of which were anti-liberal or immutable(at least by standards of our experience of time).
Have things become better overall with the so-called ‘emancipation’ of women? It’s one thing to allow more freedom for women, but what happens when so many men lose their jobs as a result? What happens to family formation and family culture? The real secret to Western Success was a balancing of liberal and conservative tendencies. Once the balance is cast aside in the delusion that all the successes owed to ‘liberal values’ and/or further liberalization(and what is meant by ‘conservative values’ in the US is just classical liberal values), then the only conclusion is all future success/progress is incumbent on expansion of liberalism and nothing else. It views history as a simple slide that goes from A to Z than a see-saw or swing of balancing forces. But then, is the so-called ‘Liberal Democratic Order’ really liberal or democratic or becoming more so… or less so?
Indeed, just exactly how liberal is a society where people are deathly afraid to discuss certain issues out of fear of being destroyed as modern-day witches, either fired by institutions/corporations or set upon by Antifa thugs who are given legal protection by the elites? For example, I’m sure plenty of people sense on some level that American ‘racism’ in the past did some good. Broadly defined, ‘racism’ can mean just about any racial hierarchy or system of prestige/privilege. Well, didn’t it do some good for Anglo-Americans to maintain their dominance over other white groups, the ethnics? Anglos had the working formula, and other groups gained much by emulating the Anglos as the rightful leaders and elites of the US. As for rubbing out the native Indians, no doubt tragic, but how could anything new be built on land where Red Savages ran around screaming with tomahawks? And even though anti-black prejudice was especially strong, it had the salutary effect of subduing the wild energies of the most savage and potentially destructive race on Earth, ones who even drove chimpanzees and gorillas crazy in the Dark Continent. Indeed, what has happened to many urban centers as the result of the emancipation or unleashing of savage black aggression? They became urban jungles.
Also, keep in mind that liberalism isn’t necessarily ‘anti-racist’. Capital ‘L’-Liberalism has come to mean a set of do-goody dogma, but true liberalism, as an open-minded inquiry into the nature of reality, can arrive at race-ist conclusions. The Abolitionists, for example, were driven by illiberal spiritualist view of the races that focused on Negro souls than on Negro bodies(that would kick whitey’ass, but then, the Negro soul also turned out to be different from the white soul in being more funky and wild-ass ‘twerking’ crazy; just like ‘bad’ means something different to blacks, so does ‘soul’, more a sensual than spiritual concept among the Negroes). It was the 19th century Progressives who were open-minded about reality and, based on available evidence, believed in racial differences and drew the rational conclusion that Western Civilization couldn’t survive the rise of out-of-control jungle-jivery on the part of blacks, which is why great women like Margaret Sanger came along and said something must be done about colored birth rates. Sadly today, ‘liberalism’ just means naive do-goody faith in Noble Negroes and Holy Homos, along with mouth-foaming vitriolic hatred for ‘racists’ and ‘homophobes’, which could be anyone at variance with the Current Year programming pushed by Jewish Power.
Oddly enough, the abating of ‘racism’ after World War II owed to the White Dominant factor in America’s Racial Democracy. Because whites were so powerful and confident, nonwhites(and ethnic whites) acted under the pressure to show that they could be just as good, capable, and worthy as white folks, especially the Anglo-American stock. It was one reason behind the illusion that all racial differences could be overcome. “Look, the Negroes are trying to be respectable and talking middle class values” — Gee, maybe most Negroes will aspire to be like the idealized Sidney Poitier movie characters. Without white ‘racism’, such pressures would have been absent, and blacks would have reverted to their jungle nature long ago.
It was once blacks gained total equality(and more) and burned with black pride that the full reversion to their true nature(no longer inhibited by ‘being a credit to their race’) began, and the results are gangsta rap music, George-Floyd-as-saint, and big ‘twerking’ black butt. With whiteness no longer as the generic civilizational standard, the nonwhites(and even whites into ‘white guilt’, ‘flight from white’ and/or jungle fever/faith) feel less compelled to strive toward the ‘universals’ as defined by the West, resulting in the racial and/or cultural reversions among various groups, most notably among blacks who, among human races, stand apart in their innate destructiveness(of civilizational norms).
The pressures of ‘racism’ or Racial Democracy motivated the ‘anti-racists’ to substantiate the claim that race is only skin-deep and that any group could be just as capable and civilizational as white folks. Paradoxically, to prove ‘racism’ wrong, the ‘anti-racists’ accepted the White or Western Standards as superior, albeit with the twist that ANY racial or ethnic group could aspire to and achieve the same results if given the chance. Today, when ‘whiteness’ and even Enlightenment Values are called into question or cursed out as mere variations of ‘racism’ or ‘white supremacism’, there’s hardly any pressure on nonwhites to conform to Western Standards of progress, which had been the yardstick of modern universalism; besides, what remains of ‘Western Values’ is essentially celebrating ‘kink’ with homos & trannies and ‘twerking’ to jungle fever. The argument went from, “Blacks can be just as punctual as whites and it’s ‘racist’ to say blacks have an innately different nature” to “Punctuality is a White/Western ‘racist’ idea and blacks have a ‘right’ to function according to their own natural clock of sheeeeeeiiiit and daaaaaaaang.” Jungle Time.
But then, whites deserve much of the blame as they themselves have degraded the meaning of Western Civilization to a handful of childish slogans or catch-phrases like ‘love is love’, ‘diversity is a strength’, ‘inclusion this, inclusion that’, and etc. Just about 50% of what passes for ‘Western Values’ today is mindless celebration of and reverence toward homos and trannies, with even pedos gaining backdoor entrance into the temple. Anyway, ‘anti-racism’ has, ironically enough, made racial differences all the more evident because nonwhites, especially blacks, are no longer pressured to live up to Western Civilizational modes. In the 1990s, many Westerners expressed disapproval, even bordering on disgust, at Lee Kwan Yew’s Singaporean argument that Asians have their own way of doing things, and therefore the East shouldn’t be expected to emulate the West in all things. But now, whenever blacks(goaded by Jews) reject some aspect of Westernism as ‘racist’ and insist on doing their own ‘thang’, weak whites(or ‘wheaklings’) just tremble in the knees, grovel at the Negro’s stinky feet and plead for the privilege of washing and kissing them.
Fukuyama, as a student and admirer of Samuel Huntington, has surely been well-aware of the cultural factor in civilizational achievement but, given the ‘gods’ of our age, dares not touch upon racial matters. All things being equal, why have some races been more adept at innovation while others have been more adept at applying complex ideas? Same could be said of sports. While athletics requires training and discipline — consider how even the mighty Mike Tyson-gone-lazy lost to Buster Douglas — , why are some races better with the same training and equipment?
Even if, theoretically speaking, all races could learn the civilizational formula and make considerable progress, who can deny there are group-genetic factors that account for variances in achievement? East Asian IQ and temperament were likely instrumental in catching up to Western Modernity, but then, emotional traits more suited for conformity and consensus had suppressed a pioneering spirit, a feature of the West that ignited flames from the sparks of individuality.
On the other hand, given that only a handful of individuals have any real talent or vision, the secret to Western Success was a combination of increased individuality for the bold and talented but hierarchy, discipline, and teamwork for the rest. This Anglo Model that welded individuality above and teamwork below was well-illustrated in WHITE SQUALL(directed by Ridley Scott). As George C. Scott in the role of Patton said, individualism isn’t what the military is about, even though Patton prided himself as a superior individual and leader deserving of greater leeway in the conduct of the war. Still, what distinguished the West from Germany-Italy-Japan(and from the Soviet Union in the Cold War) was the ideology of individual liberty of expression and choice, allowing for more defiance of authority and social norms, enabling the rise of consumer-driven youth culture in the post-war period.
At any rate, even though Fukuyama’s End of History thesis now seems hopelessly optimistic, it is understandable how he could have drawn such a conclusion(and won over enough adherents for the Idea to gain traction) given the circumstances of his youth. Fukuyama, born in 1952, came of age when the US was still led by an Anglo-American or WASP elite. He was born into what was essentially a Racial Democracy, and he surely heard stories of Japanese-Americans during World War II. America in theory was about liberty, equality, and opportunity regardless of creed and color, but its practice(and its general attitude among the dominant white majority) was very much at odds with its professed ideals(and that was perfectly fine with most White Americans of both parties). The Civil Rights Act passed when Fukuyama was twelve years old, and even with an America committed to racial equality and color-blind justice, the power well into the Reagan-Bush Era was very much with the WASP elites.
So, even though the End of History thesis was mainly premised on the triumph of Liberal Democracy over fascism(in World War II) and then over communism(in the Cold War), it was also about the battle between Racial Democracy vs Liberal Democracy within the West, especially the US.
Well into Fukuyama’s adult years, he lived in a Racial Democracy inching and then lurching toward Liberal Democracy. When he was born, the US was still clearly a white-centric country, as well as a very Christian one. Harry Truman integrated the US military, but he personally despised blacks(and nonwhite races), and Dixiecrats still wielded considerable power. American Immigration laws favored Europeans before the insane 1965 act. Even after the tumultuous landmark decade of the Sixties, many people assumed that white dominance would remain one way or another, i.e. more nonwhites would join the system but under the helm of continued white prestige and dominance.
Yet, throughout his lifetime, Fukuyama surely sensed seismic tremors just beneath the surface, not least because whites weren’t merely making a few concessions here and there to placate restless minorities but committing(or yielding) themselves to fundamental changes that would have profound implications for the future of America. Fukuyama witnessed the incredible change of America, which even to the time of his childhood had been clearly white-dominant and ‘racist’, to what seemed like the land of colorblind ideal where individuality, equality(of opportunity aka meritocracy for all), and liberty trumped all considerations of white power, culture, tradition, and/or interests.
It seemed the ideals of Liberal Democracy were in conflict not only with communist totalitarianism but the racial and cultural biases that had always undergirded American History. Given the Americanist triumph following World War II, the main themes of US could have gone two ways, racial or anti-racial(or maybe post-racial). After all, the war in the Pacific had largely been a race war, what with the US media characterizing the Japanese as rat-like slant-eyed buck-toothed vermin that should be wiped off the face of the planet. As Charles Lindbergh argued, the US hatred for the Japanese was hardly different from the German hostility toward Jews(and he didn’t mean this as criticism but support). And even though the Germans were white(and not as hated as the Japanese, though that changed in the post-war years with endless propaganda about the Holocaust, whereby ‘Aryan’ became one of the dirtiest terms), they too were depicted as somehow different from other whites, especially Anglos — Germanics were thick-skulled Teutons, perhaps part-Neanderthal.
So, the US triumph in World War II could have been racialized in favor of Anglo/White supremacy. But for whatever set of reasons, the opposite would be the case. Perhaps, it owed to the tensions between the US and UK in the postwar climate. Brits wanted to maintain their imperial dominance, but the US was eyeing to take over and had to appeal to the world with something more uplifting than Old World imperialism.
Then, even if the US did want to emphasize the element of race, it had to be ‘white’ than Anglo, especially as so various ethnic groups had been part of the war effort and were essential in the Cold War. Also, there was the matter of self-perception, the conceit of Americans that their views were more tolerant and egalitarian than those of the Old World. American Christian Missionaries in China, for example, had often expressed contempt for British racial attitudes toward the Chinamen; they liked to believe that they, as Americans, were somehow different. And when Winston Churchill, regarding FDR as a fellow member of Anglo brethren, spoke candidly on racial matters, he was met with disdain. I paraphrase, but Churchill was reported to have said something like, “Hey, Franklin, how about them niggers and wogs?” and was met with stone-cold silence.
Indeed, FDR and his progressive Anglo-American cohort had a soft spot for Josef Stalin because the Soviet Union was perceived to be against the racial bigotry of Old World Europe. This is all very curious since FDR was not above exploiting ‘Anti-Jap’ sentiments, but perhaps, he justified such prejudices on grounds that they would fuel American support for the war to destroy the racial-supremacist empires of Germany and Japan — use lesser-evil-racism against bigger-evil-racism — , and besides, the anti-Japanese propaganda was balanced by pro-Chinese propaganda, so it wasn’t necessarily anti-Asian but only anti-bad-Asian.
Another key element to the de-racialization of American politics was the Cold War where the US had to vie with the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds of the Third World. As it came down to the Capitalist West and Communist East competing for peoples of Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America, the Racial Democratic model wouldn’t have been so appealing. (One wonders how Western History might have panned out without the Soviet challenge in the Cold War. At least in foreign policy, the US became far more arrogant and nihilistic after the Cold War as the lone superpower.) Possibly of the greatest importance, the de-racialization(followed by re-racialization favoring Jews and blacks uber alles) owed to the rise of Jewish Power that used media control to conflate all forms of white ‘racism’ with the Holocaust and to the rise of blacks in sports and popular music, what with black musicians and the likes of Muhammad Ali becoming the face of America to much of the world.
One thing for sure, what had once seemed set in stone, the power of White Racial Democracy, was eroding fast in the post-war years and crumbled in the Sixties with anti-war protests, youth culture & consumerism, and social unrest, much of it related to race relations(mostly black). Even the women’s politics took on a different tone. If earlier feminism appreciated the West’s vanguard role in the rights of women and argued that white women deserved parity with white men in various areas, the new feminism instilled female minds with the notion that women constitute an identity independent of men and, furthermore, white women should regard themselves as the fellow-oppressed, along with the people-of-color, of the White Male-Dominated or Patriarchal System. So, with white patriarchy oppressing white women and white ‘racism’ oppressing nonwhites, and it was high time for both white women and nonwhites to unite in the struggle against White Men. Of course, Jews played a key role in reframing feminism thus.
Anyway, because Fukuyama witnessed a seeming fixture of American Politics, the White-WASP-dominated Racial Democracy, yielding to the rise of an apparently colorblind Liberal Democracy(that, incredibly enough, even changed America’s immigration and citizenship laws), he could be forgiven for believing that the power of Liberal Democracy was so powerful and persuasive that it not only defeated fascism and eclipsing communism but transforming the West itself from race-based National Democracies into fully Liberal Ones where what mattered most was individuality, liberty, meritocracy(aka equality of opportunity), and the like.
If the power of Liberal Democracy is so powerful, defeating all forms of totalitarianism and then upending the deep-rooted system of racial hierarchy even in Western Democracies, it must indeed be the right stuff to bring about the End of History, meaning the End of History of Ideas, or End of Ideology. Here was finally the ideology that was powerful enough, persuasive enough, and inspiring enough to sweep away all forms of iron-fisted tyranny abroad but also the velvet-gloved forms of inequality in the West itself. (And ironically, the appeal of liberal ideology was its anti-ideological or a-ideological character, i.e. instead of enforcing a narrow dogma on everyone, it allowed for differences in creed and politics, favoring a culture of tolerance where different groups got along at least on the level of individuals co-existing and competing on the basis of agreed-upon rules of equal opportunity and meritocracy. Liberalism favored talent and individuality over tenet and orthodoxy. Deng Xiaoping characterized the essence of liberal reforms in Red China when he said, what does it matter if the cat is white or black as long as it catches the mice? Under Mao, it had been Red over Expert.)
A man born into a white-dominated Racial Democracy observing its profound changes in half a lifetime into a full-blown Liberal Democracy(committed to equal justice for all) is likely to be in awe of this transformational power, especially if it happens in the mightiest and richest country on Earth. After World War II, White Americans were far and away the most prosperous and most powerful people on Earth, but they, of their own volition, chose to rid the system of elements of Racial Democracy and march toward new horizons of Liberal Democracy, whereupon the US Constitution went from a half-measure to a full-measure.
Fukuyama watched something huge happening during his lifetime, but he had a blind spot and failed to register what was REALLY going on. While the US did transition, at least for a time, from a White Racial Democracy to more-or-less a colorblind Liberal Democracy, it was a way station than the final destination, which was a New Racial Democracy where Jews would be dominant(along with their key allies Blacks and Homos). Because Fukuyama grew up in a WASP-dominated White-Christian Order, his scrutiny was focused on White Power and White Privilege. Of course, he knew about Jewish Power and black rage(and homo agitation as well), but he regarded them as part of the overall and multi-faceted ‘liberal’ challenge to white power and privilege.
Jews, blacks, homos, along with many non-white groups or non-Wasp ethnic whites, were clamoring for a fairer share of the pie that had always been dominated by WASPs throughout US history. Unlike hardcore anti-white voices, Fukuyama appreciated the Anglo-role in the creation and development of America but believed the US had failed to fully implement its founding ideals or core principles. When lions rule the jungle and other animals challenge the supremacy, one is likely to see the non-lions as levelers of jungle politics, not would-be champions once the reign of lions comes to an end.
But, there are two kinds of challengers, ones who challenge supremacy to end it once and for all AND those who challenge the existing supremacy to take over as the new supremacy. Jews(and blacks and homos) were likely to be dissatisfied with mere equality-for-all given their inner-natures and impulses, and this factor was the big blind spot that made Fukuyama fumble on the End of History thesis.
Now, it’s possible that had the US been absent of Jews and blacks, its history might have culminated more or less in something along Fukuyama’s big idea. But, it wasn’t going to happen with Jews and blacks(and homos weaponized by Jews) with their predilections for ethnocentrism egotism where they just got to be the center of attention-affection-adoration. Jewish Power was most decisive because of its zeal, depth, and reach.
Liberal Democracy means freedom, and freedom means good behavior but also protection from bad behavior. The mafia, once nearly crushed by Mussolini, made a comeback under US-enforced liberal democracy. Post-war ‘liberal democratic’ Japan came to be ruled by a merchant mafia. Hong Kong is mafia driven. Individualism under liberal democracy atomizes; therefore, those who organize gain more power, like with Organized Crime. And despite their penchant for individualism and egotism, Jews with their Covenant-mentality and reliance on world-wide networks have often organized. Thus, the very freedom afforded by liberal democracy enabled tribal Jews to gain ever more and more and more, doing away with even anti-monopoly protections. In 2020 they acted in concert, pulling all manner of gangster tricks across institutions and industries. The current Deep State takes orders from bosses who are appointed by whore politicians of Jewish overlords.
Liberal Democracy remains more-or-less ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ if most people(especially near power) tend to be even-tempered, fair-minded, moderate, mentally stable… which applied to most Japanese-Americans and Anglo-German-American types. But already, Italian-Americans proved how a minority group could cause a lot of trouble by favoring ethno-gangsterism above the law, as portrayed in GOODFELLAS by Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese. Irish were problematic too, what with their Machine Politics. But over time, Irish melded into generic White Americanism, and the Italian Community split into two groups: Those who stuck with organized crime were eventually snuffed out as the federal government, with the help of the courts, conceived more effective ways to put the bosses behind bars. As for the other Italian community, it sought higher education as a way out of clannish mentality and joined with the law enforcement to clamp down on the Bad Italians. In the based-on-true-events story laid out in PRINCE OF THE CITY, it is admirable that many on the side of the law were Italian-Americans. (Blacks were always going to be problematic but hardly seemed a threat to elite institutions as Affirmative Action came down to tokenism. At most, they were used as props and symbols by institutions and corporations to show that they are on the right side of History.) The Italian problem was thorny but could be overcome, not least with the input of reformed or redemptive Italian-Americans.
Jews were a different matter. Alone among the ethnic groups, they were smarter than the Anglos. They had the nastiness of Italians but with brains. Also, whereas Italians were often stupidly slaughtering one another, Jews were better adept at creating and expanding Jewish networks. Indeed, a Jewish communist, a Jewish capitalist, and a Jewish gangster got along better than two ‘goombas’.
Probably, the influence of Catholicism among Italians created a clearer sense of right vs wrong as a matter of principle and personal integrity. Even though Catholicism has always been corrupt(essentially a pedophile cult), it has also been a conveyer of Christian ideas of purification, redemption, atonement, and making peace with God(and with Jesus who loves all peoples). Then, it’s no wonder that the most striking contrast in PRINCE OF THE CITY is between the Italian-American Danny Ciello and the Jewish-American Gus Levy. Ciello is overcome with Catholicist guilt and seeks redemption, whereas Levy harbors no such feelings. To Levy, it’s just pussy-shit; everyone steals, everyone is corrupt, so why shouldn’t cops; and besides, despite his compromises, he’s also done sterling work as a cop; there’s no such thing as purity or perfection in this world, and it’s laughable that the corrupt government should be charging cops of corruption.
In Ciello’s Catholicist view, there is good and bad. Italian-Americans can choose to be on the side of angels or the side of devils. In Levy’s Jewishist view, everything is a mix of good and bad, not good vs bad, and what matters above all is the team you belong to. Sure, his police unit did some questionable things, but so do all units of government, and so, the game is about circling the wagons and not being fooled that others are the good guys with the moral high-ground.
Ciello’s Catholicist worldview is also evident in the works of Martin Scorsese where the ‘hero’, like Charlie(Harvey Keitel) in MEAN STREETS, is torn between gangster-tribalism and some semblance of sanctity, and furthermore, torn between official Catholicism(with all its compromises & betrayals) and true Christianity where one’s soul must struggle in the streets to find the way to Christ. Such a sense of self-struggle is hardly found in the personal films of Jewish writer-directors who may deal with matters of neurosis(anxiety and doubt) but hardly with the inner moral struggle. When Jews tell morality tales, it’s usually about goyim having to come to terms with THEIR historical ‘sins’, mostly in regard to Jews and blacks. It’s almost never about Jews having to face the same questions. One of the few exceptions is CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS(but then only half-way) by Woody Allen where an affluent and well-respected Jewish eye-doctor confronts his inner-demons over a murder he contracted through his Jewish gangster brother. But upon realizing the cloud of suspicion has lifted from him, his conscience(or lack thereof) returns to peace. It suggests his moral or spiritual crisis was really about the fear of being caught, of losing his social status.
Woody Allen’s view of the character is ambiguous. On the one hand, he seems a soulless hypocrite, but on the other, it’s as if he finally ‘burst his cherry’ and found his inner-gangster. It’s a very revealing moment in American Culture for delineating the difference between White Christian mentality and Jewish Tribal mentality. While there were plenty of lowlife Italian hoodlums and scumbags, those Italians who strove to be good tended to drew a clear line between themselves and the Bad Italians. Ultimately, they sided with the Anglo-American Rule of Law against the lowlife ‘greaseballs'(who, by the way, were too stupid to rise above criminality, whereas many Jewish hoodlums were able to go ‘legit’). And this was also true of Anglo-Americans who finally came to draw a line between good whites committed to racial equality(as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution) and the bad whites, the ‘racists’, who continued to tell ‘nigger’ jokes about fried chicken and watermelon(though not without reason).
But, a similar distinction between Good Jews and Bad Jews never materialized, just like the left vs right divide among Jews was never as strong as among goyim. To this day, Mainstream Jews have yet to admit Leo Frank was a rapist-murderer or that Israel was created through terrorism and racial supremacist ideology that made Arabs out to be camel-piss-drinking morons(which admittedly qualifies as half-truth). So, unlike Good Italians who rejected Italian gangsterism, the ‘Good Jews’ merely institutionalized Jewish criminality so that crooked instruments and vice industries could be refashioned into neo-virtue industries under Jewish Control. (Take Bernie Madoff for example. His investment firm’s performance was unheard of in the industry, and alarm bells should have gone off; surely many Jews knew he was up to no good, but as long as he was making rich Jews even richer, they looked the other way and, if anything, applied pressure on government to look the other way. And when the pyramid finally collapsed, Jews made themselves out to be primary victims of Bad Bernie even they’d enabled his fraud for so long to stuff their pockets.)
And unlike Good Whites who rejected ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’, ‘Good Jews’ not only worked with Zionist Jewish Supremacists but peddled influence to ensure that Americans of all stripes would support Zionist tyranny and endless Wars for Zion that came to destroy countless lives in the 21st century. In the Sixties, especially among the Jewish boomer generation, there were idealists who agitated for social justice and equality for all, and the post-Cold-War history of the world might have been different if these Jews, like the Good Whites and Good Italians, opted for universal justice than for Zionic neo-tribalism that came to define the trajectory of the 21st century.
Perhaps, the troubling signs were always there as Jewish Leftists weren’t as critical of the Jewish community as goy leftists were of their own. Or, perhaps, disillusionment had more far-reaching consequences for Jews, many of whom had been radical true believers, fully imbibed of the Marxist dogma of class solidarity and the Boasian concept of race as just a social construct. These Jews came to realize that Proletariat aren’t natural revolutionaries and that, contrary to Boasian constructs, races were indeed different, as in ‘goyim sure are dumb’. Of course, Jews kept such realizations private because ‘anti-racism’ was their Ace Card in perpetuating ‘white guilt’ to gain control of white hearts-and-minds, but if we assess what Jews DO as opposed to what they SAY, the Zionic Agenda is based on Jewish Supremacism over goyim, and the reason why Jews especially use blackness against whites is because whites are likely to cuck and wilt before the Negro(as the real superior race) who can whup whitey’s ass. Take the American South where the last vestiges of Confederate Culture are being wiped out by College Football where Negroes dominate the field and hump white girls while cucky-wuck southern white boys cheer and shriek like a bunch of homo-pansies. Welcome to Cuckfederacy.
Fukuyama missed or ignored the Jewish Factor in the New America. In his vision of Liberal Democracy, the rules-based systems are controlled and maintained by people of even temperament and commitment to principles. With such demographics, most people would NOT try to exploit the system for tribal purposes, kinship alliances, and gangster tactics. Imagine a Sweden that is 100% Swedish and uncontaminated by Politically Correct Ideology. Such might indeed qualify as Fukuyama’s ideal of End of History Liberal Democracy. (But then, the very success and stability of their national model may have led the naive and well-meaning Swedes to fall for the Diversity Fix peddled by Jews posing as the Holy Holocaust Race. Then, it suggests the Trust Culture of a Liberal Democracy must not be extended to foreigners and outsiders who, concealing their hostile intent, may manipulate good-will into guilt-complex to subvert the system and take over.) Ultimately, the freedom of the ever-liberalizing West was too tempting for Jews to choose the humdrum option of fair play and getting along. Why just be part of the lame and dumb goyim? Why not take over and have idiot goyim do your bidding since your kind is smarter and possesses more will(and wit) to power? If you got the bigger balls, play the bigger game.
Fukuyama should have focused less on ideology and more on national or ethnic character. America might have been founded and made by Protestant Work Ethic, but it was taken over by Jewish Game Ethnic, the nature of which can be glimpsed in David Mamet films. Samuel Huntington was keener on the subject of ethnos and cultural differences in history, and one of his last major publications was THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS. But, just like Fukuyama shriveled into Fukyomama at the feet of Jewish Power, Huntington wilted into Cuntington before the same thing. His book divides the world into several major cultural spheres, and in the post-Cold-War era, one of the major divisions was deemed to be between ‘Western’ and ‘Islamic’, an idea useful to the Neocons goading the West into wars against Arabs and/or Muslims at loggerheads with Zion.
But, was Huntington really correct? After all, the clash between the US and the Middle East often had nothing to do with religion or even cultural values/expectations. Even though Iran became virulently anti-American following the Revolution(though plenty of Iranian Liberals had also taken part against the Shah, a US shill), the West, increasingly under the control of Jews, was generally at war with Arab modernizers and, if anything, allied with arch or radical Muslim forces. US was close to Saudi Arabia ruled by a theocratic monarchy and supported Muslim radicals in Afghanistan against a secular regime. The US targeted secular tyrant Saddam Hussein, the bane of Islamic Iran. Later under Obama, the US recruited ISIS and other Islamic terrorists in a war against Assad whose secular regime was tolerant of Christians and other minorities. Many Palestinian crushed by Zionist Jews were actually Christian or Westernized. The US invasion of Iraq emboldened Muslim clerics and fighters, eradicating most of the Christian population, who’d been protected by Saddam Hussein.
So, what Huntington prophesied as Clash of Civilizations between the West and the Muslim World had little to do with religion(unless Neoconservatism is considered a variant of Judaism), and more often than not, the West sided with radical Muslim lunatics against SECULAR Arab regimes. And this was because Jews feared modernizing Arab/Muslim forces more than medievalist or anarcho-terrorist ones that would keep the Middle East in the ‘sand age’. Islamic Iran notwithstanding, some of the most compliant and craven regimes in the Middle East have been quasi-theocratic, whereas secularizers like Nasser and Gaddafi have been most defiant of Western Power.
So, the real Clash of Civilizations in matters of foreign policy was between the Nationalists vs Imperialists, and Western Imperialism after the Cold War was almost completely controlled by Jews. Huntington, perhaps fearful of Jews, chose not to harp on the real cultural, psychological, and historical differences between Whites/Christians and Jews, but it was the Jewish Factor that led to the renewed wars in the Middle East(and the blowbacks, often welcomed by Jews to justify even more wars).
In the past, the Christian-Islam Wars were the product of two great universalizing empires vying for dominance, but in the Modern Era, the West decisively won over the Arab and/or Muslim World. The lingering(and sometimes mounting) tensions weren’t about Christendom vs ‘Islamo-Fascism’ but the result of Zionist influence using the Western Military against the Muslim World(and using Muslim immigrants-migrants-‘refugees’ against European nations). Indeed, why has North Korea been lumped in with Iran, Iraq, Libya, and etc.? It’s unlikely there’s a single Muslim in North Korea, but it too has been defiant and has developed nukes and has diplomatic ties with Iran. In other words, its existence displeases Jews.
For Huntington to lump White/Christian West and Jewish West together into one entity is deeply misleading. Throughout history, it wasn’t just the Anti-Semites but Jews themselves who insisted on separateness. Consider when Cynthia Ozick took umbrage at the notion of Franz Kafka as a German writer(than a Jewish one) and idea that his works can be understood apart from his profound Jewishness. And certain Jewish reviewers of THE GERMAN GENIUS by Peter Watson took exception to the idea that Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein should be included among German thinkers and scientists.
As Jews became embedded into the White/Christian world(and as Jews were limited in number), there was no White-Christian clash with Jews on the scale of the wars with Arab-Muslims and Turkic-Muslims, BUT there was certainly a Friction of Civilizations between Whites/Christians and Jews/Semites, and it was largely this tension that led to the Bolshevik Revolution(where Jews gained) and National Socialism(where Jews lost). (With Italian Fascism, Jews initially gained but eventually lost when Il Duce went with Der Fuhrer.)
Given THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS was released in 1996, perhaps Huntington’s lapse could be overlooked. After all, the West had yet to experience the full brunt of what Jewish Power had in store. The 90s were still a time when Bill Clinton of all people reaffirmed, into law no less, that marriage is between a man and a woman. And open homosexuality was banned in the military, still regarded as a bastion of conservative nationalism. (And even many liberals were appalled by the L.A. Riots and supported Bill Clinton’s get-tough-on-crime measures.) So, one could be forgiven for assuming that, despite serious ideological divisions as well as ethnic tensions, there was a united entity called the West that included liberals and conservatives, Jews and Gentiles.
But especially since the Obama presidency, Jewish Power showed its true face, and its grand design is for all white populations in the countries of the West to be reduced to minorities, for white wombs to be colonized by black seed, for white guys to be defined as ‘cis-gender’ wussy-pussy cucks, for globo-homo or queertianity to replace traditional spirituality, for children to be cultivated into the idolatry of tranny nuttery, for blacks to be idolized as divine, and for ideology to be infantilized into the pablum of ‘diversity, inclusion, equity’, which could mean just about anything depending on who has the power. (Notice ‘inclusion’ means inviting drag queens to elementary schools but not inducting Palestinian-Americans into the editorial departments of NYT and WAPO. Notice examples of ‘racism’ are about evil whites but never about what Zionists do to Palestinians or about how Jews robbed black athletes and entertainers blind. No matter how universalist the ideology, the choice of examples determine the hierarchy of who/whom. So, the big lesson on racial violence is illustrated by the Emmett Till narrative, not the stories of countless victims of black thuggery.)
While tolerance of deviance and radicalism has long been a hallmark of Western Values, the elevation of and compulsory reverence for a set of idols and narratives go against everything the West has stood for since at least the Enlightenment. Thus, the most profound Clash(or schism) of Civilizations was within the West itself, with Jewish Power doing its utmost to redefine the West and rejigger its narratives to serve the supremacist interests of Zion. Just how does an official month-long celebration of homo-fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting do Western Civilization proud? It’s often been asked, “How did Germans, the best educated people in the world, fall for Hitler and National Socialism?” Well, at least Germans had the great depression as excuse, but what’s the excuse among white Americans and Europeans, deemed the most educated and most prosperous peoples of all time? How did such a people fall for the biggest lies and succumb to Jewish pressure to turn the entire West into an empire of lies where ‘men can have babies’ and George Floyd is consecrated a saint(based on the utter baloney of BLM, really meant to perpetuate ‘white guilt’ to morally paralyze white dummy-whummies into obeisance?)
Europe today certainly has problems resulting from tensions between Europeans and Muslims(whose mass-migrations were facilitated by Jewish groups or forced by Zionist-led wars), but should we really bemoan the Muslim threat to ‘Western Values’, which now amount to BLM Negrolatry, Diversity-Mantra to bring about White Nakba, Jungle Fever(& Jungle Faith of BLM where blacks are always saints despite their thuggery and criminality), pathetic white cucking before Zion despite its collusion with the likes of George Soros, mindless adoration of homo butt-bang-boys & tranny perverts, the looming normalization of pedophiles(now called MAPs), and status-worship uber alles among so-called ‘upscale’ voters whose entire worldviews are shaped by expensive ‘woke’ education and whatever garbage they catch on TV? And forget about liberal values of free speech, tolerance of dissident views, and openness to controversy because Jewish Power of late has decided, like the Vatican of Old, that certain issues are ‘settled’(to their liking of course), and we should just shut up, agree, and obey. That’s what ‘having a conversation’ now means in the West. A bunch of blacks and homos/trannies doing the bidding of Jewish Power and spouting all the well-rehearsed nonsense while ‘upscale’ whites and wanna-be’s listen aptly and nod their heads like obedient dogs… while Jews feel even more contempt for dumb dumb goyim.
Perhaps, Fukuyama hoped that the sheer prestige and historical momentum of Liberal Democracy(and Rule of Law) would reshape the attitudes, values, and habits of all ethnic groups. Just as the once-snotty and dominant Anglo-Americans grew to be more tolerant and fair-minded, the ethnic minorities seemed to be meeting the WASPs halfway and committing to the proper modes of Liberal Democracy.
But, Fukuyama failed to appreciate the true nature of Jewish Psychology. The difficulty posed by Jewishness partly owes to culture, especially as Jewishness, unlike Christian-ness, has no regard for universal justice, one where others judge Jews just as Jews judge others(instead of what now prevails, where Jews judge others who, however, must never judge Jews, as that would be ‘anti-semitic’). Jewish Worldview is universalist only in the sense that the Jewish God is the only real God; it doesn’t say anything about God loving all peoples equally. If Christians believe God is equally loving of all those who’ve embraced the Christian Faith, Jews believe in a special Covenant whereby THEY have been chosen to rule over spiritually inferior goyim.
But, Jewishness is also genetic because it takes a certain kind of doggedly stubborn personality to maintain the practice of tribal loyalty. Just think. If most Jews were like Dan Quayle or Lindsey Graham, how long could their culture last? Quayle is a weakling, and Graham is just a whore. Just like Amish Culture affects genetics — the less committed tend to leave the community, leaving behind those with more tenacity-genes, resulting in a culture bound by those with similar genes of perseverance and resilience — , Jewish Culture did the same. The less loyal Jews left the community and melded into goy communities of pagans, Christians, Muslims, and etc. Over many generations, those remaining within the Jewish Community had hardcore tribal personalities, and yet, unlike the Amish with their single-minded separateness, Jews also developed adaptive personalities as their survival and prosperity relied on doing business with goyim. So, the Jewish Personality became, at once, highly insular/exclusive and highly fluid/adaptive, a mental petri dish of serious split-personality neurosis. This is why, unlike the one-note Amish, polyphonic Jews can seem both very conservative and very liberal.
Since his sudden fame as a young academic, Fukuyama has had to revise his ideas, rather like Andrew Sarris with his ‘Auteur Theory’. But unlike Sarris who revised his ideas freely, Fukuyama had to ignore the 800 lb gorilla or two ton elephant in the room, which is Jewish Power. In the end, Jews-as-BUGS(busy urban globalist semites) did not meet Anglos-as-WASPS halfway and arrive at the Great American/Western Compromise of Liberal Democracy and Rule of Law. Instead, it was as if the lifelong, indeed history-long, dream of Jews was to take over the great goy empire and rule as shadow pharaohs and caesars, manipulating goy shills like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden(and yes, Trump too, because, when push came to shove, he dropped his pants like the rest and took it up the arse).
Perhaps, Liberal Democracy as the End of History was doomed in the long run for a variety of reasons, but it was doomed almost immediately because Jews, as the new elites, embarked on a supremacist path. What Fukuyama regarded as the final victory of the Liberal Democratic World Order with the collapse of the Soviet Union distracted sound minds from what was happening within the Western Order. Jews were taking over and for keeps, to dominate and compel the West, from US to Canada to Australia to Japan to EU, to do the bidding of the Jewish Will. While the fall of the Soviet Union was plain to see for all the world, the equally(or even more) momentous fall of the Liberal Democratic Order at the hands of Jewish Supremacists went unnoticed, and even if noticed by some, undiscussed.
Unlike the death of the Soviet Union, the murder of Liberal Democracy happened behind the curtains while the outward processes continued as business-as-usual with party politics and elections. But, the real priority of both political parties was appeasing Zion. As governments filled up with whores of Jewish Power, the top appointees of deep state departments became either cuck-collaborators or Jews themselves. Jews pulled off one of the biggest political heists in history, but it happened in a Silent Revolution where the murder of true liberalism was hush-hushed, whereupon History became a competition among courtiers of various political factions to curry favors with Jews like George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and any number of Jewish billionaires. And even if the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Bloomberg lacked the popular appeal to win presidencies, it didn’t matter as goy politicians were their whores eager to expose any orifice for a buck.
If Fukuyama had revised his theory in light of what really happened, the degradation of liberal democratic norms and possibilities under Jewish Supremacist gangsterism, he could have maintained a modicum of integrity. After all, it is human to err. Besides, Fukuyama was a relatively young scholar upon gaining fame(or notoriety). But against all evidence, he chose not to name the role of Jewish Power in corrupting not only the West but Russia as well. Whatever chance Russia had for embarking on the Liberal Democratic path was squandered when Jewish globo-gangsterism looted the country.
Fukuyama chose ‘respectable’ careerism over personal courage and missed his chance to be something more than the Lance Ito of Political Science. And this chickenshit Fukuyama is better characterized as Fukyomama. No chance he will ever come clean and admit Jewish Power did most to undermine the promising Liberal Democratic consensus as a check on all powers, Gentile and Jewish. What had been an understandable blind spot for Fukuyama became a willful blindfold for Fukyomama the lowlife yellow rat.
Even though Fukyomama is a thoroughly deracinated character in most respects, he has remained Japanese in his psychology, as Japanese genes were selected for blind obedience to higher authority. He certainly knows the truth about Jewish Power, but when faced with the choice of scholarly duties or servile obligations, he opted for the latter. (Not that the average Anglo mentality is so different. Despite the profound cultural changes in modern day Britain, the Anglo-servant mentality, the kind evinced in REMAINS OF THE DAY, is very much alive. All said and done, the Anglo Mind is always in search for a master or guv’nor.)
One reason for the cuckery is careerist and economic as loss of position will mean reduced status and income. Pissing off Jewish Power is one sure way to be railroaded out of the institutions and have one’s reputation be dragged through the mud. But even if his professional career could have survived the apostasy, there would have been the emotional factor of the master-servant relationship. Fukyomama, like so many similarly oriented goyim, seems emotionally bound to Jews as the rightful masters. Despite his fallout with Charles Krauthammer, the fact is he has continued to serve as the spokesman and promoter of Jewish-supremacist globalism(much like Michio Kaku), not least against Russia and China.
He’s been critical of certain aspects of globalism but mainly to correct them and make globalism more palatable. In this, he’s in the same league as the elephant-headed cuck Charles Murray, whose criticism of Political Correctness and Wokeness isn’t to defend and preserve the white race but to better facilitate an understanding of racial differences so that the Diversity Agenda can continue apace. Still, one senses that both men feel somewhat compromised and regretful that they cannot say more given current sacraments and taboos. But, because they are scholars whose highest ideals must be truth and integrity, their compromises must be deemed moral and intellectual failings.
Such doesn’t apply to Michael Pompeo, whose entire life has been a careerism of seeking power, serving power, and using power. So, if the Jewish Question may well have been a blind spot for Fukuyama in what seemed like a WASP-dominated society, that’s hardly the case with Pompeo whose only aspiration is to remain in the corridors of power and throw his weight around. He was a born company man. Everyone in the halls of power knows about Jewish Influence, and Pompeo’s only interest is to curry favor with the Jews to maximize his niche in the system.
So, for him, it’s a case of wink-wink than any kind of blind spot(or cowardly blindfold). His recent speech was specially designed to win plaudits from Jewish Power. If Pompeo were a true patriot, he would call out on Jewish Power as the cancer eating away at the core foundations of what made America ‘America’. He would rally the country to unite against Jewish Supremacism and its evil agenda. He would expose Jewish Power as the force behind the globo-homo-ization of the military, the BLM pogroms on whites, the sponsor of Antifa thuggery, and the instigator of useless wars(except to Zion) after the end of the Cold War when peace was at hand for all mankind.
While the US sought to remain the sole superpower with the ‘End of History’, it wouldn’t have gotten mired in the Middle East without Zionic pressures. And what ruined the possibility of good US-Russian relations? Jews exploited Russian weakness to rape and plunder the economy and increasingly eyed Ukraine as a Jewish Gangster Paradise. Weak-White and Wasp appeasement to Jewish Supremacist appetites led to current crises that could totally spiral out of control, especially as Jews enjoy the blood-sport spectacle of goyim-slaughtering-goyim. But if Pompeo spoke the truth, he would be cast into the wilderness, and then, his struggle as a true patriot would be a long uphill one. A Company Man all his life, it’s just not in him to play Spartacus.
Yet, given his political leanings and cultural values, Pompeo must be distraught with what has happened to the US under Jewish Supremacist Power. The US military is now a bastion of globo-homo and tranny degeneracy. It now teaches CRT at West Point, where Pompeo attended with honors. The national capital was set ablaze by Antifa, BLM, and Democratic mobs with the blessing and protection of the Jewish Power Network in deep state, courts, media, and police(that only do as told)? Unlike urban unrest and riots in the past, the 2020 mayhem was similar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, an orchestrated attack on his political rivals. If the terrible riots in the 60s caught even the Democrats by surprise, the riots of 2020 had all the hallmarks of the ‘color revolution’ that Jewish-funded NGO’s and the deep state have perfected over the years. It’s evident that these scumbags will even attack the so-called Liberal West to maximize their power and destroy their enemies.
Surely, Pompeo knows all this. How could he not when he was in D.C. when the Jewish elites and the Democrats(and plenty of RINOS) all colluded to turn the last year of the Trump presidency into one fiery hell? Pompeo knows but he’s so afraid of and servile to Zion that he just goes wink-wink to Jewish Power and proposes a deal whereby Jews are to re-evaluate the role of whites in the grand design. Pompeo doesn’t dare identify Jewish Power as the real enemy of the West, which it certainly is, but tries to temper the Jewish War on Whites by promising to be even bigger cucks in future Wars for Zionic Supremacy.
If Pompeo is a cultural conservative, he should be siding with Russia(and even China) against the now degenerate West where all the top institutions and industries celebrate black thuggery as saintliness and globo-homo degeneracy as the new spirituality. But he sucks up to Jews and endorses their Grand Narrative that Ukraine represents ‘liberal democracy’ against autocratic Russia. And Pompeo throws Taiwan into the mix with the wink-wink hint that Jews have much to gain from the vilification of China. That way, childish Americans are distracted from Jewish Evil OVER HERE and blame all problems on Chinese Evil OVER THERE. And to really sweeten his cuckery to the Jews, he includes Israel among the shining democracies that must be defended. Nothing about the plight of Palestinians, nothing about Israel having 200 nukes with technology stolen from the US, nothing about Israel aiding ISIS terrorism in Syria, nothing about Israel as the new Sodom and Gomorrah(with its endless homo celebration, which would indicate Christian Zionists are de facto Christian Sodomists), nothing about Jonathan Pollard(big hero in Israel), nothing about Jewish-Zionist subversion of US national security, and etc.
So, Pompeo’s speech had nothing real to do with liberal democracy, national security, cultural sanity, Western Values, or any kind of morality or integrity. It was just a whoring out to Jewish Power. It was all wink-wink pleading and begging, which could be summed up as: “I know you Jews love to pull down our pants and fuc* us in the ass and reduce us into wussy boys groveling at the feet of homos and Negroes., and I know it tickles your bones that the once mighty white race has been reduced to the current state, BUT please don’t hurt us too badly because we are still useful in foreign affairs. Only a strong and proud White America can take it to Big Bad Russia, mindlessly support Israel-Israel-Israel(as BDS is mostly a progressive phenomenon), and blame China, like Tucker Carlson does all the time. So, I understand you Jews need to whip us once awhile to keep us in our place lest we get uppity like Trump, but don’t whip us too bad and let us play House Honkey because we, more than any other group, can deliver what you desire in foreign policy.”
Whenever whites act ‘tough’ these days, it’s as dogs and not as men. A dog may be full of bark and bite but always at the behest of its master and never against him. White men in US and EU have been stripped and whipped demographically, culturally, economically, sexually, and politically, what with even the US military, long a sanctum of patriotic/conservative honor. Yet, Pompeo sweeps all this under the rug and offers himself(and white cuck support in general) to the Grand Jewish Strategy. It’s like a black slave in the Deep South pleading with his master, “Massuh, please don’t sell me down the river. I’s will work harder to pick mo’ cotton and carry mo’ bales to fatten massuh’s pockets against dem other plantations.”
In 2020, Jewish Power tore White America a new arsehole, and all we get from Trump is, “You Jews need me to defend Israel from the anti-Zionist Squad that took over the Democratic Party(ROTFL)” and from Pompeo, we get, “Don’t whip us too bad and leave us some crumbs, at least in foreign policy, because Jewish Supremacist agenda abroad cannot succeed without the White Will to Fight.” Instead of grabbing for the whip in the Jewish Supremacist hand, Pompeo’s plea is simply to be whipped a bit less.
In TEN COMMANDMENTS, there are two Moses. Before the Great Moses who finally leads his people out of Egypt, there was the Nicer Moses who pleaded with the Pharaoh to feed the slaves better because they’ll work even harder and build more for the Pharaoh’s glory. The Nicer Moses isn’t anti-slavery and totally okay with the Egyptian system of tyranny… as long as it treats the slaves somewhat better to make them work harder. Likewise, Pompeo doesn’t propose White Liberation or the deliverance of whites from Jewish Supremacism. Instead, he pleads with Jewish neo-pharaohs and neo-caesars not to lash and bash whites too badly because whites would dearly love to serve the Jews even more if the Jews tried a little bit of tenderness(like the Otis Redding song).
The usual ‘conservative’ or ‘conzo’ argument against the cultural degradation of the US military goes like this: “With such a military, how do we fight our enemies, such as Russia, China, Iran, or fill in the blanks.”
Did it ever occur to these conzo-wonzos that the very forces that have so degraded American military culture to the current degenerate state ARE the real enemy? If John is cutting off your balls, do you say, “Without my balls, how do you expect me to fight our enemy, Bob?” Gee, moron, maybe John is the enemy because he is cutting off your balls! Why would you want to fight Bob for John when John is your primary degrader and tormenter?
But such is the mental state of white weaklings or Wheaks who act on the a priori assumption that Jews are sacred, noble, and always right… even when they are in the process of lopping off your nuts. If a bunch of Jewish gangsters stripped Pompeo naked and put him in a clown suit, burned his house and car, and made a bunch of Negro thugs rape his wife and daughter(if he has one), all he would do is, wink-wink, suggest to the Jews that they shouldn’t go too far with the humiliation because, boy oh boy, he is so eager to do all he can to make the Jewish gangsters even richer and more powerful. That’s Pompeo-ism, utterly cucked, phony, vile, and disgusting.
With so-called conservatives cucking to Jewish Power in such manner, imagine the kind of white super-cucks that infest the Democratic Party. Can anything be saved in the West as Jewish Gangster Paradise?
No comments:
Post a Comment