It's a huge mistake to conflate Jewish-capitalist concocted 'Wokeness' with Communism and to bet the future on an alliance with the Jewish Right hellbent on degradation of all goy identities toward servitude to Zion.
 |
| Atonement for aiding the German genocide of the Jews is aiding the Jewish genocide of the Palestinians. Lesson from World War II isn't that no people have the right to do genocide on another people but that Jewish lives are so precious that it's a crime to kill Jews but not a crime for Jews to kill goyim. |
One could make a theoretical case of Marxism or communism as having been opposed to nationalism. After all, Marxism developed as an international movement linking the ‘workers of the world’ against their oppressors, i.e. if capitalists exerted their influence on a global scale, then workers too had to think beyond ‘petty’ national interests. In theory, this was all true.
But in historical practice, communism wasn’t necessarily anti-nationalist. Especially following Josef Stalin’s insistence on developing ‘socialism in one country’ in opposition to Leon Trotsky’s plan for worldwide revolution(that actually focused on Germany as the main engine for socialist revolution), communism began to take on a nationalist character.
Of course, given the multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-cultural makeup of the Soviet Union(essentially an inheritor of the Russian Empire), various nationalities periodically got suppressed or brutalized in service to ideology or Soviet geopolitical interests.
Granted, the early Soviet Union wasn’t a continuation of Russian dominance or hegemony over non-Russian groups but more like a non-Russian revenge on Russia, especially as the top leaders mostly consisted of ethnic minorities; they regarded the pre-Soviet system as one of Great Russian Chauvinism, though, to be sure, the ruling Romanov dynasty and many members of the elites weren’t ethnic Russians themselves.
Ethnic identity and cultural heritage survived, even thrived, under communism for two key reasons. One was pragmatism as the radical agenda of erasing all ethnic and cultural differences in order to create the New Man was a tall order for a nascent political experiment. It was deemed more advantageous to appeal to the various ethnic communities with the promise of communism as their protector and guarantor than abolisher, i.e. even as communism would insist on socioeconomic justice and egalitarianism, it wouldn’t infringe upon the richness of the various cultures.
Besides, even as the Soviet enterprise often decreed the mass movements of populations to fulfill industrial projects, free movement based on individual initiative, a common feature of the American Experience, was curtailed, meaning that the larger proportion of ethnic populations remained more-or-less in their ancestral territories.
Furthermore, the relative suppression of popular culture(in the Western consumerist sense) meant that folk culture & heritage played a prominent role in defining one’s sense of identity and place, whereas the all-pervasive elevation and spread of pop culture led to rapid homogenization in the US, as well as in Western Europe.
For the sake of social stability, the communists found folk culture and ethnic heritage to be less threatening than popular culture that was inseparable from the logic of capitalism. Thus, if capitalist culture sought to make everyone in the US and across Europe(and the entire world) fashion themselves on trendy idols such as Elvis Presley, the Beatles, and 007, communism placed greater emphasis on cultures rooted in tradition and folklore.
A big problem with current discussion of politics and world affairs is the sheer misdiagnoses of events and their consequences. Much of this seems willful, mainly out of fear of Jewish Power(and its cucked commissars), though, to be sure, many people seem to genuinely swallow the official or approved line.
For example, take the case of Hungary. Viktor Orban would have us believe that the globalist Sorosian plot to subvert Hungarian nationality, culture, and heritage is somehow linked to his country’s communist past. In other words, the ‘woke’ forces of open borders, anti-white ideology, anti-Christian virulence, and globohomo are merely reiterations of communism. Against this ‘leftist’ threat, Hungarians must be steadfast in remembering the dark days of radical leftist rule and make common cause with Zionists and the European Right(and MAGA) to resist and ultimately prevail. But does this really make any sense?
While there was plenty that was wrong about communism, did it ever pose an existential threat to Hungarian nationhood, identity, and culture? Did communism seek to fling open Hungary’s borders to endless waves of foreigners, especially non-Europeans? Did it promote cultural degeneracy such as the celebration of sodomy and other quasi-sexual perversions? Were Hungarians made ashamed of being Hungarian? Were Hungarians denied their history or heritage?
Now, the power of the Church was surely repressed in Hungary, but Hungarians had the right to worship at the personal level. At the very least, no one would have even entertained the idea of festooning churches with symbols of sexual degeneracy, a phenomenon that has engulfed the Capitalist West where churches with symbols of ‘wokeness’, usually Negrolatry or Globohomo, is a common sight.
While communism in Hungary was economically restrictive and suppressive of private enterprise, in no shape or form did it attempt to erase the Hungarian nation — its people, culture, and history — and replace it with hordes of foreigners. And even though Jews were, as in the Soviet Union, prominent in the early stages of communist rule, the government later was largely one of the Hungarian state ruled by ethnic Hungarians.
It’s also worth pointing out that the Soviet Union allowed, even encouraged, a kind of vassal-nationalism, i.e. Hungarian nationalism was no problem as long as it remained loyal to the Soviet Bloc. While vassal-nationalism wasn’t the most preferable form of nationalism, which ideally should be sovereign, it still allowed for patriotism and national preservation, albeit within the larger framework of empire. Unlike Japan that propped up the puppet regime in Manchuria in order for the Japanese to colonize and take over, the Soviets had no plan of colonizing and taking over their Eastern Bloc vassals. The USSR tolerated nationalism in those nations as long as it wasn’t anti-Soviet.
Soviet domination was partly ideological but also geopolitical, as the Soviets(or Russians) feared, correctly as it turned out in the post-Cold War reality, that a loss of one of their Eastern European vassals didn’t so much signal national independence than another pawn for the anti-Soviet(or anti-Russian) West. Indeed, the Russians discovered this in the aftermath of the Cold War when the Soviet Union in a state of rapid dissolution, opted to let its former Eastern European allies go their own ways. If anything, the Russians went even further and presided over the breakup of the Soviet Union, with each former Soviet Republic choosing its own system of government and national agenda.
But, what followed wasn’t so much the rise of new nationalisms but the expansion of the Western Empire led by the Jewish-controlled US. Given the dire straits of the Eastern European nations and former Soviet Republics, their elites were more than willing to sacrifice national sovereignty in order to join the Western camp with its rich bag of prizes. Thus, NATO expanded eastward, and the US made inroads into the various republics surrounding the much diminished Russia.
Furthermore, the Western agenda in those regions wasn’t to bolster national identity and patriotism, a sense of liberation following decades of communist repression and Soviet domination, but to turn them into satrapies of globalism whereby national identity and national security would be sacrificed on the altar of Jew-Worship(Zionism & Holocaustianity), Globohomo, and Negrolatry. In every former Soviet-dominated nation and former Soviet republic, the same globalist trifecta of Jews, homos, and blacks were promoted at the expense of national identity, culture, and heritage, the identical playbook with which Jewish Power had profoundly transformed the countries of the Capitalist West. Even when the West encouraged nationalism, it was usually opportunism than idealism, a ploy of fueling sectarianism to weaken bonds so as to break a well-established state into smaller parts for easier digestion into the New World Order. The Yugoslavian tragedy, for example. And Ukraine of course.
Was capitalism the real enemy of nationalism? Even though capitalism did more to erode nationality and traditionalism with its emphasis on individualism, consumerism, hedonism, dynamism, and fashionism, it wasn’t the essential factor. Prior to the Jewish takeover of the Anglosphere(and thereby the entire West), capitalist USA under Anglo-American rule had also allowed a kind of vassal-nationalism for its satellite or client nations. While those nations had to remain under American hegemony, each could emphasize its own brand of nationalism within those bounds. Their sense of patriotism, cultural heritage, and ethnic self-preservation wasn’t called into question. They became problematic only if they dared to break free of American hegemony, especially with an eye to joining the communist camp for reasons either ideological or geopolitical.
Otherwise, the US wasn’t alarmed about Japanese pride in Japan, Italian pride in Italy, Mexican pride in Mexico, Greek pride in Greece, Turkish pride in Turkey, and etc. While American internationalists did wish for other countries to adopt the American system and the basic set of universal principles founded on Western Civilization, they had no grand agenda of pushing Great Replacement on the vassal countries, degrading their culture with Negrolatry and Globohomo, or threatening them with destruction for not kowtowing to the Zionists with sufficient deference. Indeed, if capitalism is so damaging to nationalism and ethnic identity, why is the capitalist West so zealous in its support of Jewish identity and Zionist enterprise? If capitalism is inherently anti-nationalist, it should be as opposed to the idea of the Jewish homeland as to the idea of the British homeland, French homeland, Polish homeland, or Hungarian homeland.
Prior to the Jewish takeover of the US, I don't recall American elites telling their vassals like Japan to welcome hordes of foreigners as 'New Japanese' and promoting the Great Replacement as the greatest thing since sliced sushi. And for most of West German history following World War II, citizenship was still based on blood, i.e. people of Germanic background in non-German lands could apply to settle in Germany, and the US had no problem with this. And even though the US had to make the best of its diversity of races and ethnic groups, the mantra of 'Diversity Is Our Strength' hardly existed until relatively recently. There was nonwhite immigration into Western Europe in the postwar years but the reasons were rational or moral, to either make up for an acute labor shortage in the rebuilding of war-shattered economies or to provide refuge for collaborators who faced danger, even death, in their newly emergent nations(or liberated ex-colonies). It was the decent thing for the French to accept those Algerians who'd served the colonial system and had targets on their backs. Limited immigration of nonwhites back then had some compelling reason, and few argued that immigration-for-immigration's sake was a good idea merely on the basis of 'muh diversity' or Negrolatry. But increasingly, led by the Jewish-ascendant US, there was the idea that mass immigration in and of itself was a great idea, that Cult of Diversity was sacrosanct, and that whiteness was inherently problematic, i.e. societies that were mostly white and homogeneous were somehow diseased or pathological and had to be cured of the sickness with the panacea of non-white mass immigration. In time, the idea became the new template of the hegemonic Anglosphere(where the language was English but the authorship was Jewish), and then, the US began to press it on all its vassal states, e.g. the likes of Rahm Emanuel in Japan pushing for more immigration, celebration of diversity, Negrolatry, and Globohomo. The pressures have been biggest on Europe, with any nation that wishes for self-preservation tarred as 'far right', 'white supremacist', or 'neo-nazi'. The 'far right' label that used to be applied on skinheads, neo-nazis, and the like is now stamped on the moderate wish for ethnic survival, cultural preservation, and border security. Some have argued that these ideological developments and globalist agendas are the inevitable products of liberalism, capitalism, individualism, and democracy, but are they really? If so, they should have applied equally to all groups and all nations, but just when whiteness was being degraded and Western borders were being dismantled, Jewishness as an identity, culture, and power reached new heights of prestige & privilege in the supposedly post-national West. Also, the nation of Israel, though truly far right and tribal supremacist, has gained the unconditional support of the elites of just about every Western nation. Indeed, the very Western elites, who disdain any notion of self-preservation for their own peoples and cultures, go out of their way to pledge total support for Israel as a Jewish State(and even the greater Zionist ambitions of lebensraum by destroying more Arabs and/or Muslims in their midst). It's even odder considering that Jews, who declared themselves to be the most liberal & cosmopolitan and proudly took credit for undermining the traditional structures of the West, concomitantly used all their power and influence to ensure that the ever deracinating West never waver in its support for the fanatically 'ultra-racinating' Zion. Thus, the fading of nationalism in the West had less to do with principles or the logic of liberalism than with the logic of supremacism and empire, i.e. in order for whites to support Jews as the master race and Zion as the rightful global empire, their own white ethnicities, cultures, and histories had to be devalued, meaning that whites, as the dog-race, can hope to earn redemption points only by serving the superior Chosen Race, which by the way is the party line of US Evangelicals and HBD-ites. It was all bait-and-switch.
In the end, the biggest enemy of goy nationalism was neither communism nor capitalism but Jewish supremacism, and this owes to a certain mindset that is pervasive among religious and secular Jews alike, i.e. regardless of their attitudes on spiritual matters, they share in the ethnocentrism of Jewish Identity.
Jewishness is different from most ethnic identities and great religions in its fusion of identity and sanctity. Being German, Italian, French, Turkish, or Mexican is simply an ethnic matter. While any ethnicity can be chauvinistic — “We Italians are the best in the world!” — , supremacism isn’t intrinsic to most identities. Being Burmese or Bulgarian simply means one is of Burmese or Bulgarian ancestry. As for the two largest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, adherence or devotion is defined by belief, faith, or creed than by identity. One isn’t Christian by blood simply because one’s parents are Christian. Same goes for the Islamic faith. While Muslim parents may raise their children to be good Muslims, one isn’t Muslim by birth. One has to grow up adopting and practicing the faith. There’s no such thing as Christian blood or Muslim blood, just the Christian spirit or Muslim spirit that one adopts as his or her own.
In contrast, Jewishness says Jews are born with sacred blood, i.e. the mere fact of being born Jewish makes one a member of the special ‘Chosen’ of the One True God. This means a Jew is simply born superior to goyim. Even without any effort to be a pious person or decent citizen, Jews are cosmically entitled to superiority simply on the basis of ancestry. This suggests why secular Jews, for all their professed liberalism or rationalism, tend to share in the supremacist attitudes of religious Jews. Even minus the spiritual element, there’s the persistent sense that Jewishness is special on the basis of identity alone(as Jews for thousands of years clung to the conviction of their identity being synonymous with sanctity).
Jewish Supremacist brags about the Plot to Deracinate All the Goy Nations
While any identity may partake of supremacist attitudes, supremacism is baked into the cake of Jewishness, which was conceived of as a spiritual tribalism. One might say there was a similar mythos at the core of Shintoism that, especially in its modern politicized version, posited that the Japanese-Yamato race is special for sharing the same blood with the divine emperor(regarded as a living god), but there are also key differences. Unlike Jews who insisted their God is the only God, the Japanese made no such claim. Rather, the Japanese believed the Japanese are one with the gods unique to Japan, an acknowledgement that other peoples and cultures have their own gods, spirits, and cosmologies. “We have our own gods, and you have your own gods” isn’t as arrogant as the Jewish claim of “There is only one true God, and He chose us, and all your gods are bogus.” Furthermore, while the Japanese were limited to Japan in historical isolation, the Jewish diaspora meant that goyim in various places had to contend with a tribe that regarded itself as The Tribe, the only special and worthy identity chosen by God, the corollary being that gentiles exist mainly to serve and appease the Jews whose blood is sacred by birth alone.
Also, Japan lost World War II, aka the Pacific War, and their divine god-emperor was forced into the role of a comical secular and ceremonial figure, something like an Asian Charlie Chaplin. Thus, the spiritual link between the Japanese people and divinity(as personified by the Emperor) was lost for good.
In contrast, the Holocaust Cult that emerged from the ashes of World War II elevated Jews even higher. If, prior to the Shoah, the Jewish sense of exaggerated self-regard(almost verging on megalomania) was contained within the Jewish community, the consecration of that tragedy into the ultimate narrative(about saintly Jews mass-murdered by Devil Incarnate in the form of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis) universalized Jewish sanctity in the eyes of goyim around the world. Holocaustianity evangelized that Jews or Jewsus died for the sins of goyim possessed by the evil spirit of ‘antisemitism’.
For many goyim, the battered Jews who survived World War II seemed like a harmless starving tiger cub in need of special care and affection. They had no idea it would grow into an apex predator, the ravenous tiger, with the appetite to devour the world.
Stew Peters call out the Idolatry of Donald Trump, the Shill of Zion.
When the likes of Viktor Orban rail against globalism, EU project, or ‘wokeness’ as akin to communism or the Soviet Empire, are they being sincere(and stupid) or playing a ramshackle version of 4D chess predicated on the assumption that Jewish Power is so overwhelming that it simply cannot be named despite being the main culprit ailing the West(and the Rest as well)?
But really, what did communism have to do with oligarchic capitalism, the economic foundation of globalism, with the likes of George Soros and Jewish-run Blackrock toying with the world? Soviet Union and communism may have been culturally repressive(especially in the areas of pop culture and avant-garde modernism), but when did it promote degeneracy, decadence, and sexual perversion, especially as the basis of a new kind of quasi-spirituality?
Communism must answer for its many crimes, but worshiping Harvey Milk’s anus wasn’t one of them. And, even though communism sympathized with the Third World in its struggle to break free of Western Imperialist hegemony, when did it extol a single ethnic group or race, be it Jews or blacks or any other, as deserving of more affection, indeed adulation? I don’t recall communist cities beset with riots in worship of a particular race. BLM riots were more like pre-revolutionary pogroms. I don’t recall the Soviet Union calling on the masses to riot in special deference to a particular race or ethnic group. Stalinism officially targeted certain classes for destruction, but it wasn’t about ethnic favoritism.
The political right often accuses ‘wokeness’ of the radical agenda of egalitarianism, but since when has ‘wokeness’ expressed equal sympathy for all groups? If anything, it’s been fixated on elevating blacks and homos/trannies, both specially selected by Jews, above all others, and on suppressing sympathy for the victims of Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Those who equate the pro-Palestinian protests with ‘wokeness’ are confusing correlation with causation. While it’s true that a fair amount of pro-Palestinian sympathizers have also been involved with ‘woke’ politics, their new passion is really a case of running off the ‘woke’ reservation or plantation, something unforeseen and undesired by the Jewish oligarchs and commissars who’ve funded and fashioned ‘wokeness’ and its variants mainly to humiliate and subjugate whites into morally inferior atonement mode for the white goyim. It all comes down to “Is it good for the Jews?” Consider how the supposedly ‘progressive’ Bill Ackman overnight turned into Bill Eichmann in his support of ‘Literally Hitler’ Donald Trump in the hope that the GOP will be more blindly supportive of ‘Gaza Genocide’.
Thankfully, some morons in the ‘woke’ movement finally put 2 and 2 together and realized that Jewish Power is the biggest supremacism, indeed one immersed in racial supremacist genocidal mode. And they paid a price for noticing. The likes of Greta Thunberg, once a cause célèbre in Jewish-dominated ‘progressive’ circles, suddenly became persona-non-grata in the globalist media.
While the current EU has certain similarities with the old Soviet Union, the differences are starker. The Soviet Union was mostly about keeping its citizens IN and keeping foreigners OUT. Indeed, the fact that it splintered into various republics upon collapse suggests that communism hadn’t been an existential threat to nationalities, which had been economically suppressed but not ethnically or culturally denied. If the Soviet Union had been hell-bent on erasing all nationalities, nations like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, and etc. couldn’t have arisen from the ashes of communist rule. It was even truer with the Eastern Bloc, with nations like Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia emerging in pristine national conditions. While communism held them back economically and technologically, it had posed no threat to their national integrity and identity. The Soviets insisted on their nationalisms being subordinate to Moscow but didn’t invalidate them as an organizing and defining standard. The Soviet idea of internationalism and brotherhood-of-man ideology meant camaraderie among communist nations, not a dissolution of borders and deconstruction of culture & heritage, the kind of agenda that gained traction in the West, especially under Jewish influence(that however shielded and excepted Jewish identity and Zionist interests from similar scrutiny, ridicule, and negation).
European communism was an economic failure but not an attack on national pride and health. Under communism, there was no cult of Hungarian Shame or Polish Guilt. Given that many Eastern Bloc nations had been allies of National Socialist Germany and participated in the invasion of the Soviet Union, one might think the communists would have guilt-burdened all their populations for having collaborated with the Evil Nazis. But even as the Nazis and collaborationist elements were vilified in the official narrative, the nations as a whole were spared indiscriminate accusation and abuse, indeed in stark contrast to the Jewish-engineered guilt-cult in the West whereby all Germans for all eternity were deemed guilty for the Holocaust and all Europeans were burdened with the guilt of collaboration, followed by Brits and Americans who were also blamed collectively for not having done enough to save the Jews. And then, all white Americans were guilt-burdened over the black issue, even whites who arrived as immigrants AFTER the Civil War.
This is all rather comical or tragicomic since Jewish influence ensured that the Russians wouldn’t be welcome at the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Imagine that. Jews who ragged on Europeans(and even Americans) for not having done enough to save Jews from the Nazis are now working with Nazis in Ukraine and banning the very nation that did most to defeat Nazi Germany from a commemoration of the Holocaust. Such vileness merely lends legitimacy to antisemitism.
Nationalism was fine in the communist world as long as it wasn’t chauvinistic, whereas in the West(under increasing Jewish control) any expression of goy patriotism and desire for self-preservation came to be impugned as ‘extreme’, ‘hateful’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘far right’, and/or ‘Neo-Nazi’. Likewise, the mere sentiment of “It’s Okay to be White” is deemed ‘white supremacist’, whereas of course, inadequate deference to the genocidal state of Israel is ‘antisemitism’. It’s a case of “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
Now, why would a hostile group be entrusted with the destiny of your people when it denies your people their nationalism all the while insisting on them to support its own extreme kind of supremacist-chauvinistic nationalism-imperialism? One explanation is the elites of your people are cucked maggots who sell their bodies and souls to the highest bidder, and Jews happen to have the most ‘benjamins’. Another explanation is they’re true-believing adherents of a racial supremacist worldview, albeit one that elevates another group as the rightful masters of the world. Whether it’s Scofield Bible thumpers who regard Jews as the superior Chosen race or the Scopes Trial HDB IQ-cultists who regard Jews as the superior Genius race, the animating spirit of the American Worldview is that Jews are the Master Race with the divine right to do as they choose, whereas the rest of humanity, the lowly goyim, can only aspire to gain approval or curry favors from the Awesome Jews.
How white goyim appear to Zionist supremacists. It’s also how white goyim behave. Like dogs who serve a master.
Such rot isn’t limited to Evangelicals and HDB-ists, as even the members of the European Right, such as Viktor Orban and Marine Le Pen, are always sucking up to Jews. If nine out of ten Jews spit on them, they will still grovel before the one Jew who shakes their hand(albeit only for Jewish advantage).
Loyalty to Israel is like an Insurance for goyim hated by Jews. Even Russia maintains good relations with Israel, the country that did most to undermine Russia’s attempt to shore up Assad’s regime in Syria.
Jews are deemed so holy-shmoly that if the Jewish-run West targets your nation and culture for destruction, your last hope is to appeal to Israel and the likes of Netanyahu in the hope that your side will not be smeared as ‘Anti-Semitic’. “Hey, how can we be ‘Anti-Semitic’ when we support Zionism?”
But, never mind that Netanyahu and the Likud Party work with ‘liberal’ World Jewry to spread Jewish supremacist influence. Never mind that what the Jews did to the Palestinians is merely a prelude to their war of erasure on all goy nationalities.
The idea that the only way to oppose Soros is by embracing Netanyahu is about the stupidest delusion in the world. Did Putin’s cucking to Israel prevent the disaster in Ukraine? Does Orban’s cucking to Netanyahu provide his nation any relief from the endless invectives from the Jewish-controlled EU? Did Le Pen’s commitment to Zionism spare her from the lawfare directed by her enemies who take their marching orders from World Jewry?
If indeed far-right Israel is at odds with supposedly ‘liberal’ and ‘leftist’ Jews that make up the bulk of World Jewry(as the European Right assures itself), why is it that the concentrated power of the Jewish elites across the West is to ensure that goyim of all stripes(especially whites) unconditionally support Israel and its Greater Israel or Yinonist project?
George Soros may not be bosom buddies with Netanyahu, but he is a hero to the great majority of ‘liberal’ Jews who are no less invested in the Zionist project than the Neocons are. The difference between Tony Blinken and Stephen Miller on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is exactly what?
Most necessary is a reassessment of the ideological explanations prevalent on the Right as to the sources of woes besetting the West. The misuse of ideological terminology and the confusion of what constitutes leftism and rightism has led many people to make false assumptions about the past and the present. Communism was an economic straitjacket but, at least in Eastern Europe, didn’t pose a threat to patriotism, border security, and cultural preservation. If anything, communism did more to safeguard the pillars of national unity and survival than the capitalist West did.
At any rate, it wasn’t capitalism per se but Jewish domination by way of capitalist success that led to the attack on white identity, European ethnicity, Western culture, and the values that guarantee a healthy society with the resolve to survive and fend off threats.
One thing for sure, we need to reassess the deeper currents of history following World War II. During the Cold War, the fear was about the encroachment of the Soviet Empire toward Western Europe, and NATO was justified on grounds of defense against communist aggression. The idea was that the West was tolerant and liberal, allowing for differences in creeds and values, whereas the communist East was dogmatically committed to World Revolution based on a radical ideology. Thus, the Cold War wasn't seen as the rightist West vs the leftist East but as the non-ideological West(that allowed for leftism and rightism and everything in between) vs the leftist East that tolerated no ideological dissent. Against such virulence, the 'free' and 'liberal' countries had to band together against the USSR that might use Eastern Europe as a launch pad for conquest.
Of course, Soviets saw things differently. After the devastations of World War II, the brunt of which fell on the USSR, buffer states against the West with its legacy of imperialism and domination seemed essential, especially as the US, the new hegemon, was armed with nuclear weapons that could devastate Russia in ways that the Germans never could with all their advanced weaponry. From the Russian perspective, Eastern Europe was a defensive wall than preparatory grounds for battle. Ironically, despite the overtly ideological(or revolutionary) character of the Soviet system, its view of the Cold War was far more realistic and pragmatic, more about national security than a battle of ideas. After all, despite its hold over Eastern Europe, American hegemonic power was situated in the very heart of Europe(Germany, France, Britain, and Italy), with Turkey as a part of NATO as well. Whereas the Soviets had virtually no presence in the Americas, Americans were well-positioned within striking distance of Russia. There was the case of Cuba(and the Missile Crisis), and America's drastic reaction shows that, when confronted with an 'existential' threat, its fears were hardly different from those of Russia. It became less a matter of ideology and more of cold realities of national security.
Because the Cold War was explained and justified on ideological grounds — The West has no problem with Russians per se, only with their radical and aggressive ideology of communist tyranny — , the logical outcome of the end of the Cold War should have been the dissolution of NATO. What more need of such an organization when the Soviet Union was no more, and the various republics that emerged from its breakup abandoned Marxism-Leninism.
Indeed, given the ideological fervor of the Cold War, it seems that Russians themselves bought into the idea that the crucial dividing line between the West and East was ideology, not power politics: Do away with the radical ideology of communism, and there should be no more enmity between the West and the East. Surely, some Soviets dissented and regarded the ideological aspect of the Cold War as smoke-and-mirrors manipulated by the West to conceal a deeper divide, one based on power politics, world domination, and imperialist mindset. In other words, Russia's abandonment of its aggressive ideology wouldn't negate the deeper conflicts based on geopolitics, and the West would exploit the East's weakness to encroach on its sovereignty. Those voices have been proven correct as the End of History(as Francis Fukuyama defined it, a grand battle of ideas), far from defusing the tensions between the West and the East, only intensified them, with NATO not only continuing to exist but expanding eastward and setting up ever more military bases against Russia(and reneging on disarmament agreements).
Granted, it's possible that the end of the Cold War could have facilitated a new era of peace and understanding but for the Jewish Ascendancy as the Jews, more than any other group in the West, were most hellbent on encircling, weakening, and destroying Russia as a sovereign civilization. Be that as it may, the abandonment of ideology by the East led to an even worse conflict, one that couldn't be resolved by intellectual or moral debate. If anything, the West cooked up new(and bogus) ideological justifications for the conflict: 'liberal democratic ruled-based West' vs 'autocratic authoritarian East'. Overall, the new divide was less about ideology than idolatry, one of the biggest grievances being that Russia favored the Christian Cross over the Sodomy Flag and the Pussy Riot. The continuation of the tensions with Russia suggested a deeper conflict that had been obfuscated during the Cold War, with all the talk of capitalism vs communism or democracy vs totalitarianism diverting attention from other factors. There had been a similar dynamic in the short-lived Cold Peace between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union. If the Cold War veiled geopolitical issues under the guise of ideological differences, the Cold Peace de-emphasized ideological differences in the interests of mutually beneficial geopolitics, which however proved too fragile to restrain the deeper hegemonic ambitions of both sides, especially the Germans and the Lebensraum plan.
The Germans, like the Jews, eyed Russia as a geopolitical injustice, i.e. a people as inferior, stupid, barbaric, childish, and servile as the Slavs shouldn't be entitled to all that land and its resources. 'Aryans' wanted it during World War II, and Jews want it now.
The rising tensions between the US and China also indicate that ideology counted for far less in the American outlook. Long gone are the days of Maoist China that tried to export its brand of revolution to the Third World. China has adopted market economics and friendly relations with the West on the basis of mutual respect, but the US keeps ramping up tensions that have little to do with ideology. Granted, some in the US, like Steve Bannon and Tom Cotton, seek to reignite ideological animus by constantly harping about the 'CCP' to imply that China is ruled by a bunch of tyrannical communists still committed to Maoism. To such types, Palestinians are merely 'Hamas', and China is merely 'CCP' or 'Chicom'. Given that China gave up Marxist revolution and wants peace & trade with the world, the growing American hostility gives the game away, i.e. ideology has been secondary to hegemony of the West, especially the US, and especially the Jewish-run US that, in reverse dynamic of the Europeans and Anglos who retreated from empire, seeks to maintain and even expand global domination in the Michael-Ledeen-ian manner: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." As Jews rule the US, American Imperialism is now an expression of Jewish supremacism, and we don't know for sure that things might have been different had Anglo-Americans(or WASPs) kept the power.
One thing for sure, whereas countries like Russia, China, and Iran follow their national interests, the US, despite being the most powerful country in the world, doesn't do so, given that its 98% of the population, the goyim, take marching orders from the 2% that is Jewish. The US is as much about national interest as Colonial India was under British rule, i.e. just like prior to its independence Indian 'national' interests were always subordinate to British imperial interests, American interests are always subordinate to Jewish Global interests, the difference being that, whereas the British made sure everyone understood that they were in power, Jews have maintained the façade of the US still being led by mostly gentile white Christian folks who, in reality, are even more servile to Jewish supremacist interests than Hindus and Muslims in India ever were to British Imperialist interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment