Thursday, May 16, 2019

The Power of Racination vs the Weakness of Deracination. Tale of Two White Groups: The Racinating Jews and Deracinating European-Americans


Especially since the end of World War II(though the general process began much earlier), white people in America could be lumped into mainly two groups. European-Americans(or ‘whites’) and Jews. Jews have long been considered as white people in the US even though most ‘full-blooded’ Jews(Ashkenazim) tend to be 50% Semitic. One could argue that many Hispanics are more white than Jews are. ‘Hispanics’ in America can be of any race, color, or nationality as long as they are of Latin American descent. Given that Italians(especially from Southern Italy) and Greeks are genetically more similar to many Jews than to Northern Europeans, it may seem odd that they too are being lumped with ‘white people’ while Jews increasingly stand apart. Furthermore, due to acceleration of mixed-marriages among Jews since the 1960s, a good many of today’s Jews are more European than ever and look it. Apparently, many successful Jewish men in the past 50 yrs married European-American women. Indeed, Jewish-Americans range from almost entirely white to almost entirely Semitic, and the proof is in the looks. Some Jews look more Anglo or Nordic than Semitic, while some Jews look like Groucho Marx and Alan Dershowitz. Given these racial or interracial complications, why does it makes sense, politically and culturally, to speak of Two White Americas, Jewish and ‘white’? It has to do with the factor of ‘Racination’ vs ‘Deracination’.

While it’s true that race is real and even biologically based, everything human is also about consciousness. Consider blackness. It’s biologically real that black races evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa. And yet, consciousness about blackness can change from place to place, from period to period. This is further complicated by mixed-race-ness. How people with black blood respond to their blackness differs from Brazil to Venezuela to Mexico(where most blacks became mixed into the racial brew) to the US. A light-skinned person with some blackness may identify as mixed-race or quadroon or octaroon in Brazil as such response has been the general norm. But in the US, he or she may identify fully as black for reasons of racial pride or solidarity(or exaggerated self-aggrandizing self-pity). But that is in the NOW. In the past, when the US was more race-ist, a light-skinned black person might have considered himself/herself as superior to darker blacks. Or, if possible, a light-skinned black with mostly white looks would have tried to ‘pass’ as white’. Consciousness of blackness used to be of shame than pride in the slavery era. So, cultural-consciousness of the ideological Zeitgeist goes a long way to determine whether a people emphasize(and even exaggerate) their racial/ethnic consciousness OR suppress(and even erase & deny) it.
Perhaps the most famous(and maybe shameful) case was of Germans in the US and UK during World War I. Germans have many virtues, but their subordination to authority and anxiety for social approval have been problematic. On the positive side, it could make them more unified in politics and united in purpose. But it could also mean a herd-like willingness to do anything to GO ALONG. Ironically, both German hyper-deracination in the US & UK and ultra-racination in Nazi Germany have an underlying common psychological structure. In both cases, German masses were swayed by the prevailing authority. German-Americans and German-Britons folded under pressure and out of fear all too easily. Germans under German Nationalism rallied en masse in total devotion to Der Fuhrer, the Man of the Hour, the Man of Destiny. In one respect, one could say German-Americans blended easily into Anglo-America and Anglo-Britain because of racial likeness and also because Anglos accepted them as racial brethren, indeed more than any other people. But given the rich and proud history of German Civilization & Culture, it seems rather shameful that, under pressure of a few years, so many Germans were willing to erase and suppress so much of their rich identity and culture. It was one thing for Germans to learn English and become Good Americans and Good Britons in foreign lands. But to go so far as repress or reject so much of Germanness except ‘harmless’ cultural identifiers such as beer, sausage, sauerkraut, and pretzel seems almost incredible. There are so many Americans of German stock who have nothing German about them in historical or cultural consciousness(except maybe in Holocaust Guilt). If Germans had been a tiny minority, it wouldn’t matter. But, for a long time, they were the biggest ethnic minority and contributed so much to the building of the US.
From a political viewpoint, perhaps it was a good thing that German-Americans became nearly fully Anglo-Americanized for the sake of national unity. As European Conflicts pitted Anglos against Germans in the first half of the 20th century, perhaps the US avoided similar ethno-national tensions because German identity had been successfully suppressed and subsumed into Anglo-America, especially during World War I when harsh measures were taken against the German-American community. But politics aside, what’s rather depressing is that so many Germans really took it to heart and waged war on their own identity. Germans rejected their identity beyond what was called for. It’s like there were times when Jews, under social or political pressure, had to pretend to just along. But apart from their external behavior, Jews never surrendered their Core Identity of Jewishness. Jews went along in body, not in soul. But German-Americans rejected their identity like Lutherans purge their souls of the Devil.
Does this mean that religion is stronger than race or ethnicity? Not necessarily. More likely, race + religion is the strongest identity. Jews have held steadfast onto the idea of the Covenant with God. And this sense of the Covenant, more than any political policy by Jews or ‘whites’, may have been most crucial in the resilience of (sacro-)racial identity of Jews. Wherever, whenever, and whatever, Jews primarily see themselves as Jews. They may be ‘Americans’, ‘Frenchmen’, ‘Polish’, ‘Russian’, ‘Iranian’, ‘Egyptian’, or whatever, as there are Jews all over the world, BUT the goy nationality is merely the dress that Jews wear. In flesh and blood, Jews are Jews. If an American Jew was forced to choose between being only American(and not Jewish) OR Jewish(fixed to another goy nationality), he will choose the latter. Jews value Americanism as the vehicle that brought them to supreme power. But it’s a tool, not their heart and soul. Also, as just about anyone can become an ‘American’(in mere five yrs necessary for citizenship), it’s not a very meaningful identity anymore. It is a means to material success, privilege, opportunities, and power. If something is open to everyone, it doesn’t really belong to anyone. America has become a Globo-Cow for all the world to squeeze for milk. The teats for treats for the world. And Jews now have primary ownership of the cow. Just like a farmer doesn’t identify himself as a cow even though he profits handsomely from it, when a Jew says he’s an ‘American’, it means something like "I’m a dairy farmer." ‘American’, to a Jew, is more an occupation, status, or position than an identity. The Jew’s true identity is Jewishness, not least because it is richly rooted in deep history, and it belongs to Jews alone. It is immutable, therefore precious to Jews. It is Jewishness, the binding of religion and race, that has made Jews unique throughout history(though there are elements of that in Hinduism as well, another ethno-religion. But if caste-less Judaism bound all Jews together as one people, the powerful caste-element left behind a much divided and fractured India). Religion is powerful but mainly a matter of faith, of the heart. Also, universal religions are mutable and thus weaken tribal or racial identity. After all, no race or identity owns Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. Religions can impart meaning and inspire people to noble deeds, but in emphasizing the heart over blood, it does little for identity, roots, and history.
As for tribalism, it too has its advantages and weaknesses. Naturally tribal, people like being part of a common community that comprises members of similar looks, alike temperaments, and shared signifiers. But tribalism as mere tribalism can be crude and ham-fisted, a vision of the world where it all boils down to ‘my tribe(or country), right or wrong’. Such emotions may be powerful but not very ennobling, and in worst cases, dark and despicable, as in wars when nations mercilessly kill countless civilians of one another in an orgy of tit-for-tat macro-tribal vendetta. The great advantage of Jewishness is that their religion is wedded to their race. So, when Jews think of God, He isn’t just a universal abstraction but their own God, the one and only Deity who made them the Chosen. Also, because Jews believe that their race is blessed by God and History, they regard serving their own tribe as a spiritual and moral endeavor. As far as Jews are concerned, the world can only be blessed by Jews, the Chosen. So, Jews must reach the top and gain the most power in order for the rest of humanity to be redeemed(by serving Jews). Indeed, rest of humanity must aid and abet Jews in this endeavor because Jews are the Chosen of God. Jews claim to be for universal justice, but Jewishness can only be about Jewish mastery & supremacism since it's premised on the conviction that humanity can't do without Jews, the only people who can redeem and bless the world. The logical conclusion is all goyim must praise and serve Jews as the Master Race because Jews and only Jews deliver justice to the world. But if Jews must be elevated above all of humanity to bring about a just world, isn't that unjust? Isn't it about Jewish supremacism and mastery? (This mentality characterized Jesus as well. He thought humanity could be saved only through Him. But at the very least, Christianity calls on Jews and Gentiles to be equal and alike. In contrast, Judaism posits that each and every Jew is like a messiah who must be obeyed, served, and praised by goyim. Thus, Jews and Gentiles can never be one people; Jews must be the master race over goyim, albeit one that promise justice to goyim. But if a people insist on having total power over you, would you trust them to administer justice on blind faith? US has been a most fascinating macro-experiment in Jewish Power. Jews got near-total power, and what are they doing with it in finance, gambling, entertainment, real estate, law, liberty, pornography, foreign policy, and culture?)
This is why the most important lesson of the 21st century may be that only peoples with their own covenants will survive and grow in power. As it stands, Jews are the ONLY PEOPLE with the Covenant. And that is why their power keeps growing while those of ‘whites’ keep diminishing. Covenant is like the freezer. Frosty the Snowman can survive in the Cold but not in warm weather. Covenant does to identity what freezer does to ice. It keeps it solid. Without the Covenant, identities melt into the puddle under the heat of globalism. White identities are melting like ice outside the freezer. Meanwhile, Jewish ice remains within their own freezer and grow harder and bigger. And this isn’t just a matter of blood but consciousness. While one must have Jewish blood to be Jewish, there is an added element of consciousness. In the US, someone who is 1/4(or even 1/8) Jewish may feel more strongly Jewish than a German-American or Swedish-American who is 100% of his ethnic-stock feels German or Swedish. Why would this be? Why would someone with a fraction of Jewish blood feel so powerfully Jewish while someone who is fully German feels hardly German? The Jewish Covenant, like a freezer, hardens identity. In contrast, even 100% Germans are consciously so deracinated that they don’t know what to make of their German blood, culture, and history. Even Germans in Germany have lost their sense of meaning and purpose. Many of them think German culture is just food, beverage, music, and books, products to be marketed to or shared with the world. And since holy Jews say German history and culture are tainted forever by Holocaust Guilt and ‘racism’, maybe the ONLY way to redeem Germanness is to fully expunge it of its ethno-racial component and turn it into a ‘world identity’, like the Bahai church or Mardi Gras festival in New Orleans.

A perfect demonstration of how Jewishness has been empowered by Racination while whiteness has become dis-empowered(even disemboweled) by Deracination was evinced in Paul Ryan’s last year in Congress. He made much fuss about the need to reject and suppress white identity and white nationalism, but upon discovering through a DNA test that he is 3% Jewish, he was wild and ecstatic with joy that he had some precious Jewish blood. Racination of Jewishness has made even traces of Jewishness precious, like glimmers of gold. But Deracination of whiteness has convinced so many whites that their identity, blood, and roots have NO value. Paul Ryan reacted to the 3% Jewish side of him as if he found a gold nugget in a stream. As for the 97% of him that is white, he just treated it like dirt and sand to wash away. So, there we see the effects of Racination and Deracination on the Human Consciousness.
This is all the more ironic because, for most of the world(and even to Jews), whiteness is the ultimate gold to gain access to. Why do so many non-whites want to migrate(often permanently) to white nations, white-made nations, or white-majority nations? The reasons are many: Economic, political, moral, cultural, sexual, and material. Non-whites feel white people do things better, maintain superior social & economic systems, tend to be more fair-minded, and are more attractive as mates. And deep down inside, Jews know that they rode to supreme power on the Great White Horse. Without Europe and white-made US, would Jews be ruling the world? Could Jews have gained the kind of power and wealth they did on the backs of blacks, Muslims, Asians, or etc.? No, despite their problems with the Christian Europe/West, Jews gained most in association with white civilization that rose to heights of achievement and glory. But the relations between Jews and Europeans were tense, and not only because of religious issues but economic ones. Jews provided invaluable service as moneylenders, but it could also be parasitic and over time, Jews could amass fortunes in an almost exponential way. And Jewish loyalty was always questionable since they always regarded themselves as Jews first. Jews always bitch about discrimination, but their very identity was discriminatory, exclusionary, and even supremacist. Because of the relationship between Europeans and Jews that was, at once, productive & mutually beneficial AND wrought with mutual distrust & contempt — with Jews getting the worse of the conflict(due to numerical disadvantage) when things got out of hand — , Jews are worried that the current white-Jewish partnership may also end badly, even in bloodshed. Jews remember how they got expelled from so many nations as a beleaguered minority. (But then, when Jews had the power, they violently expelled Palestinians from their own homeland. It goes to show that Jewish expulsions were a matter of power, not noble Jewish victimhood. More numerous Europeans pushed out smaller numbers of Jews. What is amazing about the Nakba Pogroms is that the smaller Jewish population pushed out so much of the majority Palestinian population. When Jews got the power, they don’t choose to be noble victims. They prefer being ruthless victors. Of course, in their publicity campaigns, they still play ‘victim’ in the manner of ‘The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you’.) In order to maintain the partnership between Jews and whites, Jews insist on further racinating Jewishness(with pride of identity, nobility, tragedy, glory, spirituality, and awesomeness) and deracinating whiteness(as ‘nazi’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘evil’, ‘far-right’, ‘extremist’, etc). So, all US politicians singing hosannas to Israel, the US waging Wars for Israel, the media spreading Hate News against ‘enemies of Israel’ and any nation antagonized by Jews, and endless blather about Jewish This & Jewish That is perfectly ‘normal’ and ‘American as Apple Pie’. But, even the sentiment, "It’s Okay to be White" or a supposed ‘white power’ hand sign must be objects of witch-hunts. In other words, Jewishness is so awesome that we must praise and worship it uber alles, whereas whiteness is so wicked that even the slightest whiff of it must be treated like poison and sound the alarm.
And yet, people may wonder... if Jews hate whiteness so much, why don’t they just pick up their stuff and leave? Why don’t Jews depart from white nations and go resettle in non-white world of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and etc.? Get away from whites as far as possible. Indeed, if whites suck so bad, why were Jewish Immigration Patterns so often about GOING WHERE WHITE PEOPLE ARE GOING, GOING WHERE WHITE PEOPLE ARE? And why did Jewish bankers fund white imperialists who colonized other parts of the world? Why did Jews come to the US created by whites who committed ‘genocide’ against Indians? And why do Jews ask white nations above all to support Israel and praise Jews? If whites are so evil and wicked, why do Jews so heavily rely on whites as their main support system? Why do Jews want to associate Jewish interests with White Support? Why taint holy Jewishness with wicked whiteness? It’s like someone cursing Satan and then asking Satan to come to his aid at every turn. It makes no sense, at least on the surface.
What this indicates is that Jews have a love/hate thing with whites. Jews love whiteness as the gold standard of high civilization, social order, technological progress, political stability, and etc. They also lust after whites as the ‘best fuc*’. But this love of whiteness also makes them feel angry and envious. After all, if Jews are indeed the Chosen people, why are whites more attractive and more pleasant? Why do so many Jews look like Anthony Weiner(and act like him too)? Why do Jewish men prefer white women over Jewish women? Why do Jewish women prefer white men over Jewish men? Also, it angers Jews that their religion is relatively ‘petty’ and brutal compared to the loving and embracing universality of Christianity, historically the religion of whites. To resolve the issue, Jews maintain the exclusivity of Jewishness while appropriating the universal aura of Christianity that is more inspiring to all mankind. But how does one remain an exclusionary Jew while pontificating about equal justice for all mankind? How do you preach love and brotherhood while sticking to an identity that says, "WE are the Chosen, not you goy filth." Jews have been unable to resolve the issue, and that’s why we have a crazy kind of neo-universalism in the West. If Christianity offered the hope that ALL peoples could be equally precious in the eyes of God, Holocaustianity or Jew-Worship as universal-faith means All Peoples must bow down before the Jews as the Chosen(or Shoasen). It’s a total perversion of universalism whereby all peoples are made to reject their own tribalism so as to revere the uber-tribalism of the Jews. Same logic operates behind Homomania, a proxy of Jewish Power, the message of which is all the straight and normal people around the world must bend over to a tiny minority of vain sexual deviants whose idea of ‘sex’ is homo-fecal-penetration or whose idea of ‘gender’ is tranny penis-cutting. But then, consider the astronomical ascension of Jewish and Homo power precisely because their identities have been ‘racinated’ or ‘consecrated’ to such extent. Meanwhile, look at the dissipating identities of whites, Europeans, and Japanese who have accepted soulless consumerism and status-competition as their main fixations.
What this teaches us is that genuine universalism of equality is bound to fail. It has never worked. If anything, Jews have taken advantage of universalism to make all the world worship them. The lesson for each and every people is to define, shape, and guard their own identity in terms of race, range, and roots. Blood, soil, and history. Jews certainly gained power by doing just that. And finally, to turn one’s identity into a Covenant, a people need to create a visionary narrative that says they have a special contract with the Great Being, the Ultimate Power of the Universe. If Jews sought it out and got themselves the Covenant, other people can also attain a covenant for themselves through their own prophetic striving. This and only this will secure the existence of a people. It must be race, roots, and range BLESSED BY religion. As Christianity has finally come to an end, there must be an Age of White Prophets who seek the voice of the Ultimate Power, with whom a covenant can be written for the white race and for the white race alone. If Jews have their own Covenant, why shouldn’t whites have one of their own? Christianity failed for the white race in the end because its all-inclusive Covenant belongs to everyone. And if someone can be had by everyone, it belongs to no one in the end. It’s like air we breathe. It doesn’t belong to any of us but to all of us. You are not the air you breathe. You are your blood, your organs, your body, your brains with unique memories and thoughts. Christianity will continue to have meaning and purpose as a religion that preaches certain virtues and teaches certain values, but it has no value as an identity. It can be appreciated as universal oxygen for all the world that wants to breathe some blessed air. But if Europeans and whites are to survive as a people, they need a covenant that is about their particular place and purpose on Earth and in the universe. It is a covenant that must be the stuff of vision and depth but also devoid of hubris and vanity. It must be of both heroism and humility.
Anyway, why did all non-Jewish whites become deracinated in the US while Jews got more racinated? In a way, Jews were always racinated due to the nature of the Covenant. Indeed, Jewishness was always more than a matter of religious faith but of ancestry and memory. But another factor was Jews talked and read more. More talk means Jewish kids heard more from grandparents and parents about past history and heritage. Jews also read more, and they also produced much of their own literature. So, they not only learned much about history and the world but through their own lenses. Also, Jewishness vis-a-vis Christianity had a doubly reinforcing effect. Not only did Jews insist on excluding goyim from their own community but the Christian community regarded Jews as the Other. Even in the US where anti-Jewish feelings were less pronounced, there was a sense of Jewish-Christian Divide that Jews cleverly manipulated because Jews wanted to gain access to the white(esp Wasp) world but didn’t want whites to pry into the Jewish World. The formula has become dangerous in a world shaped by Jewish Supremacism. When Jews weren’t yet dominant in elite fields, the notion of 'Jewish community' simply meant their ethnic enclave or cultural community(like the one featured in Woody Allen's RADIO DAYS or Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS). As such, there was no reason for non-Jews to stick their noses into Jewish affairs, just like Jews didn’t stick their noses into what was happening in Chinatown or Polish Town. But what happened as the result of more and more Jews entering elite fields to the point where entire elite spheres turned into Jewish Communities? When elite institutions were ruled by Wasps, the Jewish Community was a about neighborhoods and distinct Jewish organizations. A handful of Jews within elite circles didn’t change the equation. But when so many college departments, courts, media outlets, law firms, financial firms, and etc. are so dominated by Jews, it means the elite sphere itself has turned into a Jewish Community. Why is this dangerous? Because elite power has not only been tribalized into Jewish supremacism but into one that cannot be criticized. For example, it’s one thing to let Chinese be Chinese and do their own Chinesey things in dinky Chinatown. People in such a Chinese Community are not going to have power over us. But, suppose this convention of Leaving the Chinese Community Alone is extended to Chinese Power that hypothetically takes over the elite institution and industries of America. Those powerful Chinese will have power over us, but they will be protected from criticism on account that they constitute a 'Chinese Community'. Jewish Community now comprises the globalist-imperialist rulers over us, but we are to pretend that it still constitutes some hapless Jews eking out a living in a poverty-stricken shtetl. Jews in the Jewish Community can do their Jewish things for Jewish reasons. But as elites of a multi-racial and multi-ethnic empire, Jews in high places must take leave of the Jewish-Community-Mentality, but they haven't. They play the New Romans but while eating bagels among themselves than breaking bread with all Americans and humanity.
Jewish Community has gone from Rags to Riches, but we are supposed to see just the rags. Paradoxically, it is Jewish riches that make us see Jews in rags. Jews expend great sums to keep cranking out Holocaust movies that, GROUNDHOG-DAY-like, remind us that Jews are always poor victims of the Holy Holocaust. Jews buy off politicians to give speeches about how Jews are a hapless and powerless people in need of protection. Jews steal land from Palestinians and use IDF death squads to mow down women and children in Gaza, but the Jew-run US narrative is "We must protect Jews from Hamas."

In contrast to Jews, white Americans of all stripes have become deracinated. Because Judaism is about identity + religion, Jews still feel as Jews even as they become secularized. Even if they no longer literally believe in the Torah, they feel Jewish in the ethnic sense. In contrast, because Christianity is a matter of the heart, once the Faith begins to fade, it comes to mean very little to the ex-faithful. One can be an atheist and still feel powerfully Jewish because Judaism has a powerful historical-and-ethnic component. But once a Christian begins to feel doubt about God and Jesus, his loss of faith is near total, and there is nothing of meaning left. As Christianity once mattered so much to white folks in Europe and the US, the fading of Faith struck them much harder than such did to Jews. Even without faith in God, Jews got ethno-identity and history from Judaism. But without Faith, whites got nothing from Christianity.
That being the case, in an increasingly irreligious modern world, could whites recover their identities on ethnic, cultural, and historical grounds? This was doable in Europe with distinct ethno-states, but this ran into problems due to imperialism, communism, National Socialism, and war. Imperialism of various kind suppressed many form of ethno-nationalism. National Socialism and WWII gave white forms of nationalism a bad name. Communism suppressed national identity in the Soviet Union. But it was even more problematic in the US. Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, and Ethnic-White Americans, in order to get along together, all settled upon a very generic sense of Americanism. In order to accommodate non-Anglo-whites, Anglo-America had to water down an already rather bland Anglo-American culture even further. As a result, Anglo-American identity became near-anemic. Also, the American Myth of having broken free of the Mother Country to forge a new civilization created a blank-slate mentality among too many Anglo-American elites. As for Irish-Americans and even more problematic arrivals from Eastern and esp Southern Europe, their assimilation into Anglo-American necessitated the loss, repression, or neglect of entire aspects of their original cultures that grew weaker down the generations. Ian Buruma said that the problem of Singapore is that no single language — Chinese, English, Hindi, Malay, etc — is spoken well because everyone tries to accommodate other groups and get along. Likewise, because so many kinds of whites had to get along together in the US, White-American-ness is both everything and nothing. It was flexible and practical enough to accommodate so many white ethnic groups, and as such, was a very successful formula. But the end result was that all these White Americans came to lack a sense of distinct roots, history, and identity. Anglo-Americans with deeper roots had to pretend that late-arrivals from Eastern and Southern Europe were also part of American Civilization. And Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, and Polish-Americans had to pretend George Washington was the ‘father of my country’ when their ancestors arrived a full century later after the American Republic was founded and played no role in the creation of the essentials of American Civilization. So much depended on make-believe and consensus-thinking than on blood-and-soil and true ancestry. Same problems now exist in France where Arabs & Africans are expected to embrace French history as THEIR OWN history while the white French(the real French) are made to believe that Arabs & Africans are(and always have been) part of Core French Civilization. Such things don’t work out well. Look what happened to the Roman Empire.

Of course, there are other reasons why white identity, along with racial and national identities all over the world, grew weak in the hyper-modernizing world of the 20th and 21st centuries. Rapid urbanization that led to atomization and individualism, followed by suburbanization that led to genericism, boredom, and mall culture. While suburbs had the look of small-town-living, they were extensions of urban life, not rooted communities that developed from the soil. Also, consumerism and non-stop barrage of electronica that turned culture mainly into one of fashion and celebrity than community, values, and remembrance. And the sheer vastness of America and mobility of Americans made it difficult for many to maintain their sense of identity and togetherness. In the US, Italian-Americans could be in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and etc. Chinese-Americans could be East Coast or West Coast. Or they could be in Texas. Anglos in the West have often been at odds with Anglos in the East. According to Woody Allens’ ANNIE HALL, NY Jews and LA Jews don’t see eye to eye.
That said, the fact that Jews were able to not only maintain but, in many respects, strengthen their Jewishness despite urbanization, globalization, and modernization goes to show that a people can control their consciousness despite all material transformations. Karl Marx said material conditions determine consciousness, but Jews have certainly been an outlier in this insofar as they managed to preserve and empower their identity despite the widely held belief that globalist trends are bound to weaken all ethnic & national ties in favor of global hubbub where all people are, more than anything, atomized individuals in pursuit of pleasure, happiness, and opportunity. Then, how is it that Jews, the most globalized and modernistic people on Earth, are also the most rooted in cultural heritage, historical memory, and ethnic loyalty? It goes to show what the power of will and consciousness is capable of. Of course, plenty of Jews have fallen by the wayside. And there is no guarantee that Jewish Identity or Power will last forever. But the fact that Jews have both immersed themselves in modernity and identity demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for other peoples IF they were to summon the will, imagination, and vision to do likewise(and with more decency and principles).

Now, we know why Jews insist on racination for Jews and deracination for whites. As Jews are a minority, their power depends on blind loyalty and obedience of whites. Jews know that whites are far less likely to obey and serve Jews IF whites have a proud and powerful identity of their own. Just like the ego of the slave must be broken in order for him to serve the master(the sole owner of ego), the identity of whites must be erased in order for them to serve the master-identity of the Jews.
But as the current morality is against slavery and master-race ideology, Jews have cleverly shaped the Narrative to suggest that it’s all about whites suppressing their own ‘supremacist’ and ‘extremist’ tendencies to lend a hand and offer protection to poor, hapless, and beleaguered Jews who are beset on all sides by irrational ‘Anti-Semites’ and ‘Nazis’. So, we are to believe that White Supremacy is still the Way of the World, and therefore, Good Whites must make an extra effort to keep the Nazis and KKK down to protect Jews and prevent another Holocaust. In truth, we know that Nazis and KKK have zero power. We know that sporadic acts of violence toward Jews in the US and EU are reactions to Jewish Supremacism and Zionist Imperialism. While these acts of violence are often unpleasant and even contemptible, Jews have the power and hold most of the cards. And Jews have abused the power in so many ways. They angered Muslims with the Nakba and Wars for Israel. Jews have angered Eastern Europeans by pushing the Great Replacement. And many Americans are angry due to policies pushed by Jews, but many of them still do not know the full truth because the media they rely on for news & info are controlled by Jews who scapegoat everyone but themselves for all the social, economic, and political problems. Because many white people don’t know what is really going on, some of them turn to dumb or crazy ideas that reek of Neo-Nazism or KKK-ism out of desperation. Why? Because they are confused with lack of information. If they were truly woke to the truth, they’d realize that the US and EU are now colonies of the Empire of Judea, much like India was once the colony of the British and like Vietnam & Algeria were once the colonies of France.

If whites really knew what was up, they’d opt for White National Liberation movements against the Jewish Empire. If they are asked what they seek liberation from, they’d say from the Empire of Judea or EOJ(aka ZOG). But because many whites are confused and ill-informed and don’t know what to think or say, some of them stupidly fall into crazy Neo-Nazi strains of thought-and-expression, which are advantageous to Jews who can point to it and say, "Looky here! Didn’t we tell you? It’s the Nazis all over again." Thus, these fools hand moral advantage to Jewish Supremacists once again.
In contrast, if they characterized their movement as White National Liberation, people would ask, ‘liberation from what?’ The very notion of LIBERATION would imply that whites are under a supremacist power from which it seeks autonomy, emancipation, and independence. And this power is the Empire of Judea. White National Liberationists want liberation from Wars for Israel, from immoral support of Zionist-Imperialism, and from Jewish Hatred toward Russia, Jewish Hatred toward Iran, Jewish Hatred toward Syria, & Jewish Hatred toward Arabs. White National Liberationists want freedom from Homomania as the new-satanic-christianity, or Queertianity, all of it invented and employed by Jews. White National Liberationists want freedom from sexual colonization by blacks, aka ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs being pushed by blacks.
There are many ways a people can be colonized. Their land can be taken and colonized by others. Their women can be taken and their wombs can be colonized by others. Their children can be taken(as Greek boys who were recruited and indoctrinated to become Janissary to the Turks, a form of mental and soul-colonization). White National Liberationists want freedom from white sports being colonized by blacks, white history being retro-colonized by blacks & Diversity who were NOT a crucial part of European history. And above all, White National Liberationists want freedom from the demands of the Jewish Master Race. White National Liberationists dare to be uppity against the Jews unlike all those cuck-collaborator House Honkey or House Goy whites who ho-de-do before their Jewish Massuhs.

But there is still a problem. What does it mean to be white? Even without(and before) PC and anti-white propaganda, the notion of whiteness in America was useful and practical enough to maintain unity & order but not strong enough to constitute a united identity of depth and meaning. It is precisely that lack of substance in cultural and historical meaning that makes ‘white power’ sound more rude & abrasive than, say, the power of rooted identity. For instance, Irish Power or Greek Power has some resonance with history and culture. It’s not just about power for power’s sake but power to defend a tradition and community. But because whiteness is so vague, both too narrow and too broad, it comes across as a nihilism of power. It’s like refined sugar, which packs lots of calories but has zero nutrients. In contrast, Jewish Power isn’t just about power-for-power’s-sake but power to defend a history and culture. It has nutrients and fiber along with the calories. As for Black Culture, it has gained an element of nobility as an identity of resistance against racial oppression. So, even though blackness is as vague as whiteness — what do blacks in the US know or care about real black cultures of Africa? — , it seems more justified as empowerment in search for justice and equality. In contrast, because whiteness has been synonymous with power and domination in the US, the notion of ‘white power’ seems redundant, like ‘power power’. What’s the point of calling for more power for what is already powerful? In the past, such an argument would have been valid. But in the much-transformed and fast-changing America, it is no longer so. History doesn’t remain the same. At one time, China was the richest and most powerful civilization on Earth. Then, it was the Sick Man of Asia beset by imperialist powers. Then, it was a poor communist nation, united but backward. Now, it is on the rise, and it would be foolish to pretend today’s China is like China of 100 yrs ago. Just as Chinese changed so much in 100 yrs — along with Jews and their status in the world — , whites today are not what they were 100 yrs ago, and this goes for both those in US and EU. Jews know very well that history is always in a state of flux(more than ever in the turbulent age of globalism), but they want to fix the Narrative and Iconography permanently with Jews as Eternal Victims and Whites as Eternal Victors NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. This way, Jews get to guilt-bait whites and manipulate them into serving the poor, noble, and hapless Jews FOREVER. And many whites prefer to go along with this Narrative because even though they must act as servants, they get to play the master. Cuck whites serve Powerful Jews, but the Drama they put on is of noble white knights defending poor noble Jews from the Dragon of Hate. It’s so much like Hollywood. Jews own the place and hold all the cards, but the movies are of Great White Knights fighting forces of White Hate and Bad Muslims to ‘save the world’.

In order for whiteness to be something other than political sugar, it has to gain in nutrients. While Jews seek to deconstruct whiteness, White National Liberationists must seek to construct whiteness into a meaning. This doesn’t mean this constructed whiteness must replace European identities such as Polishness, Hungarianness, Irishness, Russianness, and etc. Rather, it would be another plane of identity. Identity can be multi-layered or -leveled. Before there were many European peoples, there was the white race. White Race biologically and 'mytho-spiritually' pre-existed all European cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities. It is the root, truly of blood and soil. And in the US, even as so many European identities have faded and been forgotten, there remains whiteness as a biological and genetic presence. What can be done with this identity that cannot be done away by ideology or propaganda? Jews seek to deconstruct and invalidate it. But WNL or White National Liberators can construct whiteness into a meaning of depth and substance. One of blood and soil, of one history and continuity, one of evolution and environment. A Book can be written on the subject, and it can be shared and read. And then, whiteness will have justification for power and revival. It may even gain a covenant.

Monday, May 13, 2019

Some Notes on HOW HITLER SAVED THE ALLIES(by Ron Unz)


https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

Victors(or the Official Scribes) write the history. Scholars also write the history. Victors prefer their own 'good war' narrative. This is true of all sides. As for scholars, they are not necessarily on the side of victors, especially in a system that is relatively free, like in a democracy. There have been plenty of dissident or alternative scholars in the West, even in elite institutions. But scholars have tended to be on the Left. Furthermore, especially after revelations of Nazi atrocities in WWII(and because the West felt the direct fury of Nazi Germany but not of the Soviet Union), it had become increasingly difficult to be a right-wing scholar(except from the most defensive or Philo-Semitic position, self-defeating since Jewish Power is the main force against the Gentile Right). So, not only were most official scholars on the Liberal side of the spectrum but even most dissident scholars were on the Left. Naturally, they emphasized the crimes of Nazi Germany while tending to overlook the atrocities of the Liberation. In Italy as in France, the Left took to revenge with a fury. One could argue that the leftists acted worse than the Right(during the Occupation), but absent law and order(in a time of chaos and flux), mobs(of any stripe) can easily get out of hand. And it wasn't just the Left. Many Frenchmen who felt humiliation of defeat and occupation just took it out on anyone, not least on French women who had affairs with German soldiers. And there had been plenty of collaborators, big and small. And even though German Occupiers were reasonably tolerant and humane toward most Frenchmen, they came down hard on the far-left and Jews, and the Left remembered and sought revenge. In Spain in the wake of Right-wing victory, many on the Left were brutalized and killed as well. Not all of it was done by the state. Conservative and clerical forces rounded up suspected communists and anarchists and butchered them. In Indonesia, upon Sukarno's ouster upon the failed communist coup, a reign of terror engulfed the nation in which 100,000s, maybe a million, were butchered by mobs, often on economic or ethnic than ideological grounds: Chinese were often targeted.

There are many other inconvenient truths about the 'Good War'. US bombing of French towns in preparation of invasion of Normandy killed lots of French civilians. Much of US bombing of Japan was punitive and/or vengeful than strategic. Also, contrary to the belief that the US was hesitant to use nukes and was compelled to do so only to 'save lives', it was prepared to nuke 10 to 12 more cities if Japan didn't surrender. In other words, US was willing to go 'full Nazi' against a nation that was all but defeated and crippled just to push for total unconditional surrender. When I grew up, the term 'fascist' had such negative connotations that I thought Mussolini must have been just as evil as Hitler. Reading his biographies, I was surprised by how mild(relatively) his rule was compared to others. And contrary to the romantic myths about the Spanish Civil War, the Left was just as ruthless and murderous as the Right. Though made famous by Picasso's painting, the bombing of Guernica was a minor event. Indeed, all of history is a simplification or distortion. In discussion of the Vietnam War, people tend to blame LBJ or Nixon the most. For some reason, Eisenhower gets a break because he warned of the Military-Industrial Complex. But it was Eisenhower's administration that sowed the seeds of discord in Vietnam and messed up Guatemala and Iran that would have huge repercussions later.
Also, it's ironic when people say Hitler planned to 'conquer the world'. Untrue but even if true, the world was already conquered by imperialists, mainly British and French that were hardly 'liberal democracies' around the world but, in fact, often-brutal colonial powers. Accusing Nazi Germany of preparing to do what the Western Imperialists had done already is rather amusing. Though Hitler admired the imperialists, esp the British, his actions inadvertently 'saved' the Third World by bankrupting France and UK even more than after WWI. Furthermore, once UK and France redefined themselves as nations that resisted foreign tyranny, the template spread to the Third World that defined itself as the Resistance against Western 'Nazi-Like' Imperialists.

As for Operation Pike, historians focus mainly on what happened that what-might-have-happened. For example, if Hitler had planned the Shoah but didn't carry it out, it would be discussed far less. If the US had planned using atomic bombs on Japan but finally decided not to, it would be treated as a footnote. There are surely political and ideological reasons as to why Operation Pike would rather not be mentioned by scholars, but it didn't happen in the end. It was talk, not walk.
Was Josef Stalin preparing to conquer all of Europe? Could he have? I just don't see Stalin being so reckless. If Soviets(and that is a Big If) did set up offensive posture against Germany, it was likely to force Germany into a defensive posture, thus thwarting any first attack on Germany's part. Given Stalin's nature -- consider his ambiguous position on Korea -- , it's difficult to believe he planned to conquer all of Europe. Maybe just maybe, he hoped that France and Germany would weaken each other as in WWI and then, if the opportunity was ripe, the Soviets would sweep in to take it all(as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe). But Germany's victory over France was so swift and commanding that Stalin was in awe of Germany, and the last thing he wanted was a war. Stalin had expected the Franco-German War to last several yrs, bleeding both the republic and Reich as in the previous war. He had no idea that it would end so quickly and dramatically.
However, he may have feared that Hitler would then move against the USSR, and therefore set up 'offensive' positions along the border to send a strong message that Soviets are not to be threatened.
Consider that part of the reason why France lost was it thought ONLY in terms of defense. Even though it declared war on Germany and not vice versa, France was dug in for defense and had no capacity or will for offense. Stalin may have thought that the ONLY way to stop Hitler was put up an offensive posture. Also, it's hard to believe that Hitler and his men prepared such a vast undertaking(total war on Russia) at the last moment in panic and desperation. It had all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out plan. And the timing was near perfect as it was around summer solstice, the longest day of the year.
While Stalin might have had big plans -- he was a Marxist after all -- , he was not a dreamer like Hitler who thought more like an artist than an intellectual. More than anything, Wagner's operas were the inspiration of Hitler's vision of history. Thus, he saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Also, his initial gains pumped him full of hubris. And then, his swift victory over France made him feel near-invincible.
According to John Lukacs and Pat Buchanan, the main reason for Hitler's attack on the USSR was to bring UK to the table. This theory sounds absurd, but it makes sense from a psychological point of view. From a practical point of view, it makes little sense. If Hitler was having such a hard time defeating UK, why enter into a two-front war that also involves USSR? That seems utterly stupid. But if we consider that Hitler loved and admired the UK while loathing the 'subhuman Slavs', then what he ultimately wanted was an alliance with the British while subjugating the Slavs. So, by taking the USSR out, Germany would demonstrate to the UK that it alone is the undisputed ruler of Europe, and there is NOTHING the UK could do about it except to come to the table and form a partnership with Germany. As Lukacs wrote, Hitler's main ideology was not Germanism but Aryanism. He regarded Britons as fellow Aryans, and so, British Empire was Aryan rule over the world. Though Hitler had alliances with Italy, France(which had no choice), Spain(in a willy-nilly way), Eastern European nations, and Russia prior to Operation Barbarossa, he didn't prize them as much as he did the hypothetical one between Germany and Britain, the World Empire. That would have been Aryan + Aryan. Could such have been possible if not for Jewish influence in Britain? Or, was the culture of class and manners too important to the British elites to side with a 'vulgar' demagogue like Hitler, gutter trash who rose to the top by ranting like a lunatic?
Great Britain had played a moon-like influence on Continental Europe. A balancing effect. Just like the moon steadies the rotation of Earth and ocean waves, British influence maintained balance of power on the Continent by forging alliances against whatever power was most dominant. Indeed, had it not been for Britain, perhaps a Continental Empire might have formed. But in WWI, British influence went awry and made things much worse by intervening on the side of France. Its effect was more like that of an asteroid than the moon. As for Hitler, he was a super-volcano that just erupted out of nowhere. British asteroid and German volcano undid Europe in the 20th century.

I can believe that Jacob Schiff played a role in Bolshevism. Not out of ideology but tribal loyalty and hatred against 'bad goyim'. We see the same patterns today, what with Jewish Oligarchs even siding with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine against Russia. And Israel works with extreme Muslim elements to subvert secular Arab regimes(that are regarded as bigger threat to Israel). Also, George Soros throws his money around at ANYTHING to get what he wants. Given the level of hatred Jews felt toward Russia in the 19th and early 20th century, it seems likely that a Jewish banker like Schiff and others would aid JEWISH Bolsheviks against Traditional Russia. It was mainly about JEWISH capitalists aiding JEWISH communists. If a conflict was about GOY communists vs JEWISH traditionalists, I'm sure men like Schiff would have funded the latter. Blood matters sometimes. Though both China and Vietnam were communist while the Chinese minority in Vietnam was capitalist, the Boat People tragedy(that targeted capitalist Chinese) angered China(though communist), partially accounting for the brief Sino-Vietnam War. And there are plenty of capitalist Chinese who loathe communism but still side with Mainland out of tribal loyalty.

As for David Irving, yes, he was targeted for taking on sacred cows, but it was also the way he did it. An abrasive and difficult personality, he relished the role of playing enfant terrible just too much. Also, he has a double standard when it comes to history. When it comes to Hitler's crimes, he insists on total documentary proof. But on other matters, he's willing to go with established narrative, flimsy evidence, or wild exaggerations if it makes the Allies, esp Churchill, 'just as bad as Germany'. His suggestion of moral equivalence that Allies were just as bad as Nazi Germany is going too far. In war, both sides did horrible things, but does anyone really think Germany would have treated the vanquished like the Allies treated Germany? Once the dust settled, Germany was treated like a normal nation by the Allies, but what would a victorious Germany have done? If Germany had won over Britain, humane treatment was likely. But against Russia, it would have been horrors on a scale unimaginable. And as it would have been on racial than ideological grounds, it would have been far worse. (Germany was treated reasonably fairly by Allies after WWII, though in the immediate aftermath, there was a period of unspeakable atrocities against Germans, esp the women by Soviet troops. If things got worse for Germany over the years, it has to do with Jewish Power taking over the US and turning Shoah into a secular religion, thus turning German Guilt from a historical matter to a spiritual one. But then, this Sacred Cow that comes with powerful taboos applies to all of Europe, as well as Canada and US and beyond. The Shoah Narrative is nearly as harsh on France, Poland, UK, Sweden, and etc. as on Germany. If Germans are to apologize forever as the killers, other Europeans are to apologize forever as collaborators or craven cowards who failed to stand up to Hitler. As EU is a US satellite and as the US is controlled by Jewish Power, much of the 'free world' is occupied zone of Jewish Supremacism that, while calling on whites to atone for their own past supremacism, also insists that whites must support Jewish Supremacism against Palestinians, Arabs, Iran, and Russia.)
Was Kaiser Wilhelm a 'peacemaker'? The article says Wilhelm was once praised by the New York Times as a rational and sound leader, but what does that mean? NYT was and is full of shit. During the Newt Gingrich and then George W. Bush II era, NYT often praised John McCain as the Good Republican, moderate and balanced. But in the 2008 campaign, he was made out to be a moron, nutjob, and loon in contrast to messiah Obama. And then in the Trump era, he's been rehabilitated and praised once again as a voice of reason by NYT and rest of 'Liberal' Media. In the 70s, US media were full of high praise for Mao. In the 80s, US media called Jihadis in Afghanistan 'freedom fighters', and Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy because he was fighting Iran. But then, he was 'new Hitler' in the early 90s. So, it doesn't matter how NYT may have characterized Wilhelm before WWI. NYT is a political rag of the moneyed class, and it's been all over the map. Also, when even if something was printed in the NYT, it was either one writer or a handful of people on the editorial board. It doesn't mean everyone working for the paper agreed. Many newspapers offer varying points of views.
The fact is Wilhelm was vain, arrogant, and conceited. And when it mattered most, he failed miserably, but then so did the idiot Czar of Russia and the French Republic in revanchist mode(going back to 1870 defeat to Prussia-Germany). WWI was a case of "It takes two to tango" or "It takes a bunch to start a barroom brawl." UK didn't make things any better as it hoped German defeat would thwart its global ambitions, esp as Germany had surpassed UK as the #1 industrial power in Europe.
Viktor Suvorov
Did FDR want a war with Germany to save his presidency? And was Adolf Hitler not so bad? The notion that FDR was itching for war just to have another term sounds far-fetched. Also, even if was true, Hitler was the one who was driving events. He could have avoided much trouble by not moving on Czech territory, for which he was forgiven and accommodated(or 'appeased'). And then, whatever problems he had with Poland, the joint German-Soviet invasion was pure evil. But even then, his victory over France meant he had domination over all the continent except the Soviet Union. He could have kept the peace with USSR and run out the clock against the UK.
Now, Viktor Suvorov argues that the USSR was about to attack Germany and that Hitler didn't have a choice, but this is still conjecture and speculation, a matter open to debate, one that I still don't believe. If indeed, Stalin did amass military formations against Germany, he took a huge gamble. Likely, he was using a mental strategy against Hitler. A show of force from the position of strength to psych Hitler out and prevent Germans from attacking. But maybe Hitler read things differently and really believed a Soviet threat was imminent, in which case Stalin's bluff failed(or succeeded to well in convincing the Germans). Now, given the endless lies we've gotten from the media -- and bogus books on Israeli History, such as the notion that Palestinians abandoned their homes voluntarily during the Jewish-Arab War in 1948 -- , it's possible that there's far more to WWII than we'd been told so far. But psychology matters in history, and Stalin's psychology just doesn't indicate 'Invade all of Europe'. Also, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler was that the former already had vast areas and vast populations under direct control. Even without taking another inch, the USSR was an empire unto itself. Stalin already had what it took to be an emperor. In contrast, Hitler's ego was just as big or even bigger, but he only ruled over 'tiny' Germany. Germany had dominion over satellite states, but it was far from what Stalin had. From that perspective, Stalin was content without taking further territory. He was content to nibble on parts of Finland(though he could have taken it all) and Baltic states. Also, even if the Soviet offensive against Germany might have been successful, it would have been at huge cost, and I highly doubt if Stalin was willing to risk that.

German economy did better under Hitler than US economy under FDR, but then that was one of the advantages of a centralized state. Hitler didn't have to deal with democratic brakes for his plans that were implemented overnight and at vast scale. In contrast, FDR's New Deal was hampered by opposition from the other party and capitalists(and American individualism). So, it's understandable why he wanted to be wartime president because war(and hate), like nothing else, unites a nation together for a single purpose. While the notion that FDR provoked Japan into aggression to facilitate US entry into the war is maybe plausible, he would have had to been a super 4D chess player to foresee and manipulate events in Europe. Also, considering that he won his terms by promising peace than war, a mere outbreak of war in Europe would NOT have guaranteed US entry unless US it was itself attacked(and that took Japan).
As for Hitler not being 'Hitler' of Villainy, this is true enough up to 1939. It's like what Joachim Fest wrote in his biography: Had Hitler died in 1939, he would have been remembered as one of Germany's greatest leaders. But there were events following 39 and esp 41, and they revealed the dark side of him. That dark side had always been there, but it truly emerged as he gained greater power and means to do as he wished. Given his ideology and worldview, Hitler could be reasonably humane among his own kind and those whom he respected(like the French). He regarded them with affection and fondness. It's like Jews in Israel are wonderfully nice to other Jews but virulently murderous to those in Gaza. But his racial ideology meant he could be incredibly uncaring and even hostile/murderous toward certain others. He didn't merely dislike the Slavs. He despised them as a people. His hatred of Jews was understandable given Jewish role in communism and Weimar decadence, but it went beyond human hatred toward something monstrous that led to atrocities that even David Irving admits. Irving never said Germans didn't commit atrocities against Jews. He said he found no evidence that Hitler directly gave those orders, but this is rather incredible. While Hitler surely didn't order every instance of mass-killing of Jews, he presided over a system and appointed the kind of men who would gladly do such things.
Morality depends on context. A chimp can be a capital fellow among his own tribe. He can be a good friend and leader. But against an enemy tribe, he can be most vicious, commit all sorts of mayhem, and bite off the genitals of the Other. So, Hitler's rather decent behavior among Germans says nothing of his behavior among Russians or Jews. Likewise, white Americans who could be so nice among themselves could ruthlessly wipe out Indians or kill tons of Filipinos or Vietnamese. Americans, who talk of law & order and democracy, turn a blind eye to all those dead Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. In the American Way of Thinking, a fellow American is a capital fellow and becoming America is ennobling, but 'muzzies' in the Middle East are just cannon-fodder for "Support the Troops" mentality. Americans have affection for Jews and praise them highly, but when it comes to Palestinians, it's like a Brahmin sneering at an Untouchable. Farrakhan is so loving and forgiving of his black brothers and sisters... but feels contempt for rest of humanity. Israeli Jews are brothers and sisters, but they don't care how many Syrians are slaughtered as long as it's 'good for Israel'. Hitler was no different.

From observation of current Jewish mindset and attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish globalists harbored a supremacist outlook in the early 20th century(as did the French and Anglos who also vied for world supremacy) and that was a factor in German resistance against Weimar-ism.
Indeed, most of Western Europe was in imperialist hegemonic mode, and Jews were a part of it. Whether it was military supremacy, financial supremacy, intellectual/ideological supremacy, cultural supremacy, religious supremacy, racial supremacy, and etc., it was a real game of thrones. As Jewish money and involvement were inseparably intertwined with Western Imperialism, it's likely Jews had a similarly supremacist outlook. In some ways, Jewish hegemonism may have been stronger because of their ancient pedigree of the Chosen rooted in the Covenant.

The tragedy of National Socialist Germany was it didn't counter Jewish supremacism with German Nationalism and Humanism. Alas, it countered Jewish Supremacism with 'Aryan' supremacism and thus forfeited whatever moral credibility it could have possessed. Indeed, one moral advantage of communism was it cleverly framed the global conflict in terms of capitalist-imperialists vs social justice for all of humanity.

But then, it's hardly surprising why Hitler thought as he did since most of the world was already under one form of supremacist domination or other. So-called democracies were the biggest imperialist powers who'd secured dominance over the world. If they felt threatened by Hitler, the reasons weren't merely militaristic but rhetorical. His brazen racial theories bared naked the true nature of imperialism. In essence, it wasn't about enlightenment, Christianity, and spreading progress but about the supremacist hegemony of one group of people(mostly Europeans, Anglos, and Jews) over the rest of mankind. Hitler was blunt and 'rude' enough to spell out what other white elites really thinking but wouldn't say, or at least didn't shout for all to hear. Hitler was too much of a 'cowboy' who called attention to the true gangster-nature of Western Power. Gangsters like to keep things orderly and cordial on the surface: Keep it respectable and gentlemanly. If dirty business has to be done, use the goons, but leave the talking to Men with Manners. In contrast, Hitler did a lot of goonish hollering. In the gangster world, anyone who causes too much stir and spills the beans on what it's really about must be wiped out. Like Tommy in GOODFELLAS.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

The Virtue of Choosing Something Lesser than Oneself than Greater than Yourself — Why Jews, with their Contradiction of Fanatical Tribalism, are Unfit to be Imperialists — Hubris of Richard Spencer and Matt Heimbach in the Fall of the Alt Right

John McCain the 'War Hero' who called on Americans to serve something greater-than-oneself. In his case, it was serving the Uber-Tribal-Ideology of Zionist-Jewish Imperialism.

We’ve all heard from politicians and teachers that we shouldn’t be so self-absorbed and individualistic. We should live and struggle for something ‘greater than ourselves’. John McCain said as much in the 2008 campaign. Of course, ‘greater than yourself’ doesn’t necessarily mean something grand, awesome, and powerful. It doesn’t mean you have to be part of History with Capital ‘H’. It doesn’t mean you must be associated with Important People, Macro Trends, and Geo-Politics. It could actually be humble, about doing good work for little people who need it most. After all, Christian missionary work where people from the West(and now East) go to poorer parts of the world to spread the Gospel and improve lives has been regarded as doing God’s work, and what work can be greater than that to a Christian? And Peace Corp. that started with the Kennedy Administration was about bringing American Know-How to the underdeveloped Third World.
And yet, words matter in shaping our thought processes, and the term ‘Greater than Oneself’ has had a corrupting influence on people. Indeed, we can start with John McCain himself. So, what did McCain mean by working for something ‘greater than himself’? It was all about shucking for Wall Street and shilling for all-powerful Jews. Even McCain’s faux-compassion for illegals from Mexico and Central America was under the directive of Wall Street, Globalist Elites, and Jewish Power. After all, if McCain was concerned about suffering non-whites, why was he blind to the disasters wrought upon the Muslim World by Jewish Power, esp. that of the Neocons? Why was he reliably silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians? In practice, what McCain meant by ‘greater than oneself’ was serving the biggest power(that in his lifetime became Jewish and Zionist) and participating in Big History. Of course, McCain and others like him spouted the usual talking points about ‘human rights’, ‘spreading democracy’, and ‘fighting terrorism’ — to give the impression that their political lives were devoted for the Greater Good of all Mankind — , but his main attraction to politics was about being where the Power is at.

Words matter, and when most people hear invocations of ‘greater than oneself’, they don’t think of good works or good deeds but being part of Greater History. Because History, as the conflicts and tensions on a world scale, is generally moved by the Powerful(who tend to be amoral, heartless, opportunistic, cynical, ruthless, cunning, fanatical, and/or unscrupulous), those who take part in Big History will rarely be working for the good of mankind. Rather, they will be working for the aggrandizement of the super-elites. Things are especially worse when the Great Power happens to be both intensely tribal and maniacally imperialist. If a people choose to be tribal, they should stick to nationalism: Our people, our nation, our culture. If they choose to embark on the imperial project, they need to rise above narrow tribalism and try to meet other peoples at least halfway. The reason why the British and Christian Europeans made such successful imperialists was they gave as well as took. While they could be ruthless, cruel, and greedy(and committed innumerable horrors like all other empires), they could also show genuine respect for other peoples and cultures. And they were willing to share their God with other folks via conversion. One might say Christianization of the natives was a form of ‘cultural genocide’, and there’s some validity to that claim, but it also demonstrated that white Christians were willing to regard even their subjects as fellow children of God. In contrast, Jews, like German Nazis, make awful imperialists. Jews with their current mentality, like Germans of the National Socialist period, should really just stick to nationalism. They are too tribal to ‘rule the world’. German Nazi-Imperialism became especially brutal, murderous, and insane in areas where the inhabitants, such as Russian Slavs, were barely regarded as members of the human species. There was no possibility of meeting the natives halfway. The Nazi German attitude was one of total superiority over inferiority. It could easily become a blueprint for mass-genocide or mass-enslavement.

Imperialism has partially justified itself across the span of history as a liberating or uniting force. Napoleon was an imperialist leader but spread French concept of freedom and liberty to other Europeans. Indeed, had Napoleon prevailed over Russia, Russian people would have been freer as individuals even if their nation was under French domination. Same was true of Chinese in Hong Kong under British rule. It was clearly a case of imperialism but an enlightened one. So, even though the empire's days were numbered, there was appreciation as well as resentment.
Imperial subjects may find domination by foreigners tolerable and even welcome(to some degree) IF there’s a compensatory gain over the loss of national-tribal autonomy. (In a sense, the inner-logic of immigration is like imperialism. So many people choose to come to America, abandon their own land-people-cultures, switch loyalty to a new nation[even at the risk it may attack and destroy the homeland of immigrants], and follow new narratives & worship new icons IN EXCHANGE for better material lives and more personal liberty. Muslims come to the US and have better material lives but pay taxes to support Wars for Israel that kill Muslims by the bushel. And in turn, white Americans accept demographic replacement on account of its economic benefits. There is give-and-take in both imperialism and immigration... at least until the balance is lost as in the case of Palestine where Jewish arrivals totally took over and expelled the great majority of Palestinians.) This is especially so IF the national leadership has traditionally been corrupt or tyrannical. This was part of the reason why not all Frenchmen were dispirited by the German invasion and occupation of France. Incredible as it may seem to many today, there were plenty of Frenchmen who believed that France was under leftist-Jewish-socialist domination in the 1930s and that the German invasion, though regrettable, at the very least removed Jews and the Left from seats of power. Such sentiments were possible in France because the Germans respected the French and treated them rather nicely. But such feelings were impossible in much of Poland and especially Russia where Germans invaded as exterminators and/or slavers. Even Russians who detested Stalin and Communism soon realized that German Victory would be even worse. So, if the imperialist power isn’t willing to meet the conquered & subjugated halfway with concessions that sweeten the humiliation of defeat, it’d be better for everyone if the invading power just stayed home and stuck to nationalism. If Hitler had invaded Russia with a Napoleonic outlook(as an Enlightened and Tolerant Tyrant), he might have won over more Slavs to his side; they might have thought, "It’s better to have humane treatment under foreign domination than inhuman treatment under national rule." (To be sure, Stalin and many Bolshevik rulers weren’t Russian.) But Germans invaded to take everything while giving nothing. For Russians, the options were resist, win, and survive OR surrender, lose, and die. As Germans attacked only with the stick and no carrot, Russians had no choice.
Nazi German Invasion of Soviet Union. A Total War of Zero-Sum stakes.
When we look at Jewish Power in the current world, it is obvious that they, rather like the Nazi Germans and, to a lesser degree, the Japanese Imperialists, is unfit to be imperialist mode. Anglo-Americans, for all their faults and hypocrisies, made better imperialists because they had a modicum of honor and sense of shared humanity. Despite Anglo-America’s racial views of superiority and culturally arrogant attitude, its vision of humanity was tempered by Christianity that taught all peoples are God’s children. Also, the Anglo tendency to suppress its own tribal peculiarities to arrive at a more 'generic' vision of law and order served as a useful template for imperialism and immigration -- the downside, in the long-run, was a cultural anemia that, lacking in vital tribal blood cells, lost out to the virile semen-and-blood Jewish Power fueled by Portnoia and dong-and-booty-call of Negroes who are worshiped as the Sun people by white Brits who consider themselves the frigid Ice People who'd be lost without Afro-Warmth.
So, even though Anglo-Americans could be just as ruthless and bloody in war, they tended to seek common ground and offer compensation once hostilities were over. When the time came to bury the hatchet, it was buried, and sincere efforts were made to forge a new future based on better relations. Anglo-Americans did have a sense of something greater than their identity and tribe. As a world power, they understood they had certain obligations to the rest of humanity. Such bigness of vision(and even heart) is sorely lacking among Jews. This is why Jews are just fine among themselves and in taking care of their own problems, but they are miserable and miserly when dealing with other peoples, the filthy goyim. In that regard, Jews only think in terms of "Is it good for Jews?" and nothing else. Because of the cultural and historical habit of Jewishness, a supremacist mind-set that says God favored Jews over goyim whom some Jews regard as hardly better than cattle, Jews hardly think of the higher, greater, or common good when they deal with others. Even secular modern Jews retain this habit of mind, even if only subconsciously. Just ask the Palestinians. Just ask the Russians who were fleeced by Jews in the 90s. Just ask the global victims of Jewish finance.
Chechen Bad Boys
Now, there are plenty of cutthroat peoples and tribes around the world that are just as nasty, vile, and vicious as the Jews, but Jews are far more dangerous because they (1) are smarter (2) more aggressive (3) more seasoned in manipulating and cheating others (4) adept at cooking up moral or spiritual excuses for their perfidy (5) play the eternal victim to shield their evil deeds and (6) make universal claims despite serving narrow tribal interests. Jewish actions put shame to their claim. When Gandhi heard of ‘Western Civilization’, he sardonically remarked it’s a good idea. He meant Western Imperialists talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk of enlightenment. But European Imperialists, for the most part, were angels compared to Jewish Imperialists who really care for NOTHING but their own power and privilege. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chechens are just as nasty and mendacious as the Jews, but they will never amount to anything more than gangsters, thugs, and ragtag terrorists. In contrast, Jews have made it as professors, lawyers, historians, judges, bankers, oligarchs, and deep state operators. Jews are sharks, Chechens are piranhas. Jews control the oceans while Chechens are stuck in their ponds. Both Jews and Chechens wouldn’t be problematic if they stuck to their territories and own kind. Because they are so intensely tribal, both are unfit for imperialism and foreign ventures. Chechens have spread out over parts of Russia to expand their empire of crime, and they are loathed and detested by non-Chechens of all stripes. Still, because Chechens are only good at criminality and mainly stuck in the Russian territories, they mean nothing to the world. In contrast, Jews have had the means the take over the elite institutions and industries of America, and that automatically catapulted them as the Imperial Rulers of the World. Jews prize and savor their role as the New Caesars, but they simply don’t have the perspective and attitude necessary to be good Imperial Rulers. Indeed, compare French and the Algerians, British and the Irish(or Scotch), and Jews and the Palestinians. If Algeria and Ireland had come under Jewish control, things would have been much worse for the natives. In the end, the Algerians were able to regain their land(and then some, as the French allowed Algerian immigration to France itself), and the Irish were able to reclaim their nation. But look at the plight of Palestinians. Jews are not satisfied with Israel that was established over much of historic Palestine. They must also take West Bank which is being swallowed up piece by piece, taken inch by inch. (Compare what whites were willing to sacrifice in South Africa with what Jews did to Palestinians.)
Worse, Jews not only disgraced themselves with their foul form of Judeo-globo Imperialism but corrupted Anglo-Americans as well. As top dogs, Anglo-Americans could be a force for both good and bad. They were willing to do much bad to gain hegemony and domination, but they were willing to offer much that was good to make amends. But now, as underdogs of Jews, Anglo-American elites are mindless and worthless cuck-dogs of Jewish Power that they pretend is noble for all time because of the Shoah, an event that had NOTHING to do with most of humanity. Deep in their hearts, Anglo-American cuck elites may well know that Jews are foul cretins, but they repress such dire truth because it would mean (1) they relinquished their power to a bunch of a**holes, (2) they were stupid enough to be fooled by Jews ideologically & morally, and (3) they’re a craven and cowardly bunch of running dogs to the Tribe. Fish rots from the head, and a dog is only as good as its master. With rotten Jewish BUGS(busy urban globalist Semites)at the helm, WASP cuck elites are merely their servile dogs.
Ireland, over centuries of British rule, underwent many hardships but wasn’t wiped off the map. Even Scotland, a territorial part of Britain, was allowed to remain Scottish. But now, both Ireland and Great Britain are under Jewish globo-homo imperialism and are being demographically and culturally replaced by Homomania, Diversity, and Afro-Worship. Why are the Irish and British masses so blind to what is happening? It’s because the Jewish Empire remains invisible. Wherever the British or the French went, they displayed their symbols in pageantry and declared their dominance over others. So, at the very least, imperial subjects knew they were being ruled by a foreign power, and this consciousness eventually led to resistance. But because Jewish Power operates through a Stealth Empire that isn’t detected by the Media Radar(that is also Jewish-controlled), many Brits and Irish still don’t know their nations are colonies of the Empire of Judea. Also, because Jews work stealthily to indoctrinate elite British and Irish minds through control of World Academia centered in the US — universities all around the world take cues from what comes out of Harvard, Yale, and other Ivies that also train many world scholars — , it creates the impression that British and Irish masses are being instructed by their own British and Irish scholars when, in fact, those scholars are mental puppets of Jewish scholar-agents of the Empire. So, even though Jews pushed Diversity, Afro-Worship, and Homomania to destroy Ireland and Britain, so many Irish and Brits think those are their own values and principles conceived by themselves. As for Irish and British elites who DO KNOW that Jews control the world, they can be bought off to collaborate and comply with generous bribes and sinecures. In the US, Joe Biden is no dummy and knows that Jews control everything, but notice how he goes out of his way to scrape the Jewish anus with this tongue to get his goodies.
Another factor that may redeem imperialism is if it acts in the common good of humanity. Whatever one may say of Christianity, Islam, and Communism, they did offer mankind a shared vision of equal justice under God or History. All those who converted to Christianity were part of the brotherhood and sisterhood. All those who became Muslim were the beloved of Allah. And communism was about comradeship among workers of the world. So, even though Christian, Muslim, and Communist Imperialists committed lots of atrocities, their ultimate message was about uniting all humanity under the banner of shared humanity and theory of justice. And this is why Napoleon was a much idealized and romanticized figure even among subject peoples of French Imperialism. His rule wasn’t simply about French aggression and domination but about a New Order in which the average person, regardless of identity, would have more rights, liberties, and protections. And in their own way, Anglo-Americans believed that the world could become a better place under Pax Americana that would ensure the flow of goods, liberty, and know-how to all the world. They were willing to take but also offer. It’s like what Merlin tells Uther in the opening of EXCALIBUR. "He(the Duke of Cornwall) has given, now you must." Cornwall is willing to yield to Uther’s authority but expects compromise. Uther, proud and rash, isn’t about to give an inch, but wise Merlin urges him to do so as a king must be magnanimous and make friends as well as enemies.

Jews take and take but cannot give. And even when they give, it is in the way of a hustler, merely preparing for the day when they can grab it all for themselves. Jews are about hustle than honor. Just ask the Palestinians who were assured that Jewish immigration would lead to economic opportunities and NOT lead to their demographic demise. Pure hustle. Given there are so many non-criminal Jews in law, academia, history, arts, criticism, government, and etc, you’d think they would be above con-man gangster mentality, but they aren't. Because of their essentially hostile & neurotic personality and tribal & merchant mentality, even Jews who are respectable professionals than crooks, cheats, con-men, or gangsters think more like the latter. They don’t think straight; instead, they twist logic and meaning to get their way. Everything is a pretzel logic with these people. This is surely the product of two opposing modes of Jewish behavior throughout the ages: (1) Maintaining tribal identity and superiority at all costs (2) Gaining universal domination by money, diplomacy, and ideology. One part of Jewishness is intensely tribal & hermetic and another part of Jewishness is obsessively universal & expansive. Usually, when a people try to become a world power, they need to reformulate their identity to be more encompassing of the Other, as with the Romans. But Jews are obsessed with their identity rooted in the Covenant. The Covenant says they are the blessed of God who, furthermore, willed them to rule all the world. (Christianity as formulated by Apostle Paul offered a compromise where both Jews and Gentiles could be brothers and sisters, but Jews said NO. And Jewish Diaspora after the Exile made them see the larger world and want to have it all while maintaining their zealous identity of superiority and particularity.) Because of the great contradiction between Jewish tribalism and expansionism, perhaps kind of psychological con-game trick plays out in the Jewish mind to resolve the problem. Of course, it cannot be resolved, so the Jewish Mind constantly comes up with warped rationales as to why Jews must remain Jewish and why Jews must dominate the world. The contradiction has gotten even worse in the aftermath of World War II because Jews now define themselves as both the most victimized & helpless people AND the most awesome & fearsome people. Arrogant Jews bask in their great power with nasty Netanyahu and Alan Dershowitz leading the way. But Jews also insist on being perceived forever as the poor hapless Holocaust People. When a people who insist on their close-knit tribalism demand to rule the world and furthermore play victim while ruling as the utmost victors, the world is really in a messed-up situation. Imagine a weasel with the power of a lion pretending to be a mouse. British Imperialists sought to make their subjects serve the glory of Britain, but there was the sense that even non-British were part of the empire, thus shared in the glory and, therefore, were also ‘British’ in a way. (This worked well as an imperialist strategy but is proving to be fatal as a nationalist policy as the Mother Country of Britain is now being invaded and colonized by the World.) But Jews do not seek to share any of their glory with others. It’s all about goyim praising, honoring, and worshiping Jewishness while Jews sneer and snicker at others. Consider the relation between Jews and White Evangelicals. The latter praise Jews and worship Israel, but Jews show nothing but contempt for the Bible-Thumpers. If anything, Jews pushed Homomania as the Main Theme of their globo-homo-shlomo imperialism. Unlike Christianity, Islam, Communism, and Liberal Democratic values that emphasized the greater good of the vast majority of mankind, Homomania(or Queertianity) preaches that the vast majority of people who are not homo must worship the Holy Homo minority along with the Sacred Jewish Identity. So, it’s all about Minority Supremacism, and for the great majority, the message is "Get on your knees and suck the Jewish cock and then bend over to take it up the ass by the Homo." How can Jews be trusted when they don’t admit that they are the rulers of the world? If anything, Jews use their great control and power to shut down voices to suppress the fact of their power and control. It’s like a rich man using his riches to shut down people who say he’s rich. It’s like a loud man shouting to silence people who remark that he’s loud and obnoxious. Jews are immensely powerful but deny they got the power. Jews treat Palestinians like dirt but expect others to believe that they will be treated any better by Jews. Jewish Chutzpah is incredible. Jews got so much while Palestinians got so little and continue to lose what little they got, BUT the US pours billions of aid into Israel while turning a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians. It’s about sympathy for the rich & tyrannical and antipathy to the poor & helpless. This is how Jews have corrupted the American Mind by purging US politics of ‘Arabists’, foreign policy advisers who urged a more balanced treatment in the Middle East. For Jews, everything has to revolve around them. No longer believing in the one and only God, they made themselves the one and only Power.
Also, Jews make OTHERS pay to make the Jews appear generous. If the British Empire expended its own treasury to maintain its empire, Jews squeeze goyim to pay for all the costs of empire. Jews invoke ‘white privilege’ to make all the world blame whites than Jews for all that goes wrong. Jews milk white teats to provide milk for people of the empire. The Wars for Israel will mainly have to be paid for by the white middle class. White soldiers certainly did most of the killing and dying. We know from 2008 Wall Street fiasco that Jews are ‘too big to fail’. And those who serve Jews, like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Barack Obama, are rewarded handsomely. But the white middle class must be milked dry to pay for all the mess. Or Jews will just keep printing more money and then shift the blame on China to avoid blame. Jews, who decry ‘antisemitism’, never tire of using the media to scapegoat and smear other peoples such as Russians, Iranians, and Chinese. In the US, the usual scapegoat is usually whites, mostly straight white males, but ‘Beckys’(white females) get it in the neck too. Fussy Jews who always rag and nag whites about everything have the temerity to accuse white women of complaining about bad black behavior(as if blacks are above the law, at least in relation to white goyim, indeed as Jews are). Of course, when blacks act bad in Jewish neighborhoods, Jews use stop-and-frisk to have them patted down and/or arrested. Generally, Jews ignore and even suppress all news of black-on-white violence and only highly black criminality as a problem when Jews are attacked. For the longest time, Jews said the Knockout Game is fake news, that is until blacks began to knock down Jewish men, in which case it was big news in NY.
Jewish spread of Globo-Homo around the world as agent-collaborators of the Zio-Empire
Anyway, perhaps what is best for many on the Dissident Right, Alt Right, and Left-Right(my brand of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism) is to think of serving something ‘lesser than oneself’. Now, there are plenty of people all over America and the World who devote their lives(or some time of their lives) to aiding, serving, and guiding those are less fortunate, less talented, and less able. And of course, the teaching profession is about adults who know more passing knowledge to youth who know little, though to be sure, today’s educators are more like re-educators of PC Dogma. Under Jewish control, schools have become more like reeducation centers than educational institutions. Why? Because Jews are no longer climbing the rungs of power but at the very top. When Wasps used to rule, Jews valued free speech as a means to speak honestly and forthrightly about the failings of Anglo-American elites. In any system, honest and free criticism will hit the Power the hardest as people tend to notice and blame those who have the most power. But now that Jews have the most power and want to keep it, they fear critical thought, honesty, and courage as the hallmarks of education because honest, fearless, and critical voices will target the most powerful.
Matt Heimbach the Fat Fuhrer of the Malt Right
The fact that words matter can be seen in the decline of the Alt Right. While Jewish Power had much to do with it, the blame must fall on its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokesmen’ as well. People on the Alt Right claimed to be for something bigger and greater than themselves. They spoke about how it’s not enough to be an atomized consumer or deracinated individual. One must live for something bigger, greater, and grander. But such terminology corrupted the Alt Right just as much it did guys like John McCain. The Alt Right forsook the element of humility and got wrapped up with hubris. Just like John McCain pontificated about the nobility of serving the larger humanity than one’s own ego but actually spent his entire career serving the biggest oligarchs and warmongers, the movers and shakers of History, so many on the Alt Right spoke about caring for fellow white folks but spent an inordinate time waxing romantic(or idiotic) about how they are like the new invincible ubermensch who can shake thunder out of clouds to create the Fourth Reich. Consider the gross shithead Matt Heimbach. As leader of the Traditional Workers Party that claimed to care for working class Americans and their problems of unemployment and substance abuse, he could have done much good. In other words, he would have done best to work in the mode of living for those lesser-than-oneself. Less educated and less well-off in every way. After all, while it’s pointless to help those who are richer, more fortunate, and more intelligent, anyone can make himself useful by helping and guiding the less fortunate. A one-eyed man is of no use to a two-eyed man, but he can lead an army of no-eyed blind people. A one-armed man can do something for a no-armed man. A third-rate doctor is of no use in a rich part of town with many first-rate doctors, but he will be invaluable in a poor part of town with no doctors. Thus, by seeking out those who are lesser-than-oneself, one can find meaning in life. As the path to power is shut off to the Dissident Right for the time being, many in the Alt Right could have gained moral and spiritual credit by demonstrating their usefulness to people who are without meaning, hope, or direction. And you’d think that was what Matt Heimbach was about as the leader of a Working Class Party. But like Richard Spencer and others, he was so full of himself. Serving something greater-than-oneself meant playing the game of History(even though he was no in position to be playing any such game). So, he made himself out to be Fat Fuhrer and promoting Neo-Nazism because, apparently, being a 'humble' helper to the less fortunate wasn’t fun, exciting, and thrilling enough for his big fat ego. And he had to be a ‘rock star’ among his White Power community. Being faithful to his wife wasn’t good enough. He had to hump other women, including the wife of his father-in-law Matt Parrott in pure Jerry-Springer 'white trash' style.
Richard Spencer was seen as an elite leader of the Alt Right, corralling its intellectuals, while Heimbach was regarded as the leader of the lumpen-whites, but what they both had in common was egotism and narcissism over the needs of the people. Contrary to Spencer’s Faustian fantasies, most white people were, are, and always will be just average people with modest goals in life. Spencer’s haughty egotism made it impossible for him to touch base with most whites — as he’s too busy communing with gods in heaven such as Batman, 007, and Darth Vader — , just like horny alpha-male-ism made a total mess of his married life. Being closer to regular folks, one would think Heimbach would have avoided such pratfall, but nope. Deep down inside, he’s just another egotist. He was using the theme of White Working Class and their problems to play out his fantasy of being Fat Fuhrer of the Fourth Reich in the form of beerbelly ‘white trash’ America. He wanted to be king of Malt Right.

For so many people, from John McCain to Richard Spencer to Matt Heimbach, the meaning of serving something greater-than-oneself got perverted to mean something awesome, powerful, grandiose, megalomaniacal, and etc. They forgot that greater-than-oneself means serving a certain GOOD. In the end, it’s not about serving one’s own ego or serving(or seeking) the Power. It’s about making oneself useful to those who need the help. But, via such good work, one can gain genuine appreciation, admiration, and respect that can be traded for glory and power. Of course, ‘doing good work’ is exploited for that very reason by the vain elites. Consider all those brats of rich parents who take up ‘good works’ just to fill up their college applications with ‘holistic’ credentials so that they may be accepted to Ivy League schools whereupon their lives will hopefully be smooth sailing to the bastions of power and privilege. People like Spencer grew up too spoiled, privileged, conceited, and snotty to ever roll up their sleeves to touch base with regular people. When he talks about living for something greater-than-himself, he means touching base with pagan gods of heaven who shall hand him the world on a silver platter upon a Faustian Pact. Too many Alt Right guys have hipster than humanist disposition and, as such, lack the humility to really go among the people and offer them anything. And Heimbach has been a perfect example of this. He couldn’t put away the stupid neo-Nazi paraphernalia and get down to serious work. He preferred to play fatso Leonidas of the movie 300, looking for more tussles with Antifa to make himself out to be Butterbean of the Alt Right.
Like so many SJW or NPC types, too many Alt Right guys grew up on Pop Culture fantasies, which, when mixed with Euro-pagan mythicism(related in some cases with Nazi symbolics), becomes like a drug, not unlike meth or crack, that sends young people, especially the men, into paroxysms of egotism, delusions of grandeur, and megalomania. It wasn’t enough for Eli Mosely to fight for his people. He had to inflate his resume with bogus war record. It wasn’t enough for Kyle Bristow to diligently work to defend free speech rights for White Nationalists. He had to torch his ego to the point of self-immolation. If guys like Spencer possessed more maturity, experience, and character, they might have had a sobering and corrective influence on other members.
But fish rots from the head, and when the self-appointed and media-anointed leader of the movement thinks it will all be very fun to play combo of 007, Batman, and Hitler in his role as the leading light of the movement, the result was predictable: Drunkenness, Drug Abuse, Adultery, Disloyalty, Hubris, Recklessness, Delusions of Grandeur, and etc. It’s all the more ironic because Spencer has been saying the world is really all about power, power, and power. If he really believes that, why did he think the Jewish Globo-Homo Power would stick to principles and higher values in dealing with his ilk? Spencer got the Spencerowicz treatment by the Jewish Masters who rule America. And as if he learned nothing from the fiasco, the moron goes on Youtube and says he believes in White Domination of all the world, thus revealing himself to be, indeed, a white supremacist. He could have been a defender of nationalism or national liberation from Jewish supremacist hegemony, but his ultimate message is he wants to replace Jewish Neocon Imperialism with Anglo-White one. THIS in the 21st century when the world has been much transformed by so many factors.

Words matter and, in living for what is ‘lesser than oneself’, people(especially on the Dissident Right) might find some true meaning and do some real good in the world. Sadly, the notion of serving something ‘greater than oneself’ came to mean, in too many cases, serving one’s inflated ego or the movers-and-shakers of History. If John McCain had sincerely taken the role of speaking up for the unspoken and unrepresented, he might have been a good man, the true basis of greatness. After all, he experienced Vietnam War first hand. He was a pilot who dropped bombs and killed people; he was also a POW who suffered much deprivation and humiliation. So, he saw the war from both sides: As warrior and as captive of the enemy. He experienced the tragedy of war. So, he could have stood against further wars. In other words, No More Vietnams. Furthermore, he should have known that Vietnam set a dangerous precedent and template for future problems. Not only did the war lead to death and destruction on a grand scale but it led to a refugee crisis that compelled the US to take in tons of Viets and Laotians who’d been promised protection by the Americans. Since Vietnam, US involvements in new wars have led to more refugees, a problem for not only the US but its EU puppets. In the end, the other aspect of the Vietnam War — the ensuing refugee problem — should be the main argument against US involvement in the world. Called ‘Invade-Invite’ by Ilana Mercer and Steve Sailer, it’s been an oft-repeated pattern since the end of the Cold War when the US stomped its boots on Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and etc. And US meddling in Latin America led to (mostly disingenuous)justification for Brown Caravans on the premise that US intervention messed up those nations. Invade-Invite might more accurately be called Wreck-Rescue or Bomb-Come.
Anyway, how sad that John McCain, who was once regarded as a conscientious and thoughtful moderate, turned into a vicious and nasty warmonger. When he revisited Vietnam in a diplomatic mission, he was admired as a peacemaker with the message that even once-bitter enemies can bury the hatchet and get along in the world. That is the true meaning of ‘serving something greater than oneself’. But it wasn’t long before greater-than-oneself became just another egotistical involvement of oneself in History, and of course, war-making is most exciting to people in the game. But then, McCain, never a smart guy, might have been duped in part by Jews who were clever enough to fervently moralize whatever they do(even though their motives were always tribal, supremacist, gangster-like, and ethno-mercantile). "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." With their power of media & over whore politicians and their collective personality as tribal-gangsters — notice that most Jewish law professors with prestigious degrees think and talk more like gangsters, goons, and thugs than principles scholars — , they wrap all their vile doings and dealing with pseudo-moral blanket. And naturally, a dummy like John McCain fell for so many Jewish Narratives and BS, not least because he felt so flattered to be doted by Jews, the self-promoted and self-aggrandized Holy Holocaust People.

Given the power of words to corrupt meaning and be misinterpreted, maybe it’s better to be more blunt and straightforward. We should say we should live for something that is lesser-than-ourselves. And in a way, this is how much of the world works. A doctor treats people who lack medical knowledge. An auto mechanic fixes cars of those who know nothing about cars. A chef prepares meals for those without culinary skills. So, professions are about providing services for those with lesser talent or knowledge in certain areas of expertise. But most people provide service and instruction to the ‘lessers’ for money and self-interest. It’s about economics, not virtue or good work.
But what if people in the Alt Right, Dissident Right, and Left-Right took it upon themselves to serve the ‘lessers’ out of racial, cultural, and moral consciousness? In this big wide world, there are always people who are lesser than you. Even for a man of 100 IQ, there are many with lower IQ. Even for people with limited skills, there are those with less skills and less ability. Even for people with problems, there are those with bigger problems. And now, so many white people are without guidance, leadership, and representation as most white elites(in government and business) are all about serving Jews, Diversity, Homos, and Blacks. Even "It’s Okay to be White" is investigated as a 'hate symbol' by media and state controlled by vicious, murderous, thuggish, supremacist, and hateful Jews. When so many white people are without representation, it is about time for people on the Right to touch base and reconnect. In the 60s, there was the hippie stuff about ‘touching Indians’, but that was silly and flaky. But there is a real need to touch base with the suffering white masses, the forgotten people. Mythic grandeur is a part of any people and culture, but so is humanism and humility. Those who are overfed on myth end up like Nazis and Japanese Imperialists. Or like Spencer and Crew who acted as though some divine pagan force was on their side as they played fire with Jewish Supremacist Power that crushed them like IDF death squads regularly crush Palestinians. Things might have been different if Spencer was humbler and humanist. He could have said Alt Right is like a white counterpart of the Palestinian struggle for National Liberation. Liberation from what? From Jewish Supremacism. Thus, Jewish Power would have been placed on the moral defensive. But he said Alt Right is like white Zionism, and the implication was that Spencer simply wants his kind to replace Jews as world hegemonists. Spencer could have shamed Anglo-cucks for sucking up to Jewish Supremacism and gained moral high ground. Instead, he presented himself as a white supremacist alternative to Jewish supremacism. Given that Jews are associated with victimization in the Holocaust while the slightest whiff of white supremacism is associated with the burden of the Holocaust, it was a dumb move on Spencer's part.

For the weak, morality is the best weapon. Blacks understood this in the 50s. Jews understood this when they lacked dominant power in the US. But so full of delusions of grandeur and inflated pride, the likes of Spencer could not admit that whites are now an occupied and defeated people who, like Third World resistant-fighters, must learn to push back against the empire. Spencer is simply miffed that the empire is controlled by Jews. He’s fully into supremacism and imperialism.
With his head up in the clouds of Grand History, he failed on all counts. He failed in his reach for the top because Jews above him just kicked him down the ladder. But more importantly, he had no defenders among the white masses because he never touched base with them and instead spent all his time partying with drunken buddies, whoring around, and strutting like god-king-chief of the Alt Right. But having been raised in a bourgeois-aristocratic world with all the privileges, Spencer feels a fundamental distaste and disregard for the hoi polloi.

Serving that which is lesser-than-oneself has benefits, both moral and strategic. Obviously, people who are ‘less’ need more care and attention than those who have ‘more’. Generally, people want to rise high as possible and rub shoulders with superiors while snubbing inferiors. This is due to the naturally hierarchical side of us. It’s like men prefer pretty girls over plain ones, and women prefer handsome men over ugly ones. People want to attend good colleges and live in nice neighborhoods. Such attitude has many positives. It fuels motivation, ambition, and competition. But the end result over time is that many people not only get left behind but are held in contempt as ‘losers’. In current US, the libertarian wing of American Conservatism regards white working class as ‘white trash’, a people to be disposed of by the Garbage Truck of History. And the new so-called ‘leftism’ is all about favoring rich, vain, and privileged homos while having near-zero concern for the lower classes(except as useful helots to be drugged to death with opioids or replaced by foreigners as New Americans). This is why capitalism has to be tempered, and it once was by the power of Christianity. Judaism has a tempering impact on capitalism but only among Jews. It informs rich Jews to care about other Jews, but it says NOTHING about how Jews owe something to goyim who are regarded as sheep, cattle, or dogs by the Tribe. And even the Alt Right, with its hubris and myth-mania, had little to say about regular white people and just went off on too many silly quasi-hipster tangents or playing fuhrer. Alt Right neglected the morally worthy mission of connecting with white people across America and speaking for them. It could have created connections among small towns that dot the landscape of America via the internet. It could have raised consciousness and argued for a healthy and moral living. But how could such be possible when the very leaders of Alt Right were into hedonism, drugs, alcohol abuse, childish antics, infantilism, dumb haircuts, and obsession with Pop Culture?
It’s all very well for a movement to have an elite vanguard, and Greg Johnson with Counter-Currents at least has maintained that. But Spencer failed even in that regard, filling up his altright.com site with mostly tripe. But in order for a movement to resonate with the masses, it has to convey a message and speak in a tone that is directly appealing to them. This was true of communism. Most communists never read DAS KAPITAL but they understood the Bolshevik appeal in its call for Land, Peace, and Bread... just like many illiterate Jews of the Exodus understood what was meant by Land of Milk and Honey.

By connecting with the people, touching base, and creating a white people network via the internet through all the towns in 50 states, something new is possible. On the moral level, it is simply good because doing good is its own reward. If the Power snubs and denies you, go among the powerless. That’s what Jesus and Mao did. Jesus preached to the regular folks. Mao went to the countryside and built his base among the peasants who made up 90% of the population. But aside moral considerations, it is also strategically wise because you will have wind behind your back. If Spencer had formed a mass following, he would have been defended from below as he was kicked from the top. But at the bottom, there was no one to hold out a blanket to soften his fall. He fell hard because even ‘lesser’ whites came to regard him as a conceited and snotty rich boy playing hipster-fuhrer.
And apart from his small cult following, Heimbach got nowhere because most whites were put off by his Fat Fuhrer antics. This is why Alt Right is mostly finished. The ONLY way forth is the Left-Right. By the ‘left’, I mean the real and true left that is concerned with the masses and regular folks(who are being left behind by New Globo-Turbo-Capitalism that favors only the elites). Rightism has to be tempered and balanced by leftism, and vice versa. This is the nationalist and humanist version of Neo-Fascism. Fascism can do so much good and so much evil. It’s like fire. It all depends on how you wish to use it. Fascism was the most honest theory and vision of power in the 20th century, but it destroyed itself with hubris and pathology. A Neo-Fascism must learn from past mistakes, but the Alt Right failed to learn any though it had an ample chance to do so.