Chauvinism of Jews, Greeks, & Romans and the Mediterranean Sea as the Petri Dish of History — Why did Northern Europe come to Civilization later but later make unprecedented progress? — Britain as New Rome and Its Problematic Template for Anglo-Americanist Globalism

We've been told over and over, we need to support Israel because it's part of Western Civilization even though, ironically enough, Jews are at the forefront of unraveling whatever that has held the West together as a people, culture, history, and territory.

We have a situation where Jews, who are said to represent the West, push mass non-white immigration on the West, making the West less Western but in the name of 'Western Values' that apparently have nothing to do with race, history, or territory but only a set of beliefs and 'principles' that are supposedly 'universal' in application. These ideas, though having originated in the West, are understood as having implications far beyond the West, thereby encompassing all of humanity that, in order to attain progress and liberty, must also embrace those ideas as their own. I suppose there is a kernel of truth to this as what the Greeks embarked on was a search of objective truth(based on observation and logic) as opposed to cultural subjectivity(based on customs and visions) and the idealization of man as a seeker of truth and justice than mere receptor of tradition or creature of tribalism. Greeks were mighty proud and chauvinistic, but ironically, their pride of achievement rested on breaking freer from cultural gravity than other peoples who remained more mired in their customs, myths, and lore.

Jews were similar to the Greeks in one way. They too came upon a universal concept — the one God of truth and justice for all the world — but insisted on tribal chauvinism, one where they are the Chosen bound in a special Covenant with God. Both peoples were universal in imagination but tribal in pride. And history would have been very different but for the fact that the Greek Way and the Jewish Way came together like chocolate and peanut butter in the Roman Empire. Far more than Alexander the Great(whose dream of Hellenistic Empire fractured and dissipated), the Romans took Greek Ideas and turned them into Imperial Principles. Also, the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.

Of course, the Romans too were awful proud and aggressive, but far more than the Greeks and Jews, were willing to allow non-Romans a stake in the new imperial order. Though considered as part of Western Culture and History, had the Roman Way been allowed to continue and prevail, Rome would have been less the foundation of later European Civilization than the center between the West, East, and South. After all, at the height of their power, Romans had far greater regard for peoples of the Near East and North Africa than for the Northern Barbarians. Though many people invoke the Fall of the Roman Empire as a warning about the future West, it was probably a great thing for the white race. Germanic tribalism prevailed over Roman Imperialism that would likely have served as a bridge not only of Europeans into non-Europe but non-Europeans into Northern and Eastern Europe. Of course, much that was good about Roman Civilization was destroyed, but there was no guarantee of civilizational health even if Romans had prevailed over the Germanics. After all, Rome was decaying from within, and if the Eastern Byzantine Empire was any indication, civilizational longevity is no guarantee of health and vitality. Indeed, it's possible that the fall of Western Rome was like a forest fire that made the future soil of Europe richer for something like the Renaissance. Also, the fall of Rome(as the bridge between the West and East/South) made the North safer from invasion, thus more racially and territorially secure. And over time, the North came to greatness because it had both the security of homogeneity and the fruits of diversity from the South.

Initially, Southern Europe with its 'diverse geography' had a great advantage over cold Northern Europe that was isolated from trade routes. In contrast, the Mediterranean was the greatest Petri Dish of cultural ferment as it allowed trade in goods, exchange of ideas, and clash of inspirations among the various peoples/cultures of North Africa, Near East, and Southern Europe. Isolation was impossible even if desired. There was a constant flow of ideas, goods, and peoples, friendly and hostile. So, naturally the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of Northern Europeans of both the North-West(Germanics and Celts) and North-East(Slavs).
But, the problem of geo-diversity was instability. With so many great powers in near proximity to one another, massively destructive wars were commonplace. Also, even with relative peace, the clashes and frictions among peoples with different myths, customs, & values and of different colors & looks didn't lead to much of a culture of trust and cooperation. So, diversity led to a lot of sparks but also lots of fires that burned out of control. Diversity giveth but also taketh away. (Still, it must be said the Mediterranean Sea was a divider as well as unifier. It's possible that, had there been no Med-Sea and had Southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa been just one land-mass, there might have been less civilizational spark. Med-Sea was 'small' enough for various peoples to travel & trade and big enough for them to maintain relative security. Indeed, the bigger threats to the Greeks came from land than from sea. Also, it's telling that Jews regarded the sea as divider or isolator than unifier. In the Noah story, a righteous family is isolated in the ark from sinful humanity. The point of the ark is to survive and keep intact a family and culture, not to set out on voyages to unknown lands. And in the Moses story, the Hebrews cross the sea on foot under the divine protection of God, whereas the Egyptians perish under the waves. And Jesus walked on water. And Jonah's experience with the sea was with a whale as a kind of spiritual ark.)

But when the foundational ideas forged in a world of Diversity made their way up to Northern Europe, it was like the best of both worlds. The ideas could develop and grow uninterrupted in a relative world of homogeneity, stability, and security. Then, it's hardly surprising that the Ancient Foundation reached its greatest apex in the isolated kingdom of Britain. On their own, the Brits would have remained isolated barbarians. But equipped with ideas that arose in a world of diversity, they could push those ideas much further as the result of their trust culture made possible by greater homogeneity(relatively speaking) and territorial security. What the Romans ultimately failed to do, the Brits did do. Brits created the greatest empire of not only military power and economic wealth but cultural achievement and scientific progress. They were like the ultimate Romans, and yet, ironically, the source of their power wasn't merely rooted in Classical Civilization but racial consciousness forged through eons of relative isolation. So, in a way, the Anglos had something in common with Greeks and Jews as well. They perfected the Imperial Formula for uniting the entire world, indeed far more than the Spanish(who soon began to stagnate) and the French who could never make up their mind if they wanted to dominate Continental Europe or compete with the British for World Hegemony. Though unprecedented as imperialists who came closest than ever before of creating a universal world order, the Brits were racially proud and chauvinistic, much like the Ancient Greeks and Jews. British Empire was about bringing the brightest light of the highest civilization to all the world, but what that light shone to the world was "Look at our superior white Anglo faces, respect and obey." The British were more ambitious and conquered more than the Romans could ever dream of, but they were far more race/ethno-conscious than the Romans.

So, it took a rebellious offshoot of the British Empire, the United States, to finally detach the universality of British Imperialism from Anglo pride, arrogance, and chauvinism. Though the American Republic also began as a race-conscious nation, its founding principles were far more amenable and even attracted to universality. Perhaps, this owes to Anglo identity never having formed into something distinct and special, something it had in common with Roman identity. After all, Jewish identity and Greek identity survived beyond Ancient Times, but Roman Identity vanished and was replaced by mixture of funny folks called the Eye-Talians. Indeed, despite all the race-mixing and confusion, Spanish identity survived with more distinctness than the Anglo kind. What accounts for this?

Was the rise of the Romans and Anglos too swift and sudden, too identified with power above all else? After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power. And the same was true of Greeks whose culture developed organically for some time before their rise to greatness. In contrast, what were the Romans before they became great? It seems Romans came to define themselves primarily by their greatness. In this sense, even though Macedonians under Alexander the Great came to be regarded as 'fellow Greeks' who expanded Greek power far beyond what Greeks could manage on their own, they had more in common with the late-comer Romans who, if anything, followed their example with certain imperial improvements(that favored systems over personalities) that assured greater stability. That Greek identity survived whereas Macedonian and Roman identities did not tells us something. (Likewise, what is 'Manchu' identity and culture today?) It goes to show cultural resilience owes less to might and money than the formation of a powerful identity rooted in ethnos, narrative, and mythos. Jews and Greeks had a more powerful culture even before they gained power, whereas the Romans had a weaker culture and, upon coming to possess a formula for great power, associated Roman-ness mainly with might, conquest, and glory.

To be a Roman was glorious as long as Rome was the center of the world, but its fall meant loss of everything. In contrast, even in defeat the Greeks and Jews believed their identities and cultures were nevertheless superior and this superiority owed more to tradition and truth than something so crude and transient as political/military power. It could be one reason why American Empire has become so obnoxious owes to a hollow sense of American Identity. Meaning almost nothing and yet everything — anyone from any part of the world can come to the US and, within five years, become 'as American as Apple Pie... or pizza, taco, chop suey, gyros, bagels, etc." — American sense of pride only comes with money and power, especially as democracies are now dime-a-dozen around the world. (When the US was one of the few democracies in the world, there was the pride of being a beacon of liberty. But when millions of Asian-Indians come to the US, they are going from democracy to democracy, and the only difference is US offers more money and is militarily far more powerful; it's just human nature of Will-to-Cower for people to flock to something more richer and more powerful to be part of it.) It's like a person with a strong sense of self in terms of identity, individuality, conviction, and meaning is less enamored of money and possession as matters of pride. While a person of strong identity may still want money and power(indeed lots of it), his core self is nevertheless defined by something other than what he possesses. Thus, even if he loses it all, he still has meaning. In contrast, a person with no meaning tries to compensate with money and power, but without money and power, he feels zero self-value. Jews are a people of strong identity who are obsessed with power and money; the thing is, even were they to lose all the power and money, they'd have meaning in what they are, a part of an ethnicity, spirituality, history, and culture. In contrast, white goy elites seem to possess nothing but the status, success, prestige, money, and/or power as the definitive markers of who they are. But that means they are NOTHING without earthly things(or social status), and perhaps this accounts for white elite class bigotry for the the Deplorables, a bunch of 'loser whites' with little or nothing. (Jews and white goy elites sneer at Rural White America but, for some reason, we must all care so much about Desert Semites in Israel.)

Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom. Unlike Japan that eventually united as one Japanese Folks, the idea of Great Britain or United Kingdom was founded on the prestige and glory of power. When wars came to an end in a united Japan, the idea was that all the Japanese people were rightfully under the rule of the most powerful Japanese clan with the blessing of the divine lord, aka the Emperor. In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples 'agreed' to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things. So, if all Japanese bowed down before a greater sense of Japanese-ness, various folks in Britain consented to de-emphasize their core ethnicity in pursuit of greater power, wealth, and glory that would come through their mutual cooperation. And this meant that not only would the Scottish restrain Scottish pride but even the dominant English wouldn't over-emphasize English pride. Of course, one could argue that Japan too had its distinct sub-ethnicities like Britain, but the difference is the central power in Japan insisted that everyone in Japan is Japanese and must submit totally to the central authority and the Emperor, whereas British Political Arrangement was founded on mutual understanding. Thus, British-ness was bound to be more political and theoretic than Japanese(or German) identity. It was like a business partnership where various families agree to forgo extreme clan loyalty for the good of the whole under unity and cooperation. But like business ventures, such an 'identity' could only be justified by success and growth.

After all, if there were no material benefits in the arrangement, why should the lesser 'kingdoms' go along with the greater or united kingdom? So, the seeds of Americanism were already there in British History. Such compromise may have contributed to the rise of class consciousness that prevented the full-blown emergence of a race-consciousness. As racial-minded as the British were, it's telling that they were off-put and disturbed by the German concept of Blood-and-Soil rooted in Kultur. In a way, the British treated race like a class, or a 'rass', and thus they were more rassists and than race-ists. Brits didn't so much considered themselves as the superior race as the better class of race. In a way, the failure to develop a strong sense of British Ethnicity(as Britishness was a compromise position among the various 'ethnicities' that were, by the way, almost homogeneous genetically) meant that the Brits would have to opt for the more generic notion of 'whiteness', which came to define America.

JEWISH PROPAGANDIST DEBORAH LIPSTADT NAMED 'ANTI-SEMITISM CZAR' by Adam Green

Element of Will and Fear-and-Respect in the Successes and Failures of Political Systems and Civilizations and What It says about the Afghan Situation — Lack of Will in South Vietnam — Imperialism's Suppression of Nationalism in Soviet and American Empires

The recent collapse of US-backed Afghan government hints at something about History. The Afghan military has lots of men and tons of the best equipment in the world supplied by the US. But after 20 yrs and 2 trillion dollars of so-called 'nation-building' by the US as the lone superpower, the Afghan Regime is crumbling like a house of cards, and there's hardly anyone around to support or defend them. US dominated with things, with material support, but not with themes, with spiritual meaning. There was talk of 'democracy', but if democracy is about majority rule, Afghan version wasn't going to be like the 'liberal West'.
Some compare the Afghan debacle with US retreat from Saigon, and indeed South Vietnam had more people and more material than North Vietnam. Even when US cut off aid to South Vietnam, it still had more than enough people and arms to fend off the North. They had lots of things but not a compelling enough theme to unite and inspire the people to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

Now, will, unity, discipline, and morale alone don't ensure victory. Germany and Japan in World War were united and hardy but still lost. In terms of iron will and determination, Germany met its match in the USSR. And Japan couldn't compete in things with the US that, furthermore, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, had all the determination, unity, and morale to destroy the 'Japs'.
Still, so much of history has been decided by the lack of will despite sufficient men and availability of resources. Somehow, the link between the elites and the masses was lost. Also, the masses no longer regarded themselves as one people united by common values and shared themes; they no longer worshiped the same gods and hated the same devils — consider there was a time when even most white Liberals worshiped God and looked upon homosexuality as a grave sin or clinical sickness.

Once a regime loses the respect for the people, the latter is less likely to follow orders from above. They are less likely to be good citizens and more likely to look out for their own interests without much sense of the public good. And once a people lose fear of the elites, they are less likely to comply with its dictates. The people of North Vietnam feared but also respected their government. It was this combination of fear and respect that made the NVA so formidable.
After all, respect alone doesn't cut it. Even if you respect a certain power, you may not choose to risk your life for the cause because it's natural for people to choose life/happiness over death/agony. Plenty of Russians saw the need to fight the Germans in the Great Patriotic War, but how many would have stuck out their necks if not for the fear of their own regime? It was patriotism against German invaders + fear of the Soviet regime that drove so many Russians to march into battle. So, respect alone isn't the magic formula. (Likewise, National Socialist Germany was so formidable because Germans both feared and respected the regime.) But then, fear alone isn't effective in the long run either. If you're operating only on fear, it's no different from bank tellers giving money to the bank robbers. It's purely motivated by fear, not loyalty or respect. Anyone can make anyone do something by holding a gun to his head. Real loyalty is when the person is willing to serve you even when you don't hold a gun to his head.
North Vietnamese feared their government but also respected its legitimacy earned from resistance against French Imperialism. This combination of fear and respect made for powerful loyalty. Also, communism, while stifling and stagnant in the long run, was a powerful tool of centralization, organization, and indoctrination in the short run. So, while the capitalist economy of South Vietnam would have far surpassed the communist economy of North Vietnam in the long run, the North had the 'spartan' advantage in the short term, the window of opportunity the North needed to prevail over the South.

The problem of the US in South Vietnam owed to its schizo nature. US did lots of terrifying things to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of bombings and terror campaigns. But the US also turned Saigon into Surf City and promoted laissez-faire-ism that made them more like tourists with guns than real soldiers. So, while the US military could be fearsome in combat, it seemed loose and lost in the urban setting. South Vietnamese soon came to navigate around Americans, who seemed to be all about dollars and cents, coca-cola and sex(and lots of drugs). Thus, the US struck fear only with bombs and bullets. They could be negotiated with. So, there was little need to fear the Americans unless one was suspected of being a Viet Cong in the rice paddies of Vietnam. As Americans came across as tourists with guns, they didn't get much respect either. Not much fear, not much respect. Hardly ingredients for loyalty.
As for the South Vietnamese regime, how could it win much respect when it relied on foreign occupation for defense of territory? ("We need to be occupied by foreigners to be protected from our own kind.") Also, American values had a destabilizing impact on South Vietnam. If American values are about freedom, then freedom in South Vietnam meant dissension and opposition to the US-backed regime. The opposition could come from not only communist elements but various other groups, idealists and opportunists alike. While a strong and stable regime could weather dissension, a weak regime could only be hobbled. Of course, US knew this and backed an authoritarian regime, but then, this seemed like a betrayal of American values. America preached freedom while propping up a 'dictatorial' system. (At the very least, the Romans who propped up Herod didn't pretend to be for freedom and liberty.) Because the system was authoritarian than totalitarian, there was just enough freedom for various groups to make trouble for the government while the government used just enough force to crack down and be labeled as tyrannical. Thus, it undermined both genuine popular participation and effective enforcement of authority.
Perhaps, in the long run, absent an existential threat(like communist-totalitarian North Vietnam), an authoritarian system of semi-freedom could work out, e.g. Taiwan evolved from authoritarianism to democracy(though it is still a political and ideological puppet of the US). But it was fatal for South Vietnam that was free enough for social chaos and repressive enough for condemnation by world opinion because of the threat of North Vietnam. This was also the problem in Latin America, though the US mostly succeeded in destroying Marxist-Leninist insurgencies there(except in Cuba and Nicaragua). US backed right-wing military regimes that allowed just enough freedom for insurgencies and used more than enough violence to alienate world opinion.

But then, the US couldn't support full totalitarianism because it would be too un-American. And US couldn't support nascent fascist regimes because they might be too independent-minded and insist upon national sovereignty, at odds with US hegemony. But then, US couldn't support a full democracy and civil society either as popular will may turn out to be Anti-American(and Anti-Jewish, not to mention Anti-Globo-Homo these days). Democracy in Chile led to the election of Salvador Allende. In Venezuela, it brought Hugo Chavez to power. So, the US usually struck deals with the kind of regime that rules Egypt today: A weak regime with just enough muscle(backed by US money and arms) to make the masses cower. Still, despite Egypt's dependence on US largesse, its government was domestically formed than installed by foreigners. The Afghan regime, in contrast, is totally the creation of the US that, by the way, didn't even bother to scour the country for the best people. Instead, they found the most pliable flunkies and third-raters willing to whore themselves out to foreigners for a price.

Nationalism is a problem for empires all over the world. Stalin was anxious about Mao's independent will. He fretted Chinese communism would ultimately challenge Soviet Communism(which did happen after Stalin's death). And Tito's independent streak led to bad blood between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Soviet Union wanted stable and forceful regimes in Warsaw Pact nations but not powerful ones(in the sense of national independence). A communist nation could abide another communist nation, but a communist empire had problems with the independent streak of other communist nations. Thus, despite their ideological affinities, there were cases of some communist regimes leaning closer to the Capitalist West as insurance against Soviet Power. Mao met with Nixon. Tito embarked on neutrality between East and West. And Ceausescu was courted by the West, especially as Romania didn't take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Ideal would be a powerful nation respecting the national sovereignty of weaker nations, and such examples are plentiful around the world. Not every powerful nation exerts muscle on weaker nations. But an empire is about a dominant power maintaining hegemony over weaker ones. Thus, the nationalism of weaker nations is seriously compromised, if tolerated at all. US spoke of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan, but it was really empire-building, a process of turning the country into a far-flung satrapy of the Zio-American Empire. It could work as long as the US empire was willing to exert its influence. But it could fail(and the Afghan regime is falling faster than we can write about it) once imperial authority is withdrawn. US didn't do any 'nation-building'. The Soviets did in the 1980s, which is why its clientele regime lasted three years even after the Soviet pullout(and may have lasted longer if not for Yeltsin's total cut off of aid, surely under US pressure).

Granted, Soviet nation-building didn't necessarily ensure survival. Even though Warsaw Pact nations were puppets of USSR, they were stable national entities with functional bureaucracies, disciplined militaries, and effective police force. But the regimes all crumbled the minute the Soviets decided to pull out. Oddly enough, the regime downfall was especially violent in Romania, relatively an independent communist nation, whereas the fall of regimes was mostly peaceful in those that had been occupied by Soviet troops. Yugoslavia, another relatively independent communist nation, also experienced extreme violence, one that actually lasted for some years. Perhaps communist nations under direct rule of the Soviet Union had zero legitimacy. The people overwhelmingly wanted something new and got it right away. In contrast, precisely because Yugoslavia and Romania had staked some claim of independence and national sovereignty from USSR, the powers-that-be were more self-assured of their survival.

Though Afghanistan is being compared with Vietnam and Soviet withdrawal, current events seem more evocative of the sudden downfall of communist regimes the minute Gorbachev declared withdrawal of Soviet Military. In a way, it was even more shocking and took the world by surprise. Whereas most predicted that the Taliban would soon regain power once the US left, most experts in the 80s thought communism would last several more decades, and many conservatives refused to believe that the Cold War was effectively over following Reagan and Gorbachev's summits.
Still, there is one key difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the Afghan regime. Even though communist as ideology was suddenly kaput, Eastern European nations continued to be ruled by many of the same people who'd been at the helm. Indeed, many former communists rebranded themselves as 'liberals', 'nationalists', or 'social democrats'. Many kept their bureaucratic posts. And some of the most powerful people of the new order were former apparatchiks. True of Russia as well. Putin was once KGB, and many people in his regime were once loyal members of the Soviet Union. In contrast, it seems everyone involved in the US-backed Afghan Regime are really out of power and scattered to the winds. Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe, but many communists rebranded themselves and held onto power and even amassed huge fortunes. No such luck for the Afghan cucks.

The problem for Eastern European nations turned out to be a case of 'out of the frying pain, into the fire'. They were relieved to be free of the Soviet Monster and expected to join the free democratic West. And who could blame them in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was decrepit economically and when communism was repressive and colorless? Also, even in the 1980s, Western Europe seemed free, reasonably patriotic, and mostly stable(especially with the tumultuous Sixties receding in the rear-view mirror). No one bleated about globo-homo. Even though the immigration problem began after WWII, Europe was still solidly European. No one back then would have thought London would turn into Londonistan or Londongo or that Germany would be ruled by someone like Angela Merkel who flung open the gates to refugee-migrant invaders. And the premier Western Power, the US, was still ruled by the 'greatest generation' types who were white and Christian. Back then, most US politicos and diplomats(other than vicious Jews) wouldn't have been appalled by someone like Viktor Orban or Polish Catholic nationalists. Though US empire had its own form of hegemony during the Cold War, the US was willing to acknowledge that different nations have different peoples, traditions, cultures, and values.
But things changed drastically when Jews took over as the new elites of the West. Also, the sacralization of the Shoah meant that Jews were to be regarded as wise men and gurus. They were the new holy men of the West, and white elites in both sides of the Atlantic listened with rapt attention at whatever the Holy Holocaust People had to say. Of course, Jewish Wisdom, for all their highfalutin talk, really amounted to, "Hmmmm, Is it good for the Jews?"

Today, the Jewish-controlled US empire cannot tolerate any powerful, independent, or genuinely patriotic leader in its satellite states. Someone like Charles DeGaulle would give the US deep state a heart attack. It has to be someone like Hollande or Macron. And look at the worthless leaders of UK, total cucks to Jews. Gone are the Christian-Democrats. All that is left are Globo-Homo-Cuckrats. If the US were still ruled by the kind of people dominant in government in the 70s and 80s, it's likely(though not for sure) that the US would have good relations with current Hungary and even Russia. But with Jews at the helm, it simply isn't possible. Jews are hostile to nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity in Russia, Poland, and Hungary for the same reason they are hostile to them in the US.

In the 80s, the newly liberated Eastern European nations were glad to be freed from the Soviet Empire and looked toward a future where they could have democracy and national sovereignty. But as Jews took over the US and gained control of Western elite minds, the whole situation turned into one big bait-and-switch. Globalism demands that Eastern European nations abandon their sovereignty, impugn their nationalism, welcome tons of Africans/Muslims, encourage sluttony among women, and plant the Jewish-Victory globo-homo flags all over, especially inside churches. We saw what Jews did to Russia by funding Pussy Riot to desecrate churches. If Taliban are purists who blow up Buddhist statues, Jews are puerilites who use anarcho-tyranny to desecrate icons and symbols sacred to white and Christian folks.

Anyway, back to the matter of will...

The Romans could still have prevented the downfall and the sack of Rome. They still had the men and the material. But they failed to. They lost the will. Russians in 1917 still could have prevented the Bolshevik takeover. Most Russians weren't that radical. But Romans had lost the heart to unite and fight.
Today, we see a similar lack of will among whites. It could be apathy, fear, confusion, disillusionment, hedonism, or whatever. But one thing for sure, so many whites are no longer willing to take action. Even white patriots in the South do NOTHING while their monuments are attacked and taken down. And white Europeans must know that endless immigration will lead to White Nakba and bring about the end of European civilization. But most of them have no will to fight for blood and land. Indeed, many welcome the destruction or replacement of their civilization as 'salvation'. And even though Jews are at the heart of the beast attacking the white race, few dare name the Jew.

Perhaps, one reason for the lack of will and general apathy/confusion is the veneer of political continuity. After all, most people in the US and Western Europe believe that they are living in the same democratic political system, the one they'd known for their entire lifetime. In the US, the democratic system is 250 yrs old. In Western Europe, it either goes back centuries or were established after WWII. And given how democracy served the US pretty well and also did wonders for post-war Europe, perhaps most whites in US and EU believe they must stick with the system.
But this is really an illusion. The Jewish takeover of the West profoundly altered the ideological and cultural landscape. The institutions may be the same, but the internals are fundamentally different. West has gone from liberal national democracy to mandatorian tribal supremacy. Western Europe and Canada can no longer be considered free or liberal. They are ruled by Jewish supremacist anarcho-tyranny. Free speech is dead in EU and Canada by Law, and it is effectively dead in the US because of deep state collusion between Jewish Big Tech, Jewish Media, Jewish Finance, Jewish control of courts & law firms, and Jewish State. And of course, Jews control academia and push stuff like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, and whatever other nonsense to neuter white identity and power.

Suppose the Catholic Church remained intact institutionally but the personnel changed from God-fearing Christians to Devil-worshiping Satanists who replaced holy icons with globo-homo symbols. From sacrament to excrement. Same church but entirely different doctrine and agenda. Of course, pope Francis is a servant of deviltry, a crypto-globo-homo psycho-freak who takes it up the arse from the Jews. Catholic Church is no longer what it is; it is now all about serving satanism.
Jewish Power maintained the shell of (liberal)democracy but altered the rules so profoundly that the West is no longer what it was. So, people need to wake up and stop believing they are living in the same democracy. It is really a 'demonocracy' controlled by Jewish supremacists. It's like Twitter isn't Twitter anymore. It appears to be the same social platform, but its Terms of Services changed so much that it can even ban the President of the US and shut down information because it doesn't comport with Jewish Supremacist 'schwience'.
It's like THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING. In both movies, the outer features of the victims remain the same but they've been fundamentally altered at the core, at the soul-level. When idiot whites ceded power to the Jews(as the Holy Holocaust People), Jews used their shylockery to tear out the heart of the West in a ritual far more consequential than any Aztec sacrifice. And the original heart was replaced with another one, the cuck-heart. It was a stealth revolution, and unless whites wake up to this fact and Name the Jewish Supremacism, there can only be slow death for them.

TALIBAN NEGOTIATE PEACEFUL SURRENDER OF KABUL COMPLYING W/UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO MOSCOW IN JULY - Alexander Mercouris

Do Jews have a 'Psychistorical' Identification with Muslim Warriors as Modern Day Zealots? — Three Kinds of Power-Consciousness — Why Afghan War cannot be compared with Vietnam War — Futility of Liberalism when National Attempts at Liberty & Democracy are subverted by Jewish Globalist 'Liberal Intervention'

https://dailystormer.su/the-taliban-is-to-the-2020s-right-what-the-north-vietnamese-were-to-the-1960s-left/

I wonder if on some subconscious or 'psychistorical' level, Jews are happy to see the Taliban win. On the conscious level, of course many Jews are upset. After all, they are the New Pharaohs, the New Romans. Jews rule over the white race that manages the globalist empire dominated by the Tribe(and homos as proxies). So, naturally this side of Jewishness wants more power and control over the world. It will look upon the retreat as a setback... though I'm sure many Jews came to the realization that Afghanistan-as-base-for-regional-influence was overblown, indeed a liability than an asset, or a flat tire than a springboard. Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, and other -Stans managed pretty well to contain US power. Besides, US influence is more confusing to deal with in our day. In the past, it was well-understood that American Authority was mostly white and Christian. Today, US power is Jewish and globo-homo(and Jews have done everything to shame and hollow out white/Christian America), but Jews won't admit their power and outsized influence and instead maintain the charade that US, as an 'exceptional' nation, stands for the universal aspirations of all peoples. So, you have a Jewish-centric US foreign policy that claims to speak for the world. None of this makes any sense to those on the ground, especially in a profoundly Islamic country like Afghanistan. US ventures in Afghanistan are like time travel into another era. Afghanistan stands for recalcitrant medievalism or something even more backward — indeed, plenty of ancient civilizations were more sophisticated and advanced than much of Afghan society today — , whereas US stands for futurism that has gone very wrong — with all the money and might, what Americans value most are Jewish supremacism, homo vanity, tranny nuttery, black thuggery, and an ass tattoo; a world of gluttony and sluttony pretending to be a beacon of light unto the world; yeah, the lights of Las Vegas.

At any rate, even though Jews are the New Romans, their historical narrative had them as the underdogs, the guerrillas, the David(against Goliath), the Zealots, and etc. So, even as Jewish elites worked with and financed the great European and American empires, something in Jewishness also rooted for the rebels and the resistance(which may partly explain the Jewish pro-Confederacy stance). Jews regarded the Castroites and Viet Cong as the New Zealots resisting the US as the New Roman Empire. And even though Israel had overwhelming advantage in the Six Day War, the Jewish Narrative had the beleaguered Neo-Israelites fighting the New Pharaoh Nasser against all odds.
So, perhaps even modern secular 'liberal' Jews are, on some 'psychistorical' level, identifying with Muslim radicals and fundamentalists who resisted the US as the New Rome(even though Jews are the new overlords). Despite all the Jewish vs Muslim animus, the fact is the ragtag Muslim 'terrorists' and Jihadists are rather like the Jewish Zealots of the Ancient World. Jews, more than most people, resisted the Romans, and today, the biggest resisters against the New Rome are the Muslims. (The other mighty resisters against the Roman Empire were the Germanics. In a way, one could argue that Old Rome was destroyed by the double whammy of Jewish or Judeo-derived spiritual power and Germanic physical power. Christianity wiped away paganism, and Germanic barbarians sacked Rome. No wonder the biggest tensions flared up in Europe when Jewish Semites and Germanic Aryans came into co-existence in heightened acceleration of modernity. The two peoples most responsible for the demise of Old Rome and the rise of New Europe. Jews know about the power of the Aryans and went about using all their means — moral, ideological, sensual, demographic — to neuter Aryan power.)

Of course, it's good for Jewish Power that arch-Muslim nations tend to remain backward, therefore less of a threat to modern Israel. No wonder US Jews and Israel have been chummier with theocratic Saudis than with Arab modernizers like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad. For all the Neocon BS about how the West should spread secular 'liberal' values in the Middle East, Jews have generally supported the most extreme Muslim radicals against secular modernizers in the Middle East and North Africa. Jews prefer the Arabs to be Muslim and Weak than Modern and Strong. Jews especially hate Iran because it managed to be Modern, Muslim, and Strong. An Islamic order is harder to penetrate with subversive globalist anti-values, yet reactionary Islam holds it back from progress and advancement. When a nation goes Modern, it is far easier to subvert from the outside. Secular Turkey came under considerable influence of Globo-Homo. But could a nation choose modernity and make progress while upholding Muslim values to fend off Western globo-homo degeneracy? Erdogan's Islamic Turkey has been moving in this direction. And Iran is Islamic and advanced in nuclear technology. This is why Jews hate Iran and are now working to destroy Turkey.

NEOCONS RAMP UP REGIME CHANGE EFFORTS IN TURKEY

Paradoxically, the biggest enemy of liberalism around the world is Western 'liberal interventionism'(directed by Jews). Something like National Liberalism would be a good thing. Suppose post-communist Russia embarked on its own path of freedom and liberty to decide what is good for the country. Unfortunately, whenever a nation moves from authoritarianism to freedom, Jewish-US empire uses NGO's and free markets to penetrate and take over institutions(through bribery) and the media(for degenerate propaganda purposes). The kind of liberty that comes to be favored is treachery among the national elites(as they become addicted to bribes from the US empire) and degenerate hedonism among the masses, especially the youth(as the media under Jewish control spew out little but Afromania, Jungle Fever, Hollywood trash, and globo-homo sickness). So, instead of the hope of National Liberalism, the result is Global Tyranny. Against Global Tyranny, the only remedy is National Autocracy. The problem with 'Western Liberalism' is it won't tolerate any other kind of liberalism. Only its conception of 'democracy' is acceptable. If another nation chooses a unique path through its own democracy, it is condemned by the Jewish-run media as 'anti-democratic'. So, Jews decry Viktor Orban of Hungary as an 'autocrat' even as they use whore politicians and bureaucrats to persecute American patriots and violate the rights of someone like Nick Fuentes. And of course, Israel is hailed as a great democracy even though its policies are many times more ultra-right than that of Hungary or the rather cucky Poland.

The Taliban remains the overwhelming and obvious power, due to the massive support they have from the population.

No, most Afghanis are indifferent. They tolerate and accept the Taliban because it's the only viable power around... in the absence of Americans. Most people are like Zhivago(minus the poeticism) than Strelnikov. They just want to live than change the world or grab power. Same goes for most Afghanis.

This is an interesting account by someone who served in the war.

AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART I
AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART II

According to the lying Jew media and Jew Pentagon, Osama was killed a decade ago... since then, “the mission” (as it is falsely called) has clearly been related to explicitly liberal, leftist goals. The latest and current narrative is that the troops are defending women’s rights, and generally trying to turn the country into a degenerate cesspit of feminism and faggotry.

True, the deep state and media sometimes babble about "women's rights" and the like, but the actual government that the US supported has been pretty hardline Islamist, if only to win the hearts and minds of the people. And US knew it would be crazy to push something like globo-homo in a place like Afghanistan. Likewise, US doesn't insist on globohomo among the Saudis. Globo-homo is for the cucked, deracinated, apathetic, soulless, and/or confused political colonies of the Jewish-run US empire: EU of course but also large swaths of Latin America and parts of East Asia — unlike Muslims and Hindus with a powerful spiritual tradition, East Asians tend to be ideological(due to Confucian influence), and that means they are more attuned to social ideas than spiritual truths. Also, the two spiritual systems in the Far East, Buddhism and Taoism, are passive and hardly amount to effective resistance. But Hindus have a powerful sense of the sacred and profane, which is why McDonalds will not sell beef burgers in India. And Muslims have a powerful sense of holy and unholy... unlike the shallow Mormons whose piety is customary and lack spiritual depth. Look how easily Mormons folded to globo-homo for More Money. So, given the nature of Afghan society, the US didn't push much 'woke' stuff, which is reserved mostly for white cucks and yellow dogs, the two people most receptive to Jewish Power. The US did educate some Afghani girls, and the globo-media promoted this as "women's rights", but the Afghan regime was as Islamist as the one in Saudi Arabia.

As for bung-donging boys, it seems Afghan Muslims have a local custom of doing that all on their own. Indeed, the practice is so deeply entrenched among Afghanis that US troops were ordered NOT to interfere in the barbaric custom. It goes to show you don't need globo-homo to be into bung-donging. It's like all them straight black guy who bung-dong white 'bitches' in prison.

There are three kinds of power-obsession, and they apply to Afghanistan as well.

There are the power-mad who want power for themselves. "Muh power" is their motto. They got to feel the power in their hands. They want to boss around others. Jews and blacks are this way. They got to feeeeeeeel the power. No Afghan leader in recent memory has mustered the kind of zealous will to truly unite the country and mold it into something new. No Afghan Napoleon, not even an Afghan Ataturk. Afghanistan hasn't been just a graveyard of foreign empires but of domestic political ambition. It never seems to come together. In politics, Afghanis are self-defeating as well as defeating of foreigners. When Taliban was in power prior to 9/11 and when it takes power again, the common theme will be status quo based on mutual understanding among various clans than the at-long-last unity of the nation under a great khan or mogul.

There are the mad-for-power who want to be near the powerful. They want to feel its radiance like the planets the heat of the sun. They want to serve and be approved by the power. They want to work for the boss. Dogs are like this. Dogs revere humans as the master, the source of power. White cucks are like dogs of Jews. They got to heeeeeeeel to the power of Zion. Take Chris Wray of FBI. He has a powerful position, but he's not about leadership but following orders. He appreciates that he gets to rub shoulders with powerful people and do their bidding. As Jews are his masters, he goes after 'white supremacists' who are actually whites who dare to call out on Jewish supremacism. Afghani puppet regime is made up of mad-for-power cucks, the Chris Wrays of their world. They were awestruck by US power and contented as long as Boss Uncle Sam gave them money and the orders.

There are the power-eternal who are enthralled with power as an abstract principle, spiritual or scientific. They aren't egocentric about power. They don't need to feel the power or be boss. Nor do they feel giddy with joy only as toadies to power. Rather, they see power as a kind of destiny, and their wish is to be in tune with it. For the spiritualists, the ultimate power is God and the destiny of man is God's will. This is power beyond any man's ambition. Also, mankind, even the greatest prophets, can glimpse and divine only a sliver of this power. Still, the proper thing is to be in tune with the cosmic will of God or the gods.
But power-eternals also exist in the scientific community. Take the nut-job Michio Kaku who is utterly cuckoo about power. And yet, he doesn't seem power-mad. He himself doesn't have to be the boss or have lots of money or have an army of servants washing his feet. But he isn't mad-for-power in the toady way either. Apparently, no power in our world, no matter how rich or fearsome, measures up to his vision of the ultimate power, which is nothing less than man's destiny to 'become the gods' by means of science/technology. Kaku feels that man has within him the god-gene that can unlock many more secrets of the cosmos and that will eventually catapult mankind into levels of power unfathomable to us who are still in the primitive stage of development(by cosmic standards). Kaku knows that he will die long before the dream is realized, but that's okay because he feels pride in having played a role, however small, in mankind's path to god-hood. So, he too is a kind of power-eternalist. The one advantage of the Taliban is it has a kind of power-eternal view of things. Taliban folks don't measure time in terms of impatient Western progress. They believe the foreigners will eventually depart and be forgotten because only Allah is the arbiter of what is true and just... and Allah hates Infidels who will be destroyed in time.

Most political orders are about power-mad egotists and mad-for-power toadies. US is about pushy power-mad Jews and mad-for-power toady white cucks. Granted, Jews can play the toady-role if they must as they have a long experience of sucking up to kings and noblemen of Europe who valued Jewish financial services. Jews hated playing toady to filthy goyim(especially the Christian kind as there is nothing Jews loathe more than the New Faith, which they see as theft of their own) and strategized to eventually take over as the bosses who would push the filthy goyim around.
But then, Jews also have the power-eternalist element in their cultural DNA, the sense of Grand History and the Ultimate Destiny founded upon the Covenant between God and the Jews. This eternal element of Jewish psyche balances out the petty power-madness. This is the difference between someone like Andrew Cuomo and the Jews. Cuomo the Italian-American prick can't conceive of power beyond others licking his boots. He has the mentality of a cheap mafia hood. While powerful Jews are no less loathsome, they have a grander sense of power beyond 'muh power'. Even secular Jews who don't believe in God believe in some kind of Grand History where Jews are destined to play a key or The Key role.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban.

They did destroy the Buddha statues. They did prohibit music. They have a puritanical streak, which is no good. In a way, Islam and Puritanical Christianity have something in common with Leftism. They are radically purist and tend to see the world in Manichean terms of Good vs Evil. The pagans were more tolerant of how the world really is. Paganism was more realist. According to the Greeks, their gods were good and bad, just like humans. According to Christianity and Islam, there is only one God, and He is totally good and at war with totally evil Satan. So, this divides the world neatly into holy vs unholy. Even though modern leftism developed as a secular movement at war with religion, it inherited the radical purism. Good Progress vs Evil Reaction. Smite the Old to create the New. So, even though Muslims and 'woke' nuts have little in common in terms of agenda, they are much alike in their emotional psychology.

Compare this to articles in 1974 about capitalist South Vietnam fearing the impending destruction of the free market at the hands of Ho Chi Minh and his henchmen. It is precisely the same narrative – but the reverse.

Vietnam War and Afghan War are not even remotely comparable. For one thing, the US was stationed in only half of Vietnam. The Northern part was totally ruled by the Vietnamese. In contrast, US occupied all of Afghanistan. It was tougher to fight in the jungle than in the mountains. True, Afghan mountain ranges make for tough combat, especially in the old days of the British Empire, but with air superiority the US had effective control of the entire country. Also, if Soviet airplanes and helicopters were targeted by stinger missiles, the US aircraft were mostly untouched... except when Afghans got lucky with a few bazookas.
The Vietnam Conflict was a real war until the US left. It was bloody and horrific. In contrast, the so-called Afghan War effectively wound down in 2002, so much so that US shifted its war aims to Iraq(and other countries if possible). So, since 2002, it's been an Afghan Occupation than Afghan War. In 20 yrs, US lost 2,500 soldiers. That's about 125 per year, and most of the deaths happened in the first few yrs. So, calling this "America's longest war" is a joke.

Also, unlike the Viet Cong and NVA that were formidable foes to the last day of America's withdrawal in 1973, the Taliban just waited for the Americans to leave. US wasn't pushed out by too many casualties or unpopularity of the war at home. While plenty of people protested the Iraq War, no one protested the Afghan Invasion, and when have you seen an anti-war protest about Afghanistan? US finally decided to leave because either the Occupation was becoming pointless, the regime has military plans elsewhere(maybe against Iran or China), or because the Democrats are afraid of Trumpists stealing the anti-war thunder. After all, what was most incredible about Trump's campaign in 2016 was the Anti-Neocon-War-ism, notwithstanding his very neocon-ish saber rattling at Iran.

Now, what is startling is the rapid advances of the Taliban and the sheer haplessness of the Afghan government and its military. But then, maybe it's not so surprising since the US hardly installed a real government or built a real military. The bane of installing a real government is it might have its own ideas and agendas. US wanted a pliable puppet, but the problem is puppets are usually weak. Diem of South Vietnam turned out to be more independent, and the CIA took him out. The total puppet government that followed had NO legitimacy and support whatsoever(wherever Diem did have some respect and support).
But then, the current US is plagued by the same problem, that of legitimacy. Jews rule the US and recruit shabbos goy puppets, and this accounts as to why US politicians are so weak, so pathetic, so ridiculous, and without respect. George W. Bush was a neocon puppet. Jeb Bush was even more pathetic, if that's even believable. Mitt Romney is a total cuck. Paul Ryan, what a joke. Many libby-dibs supported Obama as The Difference, but he was just a House Negro of globo-homo Jews. Many conzos supported Trump as The Difference(and he was truly hated by the Establishment), but he folded to Deep State demands and took it up his arse from the Jews just the same.
Jews insist on goy puppet weaklings but also want US democracy to have legitimacy around the world. But how can a puppet-regime be legitimate? Look at Biden. No one voted FOR Biden, just like almost no one voted FOR Hillary. They just voted against Trump as the worse evil. And with Trump's presidency having turned into one big farce, who but the biggest Maga-tards can believe in the Donald again? At most, people might vote Trump AGAINST the Democrats. As Darren Beattie of Revolver News has said, the American Regime lost its legitimacy. Most conzos look upon Republican politicians as 'RINOS', and most libby-dibs look upon Democrat politicians as sell-outs.
But unlike Afghanistan, the US is without a Taliban-like majority who are waiting in the wings to take over when the time is ripe. Too many Americans, especially the libby-dibs, are 'Telebans' whose idea of reality comes from the Jewish-controlled Tube. No wonder what is most sacred to them is BLM and globo-homo and they would never unite with other whites against the real power of Jewish Supremacism. But then, where are white patriots in the South to defend Robert E. Lee monuments? Great majority of white conzos support jungle fever and 'gay marriage'. They are just another version of the 'Teleban', which means they are mind-controlled by Jewish globalists.

The supposedly diabolical mission of the Taliban is to restore the basic order of nature in the lands of their race.

Pagans were closer to the nature of things. Greek mythology is perhaps the greatest and most poetic mapping of the human psyche. Islam and especially Christianity condemn too much that is natural and instinctual as sinful or satanic. Paganism can slide into sensual overload, but puritanism can harden into repression. Ethno-race-ist Paganism + Patriarchy is the best combination. It allows for female beauty and expression but under control of social norms and morality.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban. They are not a CIA-backed group like ISIS, so they are not drowning people in cages or engaging in cannibalism.

The big hypocrisy. The very Western bleeding hearts all weepy-poo about the 'women and daughters' in Afghanistan were utterly silent about Obama/Hillary regime's support of ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria in yet more Wars for Israel. Assad's Syria has been a modern Arab state, but the Jewish-controlled West recruited Muslim nihilists to wreak havoc and enforce Sharia law all over. It goes to show that the Western commentariat fall into two groups: Idiots who really swallow the BS narrative about "muh women's rights" and the opportunists who decry Islamism when it undermines Imperial aims but support it when it aids and abets the goals of globalist-imperialism.

Jane Fonda went to Vietnam to support the North Vietnamese, despite the fact that they were as likely to gang-rape the bitch as they were to welcome her. The North Vietnamese did not fetishize negroes, nor were they going to legalize anal sex. Their primitive conception of communism amounted to “yankee go home.” Basically, the leftists who supported the North Vietnamese were pretty much just traitors and scoundrels, who claimed that the Viet Cong shared their values as an excuse to attack America.

Don't be silly. Why would they have raped a propaganda tool? Also, back in the 60s, even most Liberals regarded homosexuality as a sin or sickness. Hollywood regularly featured villains as homo or crypto-homo. Homos were either villains or objects of mockery. There was no globo-homo back then, at least not outwardly. The most liberal politician could have been ousted by revelations of buggery.
Also, back then, even most liberals believed in nationalism. So, they supported Cuban nationalism, Vietnamese nationalism, and etc. They figured non-white nations had just as much right to be independent as white nations. The big idea back then was post-imperialist universal nationalism. Today, there is neo-imperialist globalism that is about universal anti-nationalism. Globalism says ALL nations(except Israel) should reject the bond between race and land, welcome mass migration, celebrate 'diversity', and forsake sovereignty... and make way for the Triumvirate of Jews as Holy Holocausters, Blacks as Noble Negroes, and Homos as Magic Fairies.

In retrospect, the Leftists of the 60s were more right than wrong, at least on foreign policy. And the Right also came to realize this. Charles DeGaulle ended the Algerian War, and Nixon finally ended the Vietnam War.

Personally, what I can't stand about the Taliban is aesthetics. I don't mind the rags on Arabs. It sort of looks dashing on them camel jockeys in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. 'Raghead' look is okay. But the 'towel-head' look of the Afghans? They look like they got giant donuts on their heads. It just looks stupid. Also, rag-on-head makes good sense. It protects the head from the burning sun. But the heavier head gear among Afghans must increase temperature, and that's no good for the brains. No wonder Afghanis are so dumb with cooked brains.

Everywhere on earth, the US military flies the rainbow flag, which is the symbol of pederasty.

No, it's the Jewish Victory Flag. It means, "We Jews buttfuc*ed this country and own it as our bitch." Globo-homo among homos is about 'gays' boofing each other in the ass. Globo-homo among nations means "Jewish Power made us squeal like a pig." Trump's presidency was essentially Ned Beatty in THE DELIVERANCE going 'weeeeee, weeeeee' while Sheldon 'Nuke Iran' Adelson humped him hard. 'Weeeeeeeeee.'

Frankly, as we can see in the rearview mirror, the North Vietnamese were not exactly bluepilled. But the Taliban is redpilled hard.

Back in the 60s, even most Democrats were not 'blue-pilled'. It is why Richard Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Many Democrats were appalled by the counterculture elements in their midst. A lot of Liberal Commentators from that era would not come across as hardline conservatives by today's standards.

This isn't really a victory for the Taliban. One could argue that the Viet Cong and NVA won the war because, despite horrible casualties and failure to win any major battle against the US, they fought hard to the very end of US departure. In contrast, the Taliban just hunkered down and accepted the Occupation. They hardly did any fighting and are now coming out of the woodworks because US is leaving. It's rather like rats and rain taking over a house once the people moved out.
Of course, the Taliban is winning against government troops, but the US was never serious about creating a military. It's been said a trillion or two was spent on Afghanistan, but this is misleading. No, the money was spent on the Military Industrial Complex. Most of the money was spent on US firms and institutions. They pretended to do stuff in Afghanistan but spent most of the money on themselves(while local politicians got some crumbs in the form of bribes).

Jesse Owens' Medals in the 1936 Olympics validated Race Differences, not Race Equality — Fallacy of 'Anti-Racism', one of the most pernicious ideas of the 20th Century

Jesse Owens(who won four golds in track & field in the 1936 Olympics) as an example of racial equality is laughable. He was idolized as a model of 'anti-racism' for having destroyed the myth of Aryan Supremacy. But, the Narrative would hold water ONLY IF he'd tied with the German/white runners. Then, he would have proven, black or white, it doesn’t matter, because races are equal in abilities and differ only in skin color, hair texture, and appearances. But did Owens' feat prove that races are equal in track and field?
No, Owens ran markedly faster and, if anything, proved black racial superiority in the sprint and jump. Even if Owens destroyed one racial myth, that of 'Aryan superiority' in athletics, he established another, that of black African superiority in the sprint and jump. (Incidentally, even though Adolf Hitler and National Socialists rooted for their own race/team, they didn't necessarily believe that the 'Aryans' were superior in sports. Indeed, Hitler didn't like to attend track & field events because he knew blacks would likely win.) Joe Louis proved much the same as Owens. In beating all those white boxers(and especially demolishing Max Schmeling in their second encounter), his victories didn’t prove racial equality but black advantage in fighting ability.

But PC logic dictates that ‘racism’ be pegged to supremacism or superiority only when pertaining to whites. So, anything that suggests or indicates white edge, advantage, or superiority in any field is deemed ‘racist’, a terrible myth that is ripe for busting. In contrast, any evidence of white inferiority(and especially black superiority) is lauded as ‘anti-racist’. But, if a black guy is deemed better than whites at sports, isn't that a clear sign of black superiority? As it points to racial differences, isn't it 'racist' or race-ist? Apparently, the same rules don't apply to blacks. In other words, any evidence of black lording over whites in certain fields is wonderfully 'anti-racist', whereas any evidence of whites lording over blacks in other areas is terribly 'racist'.
Some may believe that apparent white advantages deserve more criticism and skepticism(as well as condemnation) because such could be the legacy of past discrimination and bigotry, i.e. as whites were traditionally on top and socially favored, they inherited positions and privileges, whereas blacks had to climb up from the bottom against race-based obstacles. So, even if black advantages really do exist, they must be the truth for having been demonstrated against the odds.
In contrast, how can we be sure that whites are really better than other races in anything when they'd been favored in the West for as far as anyone can remember? And yet, such line of thinking is not only fallacious but disingenuous. It's a fallacy because white social advantage in the past doesn't disprove white genetic advantages in certain fields and, furthermore, white superiority in IQ over blacks has been carefully researched and documented in countless studies and data over decades and across continents. For example, if blacks were historically favored over whites and enjoyed certain privileges over whites, it still doesn't mean that blacks aren't naturally better at running and jumping. Men were certainly socially advantaged over women through most of history, but only an idiot would argue that past inequality accounts as to why men are bigger and stronger than women. Also, regardless of how blacks demonstrated their superiority, the evidence still has to be regarded as race-ist for having disproven the 'anti-racist' myth of racial equality, one of the most pernicious ideas to come out of the 20th century. But in our Politically Correct times, any sign of black racial superiority is celebrated as 'anti-racist' and 'progress' whereas any evidence of white superiority is condemned as lingering legacy of 'racism' and 'so much still to be done'.

Similar dynamics exists between Jews and whites. It’s perfectly fine for Jews to wail about white privilege and white over-representation, especially compared to blacks(and browns). Too-Many-Whites in any given field is proof of ‘racism’. But whites better not notice Too-Many-Jews in elite institutions and prized industries even though Jews, at only 2% of the US population, are the most disproportionately powerful and privileged people in the country. Even though whites have lost so much ground vis-a-vis other races due to meritocracy and/or 'affirmative action', any sign of white success or wealth is evidence of how so much more has to be done about 'white privilege'. In contrast, no matter how richer, more privileged, and more powerful Jews become, that is just awesome and Jews can never be too rich, too powerful, or too privileged. Of course, Jews control the academia & media and rigged the game so that blacks and Jews can never have enough whereas whites always have 'too much'. Whites may be smarter than blacks, but they are dumber than Jews; and this has resulted in white awe of Jewish Genius(supposedly suffused with tragic wisdom of the Holocaust) and earnest reverence for Jewish admonishment and advice. There was a time when whites knew intelligence isn't synonymous with honesty & truth and were rather skeptical of Jewish claims and tactics, but the Jewish control of media + cult of the Holocaust led to what amounts to White Worship of supposed Jewish Wisdom, indeed to the point where to be a Doubting Thomas of the Jewish Agenda is to be reviled as an 'Anti-Semite', 'hater', 'Neo-Nazi', 'white supremacist', or 'extremist'.

At any rate, it’s stupid to blame ‘white supremacism’ for white superiority in modern history. It’s like putting the cart in front of the horse. More likely, whites developed supremacist attitudes because they gained superiority first. And the superiority came about by a complex set of factors that were cultural, historical, geographic, and genetic. (Besides, it was only a handful of white groups that came to world dominance whereas most did not and some, like the Byzantine Greeks, experienced steep decline and even total defeat.)

Supremacism per se doesn’t guarantee supremacy or superiority. Chinese had supremacist attitude about being part of the Middle Kingdom, but if anything, their arrogance ran up and crashed against the reality of European Superiority in science, technology, and organization. Muslims thought they were supreme as the favored of Allah, but their faith didn't do any good against the objective superiority attained by the West in production and military domination. Great White Hopers had supremacist delusions that white guys would beat black guys like Jack Johnson. But wish didn’t come true, and white boxer after white boxer got crushed by Johnson. Supremacism sometimes arises from but isn't the guarantor of superiority. Muhammad Ali was great not because he said so, as any boxer could boast he's the 'greatest', but because he had the natural advantage to take his words to the bank.

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

How Negrolatry or Afromania among Silly Whites parallels the Transformation of Worship from Pagan Cults to Judaism to Christianity — The Problems of White Psychristianity — Nature vs Nurture in the God-Myth

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

The history of the transition from paganism to Old Testament to New Testament is instructive in an understanding of how whites came to bow down to Negrolatry.

Though there were many kinds of paganism, the pagan gods weren't generally high on the moral scale. Some were downright cruel and murderous, like the gods of the Aztecs. Human sacrifice was also practiced by certain paganists of Ancient Near East. Pagans feared and worshiped power for power's sake. Their spiritual vision was far from moral. It was all about might. The gods were like the forces of nature. Floods, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, pestilence, and etc. Good or bad, it didn't matter. It was fearsome and frightening. Nature could be on your side or against your side. All you could hope for was good fortune. Hopefully, nature will favor you, and you had to do whatever necessary to earn those favors. As gods controlled nature(or nature = gods), you had to pay them tribute. It could even be in the form of ritual human sacrifice if indeed it was deemed the only way to placate and appease the gods. Gods were powerful. They were the forces behind or within nature. It was presumptuous of man to expect, let alone demand, that gods be moral and caring about feeble and flawed mankind. Gods were gods, super-beings of great power. And they did as they pleased, and the most mankind could hope for was easing their wrath(or direct it at enemy tribes). Maybe then, the gods won't kick your butt too badly. Maybe the gods will spare your kind and take out their fury on some other hapless tribe. Paganism was spiritual nihilism. Might was right.

Then arose the Jewish religion(as well as other religions that sought to morally justify, as well as bind, the spiritual forces). It winnowed the spiritual realm into the universe of one God. Judaism went even beyond 'holocausting' all the other gods. Instead of Yahweh prevailing over all other gods, vanquishing them into extinction, it argued there was never any other god than the one and only God. So, all other gods never existed. They were false, figment of the imagination, whereas Yahweh was the one true God from(or before the) beginning. Jewish Spirituality was a revolution in thought. At once, it elevated the conception of God to levels unknown to mankind. The Jewish God wasn't just the one and only God but the all-powerful and all-knowing God. Among pagan gods, some were more powerful than others but no god was all-powerful and all-knowing. But the Jewish God was the one supreme being. Jews made their God into a singularity, more powerful than all the other conceptions of gods combined. And yet, Jews also hamstrung their God more than any other people did. By moralizing their God as not only all-powerful and all-knowing but good and wise, the end-result was God that was allergic to the nihilistic temptation of might-is-right.

So, even though the Jewish God was more powerful than any god imagined before, He couldn't even demand that Abraham kill the kid. Sure, as the one and only God, it was His right to demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. But, if He'd really made Abraham carry out the blood ritual, He would have revealed Himself as no different from the pagan gods. So, the Jewish God was at once the lone superpower of the spiritual realm and morally owned by the Jews. (In a way, Jews played a similiar mind trick on the Anglos. Jews flattered the Anglos as not only the mightiest people in the world but also the noblest. Thus, Anglos were goaded into believing their great power must be morally justified, especially in Jewish eyes. Their might had to be right. Of course, what constituted 'good' in Jewish eyes was on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?" As Anglos became ever so mindful of Jewish sensitivities, their godlike power came to cuck to Jewish agendas, whereupon Jews eventually took over as the new gods.")

Even though Jews moralized spirituality and conceived of the one and only God(who is not only all-powerful and all-knowing but all-wise and all-just), God of the Old Testament retained some of the darker characteristics of the cruel pagan gods. The ever-fluctuating Jewish concept of God ranged from wise, caring, and compassionate TO cruel, ruthless, and murderous. Jewish God seemed to be kind of schizoid. Too often, His wrath seemed unbalanced and disproportionate to the crime of the wrongdoers. Or, his violence seemed arbitrary as far as the human mind could fathom.

Also, there was a seemingly insurmountable contradiction within the Jewish moral conception of God. On the one hand, Jews praised Him as the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and entirely just Deity. On the other hand, they wanted Him to favor the Jews uber alles. One interpretation of the Covenant was that Jews would be favored by God if and only if they sincerely aspired to be BETTER than other peoples. In other words, Jews would strive to be wiser, fairer, and more moral than other peoples, thereby deserving the special blessing of God. This was the kindlier take on the Covenant. But, there was another interpretation that implied God would/should favor the Jews uber alles simply because Jews got Jewish blood. At best, this was rank tribalism, and at worst a kind of supremacist nihilism.

At any rate, it was frustrating for Jews that despite the manner of their deeds, good or bad, they remained weak relative to other tribes. Was God holding back his full blessing because Jews weren't good enough? Or did God intend Jews to remain politically and militarily weak because their true destiny was to formulate a new kind of power that conquers souls with words than lands with swords? By developing their spirituality, Jews would master the art of survival despite their military setbacks. Thus, while other peoples that concentrated on physical conquest would rise to greatness with victory but fade into oblivion with defeat, Jewishness would outlast all of them because its essence was soul-bound to God regardless of victory or defeat in battle. It helped that the Jewish God couldn't be represented in idol form, which would have led to at least the symbolic desecration of His Being by the enemy's sword and hammer. It's harder to destroy a mystery than a representation. (On the other hand, mystery remains dark and anxiety-inducing.) Still, it was tough-going for Jews to be surrounded by empires far more powerful than their tribe. Even if Jews licked their wounded pride with self-assurance that they alone possessed the formula for survival and longevity, even a mere century seemed like forever to the people living in anxiety and turmoil.

When Jews prayed for the Messiah under Roman Occupation, they envisioned him to be a super-warrior-prophet who would vanquish the Romans(and all other enemies of Jews, as well as collaborator-Jews) and restore Jewish independence(and maybe even bring about Jewish hegemony). But, other Jews conceived of different possibilities, and one of these led to the birth of Christianity. In a way, the Warrior-Messiah template was fulfilled by Muhammad some 600 yrs later, but he was an Arab who, in his own way, universalized Hebraism(and its link with Hellenism via Christianity).

There has long been the Utopian dream of starting anew. A new beginning without the stain and imperfections. A kind of New Eden. Even God is tempted in this direction, as when He sent the flood to drown out the wicked so that humanity could begin again with the virtuous Noah and his family... but things went badly once again.
Some of the most radical firebrands in the modern era wanted a new beginning, a kind of Year Zero experiment. Reform and even moderate revolution weren't good enough because they tolerated too many of the Old Imperfections. Instead of eradicating all old evils and starting anew, reform took a gradualist approach upon a corrupted order and succumbed to reactionary pressures and opportunistic tendencies. Instead of cutting off the hand of the Devil, reformists shook it and contracted the disease of accommodation in the name of craven pragmatism.

Communism swore to stamp out the old and oppressive in one clean sweep and replace it with the new and just. It led to Stalinist collectivization, Maoist Cultural Revolution, and most frighteningly the Year Zero experiment in Cambodia. At the root of communist theory was the idea that one could not compromise with the Old Way. Social-Democrats were denounced for having succumbed to 'moderate' bourgeois temptations. Leninism and Maoism waged war not only on the evils of the Old but on the Old itself as an evil that must be eradicated in its entirety to make way for the New. (Granted, Classic Marxism wasn't so much an attack on the Old as on the New. It believed capitalism was doing an awesome job of eradicating the old way and making way for the new, except that its contradictions and imbalances couldn't possibly be the basis for a stable social order as too few would end up with too much at the expense of everyone else.)
The shining New Order needed not be grasped for in the dark. It was not something that would gradually come into view through trial and error, steps forwards and backwards. No, this New had already been envisioned in the mind of Karl Marx. Like Zeus's head birthed the full-grown Athena in her full glory, Marx had seen the Future, how it would happen and what it would be about. For this prophecy to be fulfilled, the Old(or the Bad New)simply had to make way for the New or the Good New(that would be premised on justice prophecy than on just profits). It wouldn't be yet another chapter in the customary historical process of the old constantly ceding to the new(which becomes the new old ceding to the new new and so on) but the end of the Old for good and beginning of the New forever. It would be the End of History and the Beginning of the Future.

But seeds of such thought were there in Christianity itself(though its Utopian vision was directed toward Heaven). It imagined God born anew. For Christians, the birth of Jesus was like spiritual Year Zero. Anno Domini. In a way, it was the human equivalent of what God had attempted with the Flood but in spiritual reverse. Mankind had proved to be a disappointment, and the Flood was meant to wipe out everyone but the good man Noah and his family so that humanity would have a new flowering without the weeds.
Likewise, God turned out to be a big disappointment for many Jews though, whereas it seemed only right for almighty God to air His grievances about man, it was unthinkable for man to do likewise about God. Why were the Jews so weak? Did God fail to live up to His end of the bargain? Or was the fault with the Jews? Besides, if Jews worship an all-wise and all-knowing God, why was the Torah so full of contradictions? Why are there so many suggestions of God's imperfections even though He is supposed to be perfect? Why does God have so many contrasting 'personalities'? How come the various great prophets disagree with one another as to the nature of God and His design for the Jews and mankind?

Of course, Jews couldn't admit that the fault was with God. They couldn't say it but they nevertheless felt it. There was something wrong with God, and there was too much contradictory and bewildering baggage in the Torah. If God failed to fix the world with the Flood and the new beginning with the good man(Noah), perhaps the answer was a new beginning with the good God. A Year Zero for spirituality. But how could Jews reject the Old God when He was the one and only God, the all-perfect and all-wise Being? That would have been blasphemous. The renegade Jews who comprised the Early Christians had an idea. How about the Son of God? Even though the Narrative is that He suffers and dies for the sins of man, the crypto-narrative could be He does penance for the sins of His Father. Such can't be said because God is supposed to be perfect. But if indeed the Old God is perfect, why a need for the Son of God as the equal of God and the founder of a new religion? Why a need for the face of God(in human form) who heretofore didn't have a face to show to mankind? Ultimately, Abram was spared from having to sacrifice his son, but according to Christianity, God had to sacrifice His Son to bring about the New Faith, the ultimate one, and the Redemption. But only of man or of God Himself as well? Upon closer examination, the Jesus Narrative is about penance of both man and God.

Via creation of the Jesus Myth, spiritual Year Zero could conceive of God without the old baggage. Unlike the Old Prophets who consulted the Jewish Tradition and History to grasp God's meanings & intentions and build upon earlier wisdom(or delusions), the new prophecy of early Christians would be written on a blank slate. The newly birthed (Son of)God could be all about love, peace, and forgiveness, conceived of only the highest virtues and in a manner far more consistent than the Old Testament narrative. He would signify the end of the Old Covenant that bound volatile God to the troublesome history of the Jews. The New Covenant wouldn't be bound to any history or custom. It would be based on Faith and purity of heart and open to all mankind. Jews were so fearful of their God. God was good and just but also ruthless and terrifying. God was a helping hand but also a clenched fist. The Messiah of Christianity had bleeding hands. Christ, having felt the fleshly pain and suffering of mankind, would understand. He would be of a bleeding heart(though not the sappy kind of the 'liberals'). Furthermore, there would be not one but two Year Zero narratives around Jesus. His birth in Bethlehem heralding a new promise and the Resurrection where He would defeat death and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This way, mankind could hope for a more humane and loving God. Jews believed God existed before the world, long before the First Man, who only came into existence through the will of God. God created the world and always exerted a patriarchal and masterful authority over humanity. So, it wasn't the role of mankind or the Jews to mold God's nature. God molded them, and mankind could only hope to understand God a little better.
But with Christianity, mankind could nurse Christ-as-baby in their arms. Mankind could have a parental role over Christ as starchild. Mankind could mold Jesus in His formative years. Jesus, though God by nature, was Man by nurture. (Moses spent his formative years as an Egyptian but as a man turned full-Jew and destroyed many an Egyptian. In contrast, though Jesus would come to realize He is God than mere man, He would forever feel indebted to the good people who loved, nurtured, and taught Him.) Mankind, in imagining its role in the maturation and education of Jesus, could assure themselves that the Son of God as the new face of God would be fundamentally different from the Old God of the Torah who was unpredictable like the weather. Jesus would be more like the weatherman looking out for mankind.

Now, what can this teach us about the development of Negrolatry in the West? First, we must acknowledge that even modern secular white folks still think and feel in terms of Idolatry and 'psychristianity'. Even if no longer religious, a part of them is into idol-worship of all things thrilling & titillating(especially as modern culture is mostly about sports and youthful enthusiasm, with most people growing older not with pride of wisdom but resignation to irrelevance), while another part cannot shake off the guilt-complexes and redemption narratives inherited from Christianity that governed Europe for over a millennium. Also, Northern European Protestant types have long been craving for Idolatry or at least iconography that had been purged from their culture in rejection of semi-pagan Catholicism. At least German Protestants compensated for their lack of spiritual color with the power of music. Anglo-Protestants were especially vulnerable to the temptations of Negrolatry because of the dryly literary insistence of their culture.

From the white perspective, there are parallels between the developmental stages of Negrolatry AND the evolution of paganism into Jewish Religion and then the transformation of Judaism into Christianity, the universal faith, one that especially came to conquer/convert the white heathens of Europe. (From the black perspective, it could be they are aiming at something resembling Islam, a secular faith for whites where blacks-as-gods thrive less on kindly virtue than on fearsome power. If Black Muslims of the Nation of Islam seek racial separation[at least in theory], much of so-called Critical Race Theory or CRT is about whites worshiping and obeying blacks because blacks are good simply for being black.)

Like Ancient Religions and Cults, the crudest and most elemental forms of Negrolatry have to do with paganist fear-and-trembling before raw power, the might-is-right thing. This is Negrolatry #1. Before the emergence of higher moral/spiritual concepts and codes, mankind worshiped gods simply for their awesome power. Never mind right or wrong. Just bow down before the terrifying might that can smite your butt. No wonder so many tribes, in both Old World and New World, made human sacrifices to the gods. (Today, so many whites are willing to sacrifice so many whites and other non-blacks to appease the black gods. White victims are presented as sacrificial offerings to black thugs, criminals, leeches, and crooks via reduced sentencing or 'affirmative action'. Of course, stuff like BLM ends up killing more blacks due to reduced police presence, but the holy god of black egotism matters more than the mere flesh of black bodies riddled with bullets. This has to be seen as a kind of neo-human-sacrifice - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/exclusive-lawsuit-filed-wake-forest-university-coach-killed-man-one-punch/ )

In a similar vein, Negrolatry in its most primitive form is about white awe of the bigass megaton Negro. Even in the old days when blacks were slaves in the South, whites noticed that 'dem ni**ers' could carry heavy loads and holler up a storm while picking cotton. It's like Ancient Folks held powerful animals in awe and even worshiped them: Hippos among Egyptians, bulls among Persians, and etc. Negro was beastly, and even though high spirituality is at the opposite spectrum of beastliness, spirituality initially grew out of worship of beastly power. Even as gods and God evolved into higher spiritual/moral conceptions, they could never lose the element of great power if they were to hold sway over mankind; indeed, the Jesus Narrative couldn't have become a religion without the Resurrection Myth as His Death would have signified ineffectiveness than the triumph of goodness. History of both man and god(s) is about power turning good than good gaining power. Power is always the first consideration. Most people admire bad power over good weakness, though they wish for the good-and-powerful. Admiration is reserved first for power, and then comes the wish for power to be just.

It's like the crude gods preceded the more complex gods in Greek mythology. It's like refined fuel originates from crude oil. And so much of pop music, despite their complexity and sophistication, draw their core energy from wailing/hollering blues and the like.
So, even though civilized white man considered black slaves to be of a beastly lesser race, that very beastliness also impressed the white man for its raw prowess. So, on some subconscious level, white man felt about the Negro like a primitive tribe about a volcano. It's like modern man, for all his collective power and dominion over nature, still feels a certain awe when pondering a bear, lion, rhino, elephant, or killer whale. Or a hurricane or earthquake. And kids feel awe about dinosaurs, especially the T-Rex.

But just like Jews moralized spirituality from a might-is-right cult to a right-is-might faith, there was another side to white man's formulation of Negrolatry. This was the foundation of Negrolatry #2. White do-gooders wanted to regard black soulfulness as akin to spiritual grace. Blacks in the South were like Jews in bondage in Egypt. They needed a Moses to lead them to the Promised Land. This Moses figure could be black(like Frederick Douglas and later MLK) or white(John Brown or Abraham Lincoln). The beastly was idealized as priestly. According to Negrolatry #2, blacks loved to sing-and-dance not because they are a bunch of savage jive-ass bunners but because their hearts are bursting with passion for freedom, equality, and dignity.
White folks, especially of Abolitionist bent, projected their own dreams and hopes onto the Negro. These Northern folks had little first hand knowledge of the jivers and their ghastly racial nature. But they knew a lot about the Bible and projected Biblical narratives upon the Negro. Of course, the South also consulted the Bible to justify slavery. They said Ham saw his father Noah naked, and God punished him by turning him into a Negro condemned to slavery under other races.
Jews, yet to develop a universalist mentality that came with 'emancipation' of their own(in Europe), were okay with the Southern explanation as to why blacks should pick cotton for whites(and Jews). It was because Ham saw Noah naked. But the fanatical Christian Abolitionists in the North weren't satisfied with Old Testament explanations alone. They were into sanctimony and holier-than-thou-ness. And what better way to feel piety and self-righteousness than by denouncing slavery, especially of the Noble Negro? UNCLE TOM'S CABIN even has a Noble Negro as christ-like figure dying for the sins of white folks. Of course, sympathy for the Negro had an element of condescension as well. Many Northern whites thought it was bad enough to be Negro with dark skin, nappy hair, and fat lips. Why make it worse for such an unfortunate people by using them as slaves as well? Also, many whites in the North thought blacks would always remain childlike dependents and sidekicks of the white race. They had no idea they were lighting a powder keg full of gunpowder.

But UNCLE TOM'S CABIN notwithstanding, whites weren't ready to confer unto the Negro the role of Christ in the American Narrative between the Civil War Period to the Civil Rights Era. Rather, the road from slavery to freedom was deemed akin to the Exodus story, albeit one led by white saviors or White Moses, especially in the figure of Abe Lincoln. Whites, especially the do-goody types in the North, wanted to believe that Negroes had noble souls and would be grateful and use their freedom wisely. Many whites in the South thought otherwise for reasons of firsthand knowledge and/or prejudice. While many were bigoted against blacks for racial reasons, they also instinctively sensed that Negroes could abuse their newfound freedom by terrorizing white folks in a reversion to oogity jungle nature.

This phase of Negrolatry lasted roughly from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement. The latter made a difference in that MLK took on the mantle of Black Moses who would fulfill the unfinished project of the White Moses Abraham Lincoln. But, his death turned him from a dead moses to resurrected christ. Negro Narrative went from a struggle for freedom to stairway to heaven.

But then, there is a reason why whites so desperately cling to the Cult of the Black Christ or Blackrist. It somewhat akin to why some Jews deviated from the Old Religion to formulate a new one that became Christianity. God of the Jews seemed at once unstable and tempestuous AND indifferent and uncaring. He could suddenly send floods, pestilence, and disasters out of the blue. Or He could be silent and distant just when the Jews need Him most. The Jews who would become the Early Christians wanted a more consistent and principled God. Also, they wanted to feel His nearness and what better way than by imagining Him as the Son of God who lived among mankind, died, and was resurrected to be one with the Father, God Himself. It was more soothing to believe in the Christian God. While the God of Judaism was a high concept God, the Torah's spiritual vision spanned the development of gods from might-is-right to right-is-might, which is why God in the early part of the Old Testament resembles the deities of the frightful pagans. He even makes a pagan-like demand on Abraham to make a blood-sacrifice of his son, only to 'change' His mind at the last minute. Thus, God presented Himself to Abraham as a moral God. Even so, God in later parts of the Old Testament never quite shed the vestiges of terrifying pagan gods. One can never be certain with the Jewish God, as Job found out the hard way. Then, it's no wonder that certain Jews dreamed of the Year Zero God, the one who could be conceived almost from scratch with only the good qualities minus the torrid and terrifying aspects in the Torah.

There is a parallel between the renegade alt-Jews(who became the early Christians) and today's whites who dream of a Better-Blackness. They've been enthralled with black prowess and associated it with the Noble Negro Narrative... but blacks by and large haven't conformed to the Narrative, remaining ignoble or 'nignoble'. While black problems have been a tenaciously cursed element of American History, blacks were more or less kept in 'their place' until the 1960s. The South had Jim Crow laws. And the North had its own subtler means of keeping whites over here and blacks over there. There were all sorts of discrimination against blacks in the North and the West. Jews in Hollywood had their own ways of keeping the lid on blacks.
Because of white social pressures and political muscle, blacks had no choice but to at least pretend to be a 'credit to their race'. Of course, plenty of blacks were louts and thugs. Norman Podhoretz's essay on the Negro Problem shows that, even before the Civil Rights Movement and the riotous 60s, black thugs had been harassing, beating, and robbing non-blacks, Jews included. Still, white society, both liberal and conservative, had been overwhelmingly on the side of preserving white spaces denied to blacks and dealing with blacks as second-class citizens or a can-of-worms to be kicked into the future. With such odds stacked against them, blacks couldn't go totally crazy, and whites in their safe white spaces could cling to the dream of the Noble Negro doing his best and in need of white sympathy and support. The Civil War Narrative held that blacks were freed and were on the gradual path to equality and justice. It would take time but blacks would eventually reach the Promised Land. But the Civil Rights Narrative spun a counter-argument. The Emancipation had been betrayed and the Negro had yet to break free. White Moses Abe Lincoln failed, and black Moses MLK would finally finish the job and make it to the mountaintop and lead his people to milk-and-honey.

Given the actual nature of the Negro, race-ist white skeptics had reasons not to fall for the Dream. But America is nothing if not naive and idealistic in some stupid(and inspired) way. Also, most skeptics were too genteel and inhibited to spell out in graphic and grisly details as to why the Negro Experiment wouldn't work. For some reason, White America chose to forget all about Jack Johnson and propped up the cult of Joe Louis, the nice BROWN(than black) Bomber. Apparently, Louis was such a nice guy, and it was only by accident that he knocked out all those white guys who just bumped into him. It was like the 'bum of the month' was really a 'bump of the month'. He didn't want to do it, but those clumsy uncoordinated white guys were haplessly walking into his fists and falling down.
As the raw truth remained unsaid even by the race-ists, white dreamers got the upper hand with the Narrative. The Dream would be MLK would finish the job and at last America would fulfill its mission. Of course, many chose to believe the mission was derailed by the assassination of MLK, but in fact, race problems got out of control while he was alive. Massive riots broke out in 1965, three years before MLK's death and by 1968, many blacks weren't even heeding King's advice and getting more rowdy-radical.

Because of the moral-spiritual investment of so many white folks(especially the wiberals) in the Noble Negro Narrative, they were willing to make excuses for mounting black rage and violence. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And hadn't whites also rioted in the past? So, maybe it was black people's turn to rebel and turn over the apple cart. But the difference was that, while white folks made even more progress upon gaining freedom(via means violent or peaceful), black folks got even worse with more freedom. It was as if blacks-and-freedom was like drinking-and-driving. Freedom inspired white people to shoot for the stars. Freedom drove black people to dive for the mud.

In time, even do-good wiberals joined the White Flight. Jews joined the Jew Flew. (And Asians joined Chu-Too, and Mexicans did Brown-Not-Stick-Around.) It was getting ever harder to maintain the Noble Negro Narrative. White Flight was the result of Black Blight. Too much crime, too much craziness, too much ghastliness. And for those in the know, Abraham Lincoln actually had little sentimentality about blacks. His idea of playing White Moses was to lead blacks OUT of America. And MLK, for his all hammy but inspiring oratory, was a lout, punk, thug, and beast. Had he lived, he would have become just another Jesse Jackson... or worse a kind of Al Sharpton. Indeed, most Civil Rights Era blacks became crooks, thieves, and/or charlatans. It was his death that led to the myth of the Blackrist.

Now, if whites had sense and shook off the Noble Negro Narrative for good and saw the Real Negro at last, there would have been no more of this nonsense. But mental habits die hard, especially when the Jewish-controlled Media and Academia have been doing everything to elevate MLK into god-status and instill whites from cradle with Negrolatry. For most white young ones, the four most sacred people are MLK, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, and Obama. White parents have been made anxious about their kids becoming 'racist' at the age of three. According to Jewish Media, white kids have a natural inclination to turn 'racist'. It's almost as if the 'original sin' of 'racism' is hard-wired into the white DNA. Therefore, white parents must train their kids to be 'anti-racist' from the earliest age possible, and that means feeding them Negrolatry from the cradle.
So, most white kids come to awareness believing that any pro-white consciousness is evil while any pro-black consciousness is sacred. Stuff like Diversity-Inclusion-Equity training is not about instilling and/or reinforcing the same virtues of diligence, honesty, integrity, courage, and responsibility on ALL people regardless of race but about conflating goodness with certain identities. Being black, Jewish, or homo/tranny makes one automatically good, and the less fortunate groups without magic identities can only attain a measure of goodness by being especially partial to Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies. In other words, it's a total perversion of morality. Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies are good even if they act bad because their identities are 'good'. In contrast, even whites who are most diligent, honest, conscientious, and courageous are morally suspect because their identity is associated with all sorts of evils and failings throughout (selective)history. Instead of promoting 'diversity, inclusion, and equity'(or DIE) among whites(but then notice how this never calls for Jewish Guilt and Atonement for the mistreatment of Palestinians who are certainly NOT INCLUDED in the American Debate), society would do much better to promote accountability, appreciation, honesty, and humility among blacks. What US needs is not DIE but AAHH.

So, despite all the troublesome facts about blacks, whites cannot shake their 'psychristian' complexes about them. And yet, it's hard going to keep up with the pretense of the Noble Negro in a world where blacks act so ignoble. White people want to believe that black fevers of the soul, passion, and even rage are essentially driven by righteous hunger(or lust) for justice and goodness. It's like the Jews in the Old Testament are far from perfect but more blessed than other races because they got God on their side. Also, even though the Old Testament God is sometimes terrifying and unpredictable, He is the source of all that is good, as well as ultimately the great redeemer. And yet, the rise of Christianity suggest that enough Jews could no longer accept the anxiety-inducing uncertainties of the Old Narrative. Given the dire events of history, certain Jews agonized and strove for a new explanation, the Year Zero option where they could conceive of God from near-scratch.

We see something similar in the Third Phase of Negrolatry, that of the Blackrist. This is Negrolatry #3. Is it any wonder that so many whites have adopted black babies? Just like God was conceived anew through the narrative of Jesus as Baby God, molded and nurtured in part by man(and woman), white folks dream of the black starchild by way of white nurture. Negroes may be noble and all, but they are too fearsome and unstable, often scaring white folks half-to-death. So, how about if they adopt a black child and mold him to be the Noble Negro more in harmony with white fantasies? Just like the rise of Christianity tamed God into a more loving figure with a closer ear to man's problems, the cult of Blackrist seeks to 'fix' the problem of the broken Noble Negro Narrative. If blacks left to their own devices cannot live up to the Dream, whites must somehow intervene and replace the Old Negro with the New Negro.
Some do it by adoption, but it's also done by ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Thus, the white woman carries the Noble Negro seed, much like Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Unlike a Negress who, though 'naturally noble', is too wild and funky for motherhood, the white woman would birth and nurture the mulatto kid to conform to the White Dream of the Noble Negro. No wonder so many whites greeted Obama as akin to black jesus. He was birthed by a white mother and raised by whites.
Another way is by Mass Immigration of Africans. Europeans have Noble Negro cult of their own. They believe America failed the blacks who turned out criminal and violent ONLY because of white tyranny and oppression traumatized the Negro soul. In contrast, Europe would welcome black Africans and treat them nice and show the world how naturally noble the blacks are. It's a variation on the Year-Zero-Negro, or Year Zegro. Europeans feel that American blacks became problematic solely due to mistreatment. It's like believing a tiger in captivity is dangerous because of abuses suffered at the hands of its owner and convincing oneself that a tiger would make the most wonderful pet if treated nice from infanthood. While it's true that a well-trained tiger raised from cub-hood can be friendly with humans, it can never be a proper pet because its very nature is wild & predatory and, furthermore, it is many times stronger than man.

Of course, there is one big difference between the transformation of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the transformation of Noble Negro Narrative from Troublesome Black Moses to Transcendent Black Christ. Whereas God isn't real whether one believes the Jewish version or the Christian version, blacks are all-too-real. There are tens of millions of them in the US, millions of them now in Europe, a billion of them in Africa, and there will be billions more in decades to come. Even though idea of God is a powerful concept, maybe the most powerful ever, it is still a matter to be pondered and debated. God doesn't exist in the real world. So, whether one is 'right' or 'wrong' about God, it is really a matter of theory.

In contrast, being wrong about Negroes is dangerous(and maybe fatal for Western Civilization) because countless blacks exist in reality and in ever increasing numbers, and they are by far the most aggressive, destructive, and dangerous race. Turning Negrolatry #1 into Negrolatry #2 was a big mistake. Whites noticed the raw power of blacks in muscle & music and conflated them with morality. Jack Johnson was about might-is-right, or 'we blacks be badass cuz we whup you white boys'. Upon noticing this fact, whites should have done everything to bring about permanent racial separation. But whites went with the cult of Joe Louis: the Nice Negro who uses his power as a credit to his race; he beats whites but is almost apologetic about it and, above all, wants to be liked by whites and be an American Hero in service of patriotism. But that Narrative fell apart in the 60s when blacks gained full confidence to riot and loot and scare whitey half-to-death.
But instead of waking up from the nightmare-mistaken-as-dream, whites ended up reaching for Negrolatry #3, whereby they came to fantasize about reinventing the Negro in their mind's eye. So, how did the Obama thing turn out? How are all these black kids created either by ACOWW and/or adoption turning out? Colin Kaepernick anyone? Is he the blackrist?

Can whites ever wake up? Perhaps not because of the 'viscerality' of black advantages. Jared Taylor detailed how blacks are better at certain things(like basketball) while Asians have their own niche advantages(like math and science). So, why can't people accept that blacks are better with balls and worse with ballpens? After all, most white people don't expect Asians to be good at basketball because they are better in math. White people aren't upset with Asian underperformance in America's most popular sports, and that's okay. So, why are whites upset with blacks not exceling in everything? Why not just say Asians are better at math and blacks are better at running/jumping? if whites can accept Asian inferiority in basketball, why not accept black inferiority in calculus or physics?

It is because math/science isn't visceral or exciting. In school, all the attention is on athletes, not on mathletes(even though the latter generally do better in life). So, the fact that Asians are good in math doesn't generate much excitement or convulsion about them. They are just seen as nerds.
In contrast, sports is visceral, and black dominance leads to white hero-worship of blacks as demigods or titans. Thus overwhelmed by excitement, whites have come to wish the best of their hero-race of blacks. (Likewise, white obsession with Jews has less to do with Jewish wizardry in math and science than their humor, forceful personalities, and prophetic reach that seem 'sexy'. Ayn Rand was no looker but her powerful big-think won over lots of acolytes.) This goes to show that Rationalism was bound to fail.

The perverse thing about the Cult of George Floyd is it managed to fuse Negrolatry 1, 2, 3 into a single package. He was beastly, a career thug, criminal, and druggy. He even had a stint in pornography. His fearsome beastly prowess made him like one of the crude pagan gods of dark nature. Negrolatry #1. But the Noble Negro Narrative spun his biography into something like a one-man exodus story. You see, he wasn't simply a lifetime criminal wandering across America to rob and cause more havoc. No, he was on a spiritual journey of self-discovery, in search of his milk-and-honey in a land mired in 'systemic racism'. A lone black moses in the tradition of the fugitive slaves on the run for freedom and dignity. Negrolatry #2. (Never mind Floyd was a free man and used his freedom badly. On the one hand, the Negrolators say it was a great evil to deny blacks equal rights and freedom in the past. On the other hand, Negrolators seem to imply that blacks + freedom is a bad mix because historical traumatization culturally or epigenetically drove blacks to be angrier and more dangerous; therefore, we can't expect blacks to use their freedom as sensibly as whites and non-blacks.) But then, Floyd died one day. How and why? He imbibed too much fentanyl, but the Jewish-controlled media and their minion-disciples, in a perverse variation of the feat pulled off by renegade Jews(who turned Jesus' tragedy into triumph), created the magic-myth of how Saint George Floyd was murdered by a 'white supremacist' centurion but overcame defeat and death by rising to heaven and gaining his place in the firmament. Thus, Floyd became blackrist. Negrolatry #3. We sure do live in crazy times.

COMING UP | THE GREAT DEBATE: E. MICHAEL JONES VS. JARED TAYLOR - Guide to Kulchur