Notes on Spencer Quinn's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: A Review(of Israel Shahak's Book)" — Problem with Kevin MacDonald's Theory of Northern European Individualism

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/05/jewish-history-jewish-religion-a-review/

This book review leaves the impression that the problem is less with Jews than with idiot goyim who allowed themselves to be played.

Jewish ethnocentrism is problematic for being extroverted than introverted. If Jews want a world of their own, fine. The problem is they also want the whole world as their empire, an ambition that can be realized only by Palestinianizing World Goyim. To create the Jewish State, there had to be Nakba against the Palestinians. Tragic, but if Jews had stopped there, no big deal to the rest of the world. But what is now happening in the West is White Nakba, and it's largely engineered by Jews who've gained control of white elites via bribery, brainwashing, and browbeating.

But then, maybe Jews wouldn't have turned out this way if Europeans had just left them alone. If Rome hadn't invaded Judea and pushed them into exile, Jews might not have spread all throughout Europe, which might have remained gloriously pagan. Also, the European spirit of discovery and world conquest didn't originate with Jews who nevertheless were useful as money-lenders and investors in the vast enterprises. So, Jews got a taste of World Power via Europeans.

In the Ancient World, Southern Europeans, esp. the Greeks and Romans, were most aggressive and adventurous. Later, it was the Northern Europeans, without whom Jews wouldn't have gained World Hegemony. Shahak's book details how Jews threatened by fellow Jews sometimes sought refuge in the world of kinder white Gentiles governed by more enlightened values and more humane application of the law.
On the other hand, these very goyim also recklessly drove Europe over the edge in World War I. Some will say the Jewish Hand played a role in the Great War, and I'm sure that was true, but whites often had a compunction to slaughter one another over what now seems like trifles. Granted, some historians say this was the reason for European advancement. Unlike most parts of the world that either remained sparsely populated or came under overwhelming imperial power, rough parity ruled among the European kingdoms/states, and this led to many more wars that fostered innovation in warfare and various technologies; it's like warring Japan was most open to new ideas when each clan sought superior weapons from European traders. But it also means Europeans got into the habit of treating war as some kind of sports. Most of these wars were resolved quickly, but when the warring parties were well-matched, things got awfully bloody like the matches between Ali and Frazier.

Kevin MacDonald argued that Jews gained over Anglos and other Europeans because the latter are more individualistic, but I'm not so sure. While modern concepts of individuality and liberty were advanced in the Anglo world(and Netherlands), those societies weren't governed or defined by principles of individualism but by class, obedience, respect, and conformism. For all practical purposes, individualism had significance only for certain thinkers, adventurers, innovators, and the like. Most people were concerned with fitting in, being approved, seeking validation. Northern Europeans weren't as clan-based or kinship-oriented as the Greeks and Southern Italians, but they still thought socially and communally than as individuals. If they served as a crew member on a ship, they did as the captain ordered. They were loyal to the firm they worked for, like Bob Cratchit to Ebenezer Scrooge in A CHRISTMAS CAROL. And they were mindful of the class they belonged to. And they were anxious about their respectability and standing in society. Thus, individualism in the Anglo World was rather constricted. Given liberty and individuality's tendency toward social chaos, social discipline and fear of disapproval were paradoxically the necessary conditions for the increase in freedom. The anarchic urge within liberty had to be tempered by manners and rules. In other words, individuality and liberty had to be merited by a sign of superiority, intelligence, wit, and/or skills.
Thus, individualism was essentially elitist, and most people, deemed mediocre and uninspired, were expected to just fall in line and conform, do what was necessary to gain approval and avoid opprobrium. The end result was a society where a relative few were deemed superior and worthy of admiration; they deserved more 'social credit' in liberty and individuality; the rest should just shut up, fall in line, and obey, which was pretty much the rule in British boarding schools.

Of course, Britain eventually loosened up, especially with the rise of Youth Culture popularized by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the like. Later, there was the explosion of Punk culture that took it to a whole new (lower)level, especially appealing to Brit youths eager to smash the remaining vestiges of class culture. But, old habits refused to die. Anglo-Britain(and Canada and Australia) remained very much places where most people remained deferential to authority as the best and 'expert'. Of course, authority came to wear the face of 'liberal democracy' and even came to be associated with hipness. It presented itself as 'lightened up', disdainful of old hierarchies and snobberies. After all, the Establishment embraced the Beatles, the Royal Family opened up to vulgar celebrities, and the ruling class came to indulge in the same popular culture as the hoi polloi. Still, the formula still remained, "the Best know and the Rest follow".

Now, what would constitute the Best? When UK was ruled by awesome race-ists(as the Best of the nation), most Brits fell in line and supported the racial-national agenda. But, if the Best were altered, the Rest would naturally fall in line PRECISELY BECAUSE most Brits never had real individuality of their own — and even popular culture, which felt so joyous and liberating, fostered collective emotions and 'thought', the crowd mentality that could be shepherded by the Power; it was more about mass idolatry of godlike celebrities than autonomy of the individual. Is it then surprising that New Britain was hardly more individualistic than Old Britain and in some ways even less so?

Just look at the rise of 'woke' culture and Covid-mania in the UK. A truly individualist society wouldn't get so crazy. People would ask questions and show some skepticism. But when the Best say so-and-so in the UK, most people just follow along like sheep. They lack the pride and confidence of individuality. What is truly insidious about 'woke' ideology or political correctness is it gives the false impression that it's about the voice of the People and the Powerless. Thus, the brainwashed sheep being led by the nose are fooled into believing they're struggling against the system. Wow, they knocked down a bloody statue of some past figure who sold slaves! What awesome rebellion against tyranny!
In truth, UK is now ruled by Jews who, via financial and media control, define what is Best. Jews push 'wokeness' to weaken white pride, resolve, and autonomy, all the better to make whites serve ANOTHER power. But because 'woke' ideology creates the illusion that 'white supremacy' still rules or infests the West, the idiot mobs think they're fighting the Power by vandalizing old statues. It's like the moronic Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution who were led to see themselves as rebels when, in truth, Mao merely used them as shock troops to get rid of his political rivals. Contra Kevin MacDonald, individualism wasn't the dominant mindset among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Rather, it was the individuality of the Best that was respected and rewarded while the Rest were pressured to obey and follow along.

In contrast, while it's true Jews have been profoundly tribal, their power also derived from a strong sense of personal individualism, i.e. self-centered pride of individuality has been more common among Jews than among Anglos. While Anglos were into 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir' before their superiors, Jews were more likely to be distrustful of their own kind, evento the point of irreverence. It could be Jews were sometimes overzealous to kill/murder other Jews precisely because too many Jews were overly defiant and strong-minded; it's like, for all the black bitching about 'racism', they are most prone to beat up or kill other Negroes cuz the only thing black egomania fears is an ass-whupping.

It's also worth noting that Jewish Tribalism wasn't based on loyalty to a clan leader but to God. Tribalism based on leadership crumbles along with it. It's about follow-the-leader, so when the leader goes, so does the tribalism. In contrast, tribalism based on the Covenant means everyone within the Tribe is equally blessed by God or some great force; it's a matter of blood and spirit regardless of who is leader. Anglo tribalism was based on leadership. So, if the leadership lost prestige(with the fall of empire) or cucked to a foreign entity(the Jews or whatever), the whole system came to be fatally compromised. As for Christianity, a universal faith, it wasn't something the Anglos could claim for themselves. It was only a matter of time before other peoples invoked the Christian God and Jesus to throw back the sermons at the British Imperialists.

Shahak begins by demonstrating how the Jewish state of Israel exists to serve the interests of Jews first and foremost.

Well, a Jewish State should serve Jews first and foremost.

He also describes the financial incentives Israel provides for its Jewish citizens to return to Israel after they leave, while not making similar offers to its non-Jewish citizens in similar circumstances.

Nothing wrong with that.

Shahak connects this double standard to the closed society many religiously zealous Jews want Israel to be.

Jewish problem is less about double standards than duplicitous standards. Every national entity must have double standards. If Japan is to remain Japan, it must favor Japanese over others. Still, a principled people would not only use double-standards in their favor in their own domain but respect similar practices by other peoples in their own domains. So, if Japanese use double-standards to favor Japanese in Japan while respecting Iran's use of double-standards to favor Iranians in Iran, there's no real problem.

But, Jews play a different game. For some reason, not only should Jews use double-standards in favor of Jews in Israel but THE WHOLE WORLD must be made to endorse such behavior, all the while pledging to favor the Other(especially Jews) over their own kind in their own countries. So, while Hungary must praise Israel for being an ethnocentric Jewish State, it mustn't favor Hungarians in Hungary; Hungarians must abandon any notion of a historical homeland with deep roots and meanings for Hungarians.

Imagine that. Hungarians have no global ambition and merely want to preserve Hungary as their little nation. In contrast, Jews not only have Israel but use neo-imperialism to smash neighboring Arab nations. Jews also control US and EU and use them as goy attack dogs against Russia, China, and Iran. And yet, these Jews are lecturing the Hungarians about decency and morality. It's like a billionaire gangster lecturing about the evils of greed to a peasant with a plot of land. Jews want all the goy world to be blackrocked. Jewish supremacists are cretins through and through, but no less disgusting are the goy cucks who grovel at their feet.

One of Shahak’s main contentions regarding classical Judaism is its totalitarian nature. He mentions how eighteenth-century Jews burned books, persecuted dissidents, banned non-Jewish education, and were absorbed in mysticism.

I wouldn't hold this against Jews of that period. We shouldn't judge past peoples and cultures with today's values. Were things any more enlightened among Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Ottomans, and etc.? Back then, censorship and authoritarian measures were de rigueur all throughout Europe. Besides, Jews couldn't have survived for so long as a culture and people without certain restrictions, be they legal, cultural, spiritual, racial, and/or spiritual. Japan was an isolated island-nation but, prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry's black ships, had done everything to keep Japan sealed tight. Such isolationism kept Japan from progress but also preserved and fostered a unique culture.

He states bluntly that when Jews were liberated or emancipated throughout the nineteenth century, they were in many case freed from “the tyranny of their own religion” rather than from any gentile oppression.

Nothing unique in history. Roman Empire was brutal and ruthless but also created Pax Romana in which many people lived in relative peace & prosperity and also gained freedoms and privileges under Roman military and legal protection. It's like that MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN scene about "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Empires can be liberating on some level. A people may be free of foreign rule but found themselves under crushing autocracy. North Korea is politically independent whereas South Korea is a US satellite, but it's far more repressive. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, but it was freer there than in Mao's China, which was liberated from foreign rule but crushed under the Chairman's fat arse. Western Imperial rule over the Muslim World was much resented but also led to modernization. Hindus no doubt gained a lot under British Imperialism. And American Indians(victims of 'genocide') and American blacks(shackled under slavery) gained access to ideas and things they never would have on their own. Black moral rage about slavery, for instance, is an adoption of white values as black African culture never had a moral issue with bondage. Also, Jews will say Palestinians shouldn't complain so much because, all said and done, Arabs living in Israel are better off materially than most Arabs in Arab-ruled countries. Palestinians get less than Jews but still get more than most Arabs elsewhere.

We can understand why many Jews felt liberated from their own tradition by the Emancipation, but I can also understand why conservative Jewish elements among tried to keep the tradition and community together. After all, no matter how rich and free one becomes, a Jew is no longer Jewish without a powerful sense of blood and culture. Indeed, this is borne out by what's happened to the white race. Whites got rich and comfy. They came to favor materialism and hedonism as the two pillars of their existence. Result has been utter deracination and decadence. Whites are now so without an identity or loathe the one they have that they pledge fealty to other identities, especially Jewish or Black. Some pretend to be 'American Indians'. For others, racial self-flagellation is a kind of anti-identity. White 'conservatives' prefer to label themselves as Christians, Civil Nationalists, or Libertarians. They are afraid to be True Race-ists, the only way to be free.

Shahak characterizes pre-emancipated Jewish societies as “sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance” and describes how in the first Hebrew work on geography (published in 1803), the authors complained about how a great many rabbis were still denying the existence of America.

Purely from a scientific point of view, this would be true enough. After all, certain Christian folks who still reject evolution and insist the world is 10,000 yrs old come across as ridiculous. But, a culture isn't only about objective truth but a sense of soul, myth, roots, and cosmology. Culture is essentially irrational and if a people were to totally reject their culture for its irrationality while wholly embracing science/rationalism, they would be lost because humans are more than walking calculators. Worse, even though science is an infinitely superior means for man to reach the moon or cure some disease, it too is the tool of power, evinced by the Covid regimen. Science is a great tool but not The Answer. Also, it doesn't define a people. It's agreed that the world is round in Syria, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Yemen, Iran, and etc. It's agreed by all peoples that aspirin reduces pain. But what does that have to do with their sense of who they are as a people and culture? The law of gravity or the chemistry of Vitamin C doesn't make Jews distinct from Turks or Turks distinct from Iranians.

Shahak describes how before emancipation, rabbis continually subverted Christian censorship whenever Christians became aware of virulently anti-gentile passages in the Talmud and other writings.

From the perspective of free speech and honesty, that's bad stuff. But Jews were hardly alone in that kind of censorship. Through much of US history, most people didn't know of all the racy and controversial things said by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. In the public lore, Jefferson was Mr. Enlightenment who said 'all men are created equal'. And Lincoln was portrayed as the Great Emancipator. Most didn't know what Lincoln really felt about blacks. Historians used to focus on Woodrow Wilson the Progressive, or Mr. Democracy, than on Wilson the 'racist' — he was indeed awesomely race-ist. A lot of people don't know about what Winston Churchill said of the various non-white races and even about Jews(before they bought him off). So much has been bowdlerized or airbrushed out of history. Jews were surely no different. But given Jewish activism in Free Speech and Civil Liberties Movement of the 50s and 60s, Jews do come across as a bunch of lowlife hypocrites and cretins.

And as for anti-gentile language, there is a lot of it, and not just in the Talmud.

This is what kills me. The white/Christian world came up with tons of epithets for Jews and nonwhites but in the vernacular, not in canonical writings. In contrast, the sacred texts of Judaism are filled with slurs as if Don Rickles wrote them. Imagine opening up some Christian text and reading stuff like, "you know them Christ-killing money-changing kikes are up to no good", "we gotta get the ni**ers to believe in Christ as a means to suppress their jungle jiggity uga-buga nature", or "we need more missionaries in China to convert the lot of them slanty-eyed yellow bastards". Christian texts might put down other peoples as 'heathens' but on the basis of their ignorance, not on their blood. If white Christians said unkind things about nonwhites, it was outside the context of religion. But it seems Jewish sacred texts were into racial name-calling. The Talmud must be full of stuff like, "Get a load of them dumb Polacks. Let's go exploit them and screw their shikse bimbo whores."

In Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed, Blacks and some other nomadic races are likened to “mute animals” and “are not on the level of human beings.”

Maybe Maimonides wasn't all bad.

There is a morning prayer in which Jews thank God for not making them gentiles.

That doesn't bother me. I think Jewish men also had a practice of thanking God for being men than women... though with tranny business these days, maybe some new passages have been added to the New Talmud that says, "Thank you for removing my balls and giving me a fake 'vagina'." If Jews felt pride in being born Jewish, nothing wrong with that.

they pressured the Catholic Church during the mid-20th century to remove the line about God forgiving Jews in one its Good Friday prayers

Catholic Church complied, so who is the cuck? We can't blame Jews or any people for acting in their self-interest, but we can blame whites/Christians for cucking time and time again in the hope that they will be forgiven and loved by Jews. White dummies or whummies need to wake up. If they won't or can't, they are beyond hope.

On the proscription against milking cows on the Sabbath, Shahak writes—hilariously—that according to Zionist rabbis:

Jewish Logic is pretty ridiculous, but there is something to be said in its favor. First, it is for Jewish interest as they do get the milk on the Sabbath. Also, given the ridiculousness of Sabbath rules to begin with — one isn't allowed to milk the cow even? — , it seems Jews needed to concoct some ingenious means to circumvent the law. In other words, if the law itself is ridiculous, come up with counter-ridiculous ways to go around it. Now, why couldn't Jews just do away with the law? It was ordained by God.

In our time, what is most appalling isn't the Jewish abuse of laws or legalism to get what they want. It's vile and rotten, but at the very least, it's a case of Jews messing with laws to their advantage. Their self-interest makes it somewhat rational.
What is truly astounding is that so many white goyim go along with it even though it does nothing for the white race. Jews milk 'ridiculousness' to get the cream. Whites go along to emerge empty-handed. Granted, we can understand why white cuck elites choose to collaborate. They are taken care of, like the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world. But what about all those white 'deplorables' who get NOTHING out of this? Why are they so into "Muh Israel" and "We Luv Jews, Jews, Jews"? Jews are bad, but whites must be DUMB, like Lone Star.

Jew-on-Jew murder is a capital sin, but Jew-on-gentile murder is not, and is therefore not punishable by any Jewish court

This wasn't much different from the racial laws in the American South. White killing a white was a big deal and a Black killing a White was a very big deal, but white killing a black, not so much. And in the West, Whites had to kill Indians to make way for civilization. Of course, today things are reversed. Blacks killing whites or non-blacks(excluding Jews) is no big deal, but whites killing a precious black is a big big deal. The only acceptable murder of a black is by another black, apparently because it's all in the family. Likewise, the reason why Jews reacted so hysterically to the cases of Leo Frank and the Rosenbergs was they simply couldn't abide by the notion of inferior goyim killing Jews. In the American South, it was a taboo for even a good black to kill a bad black. Blacks simply weren't allowed to kill whites. Jews feel likewise about goyim. They feel as the massuhs while all goyim are really a bunch of schvartzes of various colors. But just like blacks once internalized their own inferiority and dutifully served at the feet of the white massuh, it appears so many white goyim internalized their inferiority as well vis-a-vis Jews. To most white Americans, it's perfectly okay for Jewish Power to use the US military to smash the skulls of millions of Arabs/Muslims, but how dare anyone touch a hair on a single Jew!

One thing for sure, most whites/Christians believe Jews/Zionists have every right to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, but heaven forbid any Jew get killed by a non-Jew. Zionists killing 100,000s of Arabs is just 'Israel defending itself', but if some Muslim kills a Jew in Europe, it is ANTISEMITISM.

In some ways, things have changed a great deal since the time of Woodrow Wilson. But structurally speaking, not much changed. It's not that the US is less 'racist' but that it's 'racist' about other things. Back in Wilson's day, it was okay to be 'racist' against blacks and even let the KKK march in DC. Today, when Robert E. Lee monuments are being removed in Southern States, a KKK march would be unimaginable. BUT, it's okay to allow BLM thugs burn down entire parts of DC, vandalize, loot, and randomly attack people. Ostensibly, it's in the name of 'anti-racism', but it's really an expression of black savage-supremacism with the blessing of Jewish Supremacist Elites who use blacks as the bullwhip against whites emotionally and physically. Use black muscle to intimidate whites, use black narrative to guilt-bait whites. But it's really about Jewish supremacism and black supremacism working hand in glove. So, the current US is really just as 'racist' as it was a hundred years ago. The content is different but the structure is the same.

https://mondoweiss.net/2022/01/pompeo-at-zoa-gala-israel-is-not-an-occupier/

And consider US foreign policy. US military is given green light to drop bombs on the Middle East and kill countless 'sand-ni**ers' at the behest of Jewish Supremacism, the new ideology of America. While apartheid in South Africa was deemed an absolute evil, Jim Crowitz policies in West Bank must either be supported or ignored. So, the US didn't go from 'racism' and 'imperialism' to 'anti-racism' and 'anti-imperialism' but to 'neo-racism' and 'neo-imperialism' with new saints and monsters. In 2020, invoking 'George Floyd' gave blacks a free pass to rob, loot, burn, and murder. They could act 1000x worse than the KKK ever did, but as Jewish Supremacists rule America and as Jews need blacks to guilt-bait whites, black supremacist savagery is A-Okay.

For example, a Jew would not be allowed to shove a gentile down a crevice, but if the gentile is already in the crevice, the Jew is under no obligation to pull him out.

That's not a bad rule. It's like the US shouldn't go around hurting other nations, BUT it is not the role of US to save or bail them out. Let them fix their own problems. The problem is the US goes around the globe claiming to help other peoples while actually causing them great harm, especially in the Middle East and places like Ukraine.

One crass and recurring example of this was how Jewish doctors would be encouraged to treat wealthy gentiles, including kings, nobles, lords, and the like. But poor gentiles, never.

But there's a LOL case. Some Jewish doctor treated Adolf Hitler's mother, and Hitler was thankful later in life and allowed the doctor safe passage.

According to one of greatest Jewish scholars of all time, a Jew has license to murder, rape, and molest children as long as the victim is a gentile.

That's terrible but Japanese are worse. Even a cursory look at Japanese culture suggests that Japanese regard other Japanese as prostitutes and toy-like playthings. Jews treat goyim as whores, whereas Japanese treat their own kind as whores.

Gentiles are forbidden to bear testimony in rabbinical courts, since all gentiles are presumed liars.
Jews must not offer gifts to gentiles.
Jews must exact interest when lending money to gentiles.
Jews must never return items lost by a gentile.
Jews shall not deceive other Jews in business, but may practice “indirect deception” when doing business with a gentile.
Jews shall not steal without violence from anyone, gentiles included. However, there are certain circumstances under which they may steal with violence from gentiles under their control.
Jews are forbidden to sell unmovable property (i.e., structure and land) to gentiles in Israel.

You know, those would be perfectly good laws for whites if 'Jews' were replaced by 'whites' and 'gentiles' were replaced by 'non-whites', especially Jews and blacks. Whites need to learn from Jews. Whites need the White Talmud. If any Jew complains about it, just tell him, "We drew inspiration from YOUR culture, and we're acting just like you."

Shahak states further that Judaism is imbued with both hatred and ignorance of Christianity, and that this is largely independent of any Christian persecution of the Jews.

Jews are right to abhor Christianity as it blasphemes Judaism. What's rather sad is whites failed to develop their own religion and mythology upon the fall of Rome. They had to rely on heretical Jews. In the long run, Christianity turned out to be an albatross around the white neck. Time has come to move beyond it, especially when a total creep like Devil Pope Francis can rise to the highest authority.

West Alarmed as US Prepares for Key Talks with Russia With No Negotiating Strategy & Divided Allies by 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).

New 'Civil War' in America Will be White vs White — Civic Imperialism is Possible but not Civic Nationalism — US was a Race-Nationalist Republic — US Power as Headless Emperor

 https://counter-currents.com/2020/10/yes-we-are-headed-for-violent-civil-war/

Will there be a civil war in America? Of course, this means an intra-white war. There won't be a civil war within the black community. Not one in the brown community. Not one in the Muslim or Asian community. Not in the Jewish community. While there are Liberal Zionists, Neocon Zionists, and some radical Jews, Jews are not into Jew-vs-Jew conflicts. Jews usually circle the wagons. Will there be a war among the various groups? Blacks vs browns vs Jews vs yellows vs Hindus vs Muslims vs etc? The only states where such is remotely possible are California and SW territories, Florida, New York, and few others. They are very diverse, and various groups don't see eye to eye. Still, it's unlikely because most non-whites EXCEPT FOR BLACKS mostly get along, co-exist quietly, or at least tolerate one another. Also, as Jews control media and academia, they've directed most non-white ire and animus toward Bad Whites. Anti-whiteness is the political glue among non-whites. It is the one that nominally maintains the alliance of Jews, white cucks, non-whites, and blacks EVEN THOUGH the group that ALL GROUPS have the most trouble with are blacks by far. But due to mass media manipulation, mass education/indoctrination, and the cult of black cool, there is a tendency among Jews and non-whites to at least symbolically associate themselves with blackness that represents both natural supremacy(in sports, rap, and sexuality) and historical victimization(as slaves and marchers for Civil Rights).

Of course, if all whites were to vanish into the thin air in the US, the main conflict will be among Jews, non-whites, and blacks. Without anti-white animus as the unifying glue, it could be hell for all involved. It's like US and USSR became bitter enemies once Germany and Japan lost out in the game of global hegemony. In a US without whites, Jews and Muslims would be serious rivals, especially as white cucks wouldn't be around as cheerleaders and foot-soldiers of Zionism and Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, Jews aren't going to fight their own battles, and they'll have a hard time persuading non-whites and blacks to side with Jews against Muslims. Also, without whitey to blame, most blacks and non-whites will mainly feel resentful about Jewish wealth, privilege, and power. Without whites to scapegoat as the perennial villains, Jews will have a difficult time in deflecting the rage, resentment, and envy of blacks and non-whites. I suppose Jews can try to scapegoat other groups. Make blacks and non-whites resent Asians as too successful. Or try to set Muslims vs Browns vs Blacks. Or try to forge an alliance with Hindus against Muslims. But it will be a tough sell without whites as the all-purpose bad guys and always-reliable-cucks. 

But whites do exist, and if there is a 'civil war' in the US, it will be a whites vs whites affair. It will mainly be between white priders and white guilters. Between white shucks and white cucks. White Priders will be animated by either overt white pride or refusal to succumb to the cult of 'white guilt'. Even if civic nationalist than ethno-nationalist, they will reject the notion that whites are especially to blame for the wrongs of the world. Also, they will believe that, in the final equation, whites did far more good than bad in world history. 

In contrast, White Guilters will believe that whites are uniquely to blame for what is wrong with the US and the world. Even so, as their minds are molded by Jews, they won't particularly care for most peoples around the world, no matter how much they've been harmed by whites(as foot-soldiers of Jews). After all, most proggy types feel hardly any guilt about or sympathy for Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims whose lives were utterly destroyed by the US empire under Zionist control. They never utter "Palestinian Lives Matter", "Arab Lives Matter", "Syrian Lives Matter", "Iranian Lives Matter", and etc. They feel nothing for Russians who perished in the gangster capitalist 1990s dominated by Jewish globalists. As their minds are mushy clay toyed with by Jewish Hands, their main passion boils down to 'white conservatives are nazis', 'blacks are so awesome and cool, therefore especially tragic for having suffered', and 'homos & trannies are the angels of new spirituality'. Clearly, the white 'right' is far saner than the white 'left'. Still, what is most tragic is neither side will understand why there is this rift within the white race. Why did so many whites come to hate their own kind, especially in service to Jews and blacks(and really no other people)? And why did they come to believe they are Good Whites on account of celebrating Sodomy while others are Bad Whites because they don't believe Bruce Jenner is a 'woman'? Because people on the white 'right' are relatively less mind-controlled by Jews, they are more independent and balanced than the morons on the white 'left' who are truly pathetic puppets of Jews who control academia and media.

But the problem is 'white 'conservatives' are too stupid and/or ignorant to realize that the main reason for this white-vs-white hatred is Jewish Power. Even as they rant about the 'left', they hardly say anything about Jewish Power that has driven the wedge between white people, dividing them between 'right' and 'left'. That Jewish Power has a hand in both the 'right' and the 'left' is easily proven. Why is it that, even as the 'right' and 'left' berate and insult one another, they go out of their way to prove that they are supportive of Israel and happily servile to Jews? Donald Trump and his minions are supposed to represent populism and the 'right', but there's hardly any talk of white identity/interests but instead endless gibberish about "Muh Israel". In that sense, the white 'right' is only relatively more independent-minded than the white 'left'. Sadly, it is beholden to Jewish Power even as Jews do everything to dump on it. Things are screwier yet. Jews are dominant in American Liberalism, and that means progs and 'leftists' are beholden to Jewish Money. Also, Jews have funded blacks and non-whites as allies against whites. But this also means that, at least on the grassroots level, there are many on the 'left' who sympathize with Palestinians against Zionists. And such numbers seem to be growing. But at the upper echelons of Liberalism, the power is entirely with Jews and their cuck-progs and toadies who grovel at the feet of Zion. Still, even if muted and muffled, the most vocal anti-Zionist voices are found on the American 'left' at the grassroots level. BDS is dominated by grassroots left and totally crushed by Jews. 

In contrast, given the Jewish animus toward the American 'right', one would think most conservatives and the like would be anti-Jewish. But sadly, many on the 'right' are even more supportive of Jews and Israel than those on the grassroots 'left' are. In a sane America, both white 'right' and white 'left' should unite in a 'civil war' against Jewish Power, the real supremacist force in American Politics and foreign policy. But in Crazy America, the Jews, the most insanely tribal and supremacist people, have convinced idiot white 'progs' to revile and attack other white people as 'supremacist' on account of them saying "It's Okay to be White." White 'progs' seem to believe that Jews suppress 'white supremacism' for the sake of equality and social justice. In truth, Jews suppress white identity/interests to make whites cuck to and serve Jewish Supremacism. Are white 'progs' really this retarded? If they are truly about justice and morality, why have they been silent about Wars for Israel under Obama and Hillary as puppets of Jews? For all their yammering about justice for all peoples around the world, their political perspective is so provincially centered on the US Big Media Narrative spun by Jewish oligarchs. They never question the education or information pushed on them; they just mindlessly believe on faith on account of being told that people who adopt such-and-such viewpoints are 'woke' and 'progressive'. But in truth, the current 'left' and 'right' are fluid, both manipulated by those above. Today's 'left' is about globo-homo vanity over working class interests, and today's 'right' is about 'gay marriage is okay but trannies in washroom is not'... but wait a few years and 'trannies in washroom' will be the new 'rightist' value while the 'left' finds some other kooky issue to foam at the mouth over. The 'left' is retarded, but the 'right' is dumb. Haven't white 'rightists' figured out that the Jewish agenda for them is White Nakba? Jews are using Diversity-Inclusion to bring about the Great Replacement of whites by non-whites in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US. Given such an agenda, when will whites wake up and begin to identify with Palestinians? But these idiot white 'rightists' go on supporting Jewish Supremacism EVEN AS Jews never tire of accusing them of 'white supremacism'. Morons.

Now, there have been elements on the Right that have been critical of Jewish Power, but too many turned out to be Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Denier cranks. Richard Spencer is a prime example. Instead of arguing against Jewish Supremacism and neo-imperialism/globalism, he just wants Anglo-Germanic supremacy to gain dominance and mess up the world in some Nietzschean game of chess. What's the point of opposing one supremacism to push another? What's the point of vilifying Jewish supremacism if one is going to extol Nazi-German supremacism? It's utterly idiotic. 

The American Civil War was not a white-versus-white war, at least not thematically. Sure, it was mostly a war fought among whites, but the driving force behind the conflict was not anti-white animus. It wasn't as if Northern whites were anti-white 'ni**ger-lovers' who decided to kill bushels of Southern whites. The war was over preservation of the Union vs Secession. While some Northern Whites were inspired by abolitionism, most supported the war to preserve the Union. Abraham Lincoln felt the same way. And in the years after the war ended, Northern Whites and Southern Whites came to an understanding, and they saw the need to control the blacks. 

In contrast, many whites today are truly mentally deranged in their anti-white lunacy. But there is no logic or consistency to their worldview. The cult of 'white guilt' is purely selective, usually decided by Jews who push the mental buttons via their control of media and academia. After all, if indeed white progs are surely anti-supremacist, anti-tyranny, and anti-injustice, why were they so silent about or even supportive of Obama-Hillary puppet regime's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why weren't they supportive of efforts on Trump's part to end US entanglement in Syria? Why are they silent about all those dead Iraqis and suffering Iranians as the result of US pro-Zionist policy? Why didn't they march in support of Palestinians in the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms of 1948? 

One thing for sure, the white 'left' is not motivated by true sense of justice but vain opportunism of virtue-signaling. Iraqi lives mattered when Evil Bush II was invading Iraq, but Libyan lives didn't matter when Obama destroyed that country. Progs whine about 'nazis' but were silent about Jews working with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine. They claim to abhor supremacism, but they are okay with US foreign policy favoring Jews/Zionism over Palestinians. They've done nothing about blue cities/states banning BDS. They express outrage over 'sexism' when it comes to Trump but feign ignorance when it comes to Bill Clinton, black athletes, and homo degenerates. There is no rhyme or reason to their moral logic. When illegals were detained under Obama, they were silent. When they are detained under Trump, it's the New Holocaust!!! They didn't care about all the dead Muslims caused by Obama-Hillary's wars(guided by Jewish supremacists), but they suddenly made a big fuss about all those poor-poor Muslims travel-banned by Trump. They talk about history and 'white guilt', but they say almost nothing about American Indians, the most tragic people, the only one that suffered something like genocide in the New World. Even though mass immigration finished off the Indians, progs celebrate mass-immigration. So, what is prog mentality really about? It is just childish parroting of whatever is fed to stupid white minds by Jewish control of media and academia. If Jews say, "Be outraged about this", white progs are outraged about 'this'. Russia Collusion!!! If Jews say, "Be outraged about that", white progs are outraged about 'that'. Black Lives Matter!!! Never mind these urban progs supported stop-and-frisk, mass-immigration, and gentrification that pushed many blacks out of rich cities. The prog mind is all about fashion. It's about flavor of the month. It is the product of political advertising. It is so shallow that it lacks any sense of real history, memory, and moral logic.

But then, the American 'right' is only slightly better. Even as it chooses pride over guilt, it shares basically the same premise as that of the 'left', which is why it keeps losing the debate. The premise is, "Jews are especially wise and wonderful", "blacks are holy and noble", and "the greatest evil in the world is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'." So, the American 'right' agrees with all that but only argues that America isn't so bad because it redeemed itself with progress and wealth-creation. But didn't anyone realize that favoring Jews and blacks uber alles is a form of 'racism'(defined as racial supremacism)? Just ask the Palestinians. And why is it a matter of justice to pay special heed to blacks even when they act like savage apes while ignoring the plight of other groups harmed by blacks? It's one thing to redress historical wrongs but quite another to endow certain groups with the license to cheat, lie, steal, rob, rape, and murder on account of 'muh victimhood'. It'd be like making excuses for American Indians who go from state to state to scalp people and hack them to death on account of 'muh suffering'. 

One thing for sure, the notion of 'civic nationalism' is total bull. There can be 'civic imperialism' but never 'civic nationalism'. Many have a false impression of the US as a 'civic nationalist' republic for most of its history because of the Constitution, but in fact, the US has mostly been a racial-nationalist republic(if not a ethnic one). The facade of 'civic nationalism' was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was a solidly white majority nation, one that was founded and built by Anglos who then Anglo-ized the Germanics. Later, Anglo-Germanic America compelled all Europeans, from South and East, to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic norms. As most Europeans were racially close, they could blend into this new identity called 'American', which upon closer inspection was really Anglo-Germanic American. That was the essence of American Nationalism. It was race-nationalism. The solid white majority of Anglo-Germanic norms became the spine of American Nationalism. Unlike in Europe where each ethnic group maintained its separateness in their distinct territories, the understanding among various European immigrants to America was they would adopt the Anglo-Germanic norms as the main characteristics of Americanism; that gave them license to move, live, and settle anywhere in America. This was why US didn't end up like Yugoslavia. This Americanism was passed off as 'civic nationalism', but it worked only because most immigrants were white and could blend into Anglo-Germanic America in their willingness to assimilate. And many naturally wanted to assimilate as they readily realized that Anglos and Germans had created a superior order of productivity, relative liberty, and opportunity in the New World. 

Would 'civic nationalism' have worked in the US if most immigrants from the beginning were from Africa, Asia, Middle East, brown parts of Latin America, and etc? No, it would have been much more difficult for non-whites with strikingly different cultural backgrounds to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic America. Even after all these centuries, the color lines remain notable in Latin America even though Latin American nations officially make big noises about civic nationalism and people not seeing color. US worked as a race-nationalist republic. All this talk of 'muh constitution' misses the point. Latin America had constitutions nearly identical to that of the US, but things turned out differently because the racial demographics and dynamics were different. Indeed, Canada didn't rebel against the King, and Australia started out as a depressing penal colony, and yet, isn't it odd that US, Canada, and Australia turned out more alike in many respects than with democracies in Latin America inspired by American Independence?

Now, 'civic imperialism', though problematic, is a possibility, as it was in the era of the Roman Empire. With no racial, ethnic, and/or spiritual core to unite all the people, Roman citizenship was a matter of the law and loyalty to the state. And Civic Imperialism seems to be the general direction of the globalist enterprise with the US as metropole. But unlike the Roman Empire where the Romans ruled, any people can come to the US and climb up the ladder to elite status. And whites, whose ancestors founded and built this country, are not only supposed to tolerate and accept this transformation but welcome and celebrate it as 'progress' based on 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. 

But then, this model in some ways resembles the Roman Empire in that the ruling elites will not be chosen purely on meritocratic or ideological basis. There will be meritocracy in that smarter ones will rise higher, and there will be ideology at work in that 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will mandate the promotion of blacks and browns with lesser credentials. But at the very top will be Jewish Power that shall go unchallenged. Jews have the most money, control key institutions and mass media, dominate popular entertainment(that shapes so many minds), and etc. Also, Jews know that MOST PEOPLE are apathetic and disengaged. So, all they have to do is buy off the 'elites' of various communities. It doesn't matter if most blacks aren't keen on Jews. As long as Jews control the black 'leaders', black politics won't stand in the way of Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Same with 'Latinos' and Asians. Even Muslims, especially those from nations like Pakistan who feel little affinity for Arabs. Still, to the extent that all peoples are allowed to emigrate to the US and climb up the elite ladder, the globo-homo US empire will be more like Byzantium where the leadership was far more varied than in the Western Empire. 

While Civic Imperialism is doable, it's extremely expensive. Unlike Civic Nationalism that can exist on a humble level, Civic Imperialism requires tremendous power and expenditure. Empire is about over-reaching. It is about power at the epic level. It's like the mega Hollywood Epic must spend lots of money and make lots of money. There is no other way. Nationalist loyalty isn't based on super-power or super-wealth. A person could be living in a middling nation or even a poor nation. But he may still have a deep sense of nationalism and loyalty to country and folks for reasons of tradition, sentimentality, and sense of roots. It doesn't require much for nationalism to operate. Rich nation or poor nation, nationalism is possible. Strong nation or weak nation, nationalism comes naturally. 

But empire means stretching power over vast distances and diverse peoples, many of whom have little in common. Empire demands that these diverse peoples pledge allegiance to ANOTHER power that would play the role of center-of-the-universe. But the ONLY way to persuade various peoples to obey a foreign power is through the combination of big sticks and big carrots, both of which are extremely expensive. The various peoples must be threatened with force and/or bought with bribes. They must be made willing partners or unwilling partners. It is the ONLY way an empire can be maintained. It requires extra-exertion of power and wealth. 

For those in the metropole, it is both exhausting and exhilarating. The empire must always scramble for more lands and peoples to control. It's a 24/7 enterprise of more wars, more markets, more peoples, more agendas. And yet, those in the metropole feel the power and importance. They become addicted, just like the Romans did. And even though the peoples of other nations who become subjects to this neo-imperial power feel resentment, they also long to be a part of it. And as long as mass immigration is allowed, they would rather take part in the empire than resist it, especially as immigration to the US means a better material life. Also, PC gives the impression to non-whites that they are on the rise, on the cusp of taking power. Even as they are submitting to and taking part in the empire, they feel that they are serving 'social justice' because they are rising at the expense of whites who are being diminished demographically, politically, and economically. 

Thus, if old Western Imperialism was about white rule over non-whites, the American neo-imperialist globalism is about maintaining an empire that facilitates the takeover of the West by the Non-West. At the twilight of the Age of Empires following World War II, the Non-West took up National Liberation against Western Imperialism. Today, the idea is that the Non-West should take part in the Neo-Imperialist Enterprise, a kind of mutual imperialism where the West and Non-West invade one another and merge into one. 

Or so it seems. Because behind all this is Jewish Power that is determined to remain at the very top. No matter who rises and falls in the elite hierarchy, they are to serve the Jews and support Zion. And why? Jews got the money and power; they get to play thumbs up or thumbs down as to who joins the elite ranks and who doesn't. Jews know that whites are too castrated and cucked to disobey the Jews. But Jews are taking no chances. They sniffed pitchfork populism in the candidacy of Donald Trump and intend to crush it for good. As for non-whites, Jews know that the diverse bunch can never come together to take on Jewish Power. Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups forever. 

Can this Civic Imperialist enterprise succeed? It may for some time because the US is so vast, rich in resources, & plentiful in food, and have so much talent. Past empires had an Achilles Heel in the size ratio. The imperial center was far smaller and poorer in natural resources than the imperial possessions. Thus, more stick had to be used as there wasn't enough carrots to go around to bribe the subjects. But the US is an empire unto itself, especially with Alaska in tow. It has vast riches all on its own and generates excess food, fuel, and resources. It has a big stick but also lots of carrots to go around. So, unlike the Italian peninsula, Spain/Portugal, Britain, Holland, and France, it is better able to meet the demands of expenditure necessary to maintain the empire. (It also has Dollar Supremacy.)

Still, there are so many contradictions in the American Way. How long can Jewish Power remain hidden? Also, as long as it remains hidden, it's hard to tell who is ruling America? If Jews, the top power in America, won't declare themselves the ruling elites, who is the captain of the ship? White people? But white people have been so discredited morally, racially, and historically that this isn't workable. Notice that white political candidates NEVER talk about white interests and instead try to justify their careers on what they've done for Jews, homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. Are blacks in charge? The problem is blacks are too much in victim-complaint mode to take over as ruling elites. The mode of black politics isn't "We have the broadness of vision and magnanimity to rule" but "blackity-blackness". Their focus is too narrow to represent all of America. Black political mindset isn't about "what is good for all Americans" but "what all Americans owe us blackity-blackity blacks." So, we have a strange situation. America is the most powerful nation on Earth, but it looks like a headless emperor. Jews are really the head of America but won't show it. If the white head shows up, it is egged on as 'white privilege' or 'white supremacism'. If the black head appears as the godhead of Americanism, all it says is "We da victim, gimme gimme gimme", which isn't exactly dignified or 'presidential'. Obama did seem to introduce a new kind of black politics at a higher level, but he turned out to be a worthless puppet of Jewish Power and then ended up torching America with another round of black rage politics. It's hard to tell the future under such circumstances. 

TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY by Brother Nathanael