Sunday, January 17, 2010

Did Stalin TRUST Hitler Prior to the German Invasion of the Soviet Union?

One of the great ironies of 20th century according to many historians is that Josef Stalin, of all people, trusted Adolf Hitler, of all people. Historians regard Stalin as an ultra-paranoid and Hitler as a devious liar. So, why did Stalin, who didn’t trust his fellow communists, trust Hitler, a fascist leader who had compulsively lied and broken promises with other nations–big and small alike–to expand German power? Why this fatal blind spot?
But upon closer scrutiny, it may be truer to say that Stalin’s fatal flaw was not that he trusted Hitler–in fact, he didn’t–but he trusted himself. Stalin knew Hitler was and always would be a compulsive liar. Stalin knew that Hitler wasn’t trustworthy on any level. Stalin knew that Hitler was a man of bad faith. Of course, Stalin too was a liar and a cheat who operated in bad faith. For this reason, Stalin thought he UNDERSTOOD Hitler as a kindred soul–a partner in crime–even if he didn’t trust him. Stalin thought he could read Hitler’s mind at every turn. So, Stalin’s problem wasn’t trust in Hitler but trust in his own understanding of Hitler. So, it was not that Stalin ever took Hitler’s promises or assurances at face value. Rather, Stalin thought he could see the real Hitler behind the false promises and assurances.
Prior to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact–aka Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact–, Stalin was wary of Hitler’s every move. But, once the pact was made and Germany was at war with the West, Stalin felt confident in his own assessment that Hitler wouldn’t dare start a war with the Soviet Union. Stalin knew Hitler was a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a punk–and always would be. It wasn’t Hitler’s words or assurances that eased Stalin’s anxieties but Hitler’s situation vis-a-vis the West–especially UK, with which Germany was at war and with the US, with which it could potentially be at war. Stalin was confident that Hitler, though a liar and a cheat, would NOT expand the war on yet another front. Stalin understood that Hitler relied on the East for raw materials. Though Stalin always knew Hitler, he terribly underestimated Hitler the reckless gambler.
In a way, it could be said Stalin understood what was good for Hitler better than Hitler did. If Hitler had acted like the Hitler-as-Stalin-understood-him, then it’s possible that WWII would have wound down with Soviet Union controlling the East, Germany dominating all of Western and Central Europe–and parts of Eastern Europe. There was no way UK alone could have defeated Germany. And without the German invasion of USSR–and overwhelming predictions of German victory–, it’s unlikely that Japan would have felt emboldened to attack the US. Without the Japanese attack and German declaration of war, United States wouldn’t have entered WWII as the majority of Americans were opposed to intervention.
Too bad for the Germans that Hitler didn’t act like the Hitler-as-Stalin-envisioned-him.
Trust had nothing to do with it. Both men were overcome with hubris. Hitler’s hubris was militaristic. He thought Germany would trick and defeat everyone. Stalin’s hubris was about having X-ray eyes into Hitler’s soul. Trust requires a degree of humility. One trusts others because one is less sure of oneself. Stalin didn’t trust Hitler. He trusted his own assessment of Hitler. Stalin trusted himself so much that he couldn’t tolerate others who informed him otherwise. When Winston Churchill wired him about Hitler’s plan to invade the USSR, Stalin saw it as a dirty British ploy to drive Germany and USSR to war. To Stalin, Churchill just like the kid in the story of "Never Cry Wolf" who kept crying wolf when there wasn’t any. Of course, there was one at the end, but the kid who’d cried wolf got eaten by the wolf. As far as Stalin was concerned, the wolf named Hitler should eat the fat lying imperialist Churchill. When the German military buildup near the border areas of the Soviet Union became undeniable, Stalin either thought Germans were setting up reserve forces or trying to provoke a war with the USSR. As long as Stalin didn’t fall for the bait and increase tensions likewise, Stalin thought there would no war between Germany and the USSR. Again, Stalin didn’t trust Hitler; he trusted his OWN assessment of Hitler. He thought he could read Hitler’s mind like some kind of Rasputin.
Anyway, it just goes to show you that trusting yourself could be the biggest self-deception.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Problems of the Failure of Reason to Predict Emotions.

We value the ‘rational’ life because there’s a certain logic and consistency to reason. We prefer order to chaos–well, maybe not in rock music and sports(though they too require basic order or form at the core. Thus, we have a tendency to project reason onto emotions. Since it may be possible to predict result B following from action A, there is a temptation to believe that action A will not only lead to result B but produce emotion B. But, the emotional side of the equation has its own logic–or illogic, as the case may be.
Long ago, I had a friend who took home a stray puppy. He intended to take care of the pitiful creature marked by much suffering. But, the puppy had too many behavioral problems, and my friend gave up on the dog. So, he thought the most humane thing would be to take it to the anti-cruelty society and have it put to sleep. He figured or rationally predicted he wouldn’t feel so bad since the dog would be peacefully laid to rest and suffer no longer.
It didn’t turn out that way. His emotional prediction had been way off the mark. He went into a deep funk. He thought he was doing the wretched dog a favor–since he’d saved it from homelessness and sent it into eternal sleep–, but he was overcome with grief and guilt the moment he called the anti-cruelty society and confirmed what happened. It was no surprise that the puppy would be put to sleep since it had behavioral problems. Indeed, his mood was rather upbeat prior to the phone call. But, the news made his emotions spiral downward. He got me worried because he called me everyday to talk about it for like 3 months. It got me depressed too–if only because I had better things to do than emote over the phone with some whimpering dude. At any rate, his rational prediction about his emotional state proved to be utterly wrong.
I knew of a similar case involving a young woman who had an abortion. She was one of those annoying liberal types, but I’d known her pretty well in college, and we kept in touch for awhile. She was working, doing okay, and living the sex-and-the-city lifestyle before the stupid show even aired. Anyway, to make things short, she got pregnant from unprotected sex and decided to abort the child. She asked me for advice, and I didn’t really offer any except to say she ought to do what she felt was right. She figured she was too young to have a kid–and besides she didn’t really care for the guy and vice versa–, and the smart(and modern) thing seemed to be rid of the kid. Of course, she knew it would be an unpleasant experience but still thought she would get over it quickly. Now, it is true that many women–especially Negresses and white trash–suffer no great emotional pain following an abortion, but in the case of my friend, the emotional prediction had been the equivalent of an air ball. Like the guy who had the puppy put to death, she was overcome with severe depression and guilt-borne trauma for a long time.
Now, consider feminism and all that it promised. The radical new order would liberate women, raise their consciousness, bring forth new happiness, and so on. But, how did a lot of women really end up feeling in the feminist and post-feminist era? They found out that life is still what it is–a bitch–, and there is no pot of gold–nor even potted ham–at the end of the rainbow.
Many women had thought they would do just fine without men and children, but approaching their 40s they looked around and grew envious of women with family. They began to feel alone, isolated, and dejected. They thought they would be young and vibrant forever and surrounded by ‘sisters’, but not only were their youth passing away but many ‘sisters’ had gotten married and were busy with their own families. ‘Liberated’ women tried to compensate for their loneliness by striving for more money and power, but they felt emptier and emptier. (Besides, the fact remains that only a tiny percentage of the population–male or female–will make big bucks or gain major power. Most people, despite their effort, will remain working stiffs–even if relatively well-paid working stiffs.)
The point the emotional aspect didn’t work out as the feminists had predicted. Feminists had been convinced of the ideological and rational infallibility of their movement and thought that human–or womyn–emotions would follow suit upon changes in the socio-economic realm. In truth, emotions, though connected to and shaped by the rational mind, swirl in a deeper and darker pool.
Emotions have a way of overriding, violating, subverting, or defacing ideological or rational justifications and certitudes. Thus, no ideology or thought system–including religions–can map out or predict human emotions perfectly. There are predictable emotions to be sure: if you lose all your life savings, you’ll be very upset–no shit. But, more often than not, ideologies or rationales tend to repress or deny certain deep or basic emotions that make up our inner souls.
Thus, communism did not bring forth happiness for all ‘comrades’ as it had predicted. Thus, a man who thinks money and/or power brings happiness may find misery upon success. Thus, a woman who chooses a career over home & hearth may not be happy in the rat race. Conversely, a woman who tells herself that she will be content as a simple housewife may end up feeling depressed and trapped.
The important thing is to know that different people have different personalities just like no two cats or dogs are ever alike. Thus, what may be true of one person may not be true of another person. Different people feel varying degrees of sensitivity, guilt, self-doubt, confidence, and so forth. Ideologies or rational systems argue that there is a universal or collective one-size-fits-all for all people or for everyone within the group. This simply isn’t so.
Richard Nixon thought his political career was over when he lost to Kennedy and then the gubernatorial race. In 1968, he saw his star rise again and CONSCIOUSLY+ thought he would be truly happy and grateful IF he won the presidency. Yet, he was not a happy president, and his emotional instability led to the catastrophe of Watergate. He–and those closest to him–had thought the presidency would make a new person out of him, but it didn’t. He turned darker and more morose.
In 2008, many Americans thought a bright new era would be upon the nation with the election of Barack Obama. They didn’t merely support Obama politically but emotionally invested their heart and soul into Obama-ism and Obama movement. Many educated and intellectual people who prided themselves on their rationalism THOUGHT Obama would change everything. If people who take pride in their rationalism ‘think’ and feel like this, what does it say about the relation between the mind and emotion? Not only is the mind often wrong about the future of one’s emotions but what passes for rational thought is, as often as not, drugged by emotions.
Indeed, even if Obama had done everything to the delight of stupid white liberals, many ‘progressives’ were bound to feel let down by the fact that Obama there is no happy ending in life.
Sometimes, emotional letdowns follow rationalist promises because promises are often not forthcoming–true of communism and other radical ideologies–, but even when the promises are delivered the emotions one had expected fail to materialize or may even be eclipsed by opposite emotions. Why do so many dream marriages fall apart? For example, celebrities get all excited about marrying someone equally famous in a glamorous star-studded ceremony, but the minute it’s over, it’s a downer. Or, consider the movie "The Graduate" where Benjamin Braddock thinks he’ll be happy forever if he wins the girl, but he feels empty when he does. This is all common knowledge, but in the realm of politics we keep foolishly dreaming of Hope and Change, the City on the Hill, or some kind of Deliverance. Even the most secular, well-educated, and rational people think higher happiness can be attained through utopianism. Perhaps, the Founding Fathers were wise to talk of ‘pursuit of happiness’ than happiness itself. They didn’t promise happiness to the American people through government or ideology. They only said people should be free to pursue their own happiness, with an added implication that happiness is really in the chase than in the destination of which there is no final one.
Perhaps, there’s something in the human psyche that thinks and feels this way. Maybe, evolution favored this kind of trait. After all, those who get all excited about the prospect of great victory, triumph, happiness, and riches are more likely to be motivated to go out and achieve something. Upon reaching his goal, he may feel an emotional letdown as his emotional expectations hadn’t materialized, but the letdown may motivate him to pursue yet another Great dream, vision, or idea. Consider that Alexander the Great didn’t initially plan to conquer the entire world. But, every time he conquered a new piece of land, he felt empty, a kind of ‘been there, done that’ before a Roman coined the term. Thus, he had to keep looking for newer conquests. Alexander learned that the happiness was in the searching, in the expectation of great things. Same must be true of politicians and businessmen. They seek the dream of happiness by pursuit of ever greater power or wealth, and they gain our support or money by promising us greater happiness if we vote for them or buy their products/services. Things nearby look commonplace while things far away–in time or distance–seem alluring. So, you go for new discoveries, conquests, or progress, but once you have them and the initial novelty passes, they too become commonplace or depressing. Thus, you set out for yet newer discoveries and conquests. Genghis Khan was probably motivated by a similar kind of mindset.
In this sense, it is our profound unwisdom–search for the impossible El Dorado–which drives us toward newer and greater(and sometimes reckless and dangerous)possibilities. Of course, even if we were to find an actual El Dorado, we shall never find an emotional El Dorado for human nature turns gold into lead upon contact. King Midas got his wish, and everything he touched turned into gold which became common as lead and burdensome as chains around his legs.
In a way, this is necessary for our minds need to achieve emotional equilibrium upon finding happiness or pleasure. If we were excited or thrilled by our achievements or acquisitions 24/7, our neurons would burn up from too much ecstasy. A star that shines brightly burns out quicker. If a person had a non-stop orgasm, his or her nerves would turn to cinder soon enough. Why do meth addicts deteriorate so quickly? Meth heightens their sense of pleasure, in the process overcharging and frying out the nervous system and much else.
Anyway, the thing is to know that what you think you’ll feel and what you’ll really feel are two different things.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Are Nations Artificial or Natural Constructs? What Is the True Nature of Globalism?

It’s often been said by the Left and even by the Right that nations or political/cultural/ethnic boundaries are artificial or created by man. In other words, nothing ordains Germany, France, Vietnam, Mexico, or Canada as natural entities. They were all created by man or tribes of men, and thus they are said to be ‘artificial’ or ‘imagined’ communities.
After all, a deer doesn’t understand the meaning of border between Canada and the United States. A bird doesn’t know it’s flying from Mexico to the US nor vice versa. A bear in Russia doesn’t know it may be crossing into some Central Asian republic. An elephant in South Africa doesn’t know it’s crossing into Zimbabwe. Nature doesn’t recognize any of the borders and boundaries established by man.
And yet, even if nations don’t exist in nature, don’t they exist because of our (inner)nature? There are two aspects to nature, after all. There is external nature and internal nature. External nature comprises rocks, rivers, trees, hills, mountains, oceans, and flesh and bone. Internal nature consists of how living organisms perceive, respond to, and mold natural reality. All higher life forms function in external nature through their internal nature. Nature isn’t just WHAT IT IS but HOW IT APPEARS to a particular organism.
Thus, even though the internal natures of various organisms are different–i.e. they mentally and emotionally perceive and order reality in different ways–, the fact remains that a genuinely natural force shapes their perception and behavior. In this sense, even if nations are indeed artificial creations, one may argue that national-ism is a natural emotion–a complex variation of the territorial instinct. If true, nations are, at the very least, creations of internal nature–projection of human nature on external nature. Even if nations rise and fall or national boundaries shift over time, there is something within the natural heart and mind of man that favors ‘tribal’ boundaries. Indeed, nothing is fixed in external nature. Mountains rise sky high but eventually crumble away, glaciers form and melt, rivers dry up, continents break apart and form new land masses. But, the natural forces that create mountains and rivers remain constant. Just as there are certain natural constants–laws or forces of nature such as gravity, electro-magnetism, etc–that exert their power on and transform external nature(or physical reality), there are certain instinctive or psychological constants(or laws of internal nature) within organisms which drive their external selves–physical bodies and behavior–to work on and re-order the natural reality around them. Mountains may rise sky high and erode over time, but gravity is always in play. Nations may rise and fall, but the territorial mentality is a psychological constant of internal nature.
Though Leftists will say borders and boundaries are the artificial creations of foolish man, few things are as natural as territoriality or territorialism. Indeed, we see it in the wild world itself. To a layman or New Age romantic, it may seem as though animals run or roam free. As children, we grew up watching movies like BORN FREE or FREE WILLY. But, do animals run or roam free? Or, do they follow or obey their particular internal natures. In truth, a bear or a pack of wolves do not run or roam freely. They are constantly MARKING TERRITORY. Thus, the ‘nationalist’ instinct already exists in the primal animal level. Man elaborated it into a political creed. Though a bear marks his territory differently than how wolves or cougars do it, each animal is keen to mark his territory as distinct, especially to warn off rival members of its own species. Thus, though a bear and wolves may occupy the roughly the same territory, a bear will defend his territory from other bears, and wolves will defend their territory from other wolves. Of course, these markings are not eternal or permanent. One bear may lose his territory to another bear. A pack of wolves may take over the territory of another. But, if there is a natural constant in all of this, it’s the INTERNAL NATURE of organisms. Who is to say internal nature is any less natural than external nature? That would be like saying gravity is less natural than mountains.
The territorial imperative may seem aggressive, nasty, mean-spirited, and vicious in both animals and man, but it is necessary in order for organisms to compete for scarce resources and ensure their survival. Territorialism is also necessary to reduce violence between males of the species who compete for the attentions of females. Take wolves for instance. Wolves may have to hunt all day to bring down a deer or moose. Thus, they mark a territory as their own so as to concentrate on the hunt than on fighting other wolf packs that might intrude on their turf. Without well-marked territories, rival wolf packs will stumble into one another’s path far more often. This is also true of bears, cougars, or any other animal one may mention. Even herbivores mark territory as the males–or even the females–among horses, elks, moose, buffalos, and elephants fight one another out of fear, suspicion, or panic. The rule of internal nature is not "this land is my land, this land is your land" but "THIS land is MY land, THAT land is YOUR land." The territorial imperative is the basis for much violence, but there would be even more violence without it. Territorial imperative at least ensures that the violence will take place along marked borders. Thus, if two nations were to fight, they would fight along the border areas than in all areas. If one side were to conquer the other, new borders would be drawn; it would be the expansion than a nullification of territorialism. (To be sure, air power has given us the TOTAL WAR where all areas of the nation are instantly vulnerable to attack.)
Without the territorial imperative, there would be violence EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES since no place would be safe from the constant flux of peoples from all over the world with different values, cultures, and ideas. If animals didn’t mark nor delineate territories in nature, they would likely cross into each other’s path far more often. This is why we see cats and dogs peeing on trees wherever they go. They are marking territory or checking to see if the territory ‘belongs’ to some other dog or cat. This is why tigers pee in various spots in the forest. The pee is meant as a warning to other tigers: ‘this here is my land.’ If animals cannot find sufficient food or mates on their own marked territory, they’ll try to take over the territory of others of their species. Thus, if a wolf pack has lean pickings on its own territory, it may wage war on the territory of another wolf pack. In the process, territories may be redrawn but the territorial imperative or instinct remains the one natural constant.
So, even if nations are not natural geographical realities, they are natural psychological realities. Organisms, whether they be wolves or humans, don’t just live physically in the natural world but re-order the natural world to suit their psycho-survivalist interests. This re-ordering of nature is profoundly influenced if not entirely determined by the psychologies of organisms. This is as true under the sea as above on ground.
To be sure, certain organisms are oriented more towards nomadism than others. This is especially true of birds and whales. As such, they may bump into and cause more problems because they end up violating the spaces of other organisms. On the other hand, the survival of other species rely on the arrival of the ‘nomadic’ species as there is a mutually beneficial ecology or symbiotic relationships among many species.
Nomadic animals are not to be confused with nomadism commonly associated with Jews. No animal I can think of is nomadic on principle; it moves about in search for food during lean times or in search of mates. As for birds and whales, they are more migratory than nomadic. Their human equivalents would be Mexican migrant workers who seasonably move up north to work as farm laborers and then go back to their homes in south of the border. There is an established pattern in migration whereas nomadic peoples–like the Jews–tend to be more creative, adventurous, and ambitious in their wandering about the world. Nor should nomadic types be confused with discoverer types. Discoverers are seduced by the great unknown, the dark mystery, of going where no man has gone before. Though there are plenty of modern Jewish individuals who are like that, Jews have historically been nomads than discoverers. Even if nomads tend to be more creative and adaptive in their wandering than migratory people are, they generally seek out the KNOWN world than seek NEW worlds. Jewish nomads sought out cities where they could ply their trade and work themselves up by manipulating the system of the gentiles. In the movie EUREKA by Nicholas Roeg, Gene Hackman is the discoverer type whereas Joe Pesci, in the role of the cunning Jew, is the nomadic type. In the end, the discoverer is bound to lose to the nomad. The discoverer is romantic and loses the torch of inspiration when there’s nothing more to discover. There’s something childlike in his need for excitement. The nomad, on the other hand, is an inheritor of a long tradition. He isn’t tempted by excitement and thrill but by a patient and ruthless craving for more money and power.
For obvious reasons, humans make special territorial claims on land. We are land creatures and nothing is as valuable to us. Water is valuable too–fresh water for drinking and washing, rivers for travel and shipping, and oceans for food and sea routes. But, it’s not as easy to claim ownership of the seas, thus most of the ocean is an open space accessible to all nations. Land is solid, something we can stand on, defend readily, and drive stakes through or build walls around. Power over the land is more permanent than power over the seas. Russia is still a huge nation whereas the British Empire came to mean little in the long run since its main possession was the seas.
Jews could not lay claim to most lands ruled by gentiles. They did carve out a piece of territory for themselves by committing genocide against Canaanites and Philistines but lost even that–until it was reclaimed in 1948 with the support of US and USSR. Since Jews could not lay claim to land, they laid claim to the heavens. Their concept of ownership became abstract, spiritual, intellectual, and/or idealized. Jews believed that even if they owned no land or were kicked out of various lands dominated by hostile goyim, the heavens belonged to them because the One and Only God ruled all the heavens.
Similarly, Jews played a crucial role in the development of an abstract form of wealth based on paper contracts and money. Through such means, Jews could come to own the world even if they didn’t occupy much land. Their wealth was all there on paper handled by lawyers, ensured by politicians, and enforced by lawmen who must follow the letter of the law formulated by lawyers and legislated by politicians(bought by the super-rich).
Another way Jews laid claim to all the world was through the idea of universal spiritual/moral righteousness or social justice. Jesus(and especially Paul)got this ball rolling by profoundly universalizing the Jewish God. To the Jews, Yahweh was the One and Only God of All the World but NOT all the people. According to Paul, Yahweh or Jehovah didn’t favor anyone but wanted ALL people to worship Him and earn His blessing. Paul turned God against the Jews. He said Jews are stingy & petty, and want to keep the One and Only God all to themselves. Paul argued that Jesus was the bridge between what had formerly been the Jewish God and all of humanity.
This was a new kind of (abstract)territorialism, one that sought to conquer and occupy the hearts of all men around the world, and it’s not surprising that this idea arose from the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jew, and Paul was a Hellenized Jew. People like Alexander the Great had sought to conquer the world in the literal or territorial manner. He didn’t expect nor necessarily desire for conquered peoples to adopt Greek ways. In some occasions, he even adopted the ways of the ‘barbarians’–if only to satiate his half-gay sensibilities. Greeks had a land of their own and sought to expand their territorial empire.
Since Jews were never strong in the area of territorial power, they developed a kind of meta-territorialism. They sought to control the world by controlling the hearts and minds of people around the world. To be sure, the original Jews were not interested in this. Though they developed monotheism, they were content with the idea that God was mainly for the Jews. But the arrival of Jesus and Paul changed all that. A new kind of universalist Jewish thought arose. In the beginning, almost all the Christians were Jews. They were seen as heretics by tribal Jews and distrusted as subversives by pagan peoples. But, their ideas eventually caught fire among the gentiles, and in time, Christianity became a gentile religion. Because of the notion that Jews-Killed-Jesus(plus the fact that far fewer Jews embraced the New Faith than did pagan peoples), it also became an anti-Jewish religion. Since gentiles owned large areas of land, Christianity eventually became a territorial religion. Christian universalism fused with territorial interests. As such, Christianity came to be associated particularly with Western power, just as Islam, though also universalist, came to be associated with the Near Eastern power.
Because of Jewish rejection of Christianity, this abstract creation of heretic Jews came to hurt the Jews. But, many Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries clung to another form of meta-territorialism, one devised by Karl Marx. Marxist communism condemned national boundaries and called for an eventual one-world order through the ideology of ‘social justice’. Though Marx didn’t see himself as a Jew, he thought in a typically Jewish fashion. He emphasized the Idea over Territory. His ideology sought to break down all barriers among nations and unite humanity through an idea. By laying claim to the hearts-and-minds of all peoples around the world, Jewish communists sought to control the entire world: Control the organism and you also control the territory on which it lives. Consider the distressing fact that though most of United States is inhabited by gentiles, it is like an extension of Israel or Jewtopia since the Jewish media networks control our hearts and minds.
Anyway, even communism failed to live up to the expectations of Jewish radicals. As most people in communist nations were gentiles whose consciousness had long been shaped by territorialism, communism too turned into form of nationalist ideology. Russian communism became Russian, Chinese communism became Chinese, Yugoslavian communism became Yugoslavian, Cuban communism became Cuban, and Vietnamese communism became Vietnamese. A branch of Jewish socialism morphed into Zionism.
In time, Jewish communists came to be seen and distrusted primarily as Jews in communist Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and etc. Eventually, Jews figured that no OPENLY COERCIVE ideology can work in their interest in the long term. Though the radical Jews had tried to create the New Man, the New Man always seemed to revert to his territorial instincts, even as he spouted the New Values. Russians and Chinese, for instance, went on forever about the brotherhood-of-man but were really looking out for their national interests. And though the coercive system of communism had initially given radical Jews in Eastern Europe a political and social advantage over the gentiles, once the gentiles adopted communism and joined the system, they far outnumbered the Jews and used the COERCIVE system of communism against the Jews.
So, rather than the COERCIVE means of control–which could badly boomerang on the Jews–, the Jews came to favor a MANIPULATIVE means of control which they developed to cunning and devious perfection in the US. Since American Jews embrace ‘liberty and freedom’, even the most radical and hate-filled–anti-white, anti-Christian, or anti-American–Jews would be protected by the law. Thus, we are told over and over that Joe McCarthy was an evil man who violated constitutional rights through his ‘witch hunt’ against communists, many of whom were Jewish. (It doesn’t seem to bother Jews much that far more innocent Japanese-Americans were shipped to prison camps at the behest of their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt.) By embracing ‘freedom of speech’ in America, Jews were protected from legal or political prosecution for their hideous radicalism and hostility.
But, since Jews also came to control much of the media, they got to decide who were good or bad, which groups were noble or tainted, which ideas or values were worthy or worthless. Though INDIVIDUAL liberty existed for ALL people thanks to the Constitution, INSTITUTIONAL liberty was concentrated in the power of the Jews. ‘Antisemitic’ individuals had the right of free speech but were not allowed any institutional power. How and why? Because Jews controlled so much of the economy and media, no politician or businessman wanted to be associated with ‘antisemitic’ ideas or positions. The Jewish media would shame and drag them through the mud if they were. Who got tarred-and-feathered in the public sphere was determined by the Jewish media. Jews not only had individual freedom but institutional power, and they used it brazenly and ruthlessly to shoot down anyone they didn’t like. Thus, even as the Jewish-dominated A.C.L.U. defended individual rights, its main purpose and effect was to protect the rights of radical Jews. ACLU might, on occasion, defend a ‘far right’ individual, but that was just tokenism, just for show. As long as Jews controlled all the INSTITUTIONAL power, individual liberty didn’t do much good for those opposed to Jewish power. How far could one get with his counter-Jewish message if he could express his views only to himself or his near friends and families–who were generally no less brainwashed by the liberal Jewish media and academia.
Of course, with the rise of the internet and a near-total Jewish control of laws, academia, new economy, and government, many Jews and their lobotomized/castrated gentile puppets are trying to curtail free speech altogether for those on the Right. Though Jews developed much of the internet and have made the most money from it, they feel threatened by the fact that the web is a medium where individual liberty and institutional power can be one and the same. Theoretically and even practically, anyone can access David Duke’s site just as easily as David Brooks’ site. Though the main hubs like Google, Yahoo, and Bing are controlled by liberals and Jews, we now have full and unfettered access to all kinds of ideas. Indeed, there is a lot of information about Jewish power that had never existed before in the MSM. Prior to the internet, anti- or counter-Jewish views were limited to few local journals or organizations without the means to expand their readership or membership since they weren’t allowed to gain institutional power or support. Through the internet, it doesn’t cost anything to gain access to email, social networking sites, forums, or blogs. An isolated right-wing geek in Montana can conceivably have as big an audience as Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington. It is for this reason that Google–a totally leftist Jewish enterprise–is fully behind Obama’s effort to let government control the internet. One may wonder why a private company would want government to gain such powers. It’s because liberal and neocon Jews also run the government. Obama may be an ideological socialist but he’s a puppet of the rich Jews who promoted him. Thus, Goldman Sachs was only happy to help ‘socialist’ Obama take power and get in return $100s of billions in ‘bail-out money.’ Finance capitalist Wall Street Jews are not afraid of the Obama administration since Obama’s economic handlers are all part of the Wall Street gang. They’ll go after Main Street, but they’ll make sure that their Jewish pals in Wall Street get theirs–before the rest of us get to nibble on left-over crumbs. Sure, Obama and Tim Geithner put on the seething-angry act over the CEO bonuses, but it’s just masquerade. Even with caps on their ‘salaries’, there are many ways these Wall Street sharks can tweak the system to rake in gazillions more.
So, even as we on the White Right have cause to be alarmed by the government takeover of internet, Google doesn’t mind since the kind of people who run the government are the liberal/leftist brethren of the Google Jews. Google Jews will say it’s for The People, but it’s really for themselves. I mean since when has the government been for the people except to drug them with ‘bread and circuses’, thus making them more stupid and dependent? Government takeover of the internet means liberal Jewish control of the internet. Google Jews know that ‘hate speech laws’ will only be applied against the White Right but never against the leftist/liberal Jews nor against most of their allies who are being funded/supported/manipulated by Jews against the white population.
Of course, Jews will insist that there would be no violation of Freedom of Speech since ‘hate speech is not free speech’. Jews know that gentiles are dumb and docile enough to swallow such nonsense. Besides, if their rational argument fails, liberal Jews will spiritually and emotionally trot out the usual stream of Holocaust imagery, black slavery, and so on. People will be so emotionally and morally bullied that even those who oppose ‘hate speech laws’ won’t step forward to stand on principles. They wouldn’t want to be smeared as "the vile creature that embraces hate and approves of skinheads and neo-nazis." Hate Crime Laws have come to a point where it’s against the law to say things which ‘might incite others to commit acts of violence’ against certain groups. But, this is purely selective. Marxists, black rappers, and Zionists often express views which encourage violence against property holders, businessmen, white people, and Palestinians, but they will never be dragged before a hate crime tribunal. No, the only people who will be targeted are those who speak out against Jewish power, the gay agenda, black lunacy, and illegal ‘immigration’.
Finally, let’s consider the issue of globalism and the NWO–New World Order. Is globalism really antithetical to territorialism or the territorial imperative? It may seem that way if we go by the statements from the Left and the Right. Many leftists promote the creation of a New World Order in the name of dissolving ‘tribal’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘atavistic’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘racist’ national boundaries. Many leftists were distressed by the fall of the USSR and the resurgence of nationalism in the former Soviet republics and in Yugoslavia. They want EU to succeed and then keep expanding into larger entities and invite the entire world; it is anathema in Europe to conflate nation with race and culture. Liberals often speak of a World Culture. Leftists promote a weird and funky ‘cosmopolitan’ blend of universalism and the cult of diversity–two ideas which are actually contradictory as mixing the entire world into one goulash will reduce the richness of diversity; after all diversity exists only because people developed separately from other peoples and cultures; it’s one thing to be open-minded and curious about other peoples and culture, but it’s quite another to invite the entire world to your country and promote a kind of mongrelization which does to human genetics what the Big Mac has done to world cuisine. If leftists promote internationalism in the name of the collective unity and brotherhood of man, libertarians promote it in the name of the free individual who isn’t bound to any nation, culture, or tribe.
The Right attacks globalism as an affront to national sovereignty and territorial integrity–and to the internal human nature of the territorial imperative. As barriers between nations dissolve and third world migration swamps the West, what will happen to national territorial claims? Of course, the Right in non-white nations also complain that globalism gives multi-national corporations–mostly Western–free access and reign over developing or ‘Third World’ countries. Globalism is not to be confused with international trade, which is a good thing. Trade is natural and can be mutually beneficial. In contrast, globalism is an ideology committed to creating the ‘global village’ whether the consequences are good or bad. It is a secular dogma, a religion. Closely connected to globalism is Free Trade, which too can be good in practice but dangerous as an ideology. Free trade is good for a nation if it has more or as much to sell as to buy. It is detrimental if it perpetually buys more than sells. After WWII, free trade was good for the US, and US had every right to promote it for national interest. But, as other nations caught up and devised national economic strategies, free trade turned into Free Trade, an ideology which said US must commit to free trade even if it were bad for the US. Ideologies tend toward dogmatism and radicalism.
So, one could make a case that globalism is a ruthless and naive form of utopianism that goes against territorialism, which is part of human nature. But, there is another way of seeing globalism, and this views is shared by people on the alternative right and the radical left–albeit for different reasons. The radical left sees globalism as essentially a form of neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism. It is not an equitable or egalitarian way of uniting the world but a means by which Western Imperialists reclaim the territories they’d lost after WWII. This view is popular in the less successful parts of the developing world–Latin America(except successful Chile), Africa, and the Middle East especially. East Asians and increasingly Asian-Indians are less likely to share this view since they’ve been able to intelligently use globalism for their own national benefit; consider the rise of China and India in the past two decades. But, in nations like Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela, Yemen, Egypt, and Nigeria–where the elites are utterly corrupt and the masses are hopelessly inept–, globalism is perceived as a means by which the West seeks to re-exploit their old colonies which had been ‘liberated’ in the 1950s and 60s. And, there are many Western leftists who agree with this Neo-Marxist view that globalism is really neo-imperialism in disguise. (Also keep in mind that many Middle Easterners see Zionism as a means why which the West re-conquered the Holy Land through a modern crusade fronted by the Jews.)
Some–though not all–on the ALTERNATIVE Right also agree that territorialism is alive and well in globalism, but they see the main form as neo-aristocratic than neo-imperialist. The Alternative Right doesn’t see the conflict within globalism as between West vs the Rest but between the elites and the masses. What the Alternative Right fears is a re-emergence of the aristocratic world order akin to the pre-French Revolution world.
Of course, this NWO is said to be liberal, progressive, and based on Enlightenment principles–flowing from the French Revolution–, but look more closely, and one is reminded of the saying, "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Prior to the great but violent French Revolution, the kings and noblemen generally looked down on the masses. Though kings and noblemen fought amongst one another on occasion, they considered each other as members of the same royal tribe. Kings and noblemen felt little sympathy or connection with their own people. A Prussian King was likely to feel closer to the Austrian Emperor or French King than to his own people. Though kings and princes carefully guarded their domains, they identified with others of their blood and class than with the ‘rabble’.
This changed with the great French Revolution which gave The People a chance to rise up and fight for their freedom and rights. Though it turned ugly and led to one bloodbath after another, the French Revolution did much good for people power. The leaders of the Revolution represented their own people and didn’t identify with the kings and noblemen of other countries. Though Napoleon made himself emperor, he was the People’s Emperor. The French masses loved and honored him like no people ever had loved their leader. People who lived under kings had to bow down before the royal pompous ass who held his nose up at his own subjects. But, Napoleon inhaled the spirit of the masses, body odor and all. He turned out to be a looney-bin megalomaniac, but he was truly a revolutionary figure who forged an iron bond with his people. The French people weren’t his subjects but his supporters.
Though Napoleon ultimately failed and revolutionary France eventually lost the war, they did shake up Europe enough for two decades to politically and socially re-order the whole of the European continent. Though the aristocratic forces regained power in 1815, there was no way they could put the genie back in the bottle. All the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Nationalism was the new reality, and even kings and aristocrats could no longer simply lord over their people but had to represent and respect them. Though kings and aristocrats in the 19th century up to the first World War maintained warm and close relations with one another, they had to appeal to the masses in their own countries. Everything had to be wrapped in nationalism, and as such, the people came to matter more in the political equation. But, what eventually gave nationalism a bad name? The ensuing bloodbath of World War I and all the diabolical forces it unleashed across the whole spectrum of the right to the left. Some of these forces were ultra-nationalist–Nazism–while others were ultra-anti-nationalist–communism. If Nazism turned nationalism into a demented ideology, communism turned universalism into a bloody hammer. Of course, one could argue that Hitler was a pan-racist than a true nationalist and that communism turned out to be no less nationalist in the end. But, the horrors of WWII came to be interpreted as the evil products of nationalism–and imperialism–, and the educated elites of the West have been reluctant or nervous to embrace nationalism in any form.
So, even though nationalism continued to be a powerful force after WWII–indeed, it fueled most of the anti-colonialist movements around the world–, the two superpowers talked less of national power than of ‘freedom’(in the West) and ‘justice’(in the East). US prided itself in promoting not nationalism but ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. USSR prided itself in promoting ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’. But of course, there were undercurrents of nationalism(s) on both sides. Russians equated Soviet power with Russian might. Those in the Eastern Bloc, on the other hand, saw communism as Russian imperialism. Americans came to see democracy not merely as a political system but the core essence of Americanism; thus, it became convenient to justify American ‘expansionism’ or influence in terms of spreading democracy and ‘human rights’, something the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and even many Europeans have been very skeptical about. Israel, as a kind of mini-me of the United States, has justified its nationalist existence on the fact that it too is democratic–though this doesn’t seem to apply to Palestinians who elected Hamas government through democracy.
There was a resurgence of French nationalism under De Gaulle. And, leftists were defacto pro-nationalist as long as non-whites were fighting for national ‘liberation’ from Western imperialism or American ‘neo-imperialism’. And, black nationalists like Malcolm X were greatly admired on the Left. Israel was supported by many Jewish leftists . As long as nationalism was identified with anti-imperialism or underdog-ism, it could be politically and morally acceptable to ‘progressives’.
However, nationalism in the West–especially if identified with the white population–was deemed as unacceptable. For this reason, white Americans tried to expand their power or interests by dancing around the issue of nationalism. Thus, they tried to expand American hegemony in the form or name of anti-communism, anti-terrorism, pro-Zionism, pro-democracy-ism, and such. But, this strategy was usurped by the liberal and neocon Jews. What had once been used to expand white American power under another label was made to promote Jewish power at the expense of white American power. (Same thing happened with Christianity. It had been used by whites to expand white power. White justified their conquest of the world in the name of spreading of light of God and love of Jesus. But, Christianity later morphed into communism and into ‘progressive’ and Liberation Theology which accused white nations of having cynically employed Christianity to keep the masses down or to conquer non-white lands.)
But, whether internationalism or globalism is employed by white gentiles or Jews(or any other people), there is an element of territorialism at its core. It’s not the end but a reconfiguration of territorialism. And, things like this had happened before. Prior to the rise of empires, small kingdoms had been the core territorial units. When an empire swallowed up various kingdoms, was it the end of territorialism? No, it was the creation of a larger territorial entity. Romans, for instance, were not ridding the world of territorialism by breaking down the tribal borders of other peoples; they were merely laying claim to a larger piece of territory as their own.
Prior to the rise of nations, the primary territorial unit could be tribal or clannish. It could be a city-state or a principality. When a nation swallowed up all those units and developed a national identity, it wasn’t violating territorialism but merely expanding it to another level.
In this light, the globalist elites are not so much trying to rid the world of the ‘atavistic’ territorial mindset but laying claim to ALL OF THE GLOBE. It is territorialism in its highest and most radical form. For the global elites, their own nations are too small for their ambitions and power-lust. Their own people–the rabble or the masses–are too boring, dull, stupid, and insipid. A global elitist in NY feels closer to a fellow elitist in Paris, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, or even Cape Town. Just as the kings and aristocrats preferred the company of one another–and married with one another–across national boundaries than cared much for their own peoples, the globocrats of today prefer one another to the humdrum masses of their own kind. In the old days, a English monarch would marry a German or Austrian princess. Or, a Prussian prince or princess may be married into the Russian elite. The masses existed mainly to toil in the fields and work like cattle for the snobby aristocrats. Not much is different today. The globocrats, especially the white gentile kind, don’t care about their own people who aren’t as well-educated, ‘sophisticated’, and well-traveled. This is what much of the anti-Sarah-Palin contempt is all about. She is ‘one of us’–the people–but not ‘one of them’–the elites.
And, though the liberal Western elites frown on racism and carry out witch-hunts against those who speak truthfully on race(and racial differences), they practice the most brazen kind of biologism. They seek to marry the ‘best and the brightest’–and the best looking–, and often do so since affluent smart kids attend the same schools and later earn lots of money and have the jobs that attract the most appealing and desirable sexual partners. Why have Jews been getting better looking over the yrs? They made a lot of money and married a lot of good looking goyim–who also happened to be above-average in intelligence since the smarter gentiles attend schools like Harvard and Yale, which are teeming with genius Jews. And, even if a rich Jew marries a dumb shikse, his kids will get half his brains and half her looks. Not a bad deal. The kid may only be half as smart as the father but will be at least be half as attractive as the mother.
For all their egalitarian talk, do rich feminist bitches marry humble janitors with low IQs and low pay? No, they seek out lawyers, academics, politicians, and other big shots. Is the ‘take your daughter to work’ a great idea for most women who work at hum-drum jobs? Does it make any sense for a housewife? No, it’s only cool for rich Jewesses who rake in $100,000s or millions a year. "More things change, the more they stay the same." No matter how you slice or dice it, the system produces a new elite, and that elite seeks to consolidate its power militarily, morally, spiritually, politically, socially, and/or intellectually.
Of course, the globalist elites will never come out and say they are laying territorial claim to all the world. They’ll yammer about ‘sharing the world’, ‘uniting the world’, ‘free flow of goods and ideas’, ‘promoting human rights’, etc. But, who gets to really enjoy the world via travel, money-making, fine dining, luxury goods, influence, and power? The average Joe or the superrich & their privileged underlings? The Joe the Plumbers of the world or the Rahm Emmanuels of the world?
What matters most to an Average Joe is his home, job, and country. He has enough to survive on and feels pride in belonging to a nation and cultural community. He has little to gain from globalism except cheap goods made overseas. But, the global elitists get to rake in billions, travel all over, have power sex and shower sex, manipulate government to make their businesses even richer, and feel ‘at home’ at any part of the world. Why should they remain loyal to one nation when they can own the entire world? The radical left may see this as ‘Western neo-imperialism’, but we on the White Right disagree because globalism is NOT good for most Westerners. The imperialism of old, good or evil, was indeed about the glory of all the people within the imperialist nation. Thus, all Britons shared in the power and greatness of the British Empire. It wasn’t just the British elite but the British people who laid claim to the British Empire. This is NOT the case with globalism. MOST white people in the US and EU get nothing out of globalism but cheap foreign goods. And, they will never have enough money to travel around the world and own homes on all five continents, enjoy yachts, enjoy first-class air boarding or own private jets. Only the global elites will enjoy such goodies. The dumb masses will think they are enjoying a good life because the media hooks them to celebrity news and encourages them to identify with millionaire celebrities. Thus, even poor slobs think they are glamorous because they go gaga over Lady Gaga. Or, the dummies will watch American Idol–a show that sneers at MOST people as lame no-talents–and believe that they are sharing in a fairytale-come-true. This is how the global elites–especially the heinous liberal super billionaire Jews who run the media–manipulate the masses.
Worse, globalism opens up the West to waves and waves of immigration–legal and illegal–from the Third World. Especially damaging to Europe are marauding immigrants from Africa and Muslim countries who come to commit crime, live off welfare, and impregnate white women with mulatto babies. In the US, waves of Mexican Illegals may well turn the SW territories into Greater Mexico. The global elites in the US and EU aren’t bothered by such developments since they OWN ALL THE WORLD and can choose to live in safest and richest neighborhoods. Since they’ve politically, economically, and intellectually laid claim to all the world, what does it matter if they lose their own country? They still have the WORLD which they can enjoy via private jets, yachts, finance capitalism, high-tech expansion, ‘free trade’, and etc.
But, what about the average Joes who cannot enjoy the world that way. To them, losing their nation means losing EVERYTHING!! It’s about time the VAST WHITE MIDDLE bring forth another cataclysm in the spirit of the French Revolution. The French Revolution dethroned the international aristocracy and put in power leaders who felt a great bond with the French masses. Napoleon was the Man of the People. Of course, power corrupts and revolutions can get out of hand, and the French Revolution turned out badly because of excesses and dogmatism. But, it played a heroic role in smashing the OLD ORDER where kings and noblemen were aloof about their own people and more intimate with the kings and noblemen of other states. The global elites look upon us the same way.
Even if it’s understandable that educated, privileged, and intelligent people look down the masses–I do too as the masses are indeed stupid and dumb as a doorknob–, the extent of the treachery and betrayal by the elitists is vile and inexcusable. After all, in good faith, we listened to them and followed their plans all these yrs. We supported free trade, amnesty in the 1980s, outflow of American jobs, and inflow of cheap goods. We cheered on the millionaires, billionaires, and gazillionaires as the heroes of capitalism, as what America is all about. Yet, at the end of the day, what did we get in return from these weasels and sharks? We got more illegal immigration for cheap labor(and for Jews to pit against the native populations). We got more out-of-control legal immigration to take jobs away from American workers. We got shit like the GAY AGENDA shoved up the tender asses of our children, which is why so many kids think ‘gay marriage’ is a human right. We got pink slips as good manufacturing jobs disappeared. We got Obama as the supreme leader. We got liberal and some Neocon Jews laughing at us behind our backs. Indeed, what did we get from the Jewish community for our loyal service to all things Jewish? They shat on us and forced Obama on the nation. Whether it’s Milton-Friedman-ims or Noam-Chomsky-ism, it all comes down to the same thing. Rise of the intellectual/economic global elite and the loss of power and meaning of life for the Vast White Middle.
This is why we must reject not only leftism but also libertarianism. If leftism is inter- or trans-nationalist for collective reasons–brotherhood of man, equality of man, global village, etc–, libertarianism is inter- or trans-nationalist for individualist reasons. A libertarian argues that a free person shouldn’t be fettered to a culture, a polity, a place, or system. He should be free to travel anywhere, live anywhere, work anywhere, invest anywhere, f**k anywhere, and so on. This wouldn’t be such a bad idea if EVERYONE could enjoy the Ayn-Randian libertarian life, but let’s get serious. How many people get to travel, love, and live like Bill Gates, Sergei Brin, Matt Damon, or Bono? I’m for freedom and individual liberty, but let’s not delude ourselves with Hollywood fantasies. Freedom and liberty in a functional and meaningful sense can only exist and operate within a context or a system. They are meaningless without laws, and laws have no meaning without borders and the cultural values that inform the people within them. Sure, there can and should be some degree of international laws and mutual cooperation. If a Japanese guy visits the US and kills someone, we expect Japanese law enforcement to aid American law enforcement in capturing the killer. If we travel to France or Mexico, we do want certain legal guarantees even if we are not citizens in those countries. On the other hand, there are American laws, French laws, and Mexican laws that exist primarily for their citizens. And those laws must reflect the values of the people of those nations than be imposed by the NWO globalist elites.
Also, libertarianism is linked with globalism because, despite all the leftist ideology spouted by the rich and powerful globalist elites, they are really Ayn Randians deep down inside. Guys like Sergei Brin and Rahm Emmanuel love money and power. They are utterly ruthless. Bill Gates made his billions not by being a decent humanitarian but by being a ruthless monopolist shark in the software business. They talk a leftist plan but play the libertarian game. They are wolves-in-sheep’s clothing. They are ruthless total capitalists. Money, power, and control-of-truth are what motivate them. With tremendous money, their ilk has essentially bought up all the media outlets, all the think tanks, all the universities, and the government. They collude with the left for mutual benefit. The left gets generous funding for their radical and ‘progressive’ ideas, and the superrich get to manipulate ‘social reform’ via big government to their advantage. The superrich capitalists employ socialism to grab more power in government and also to pacify the ‘bitter’ masses with more bread-n-circuses. Give the people more American Idol to worship and fatten their arses with more freebies so they’ll be too lazy to organize and fight the NWO elites.
Ayn Rand was NEVER for the individual. She was for THE Individual. She admired and blessed the super-smart, the super-ambitious, the super rich, the super creative, and super brilliant. There is nothing wrong in admiring excellence. Indeed, if ‘elitism’ is defined as acceptance of hierarchy as natural or as a preference of excellence over mediocrity, I think all of us can agree it’s a good thing. Surely, we admire a work by Da Vinci or Picasso over that of hack artists. We admire the music of Beethoven or the Beatles over Britney Spears.
The problem with Ayn Randism is that it was marketed to the masses even though it holds the masses in utter contempt. Rand had every right to sneer at the masse and see them as stupid and mediocre–as most people indeed are. But, she did something else. She marketed and sold her pathologically Nietzschean elitism as something that was accessible to the masses–like L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.
I’m sure you’ve met mediocre people who won’t ever amount to much in life but who think they are something special because they read FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED. They think they’re intellectual because they read a thick novel. They think they are free because they identify with an uncompromised hero of the novel. They think they too can succeed and become a giant in life. Or, they think they’ve failed because they are TOO GOOD for society ruled by helots that can’t appreciate true genius when they see it. Or, they think they are fair-minded and wise because they feel admiration than envy for the super rich and the super successful. (One of the hidden subliminal messages of Rand’s novels is, "dumb goyim should worship than oppose/challenge the smarter Jew who is bound to gain more wealth, power, and influence." This message is HIDDEN because the brilliant and heroic characters in her novels are tall and handsome gentile WASP types; therefore, many dimwit gentiles read the book thinking it’s about their own empowerment when Rand’s ruthless libertarianism favors Jewish power over gentile power.) There is no great difference between dimwit goyim who jerk off to Ayn Rand’s fantasies or to Lady Gaga’s lunacies. They are both about becoming blind to one’s true reality & limitations and losing oneself in the escapist identification with fairytales.
Ayn Rand novels may apply to the Bill Gates, Sergei Brins, and George Soroses of the world, but they mean NOTHING to the 99.99% of us. Besides, her extreme libertarianism is no less anti-nationalist, anti-culture, anti-race, and anti-communal values as international leftism is.
The NWO is being created by closet-Randians who’ve adopted the language of Marx. People like Obama is useful to them–especially to the globalist Jews–since his presidency fools the world–especially the non-white world–that the global order is controlled by a black guy who cares about The People, the oppressed, the underdogs, and the little guy. And, Obama does follow cues on occasion and makes noise about those ‘greedy’ bankers. And, it may well be that Obama is a stealth black nationalist and socialist, but look at the forces that really control him and control our minds through the media and academia. Obama’s "Hope and Change" is a doggy biscuit thrown to the masses to slobber over. Obama’s ‘progressive’ messiah aura gives the NWO elitists cover for their ambitious and greedy plan to lay claim to the entire world.
Now, it may well be true that most white global elitists really believe that they are good, idealistic, noble, conscientious, and progressive people. After all, there is no limit to how much people can fool themselves out of vanity, ego, or self-righteousness. There are plenty of cutthroat greedy sharks who consider themselves as ‘good Christians’ because they attend church regularly or made generous donations to ‘good causes’. And, on the Right, Pat Buchanan sincerely believes himself to be a good Catholic though his main loyalties are not universalist but tribalist/nationalist.
But, let’s look beyond all this BS or self-BS. Deep down inside, Buchanan is a blood-and-soil racial tribalist, not a good Catholic–except in matters of form and ritual.
Deep down inside, the globalist elites are ultra-territorialists who are simply laying claim to all of the world as their front yard, backyard, private pond, jacuzzi, and playground. They want it all. They want to spread international law not so much because they care about the poor around the world but because they wanna feel at home–as masters–in every corner of the world. The world is their oyster, and all that we masses get from this are crumbs. Worse, while the global elites gain the world, we lose our nations. Most of us don’t have the means to enjoy the world as our oyster–except through the fantasy of TV shows. Most of us don’t have the means to globetrot around the world–except through the fantasies of cyberspace. The only way we can share in the fun and glory of global elitism is through the virtual fantasy reality of entertainment and social network gadgets. Are they enough to sustain meaning in our lives? No, the meaning of our lives really comes from family, community, nation, and culture. Of course, change is natural in the world, but do we want change that gives power and meaning to all of us or change that gives all the power and pleasure to the elites while we dummies lose ourselves in virtual fantasy via movies(Avatar), Ipods,, or Google Earth?
They are enticing and fun but are they real?

Thursday, January 7, 2010

A Reason Why So Many Jews Are Angry and Left though They Are the Most Successful People in the World.

It may seem odd that there are so many angry and bitter left-wing Jews when Jews are the most successful people in America. Even most leftist Jews make more money than most conservative white Americans. Some of the richest people in America are leftist Jews with innovative ideas, professional connections, and business acumen. And, even non-business leftist Jews do quite well in journalism, education, academia, and other institutions of power and influence. So, why are there so many angry Jews? It’s easier understand why many blacks are angry. They are on the bottom and understandably feel resentful toward those who earn or have more. And, one would expect a lot of Mexican-Americans to be angry and bitter too, but in fact your average Mexican-American–even if poor–is less likely to be as bitter and angry as a lot of affluent Jews who happen to be leftist.
Some of the reasons for Jewish anger seems obvious. The Book of the Jews stresses moralism, and a severely judgmental outlook has defined Jewishness. The Bible is filled with prophets condemning the Jews and mankind for this transgression, that sin, and whatever else. Even as most Jews became secular, this aspect of Jewishness remained and shaped their intellectual and moral development in the modern world. In this sense, Karl Marx could be regarded as essentially a modern Jewish prophet carrying on the long proud tradition.
Another reason for the angry and activist Jewish mindset is the widespread poverty that had been prevalent especially among Eastern European Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not all Jews were rich bankers, lawyers, or doctors; many Jews struggled to make ends meet. Thus, there has long been a certain distrust between rich successful Jews and the less fortunate ones–although there has also been much collusion between Jewish capitalists and leftists. To the extent that much of modern Jewish thought and identity were formed during this period, the culture of radicalism and activism still colors much of the Jewish community.
But, there are also the factors of high intelligence, the vanity of self-pride, and the culture of contempt so integral to what it means to be Jewish. Since Jews are smarter than non-Jews, even relatively unsuccessful or less wealthy Jews tend to have an higher opinion of themselves than most other peoples do. A middle class white person can be content with a job and home in the suburbs. A Mexican-American can be happy with a steady job, an apartment, picnics in the park, and lots of tacos to chubby up his kids. A Negro is a wilder kind of creature, but supply him with enough watermelons, bling blings, and ass-shaking music(and maybe a basketball), and he can be pretty happy in a child-like manner too. But, Jews never seem very happy even when they got many times more wealth and/or power than us. As far as the Jew is concerned, ‘enough’ is never enough. Since they have a very high opinion of themselves as intelligent and superior, they desire more money, power, or influence. Thus, even a reasonably successful Jewish college professor feels he should lead and be teaching at TOP colleges; he thinks he should have as much power and influence as rich billionaire Jews. Thus, leftist Jews in government and academia want more and more power. They see themselves as the best of the best, and as such, deserving of more and more respect and power over the rest of us.
When Jews believed in God, they were instilled with some degree of humility. But, ever since Jews rejected God, each Jew began to see himself as a god or God Himself. Indeed, one can ever argue that the righteous, intolerant, contemptuous, and arrogant God of the Old Testament is essentially the projection of the collective Jewish personality. It could be that Jews needed this God in order for cooperate since each Jew had such a high opinion of himself. If most other cultures had a pharaoh(or some such leader) and the masses willing to bow before him, every Jew thought he should be the pharaoh. Thus, Jews needed an abstract God who demanded collective humility on the part of ALL Jews. The creation of Yahweh was a subconscious contract among individual Jews not to seek total power and mastery over all the other Jews. Social order could be less stable among ancient Hebrews because the Jews were generally less slavish and more assertive than other peoples. Since each Jew thought he was the best, the only way to infuse him with some humility was through faith and obedience in the Great Lord. In the movie 10 COMMANDMENTS, Moses has one hell of a difficult time making Jews follow his lead. Thus, he has to invoke God over and over.
Seen from this angle, the creation of the Jewish God was a subconscious agreement among Jews that there is an higher being above themselves; otherwise, each Jew would have debated endlessly with other Jews as to who knew best and should rule the community.
Higher intelligence can mean greater wisdom, but it can also mean greater contempt for those deemed less intelligent, knowledgeable, or wise.
Though Jews profess to be ‘progress’ and egalitarian, the fact is many Jews really do look down on us dumb goyim–which is justifiable to some extent since many goyim are indeed dumb as a doorknob. Just look at John Hagee, that stupid hippopotamus. Sarah Palin and her followers aren’t exactly the intellectual creme of the crop either. And every time Jewish Hollywood and music industry spew out new garbage, you have countless dumb goyim lapping it all up. So, the smarter Jews indeed do look down on us–justifiably or unjustifiably.
But, having such contempt based on the arrogance of high intelligence and moral narcissism(based on the religion of Holocaust Remembrance), most Jews don’t like to be in an inferior position of any kind. Thus, there are lots of Jews who are angry that there are people better off and richer than they are. To an extent, the relatively less successful Jews feel great deal of communal pride in the magnitude of Jewish success, and indeed most Jews will stick together in regards to the non-Jewish community. But among Jews themselves, the lesser Jews are bitterly resentful of the greater Jews. Of course, lesser Jews–those with less power or money–cannot honestly admit that they are resentful or envious of richer or more powerful Jews. No, they must conceal their resentment with a lot of hogwash about ‘social justice’ and ‘progress’. Thus, leftist Jews like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky will say they are against capitalism and the rich because they care for The People. Saul Alinsky pulled the same shit.
Many of these lesser Jews have, in time, become greater Jews. Naomi Klein is a millionaire in her own right after a series of best-sellers. And, Chomsky too is a very rich man. But, since they’ve specialized in fields that generally don’t turn people into gazillionaires, they still see themselves as underdog Jews fighting for underdogs all over the world.
In reality, there is a kind of intra-Jewish battle between the book-keeping Jews–the profit-driven Jews–and the book-reading Jews–prophet-inspired Jews. It may be that Jews like Klein and Chomsky could have made a lot of money in business or computers or whatever, but they chose the academic or the ideological fields. They did so out of their own volition, desire, and pleasure–because they wanted to. They could and should have been happy pursuing their careers, but their Jewish nature made them want to stick their big noses into the business of everyone else. Since, they see themselves as intellectually superior to non-Jews and morally superior to Jews-who-only-care-about-money, they feel they should have the most power. Since their power don’t generally come by the way of business, they turn to political, social, and cultural agitation. Though many young people have been ‘inspired’ by Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein, the fact is they are mere puppets serving the vanities of contemptuous and rotten radical Jews who want to monopolize power, influence, and virtue.
It’s amusing that so many non-Jews who fall behind the likes of Chomsky or Klein never ask themselves, "How come I can’t think for myself? How come I have to be a sheep of Jewish intellectuals?" The slavish dimwit goyim who worship Ayn Rand on the ‘right’ aren’t much better.
To know the true nature and source of Jewish ideas, one must study the Jewish personality and emotional character. There is cultural Jewishness but also biological Jewishness as the Jewish bloodline remained relatively pure over the centuries. A certain kind of personality prevails among Jews more than among other peoples. This personality came to shape much of Jewish religion and historiography. And even when Jews dropped the religious tenets of Judaism, their Jewish personality remained. Though there have been some converts to Judaism, Jewishness has been as much about blood as about faith. Thus, it can be said there is a Jewish race–or sub-race–in the way there can be no Christian or Muslim race. Thus, what post-religious Jews share with religious Jews is the same personality and genetic attributes. Of course, not all Jews have the same personality, and ‘Jewish traits’ may be found among non-Jews. But, Jews generally have more of certain traits than other groups. For whatever reason, Jews grew to be highly intelligent, devious, witty, subversive, distrusting, arrogant, contemptuous, creative, penetrating, wise, weasely, and sly. Some of these attributes can be found in other peoples in spades, but the combination of these elements among Jews tend to be better calibrated for maximum impact. In other words, you need worry less about being conned by a dumb Polack than by a smart Jew.
People with higher opinion of themselves tend to become angrier, more resentful, and more bitter if they feel that their power or influence isn’t commensurate to their talent or worth. Thus, Germans were especially bitter about the rise of Jewish power. Germans, having high opinions of themselves, suffered a bigger blow to their collective ego and pride when Jews outperformed them in many top-level professions and endeavors. And, this explains the venomousness of French antisemitism as well as the French were also full of themselves. It was one thing to allow Jews to assimilate and accept them as equal citizens but quite another to observe the small Jewish minority grow fabulously rich and powerful, indeed much more so than the gentile elites.. Japanese too went crazy in the 20th century because they saw themselves as a great people and felt their power should match their innate greatness. And, this is why we should be watching China carefully since China has long entertained a self-image as the ‘Middle Kingdom’ but then suffered a great blow to his cultural vanity with the arrival of Western gunboats and incursions of Japanese imperialism. There is a degree of vanity and arrogance in American Exceptionalism, but most Americans have a live-and-let-live view of the world unless US is attacked by a foreign power.
Jews, in contrast, are bound to be the most resentful people in the world since they justifiably consider themselves to be the smartest people on Earth–by a light year–and half-justifiably see themselves as a long suffering people victimized by various gentile peoples. On top of that, Jews never had a country of their own for a very long time before the creation of Israel, and even Israel is small and faces an uncertain future.
Jews do control and own much of the United States, but they are still only 2% of the population. China may still be poor, but over a billion people own a big chunk of land to call their own. Russia may be going through hard times, but Russians own a giant piece of real estate. Except in Israel, Jews are a small minority in all the other countries–and there is no guarantee that Jews will be the majority in Israel indefinitely. Thus, Jews are bound to feel bitter, angry, resentful, beleaguered, and paranoid. They are so intelligent, so creative, so innovative, and so brilliant, yet they only have a dinky little country to call their own–surrounded by hostile nations and unloved by most–and they are vastly outnumbered by the goyim in all the other countries. Even in nations where they are successful, Jews feel that all their wealth and power may vanish at the drop of the hat if the goyim lose faith in Holocaustianity and see Jews as a bunch of Ron Jeremys or Bernie Madoffs.
Thus, it is not surprising that smart, rich, influential, and powerful Jewish minority would seek to maintain as much control and influence over the majority population as possible and also to cut every other group ‘down to size’. Jews are filled with envy and resentment. In the US, they seek to maintain domination by dividing the white race down the middle. This way, proud white nationalism is undercut by self-abnegating white liberalism. Jews also seek to increase the number of non-whites so as to use ‘divide and rule’ among the various races. Jews want to break the spine of white American unity and power for good so that Jews may rule America forever. As long as there is a solid white majority, whites can unite–if white liberals wake up from their suicidal doldrums–and take on the Jew. But, once whites are no longer a sizable majority in the country–and even fated to be a minority–, it won’t matter even if 100% of whites turn into white nationalists since their wishes can be overridden by the black and non-white majority funded and manipulated by Jews. Jews were ecstatic about the rise of Obama not because they saw a dawn of a ‘progressive’ era but because they saw it as a sign that the back of White America is near breaking point. After the back is broken, White America will be paralyzed from neck down and won’t be able to unite head, torso, and legs to take on the power of the Jews and non-whites. The Jews are giggling with hideous glee over the fact that so many white American males have been castrated into metro-sexual suckers of Jewish dick and so many white American females have been voodoo-ized to give their bodies to Negroes and give birth to Obama-babies–just when the white population is declining precipitously.
Anyway, though Jews are always preaching to us about how we on the White Right are motivated by the politics of resentment, no people have been as resentful as the Jews. A lot of ugly Jewish women have been resentful over the fact that gentile women are prettier. A lot of nebbish Jewish men have been resentful over the fact that gentile are physically tougher. Of course, there are pretty Jewish women and strong Jewish men, but the ugly mugly Jewish women and nebbish shmebbish Jewish men, due to their high intelligence, have never been able to just accept the fact that they are ugly or weak and get on with life–like most ugly or gimpy Mexicans, Chinese, and whites do.
Their higher intelligence has motivated ugly and/or weak Jews to seek power like the Nibelung creatures in Wagner’s operas. Just consider Woody Allen. He’s an ugly and weakling Jew, but his higher intelligence and sharp wit have made him sensitive to his disadvantages, and he has cleverly used them to uglify and weaken much of white gentile culture. If a Jew cannot get something, he must find some way to subvert or undermine it. For centuries, the Talmud taught Jews to spit, piss, and shit on the goy order–if only behind goy’s back. Thus, Jewish men who lusted after blonde and blue eyed goddesses sought to turn them into drug addicts, porn stars, and sex slaves of jungle fever. Jewish men jealous of the bigger and stronger white males took pleasure in promoting and watching gorilla-powered black males destroy the white male in body and soul. An arrogant sense of superioritism motivates the Jew to do this. Even the ugliest and most pitiful Jew feels that since he’s smarter–and a noble victim of the Holocaust–, he has a right to enter the Sacred Hall of Power and Wealth. If the doors are apparently shut to him, then the Jew will use whatever means to tear and burn down the entire Hall. To be sure, this kind of resentment and vindictiveness has been universal in all peoples and cultures. The mythologies of various peoples tell many stories of vengeance. But, no people are as successful in sharpening and plying their resentment as the Jews are.
There was a time when aspiring Jew found the top echelons of power shut to them by the gentile powers-that-be. For example, even as the kings and noblemen across Europe came to rely on Jewish bankers, scientists, and doctors, there were certain areas of power which remained shut off to the Jews. So, a lot of Jews felt a great deal of resentment toward the gentile powers-that-be, and the more radical elements sought to undermine the entire goy system.
Today, many of the top corridors and sanctums of power are controlled by the Jews, especially in America. Look at the top media networks, Wall Street, the Fed, and academia, and it’s like a Jew Fortress. Thus, Jews no longer need to feel the kind of resentment they used to against the gentile elites who’d kept the REAL power to themselves.
Today, it’s a matter of lesser Jews feeling envious and bitter about greater Jews. So, we have the superrich Jews chanting the mantra of Milton Friedman and awash in oceans of wealth, AND we have other lesser Jews still invoking Marx to challenge the power of the greater Jews. Of course, the really clever Jews play both ways. Thus, George Soros is a vile stinking rich Jewish shark but funds leftist-Jewish causes either to appropriate and control them or to use them ‘hide’ his wealth. When a rich guy lavishly funds ‘progressive’ causes, he’s less likely to come under liberal media scrutiny since his money is considered to be do. It is a form of bribery. Or, it could be that Soros is vain enough to think that he can have the cake and eat it too–be a stinking rich capitalist AND a holier-than-thou revolutionary. And why not? Just look at all those stinking rich and crass millionaires and billionaires in Hollywood who really think they are political saints and ‘progressive’ heroes. Look at Armand Hammer who served commies on the one hand and made billions in America on the other.
Anyway, one thing we must realize is that resentment is a natural thing. It is a form of fear and envy that must be controlled, but it is natural and should not be denied. So, when Jews admonish white gentiles for their culture of resentment, just tell the Jews to shut the hell up. While it is true that many white gentiles do feel resentment–toward stronger blacks who can punch harder, run faster, or ‘sing & dance better’; toward Jews who are smarter and more successful; toward Asians who outperform the lesser or ‘trashier’ white elements–, whites are no different than other groups. Blacks feel a lot of resentment too–not just against whites but against Hispanics, Asians, and Jews. (Though blacks and Jews are opportunistic political allies, they don’t really like one another though many liberal Jews fantasize that they do by imagining the ideal Negro than dealing with the real one. Indeed, it is the presence of the large white middle in America that binds Jews and blacks together into as a force against the common white enemy. It’s too bad that whites don’t unite against this godforsaken alliance of Jews and blacks.)
In some ways, black resentment is like Jewish resentment. Jews feel they are intellectually superior and therefore should rule society. They feel frustrated and resentful over the fact that they are outnumbered, less attractive, and less physically imposing than other peoples.
Blacks feel that they should rule society since they are the baddest, coolest, toughest, and have the biggest penises or bounciest buttocks. If Jews rely on BRAINS as their main weapon, it’s the FIST with the blacks. So, there is the whole gangsta rap music and sports culture among the blacks. Since blacks are intellectually lacking, they tend to rely more on physicality and musicality as the basis for their superiority. But, it just so happens that modern society is more about brains than brawn. Indeed, even athletes would be nowhere without smart businessmen to create and expand the sports franchises. Of course, there are smart blacks–especially those with some white blood–, but a lot of blacks aren’t smart enough to gain power the brainy way. Therefore, a lot of blacks are bitter and resentful. According to the logic within the black world, the people who are toughest, baddest, and the coolest–the brothas and sistaz–should rule. Indeed, that seems to be the case in many crime-infested black communities where badass muscle power rules the streets. But, in the larger community, brains and discipline(and diligence) are what matter most, and blacks lack those attributes.
One might think Jews and blacks would be natural enemies since Jewish advantage is intellectual whereas the black advantage is physical. Yet, they’ve formed a perverse alliance based on MORAL superiority. According to the liberal or ‘progressive’ narrative, the greatest villains of history are white gentile Christian folks, and their primary victims have been blacks–slavery–and Jews–the Holocaust. Never mind that blacks had been murdering and enslaving one another for 100,000s of yrs in the Dark Continent. Never mind that it was blacks who caught and sold other blacks to whites. Never mind that a lot of Jews bought and sold European slaves to the Middle East. Never mind that Jews owned a lot of slave ships during the Atlantic Slave Trade. Never mind that Jewish communists played a key role in the mass killing of millions of white gentiles. Never mind all that. The people who’ve taken control of the media and academia are the liberal Jews and their dingbat wasp running dogs. Thus, the whole of history has been reduced to EVIL WHITES OPPRESSED NOBLE BLACKS AND WONDERFUL JEWS. Thus, as long as EVIL AND GUILTY whites remain the majority in the US, blacks and Jews will forge an alliance of moral superiority, narcissism, and bullying to destroy the white race. However, this alliance is NOT natural. If US were made up of only Jews and blacks, they would not be friends but bitter enemies, just like Jews and Palestinians are. Jews would be afraid of and feel contempt for the rowdy savage blacks, and badass blacks will look upon the Jews as filthy rich greedy-ass mothafuckas who be hoarding all the dough!!
Anyway, don’t let the Jew fool you into thinking that your feelings of resentment are unhealthy, unnatural, or evil. While it is true that uncontrolled resentment and envy can be venomous and negative, a constructive channeling of such emotions can be a big plus to white people. Indeed, it is fear, resentment, anxiety, and envy which have often driven people to greatness. In the 18th and 19th centuries, France and Britain were highly competitive and resentful of the rise of the other. Indeed, one of the reasons why the West developed faster than Asia is there was no dominant power to rule the entire continent; thus, there was more mutual fear and resentment among the various kingdoms and states, and this fueled competition, innovation, and progress. There was no China or something like the Mogul Empire that ruled India. Rather, Europe was divided into many kingdoms and principalities which competed with one another. Fear and resentment of rivals and enemies was one of the driving forces of innovation.
Similarly, Japan had been more innovative prior to unification as the various warring clans sought to learn the latest military technology from the West in order to defeat their rivals. Once Japan was unified, it slowly stagnated under the Tokugawas. Japan finally woke up and began to make progress only in the latter part of the 19th century when its territory was intruded upon by the West. This threat made the Japanese anxious, fearful, and resentful of the more advanced West. It also made the Japanese admiring of the nations that were stronger than Japan, and Japan determined to learn and catch up. It was also resentment which led to the American Revolution. American colonialists hated the fact that they were not accorded the same respect and rights as British citizens.
China stagnated for a long time because it was SATISFIED and SATIATED as the Middle Kingdom. It was only when China came under threat from other nations that the Chinese were filled with fear and resentment and driven to action and change. Russia similarly stagnated over a long period compared to other European nations because its vast spaces and lack of sufficient threat made the Russians complacent. Russia only begin to make real progress and changes when it began to feel the pressure from the rising power of the West.
Thus, resentment is the fuel of empowerment. The trick is to control and use it correctly. If used unwisely, it can lead to crazy movements like Al Qaeda, communism, or Nazism. But, used correctly, it can lead to positive movements such as the American Revolution, French Revolution(at least before things got out of hand), and the rise of Japan(before the stupid militarists took over and drove the nation over the cliff).
Don’t believe what the Jews(and blacks) tell you. Jews will have us believe that Jews have been motivated only by a sense of fairness, justice, and progress. Bullshit! Jews were motivated mostly by resentment which they disguised with nice sounding ideas, values, and principles. A lot of Jewish women turned to radical feminism because they were UGLY. A lot of Jews supported were motivated by resentment and hate because some rich gentile said, "you can’t marry my daughter" or "you can’t join our country club".
Jews also turned to leftism because their intellectual arrogance made them feel superior to everyone else and entitled to rule all of society. Thus, whenever a Jew doesn’t have the power of a Lenin or Stalin, he or she gets all pissed. Of course, many lesser Jews feel resentment toward the richer Jews. So, you have leftist Jewish journalists ragging on and on about Wall Street and Hollywood Jews. But, all said and done, most Jews will stick together since they figure that the REAL ENEMY is the white gentile. How foolish then for most white gentiles to look upon Jews as their friends?
Blacks have also been motivated by resentment. Sure, what Rosa Parks did was perfectly understandable. Why should anyone have to give up his or her seat to another person on a bus? It was indeed true that segregation in the south was NOT ‘separate but equal.’ Even so, blacks were also motivated by something other than fairness and justice. Many blacks didn’t simply demand equality but superiority over the non-blacks. Blacks have long felt that they should be the real masters of society since they can kick everyone’s ass and blow the trumpet faster. Black men have long felt resentment over the fact that they were denied the white meat of white women. Black men felt they were entitled to have ‘prime pussy’ since they are the studliest dudes while ‘white boys’ are a bunch of pear-shaped flabby ‘pussy-ass mothafuckas’. Indeed, you can hear blacks talk like this all over the place and openly. Of course, black women felt resentment too over the fact that while white women were desired by black men, most men were not attracted to black women. Sure, black women had nice bodies and could shake their booties faster/harder than most, but their faces looked ape-like and their voices–though capable of hitting the high notes–often sounded like some wild jive-ass howling monkey in heat.
Therefore, much of what has motivated many groups toward action and ‘empowerment’ has been rooted in a sense of resentment. Whether it’s call for more liberty or more entitlement, resentment has fueled the flames. People hate or are envious of those who have more, especially if they are of another group. The reason why so many Muslims hate Israel isn’t simply because Israel is RICHER than Muslim nations. It’s because JEWISH ISRAEL is richer.
And, Jews feel resentment toward China because there are lots of Chinese in a large country. Indeed, the Chinese may come to confront Jewish power in the future. Indeed, with the West now firmly in the hands of Jewish power–and the Middle East occupied and clobbered by the West(especially America)–, the ONLY power standing in the way of total Jewish domination is China. Jews now control almost all of America. White Americans are mostly running dogs of Jewish foreign and domestic policy. If Jews tell Americans to go and kill Muslims, dumb white Americans will do just that. If Jews tell white Americans to hate Russia and start another Cold War–mainly because Putin reined in the Jewish oligarchs–, dumb white Americans will do just that. If Jews say it’s ‘racist’ to oppose OPEN BORDERS and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, most white Americans are too afraid to object. If Jews tell young people to embrace ‘gay marriage’, young people do so. If Jewish cultural doctors insist that white males must be psychologically castrated, white gentile parents make sure that their sons have their psychological balls cut off just like Jewish babies are circumcised in the cradle. (Of course, whereas circumcision strengthens the sense of Jewishness, castration weakens the sense of whiteness.) Thus, white boys grow up worshiping Michael King–aka Martin Luther King Jr–and convince themselves that it’s okay for white girls to go off with Negroes and leave white boys behind as a bunch of quasi-faggots addicted to porn where blacks hump white broads. So, white boys aren’t bothered by the fact that white women are all cheering for black athletes and ogling at black Hollywood stars promoted by the Jews. What a bunch of pussy-boys, right? Financially, culturally, and politically, America belongs to the Jews, and most Jews are ‘progressive’ or radical. The Middle East may be mostly Muslim, but it’s too backward and stupid to mount any challenge to Jewish power. Africa too belongs to the Jews since the Jewish globalists have promised the black Africans that if they participate in the New World Order devised by Jews, they’ll be rewarded with lots of global welfare. India may not be pro-Jewish but as its culture and history owe a lot to the West, it too be can be seen in many ways as part of the Jewish-dominated Western world. Why do Thomas Friedman and the venal Jews at The New Republic(or Jew Republic) have a hard on for India? Because both Indian entrepreneurs and intellectuals have been profoundly influenced by the global Western elite. Indeed, India is the geo-political creation of the West. Since the West is now ruled by the Jews, India is bound to be closer to the West than China ever will be. Though India will never be a puppet of Jewish power like the West has become, there is a certain understanding between Jews and the Indian elite. Also, no matter how rich and powerful they become, both Jews and Asian-Indians can always pull out the we-were-victims-of-white-imperialism-or-racism card. Both groups can grow rich by doing business with or in the West, all the while guilt-baiting white gentiles for more concessions and apologies(which never seem to stop).
China, on the other hand, is a different animal altogether. China, unlike India, was not the geopolitical invention of the West. And despite the process of modernization, Chinese intellectuals and politicians are not mere wanna-be imitations of the West–like so many Indian thinkers, writers, and politicians are. Also, China feels NO GUILT regarding the Holocaust whatsoever. If anything, Jews need to feel guilty for having spread communism, a disease which even came to infect China. The current Chinese regime still goes by the name of communism, but China is essentially a nationalist power. Thus, it’s one nation that the Jews cannot really touch. Ths is why the Jews are trying to engineer the fall of China. Jews encouraged the Chinese invest heavily in US bonds. By making the Fed print a megaton of paper money, the Jews are turning Chinese dollar holdings into worthless paper. Venality is something essential to modern Jews.
Jews are also remaking RED DAWN, with the Chinese invading America. The purpose is to make Americans see China(a nation hated by Jews) as a bitter enemy, and most white conservative and right-winger types will take the bait. Fuming about China while watching this dumb movie, white right-wingers will miss the bigger picture: that US is already the occupied zone of Jewish power, and it’s the Jews, not the Chinese, who are cutting the balls off of white men, encouraging white women to go with Negroes, and opening borders wide open to the Third World so as to undermine white power. No wonder Jews hold white conservatives in such contempt. White conservatives are SO easy to manipulate and distract.
Of course, Chinese are no saints. They are mostly cruel dog-eating lowlifes, but the White Right must use the Chinese–and the Iranians–against the Jews in the way that Jews use other peoples against white folks.