Friday, January 13, 2012
Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Notes on the Similarities between Jewish-American Elite and Chinese Elite's Use of Nationalism.
Many American think-tanks are alarmed by what they see as the resurgence of Chinese nationalism, especially among the young. If American experts/observers of China in the 80s encountered idealistic and open-minded youths who admired the freedoms/rights of America while being critical of the Chinese Communist Party, a sea-change in Chinese attitude appears to have taken place through the 90s and 2000s. Many attribute this to rapid economic rise, which understandably made the Chinese more confident and proud to be Chinese—and appreciative of the leadership role of the Communist Party. Back in the 80s, many Chinese believed the only way China could become rich and powerful like America was to become like America. But rapid growth resulting from the authoritarian model of development—inspired by 19th century Germany & Nazi Germany, Singapore, 19th century Japan, and South Korean and Taiwan under military rule—have convinced many Chinese that they don’t have to be like Americans to catch up to—and maybe even surpass—America. People may want political freedom, but wealth and power seem to trump all, at least for the Chinese for the time being. The name of the game is Chinese nationalism. As far as many Chinese are concerned, what is good for Chinese wealth and power is good. Why put such emphasis on abstract notions of political liberty if wise and stabilizing authoritarian rule is more likely deliver the good life and transform China into a superpower? Deng once said of economics that it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. The same mentality seems to prevail on the affairs of politics: what does it matter if it’s democracy or authoritarianism as long as it turns China into a tiger among nations? To the extent that many Chinese are in awe of the transformation that their nation in the past 20 yrs, they are willing to stick with Communist Party leadership. (Of course, those who dissent don’t really have much of a choice. The point is, however, that there is widespread support for Communist Party rule even if the reasons are political and nationalistic than moral or idealistic. Some Western observers seem troubled by this because they’d subscribed to the view that economic growth would hasten democratic reforms in China. Some observers fear that economic growth has, if anything, made the Communist Party all the more popular and a created a middle class that is more concerned about its own well-being and national power than issues such as universal human rights.) There has also been a de-emphasis of Marxist ideology that had once instilled Chinese with a sense of brotherhood with the rest of the world—especially with the Third World. During the Mao era, China made common cause with North Vietnam, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and many ‘revolutionary struggles’ in Latin America, Middle East, and Africa. But by the late 70s, China was at war with communist Vietnam, and the new pragmatism focused on economic development IN China than exporting Chinese-style revolution to other places.
In the late 70s and early 80s, any Chinese student visiting the US, Europe, or even the Soviet Union, would have noted the sheer backwardness of China–not least due to the double disasters of the Great Leap Foward(economic catastrophe costing up to 40 million lives from 1959 to 1962)and the so-called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that unleashed gangs of Mao fanatics to run around smashing things, burning books, and beating up ‘intellectuals’.
Though the Chinese Communist Party taught an entire generation of Chinese that the Chinese people had finally stood up with the communist victory in 1949, the fact remained—to any honest Chinese at least—that China in the late 70s and early 80s was one crummy place. In some ways, the economic situation was no better than it had been in the early 50s. So, Chinese couldn’t help but feel a certain humility and shame. They had so much catching up to do. Even the economies of Taiwan and tiny Hong Kong and Singapore were many times more impressive than the moribund economy of China. If Chinese back then felt any pride, it was wounded pride borne of the realization that they would probably have to ‘work hard’ for many decades or even centuries to catch up with the West. During the Great Leap Forward, Mao had boasted that China could catch up to the West in less than a decade. The Chinese of the 80s were far more cautious. And they could be honest in their assessment of China’s weaknesses because the pragmatic Deng Xiaoping himself admitted to China’s serious problems and even encouraged certain kinds of ‘constructive criticism’. Admitting China’s backwardness and failures was no longer a ‘crime against socialism’.
It was during this time when relations between the US and China seemed most cordial and mutually respectful. It also helped that the Cold War was still on; China’s move toward capitalist reform—and its dramatic economic rewards—was a great propaganda coup for the West(then led by Reagan and Thatcher) against not only the orthodox communism of Eastern Bloc nations but against dyed-in-the-wool leftist intellectuals dominant in the West(who had argued socialism/communism was the better development model for the Third World).
But, many leftists in the West also welcomed reforms in China for reasons of their own: (1) it was proof that communist leadership could be humane and self-critical (2) Western leftists had lost faith in dogmatic Marxism by the late 70s. So, the new China of the 80s was appealing to both the Right and Left in the West. For the Right, it meant China was sensibly moving away from leftism and adopting capitalism. For the Left, it meant leftist regimes could be pragmatic and self-improving. (Gorbachev’s reforms were likewise appealing to people across the ideological spectrum in the West. For the Right, it was admittance that communism wasn’t working; for the Left, it was proof that communism could reform itself and have a human face.)
China was so far behind in the 80s that no one predicted as dramatic a rise that the world has witnessed through the 90s and 2000s. Especially after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, many observers feared China would slip back to the old days and cut itself from the rest of the world. During the 80s, many thought a newly reformed Soviet Union, far ahead of China in industry and technology, was better positioned to make the great leap into both freedom and prosperity.
Also, many Americans, from experts to man-on-the-street, regarded high-tech Japan—seemingly poised to buy up the entire world—as the number one threat to the world order dominated by the democratic West since the end of WWII.
People expected growth in China but nothing like what really took place. Once again, the lesson of history is one should never try to predict the future. Since the 90s, the Soviet Union broke apart, and Russia, though a major player in natural resources, has yet to get its act together. (If current demographic trends continue, we might have to write off a Christian Slavic Russia.)
Last year, Japan has been surpassed by China as the second biggest economy in the world. Remember that throughout the 80s, China, with over 1 billion people, had an economy smaller than that of Canada, a nation of 25 million people. Though on a per capita basis, China is still far behind the advanced world, it has catapulted into genuine major world power status. When Nixon met Mao, China’s bigness and importance were more posturing than real power. It couldn’t exert its power outside its borders. All the money spent on Africa failed to produce pro-Chinese regimes. Pro-Chinese Cambodia fell to pro-Soviet Vietnam. Latin American guerillas preferred allegiance to USSR than to China(with a few exceptions, especially the movement that would later come to be known as Sandero Luminoso in Peru, but then Abimael Guzman’s movement had ideological ties to Maoism than political ties to Deng’s China that had no interest in exporting the Chinese brand of Marxism).
Anyway, many Western observers find alarming the rise of a new kind of nationalism in China. To be sure, there was a strong element of nationalism during the Mao era, which was one of the main reasons for the breakup of the Sino-Soviet alliance. Chinese Communists emphasized how they had liberated China from foreign imperialists. Even so, Chinese nationalism during the Mao era was, ideologically anyway, defined in relation to worldwide struggles of non-whites against European imperialism, of which Soviet Union was seen as a participant. But it was more talk than walk. Though there were Maoist-inspired movements around the world, most revolutionary groups realized China couldn’t offer the level of aid provided by the USSR. Most Third World leaders chose to lean either to the USSR or the US, remain neutral, or play both sides. In some cases, a nation might be politically closer to the USSR but economically closer to the US, or vice versa. Ideologically, Labour-ruled Israel was closer to Soviet Union, but economically and politically aligned with the US. The most startling realignment in international power dynamics was, of course, when China and US recognized one another in the early 70s—partly in recognition of the USSR as their common enemy. Though China was ideologically closer to the Soviet Union, it became politically closer to the US.
That world of yesterday now seems foreign to us. The mighty Soviet Union utterly collapsed in the early 90s while once dirt-poor totalitarian China has undergone massive transformations(to eventually become a gigantic imperial version of Singapore). Back then, China’s main threat to the West was perceived to be ideological but never economic. Mao’s China could barely feed itself–and that was on a good year. What the West feared was that the Chinese Communist revolutionary model of guerilla warfare would inspire anti-Western radicals all over the Third World. Many Americans feared communist victory in Vietnam for that very reason.
Since the 80s, China has stopped calling for world revolution, and indeed few Third World movements today seem to be inspired by Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, or Castro-ism. There’s the Che Guevara cult but more as a pop cultural icon—along with Coca-Cola and Starbucks—than as a coherent ideology. So from China, there is less talk; but there is more walk. With its considerable trade surpluses and expanded role in global affairs, China has made business deals and alliances all over the world, sometimes in competition or conflict with American interests(or more precisely, Jewish-American interests, though, to be sure, the rise of China has been very good for Jewish power in some ways. What Jews have hoped to do most is cause rifts within the goy community so that it can’t rise against the Jew. When most American manufacturing companies hired American workers, there had been some degree of unity and understanding between American employers and American employees—most of them goyim. But once American companies sent their factories abroad, there is no longer any national economic unity between employers and employees. Thus, there is no longer much political or social unity between the white employer class and white employee class. And once companies could ship their factories abroad, even patriotic companies had to follow suit since they could not compete with companies hiring dirt cheap labor in places like Mexico and China. To be sure, foreign auto companies are defacto required to build factories and hire American workers to sell cars in the US, but even here, American workers are working for foreigners than for American employers. Jews love to divide and rule the world this way. The thing Jews hate most is any sign of unity among the goy majority in any nation where Jews are prominent). There have been discussions of China as the new colonizer of Africa, and some observers fear China is working closely with enemies of the US, such as Venezuela and especially Iran. China, as a major player in the UN along with Russia, has sometimes foiled NATO interests. Observers say none of this would be so alarming if China were democratic, whereby government power would be checked by the people. But, as it stands, China’s rulers seem to be employing a new nationalism to maintain their own power and to concentrate the collective energies of the Chinese toward an agenda that could very well threaten the current balance of power around the world. (It is somewhat more complicated by the power-vanity of the Chinese people themselves. Though every Chinese may want more freedom and rights for himself, he may well believe that increased freedoms and rights for all Chinese might lead to a nation of squabbling fatheads. Chinese are probably aware, to some degree, that they are a petty people and not very good at working toward a common goal. Thus, a strong hand is necessary to hold China together. You gotta break some eggs to make egg foo young. So, even though no Chinese wants to be pushed around by the government, they might tolerate and even support the government’s pushing around other people if it leads to greater power and glory for China as a whole. Also, the lack of trust among Chinese means that Chinese don’t trust other Chinese with more power. Chinese mentality is ‘more freedom and rights for me but not for others’. Since everyone thinks this way, there is no real freedom and rights for everyone.)
To be sure, the current leadership in China seems well aware of the dangers of playing with nationalism. When it burns out-of-control, the very people who ignited the flames can get burnt. European leaders at the outset of World War I hoped to spread and harness the fires of nationalism for their own aggrandizement, but the war led to the downfall of the Russian Tsar and the German Kaiser. It didn’t do much good for the democracies either. Both UK and France fell into economic depression and gloom-n-doom.
Japanese elite instilled militant Emperor Worship among the unwashed masses, from whom arose fanatical groups of officers who pushed Japan toward ever more dangerous foreign ventures. More recently, George W. Bush harnessed the new nationalism in the wake of 9/11 and declared the so-called War on Terror, something so wasteful, costly, and frustrating that it brought down the American Right. (Bush thought to emulate FDR and Churchill but went out more like Tsar Nicholas.)
So, the Chinese leadership fully understands the danger of the game they’re playing. Consider two incidents—US bombing of Chinese embassy in Serbia and the collision of Chinese fighter jet with American spy plane—that were both exploited by and deeply worrying to Beijing. On the one hand, Beijing found an ace in its hand. It could portray China as the aggrieved party in relation to the hypocritical US that preached human rights around the world while killing innocent people and/or violating the territorial integrity of other nations. So, the Chinese government fanned the flames of nationalism. But things got out of control, with mobs of Chinese hurling bricks at the US embassy; some even called for retaliatory attacks on the US. Given the relative weakness of China and its dependence on exports to the US, this sort of nationalism could have led to disaster for China. If China were to break ties with the US, its economy would sink, undermining the government’s legitimacy that lies in its ability to deliver economic growth. A war with the US would be a disaster for China. Though US wouldn’t be able to invade China, it would control the air space and bomb the hell out of China while China wouldn’t even be able to mount a counter-offensive on US bases in Japan and Taiwan. And so, the Chinese leadership carefully stokes the fire of nationalism for political advantage while knowing all too well that it must not rage out of control.
In the modern era, wars have often been fought among entire peoples than among the elites and their armies, which was precisely what made World War I so horrible. It was a ‘total war’. To be sure, not all modern wars have been total wars. The American invasion of Iraq and NATO attacks on Libya—and the ensuring overthrow of Gaddafi—were essentially global elitist wars engineered by Zionist elites that now control Western governments. Though Iraq War was hyped as a global operation—and though it was very costly to America and its allies(and of course to the Iraqis and peoples in neighboring nations)—, it didn’t directly impact the lives of most people of the nations—especially the US and UK—that led the invasion. Especially with modern technology, the modern West is now able to execute war plans with far smaller troops. Much of the combat operations in Afghanistan are being carried out by aerial drones. It’s difficult to imagine the US—or just about any modern nation—getting involved in something like a drawn-out trench warfare that took place in World War I in Europe. Indeed, the only wars of that nature following World War II were the Korean Conflict(that pitted UN forces led by United States against Communist forces manned mostly by the Chinese and supplied by the Soviets) and the Iran-Iraq War that raged through the 80s where the Western-backed Iraq under Saddam Hussein fought a brutal total war with Iran for nearly a decade. Even so, the Korean Conflict wasn’t defined in terms of US vs China but US and China aiding their respective allies on the peninsula. So, the only true total war between two nations after WWII was the Iran-Iraq War(that would claim up to a million lives). The two wars between Israel and Arabs were too short and too easily/decisively won by the former to qualify as total wars. Especially with the threat of nuclear weapons and the interconnectedness of global trade, there is less likelihood of total wars among (especially major)nations than in yrs past.
One could argue that the Age of the Total War lasted from WWI to WWII and for several reasons: (1) autocratic manipulation of popular passions in ‘mass societies’; fearful of the rise of people power in Russia and Germany, the elites sought to control mass passions by invoking nationalism. (2) immaturity of mass democracy in democratic nations; though autocratic Germany and Russia were mainly to blame for WWI, there were plenty of naive fools and cunning elites in the democratic West who gladly beat the drums of war. (3) the anxiety of imperialism in the age of nationalism; rise of nationalism threatened the breakup of empires among both democratic and autocratic powers, and war served as a convenient excuse and exercise to justify calls for greater unity throughout the empire. Paradoxically, empires sought to ‘nationalize’ imperialism(ruling over diverse peoples), with Brits appealing to non-Britons in India and Africa to fight for the motherland; similarly, the French appealed to Francophone unity among its imperial subjects; Ottoman Turks appealed to Muslim unity among their Arab subjects. This was all rather confusing. The Ottoman Turks appealed to Muslim unity but was allied with Christian Germany and Austria. The British appealed to imperial unity among the diverse peoples under British rule but fanned the flames of separatist nationalism among the Arabs(as a strategy in fighting the Turks in the Middle East). In the East, Japanese also played both the nationalist and imperialist card. As with the British, nationalism became a kind of imperialism—Japan’s destiny to dominate all of Asia—, and imperialism became a kind of nationalism—the brotherhood of all Asians against the evils of Western imperialism. We can see some of this today within China itself. China, due to its size, population, and diversity, is both a nation and an empire. Though the great majority of Chinese belong to the Han ethnic stock, vast regions in the West are populated by non-Chinese who, to this day, don’t feel Chinese. Chinese too must balance China as a national entity and China as an imperial enterprise.
Total Wars were more likely in the past when national boundaries had yet to be clearly demarcated. It was no accident that WWI began in the Balkans, a place of rising nationalism but indeterminate borders. And the triggers that led to WWII were the unresolved problems of the Versailles Treaty that left many Germans bitter and angry. And China became the ground for total war between itself and Japan because, following the period of imperialist domination, China seemed divided or, at best, weakly united. When a nation seems like a no man’s land, everyone wants a piece or all of it. For centuries, no nation dared to take on what was perceived to be massive and mighty China. But once the major powers smelled blood in the 19th century, they were lining up to get their piece of the Cathay cake. In the 20th century, Japan thought it could have it all.
Also, prior to the end of WWII, there were many more major players in the global power struggle, which made things more dangerous. After WWII, the only two major players—or ‘superpowers’—were the US and USSR(and after the fall of the latter, only the US). But up to the end of the WWII, the world had at least six major powers: British Empire, French Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Union, and the United States. The British controlled the seas and 1/4 of the world. French weren’t far behind in terms of the size of its empire. Nazi Germany was the most fearsome continental power by the late 30s. Stalin had transformed backward Russia into an industrial giant. Japan, though hardly comparable to Western powers or Soviet Union, was the premier power in Asia and seemed unstoppable in its invasion of China and Southeast Asia. United States had established itself as a world power in WWI and after WWII, it was unquestionably the premier power, with only the much damaged Soviet Union as a realistic rival.
Today, the American military is more awesome than ever, and no nation even comes close. Given American involvement in Panama, Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan(and Pakistan), Iraq, and Libya, one could say America is more commanding and aggressive than ever. It’s ironic that people like Hillary Clinton who vociferously opposed the Vietnam War as an act of American imperialism in the 60s/70s are now guffawing like hyenas over NATO’s role in dropping bombs on Libya to take out Gaddafi.
But, depending on how we define ‘America’, one could argue America as a world power is weaker now than ever before. The reasons are economic and demographic. Thanks to globalism, Americans don’t possess the kind of national sovereignty that they once had. Though China is more dependent on globalism for its economic well-being than the US is, China is still a nation of Chinese ruled by Chinese. US, as rich and powerful as it is, cannot be said to be ruled by Americans. The elites of America are American in terms of citizenship, but the meaning of ‘American’ has become so diluted that it’s harder to ascertain what it means to “serve America’s interests”. The elites ruling the current America are globalist Jews, and the main loyalty of any Jew is to fellow Jews—who are spread out all over the world—than to fellow Americans. If any white American thinks an American Jew cares more about white Christians in Alabama than for Jews in Israel, France, or Russia, he or she is a stupid idiot(like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum). Given the nature of Jewish power—derived mainly from globalist networking of ‘cosmopolitan’ elites across the globe made Flat by Jewish policies and agendas—, the paradox of new American power is that America grows richer and more powerful while most Americans(especially white gentile Americans)become less important and less able to control their own destiny. Worse, the so-called Christian Right in the American South—the heartland of American conservatism and GOP support—seems to be more concerned about the interests of Israel(the only nuclear power in the Middle East with by far the biggest economy and most powerful conventional military)—than of their own nation or people. With people that dumb defining the American Right, there’s little hope of any real resurgence of white American power. (And Alternative Right geeks won’t get anywhere with their obscure essays on Carl Schmitt and silly dreams of comic book Nietzscheanism.)
Anyway, even if total wars on the scale of conflicts that engulfed the world in the first half of the 20th century are unlikely in the present and the foreseeable future, the Chinese leadership is anxious to avoid missteps that might lead to an unnecessary war. In the case of the KMT, Chinese nationalism is what both made it and destroyed it. It was through appeals to modern patriotism that Chiang Kai-Shek was able to unite China under the Nationalist banner. It was in the name of nationalism that he drove the ‘foreign-influenced’ communists with ‘an alien ideology’ to the hinterlands. But when Japan encroached further into Chinese territory, enraged patriotic Chinese masses demanded war—though China was woefully under-prepared. Chiang fully understood the nationalist passions of the Chinese people, but he knew that China, as yet, was no match for Japan. He sensed that a full war with Japan would weaken the KMT(the Nationalist Party) while giving a second life for the communists. Mao the communist grasped this too and cynically appealed to broader nationalism—a coalition government—for the common good of fighting Japanese imperialists in the name of Chinese unity. As Stalin appealed to Russian nationalism during WWII, Mao and the communists were willing, at least publicly, to put their ideology aside. Chiang understood it was all a dirty trick, but he had little choice as the Chinese masses, enraged with Japanese aggression, clamored for war in the name of national honor. Nationalism thus both made and unmade Chiang’s regime. Though the KMT held onto power throughout the war with Japan, it had been greatly weakened while communists had regained considerable ground in northern China. In the ensuing Chinese Civil War, the demoralized, disunited, and corrupt Nationalist proved no match to the tightly disciplined and ruthless communists with Soviet backing(thanks to FDR’s outrageous—at least in hindsight—request to the USSR to participate in the Asian war).
In this light, the current leadership in China fully understands that while it’s useful to play the nationalist card, it could also play out against them. Nationalists of all stripes like to win, and nationalism is essentially a matter of pride(or wounded pride; even in defeat, it longs for revenge, as the German Right did after WWI). So, as long as the regime uses nationalism and wins, its legitimacy grows in the eyes of the people. When the military government in Argentina declared war on the Falkland Islands, the majority of Argentinians were with the generals. But when Argentina lost the war, the regime found itself on shaky legs. (The misadventures that led to the disaster in Cyprus also led to the downfall of the Greek military junta.) Mussolini won the admiration of his people when he huffed and puffed about a mighty new Italy and even managed to wrest a few imperial territories from Africa; but when the war began to go badly, Italians hunted him down, shot him, hung him upside down, and pissed on him. Some were angry with him for the crimes of the Fascist regime, but many more were angry with him for promising national glory but only bringing national disaster. Gaddafi too deftly played on Libyan nationalism in the 70s, but when he got overly vain and ambitious with Libya’s place in the world—and stumbled into one defeat after another(ranging from military to economic to diplomatic)—, he was no longer the national hero of Libya but the tiresome clown prince whom most Libyans wished to get rid of the first chance they got, which they did during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.
Nationalism is especially useful to the leadership in Beijing in the absence of any unifying ideology. Mao is still revered in China but more as a symbol of nationalist pride than for Marxist-Leninist theory. A China committed to economic growth have no choice but to participate in the global ‘free trade’ economy, and it’s been well-understood since Deng that the green cat of capitalism works better than the red cat of communism.
For the masses of Chinese who remain poor and have few economic opportunities, nationalist consciousness affords them a illusory sense of riches and power through identification. Even a dirt poor Chinese man or woman looking up at skyscrapers dotting the big cities of China FEELS a part of something grand and mighty even if he or she has no personal stake in any of it. Nationalism is also what maintains loyalty among the creative, intellectual, and educated classes. By nature, artists and thinkers—especially in the modern era—have questioned or subverted the status quo and/or the powers-that-be. But as the behavior of European intellectuals during WWI and Japanese intellectuals during WWII indicates, the nationalist card has the power to bring many of them ‘home’. Even socialists in France and German abandoned universal brotherhood and volunteered to fight for the motherland or fatherland. Many leftist intellectuals in Japan pledged loyalty to the government in the 30s and 40s. Part of the reason was the latent patriotism of the heart, but the other reason tended to be of a defensive/bitter than aggressive/proud nature. French socialists sincerely believed that Germany was in the wrong(and still smoldered over beatings France took from Bismarck), and German socialists likewise felt that the Great Powers were unfairly closing in on a peace-loving Germany that had a right to its place in the sun. Many Japanese leftists believed that the West—even Western liberals—would never give Asians a fair chance or treat them as true equals. Their nationalism was a kind of leftist-nationalism: Japan and Asia against Western imperialist domination. Whatever their misgivings about the right-wing military government, Japanese leftist intellectuals—many of whom had been abroad and witnessed the hypocrisy of Western democracies—saw Japan/Asia as the underdog in the struggle against the exploitative West.
In a similar vein, even Chinese intellectuals who are critical of the current regime—and worried about the dangers of nationalism—tend to be defensive and touchy when it comes to Chinese honor, pride, and place in the sun. Because of the history of humiliation at the hands of foreigners in the 19th and 20th century, Chinese intellectuals have a knee-jerk tendency to see every criticism of China as unfair, hostile, insulting, malicious, and/or hypocritical. (Also, the sense among the Chinese that while their nation is a big and important, they themselves are mostly small, scrawny, and ugly is a matter of shame. In the major events in the Olympics—swimming and track—, Chinese really sucked. Chinese are a small people in a big country, midgets in giant clothing, and this has been psychologically frustrating. In contrast, the proud, tall, and good-looking Germans were a big people in a relatively small nation,—a giant in midget clothing—and that drove the rage for Lebensraum during WWII. Jews have their own craziness since they are smarter than any people but mostly live in goy nations. Jews feel like the midget-man controlling the giant in MAD MAX: BEYOND THE THUNDERDOME. Jews are the brains of America, goyim are the body of America. It’s important for Jews to keep the brains of the goyim dormant and obedient because an awakened goy brain may well resent the manipulative power of the Jewish midget-man who controls the goy’s actions. Since white goyim have been the main body of America, the brainy Jewish midget-man has lobotomized him and castrated his balls and cut off his penis and replaced it with black penis and balls to fuc* the white pussy. This is how the hideous Jews operate.) So, when the West talks about global warming(or climate change) or human rights, even Chinese intellectuals and dissidents are likely to see them as dirty Western ploys to undermine Chinese economic development. Because of the historical context of Chinese perceptions, Chinese are often blind to their own rudeness, nastiness, vileness, and disgustingness. If we criticize the barbaric Chinese treatment of animals, Chinese see it as an attack on their cultural pride; instead of thinking about the cruelty of skinning cats and dogs alive, Chinese say Westerners are hypocrites since the latter eat more meat than any other peoples on Earth. Worse, underlying Chinese defensiveness borne of wounded pride is a profound Middle Kingdom arrogance that goes back many centuries. In many ways, the wounded pride of an entity that considers itself great is the most dangerous kind of pride. A wounded squirrel just sees itself as a wounded squirrel but a wounded lion sees itself the rightful King of the Jungle brought down low. A wounded squirrel feels itself wronged but has no claim on domination and wounding other animals. A wounded lion not only feels it has been wronged but seeks to restore itself as the rightful ruler of jungle by hurting others. German nationalism increasingly became dangerous because the ideology of ‘Aryanism’ and/or Teutonism didn’t merely seek a place in the sun but the central place in the sun. Such arrogance not only led to WWI but vengeful hatred after defeat that led to WWII. The German Right couldn’t accept the defeat and humiliation since it believed Germans to be the superior and rightful masters of Europe. German Right fell into a wounded lion complex. Hitler demanded more than redress for the wrongs done to the German people by ‘stab in the back’ and the Versailles Treaty. He wanted total revenge, to be followed by total war and total victory—rightful in his mind—for the German nation and the ‘Aryan’ race. It took the utter and total defeat in WWII to convince all Germans—even the most deranged far-right lunatics—that they are human like everyone else and not part of some god-hero race.
The ferocity of American war on Japan also owed something to the wounded lion complex. It’s bad for any nation to be suckerpunched by another, but the idea of scrawny buck-toothed bow-legged yellow bastards attacking the mighty and noble nation of Anglo-Americans was just too much. So, Americans didn’t merely want to defeat Japan but to totally fuc* it up the ass to show who’s boss. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in the American psyche was akin to a Negro raping a white man’s daughter in the Old Deep South. It wasn’t merely a crime but an affront to the order of the universe.
Though wars bring out the murderousness of any nation, there’s a difference between ruthlessness to win and sadism to punish. The latter rears its ugly face when a power/people feel that the just order of the universe—according to its creed, prejudices, or biases of course—has been violated. Part of the reason for Japan’s brutal insanity in Nanking owed something to the affront posed by the Chinese resistance that violated, even desecrated, (1) the Japanese supremacist conceit that Chinese were too cowardly and weak to fight and (2) the moralistic narrative that Japanese were helping Asian brethren against Western imperialism. Chinese resistance and refusal to surrender angered the Japanese both racially and morally. How dare the gimpy sick-man-of-Asia ‘chinks’ dare to take on the noble and mighty Japanese? How ungrateful of them ‘chinks’ to wage war on the Japanese who were only trying to save them from evil white imperialists? So, when the ‘lowly chinks’ put up stiff resistance and insulted Japanese as ‘midget devils’, Japanese went crazy—or crazier than they were already crazy to begin with.
Anyway, if Germans and Japanese—as well as the British, French, and Russians—learned their lesson of humility from either the defeat in WWII or loss of empire(the end of the Cold War was essentially the fall of the Russian Empire), Jews and Chinese feel otherwise. (Most shockingly, the once mighty American Wasps, regarded as the most powerful, proud, and glorious people at the end of WWII, have also joined the list of eternally defeated peoples. Unlike Germans or Japanese, Wasps didn’t lose with a bang with but with a whimper. With their blend of naive do-goodiness and moral sanctimony, it was only a matter of time before the cunning Jews would used the game of social psychology to shame the Wasps for the crimes of ‘slavery’, ‘genocide’, ‘racism’, etc. Today, your average Wasp may be well-off in socio-economic terms—just like your average Japanese or German—, but he is morally and psychologically just as defeated and pitiful; he is a pathetic pussyboy servant-slave of Jews, Negroes, and gays.) So, that only leaves the Jews and Chinese as the final two peoples standing as masters of the world. Though Jews suffered humiliation through many centuries in their diaspora and then were suffered the great calamity of the Holocaust, they not only rebounded with their use of superior intelligence to take control of the United States(and other Western nations) but their greatest defeat, the Holocaust, came to serve as a moral weapon for their worldly power and moral arrogance. We say Germans and Japanese were defeated in WWII as evil villains. In contrast, Jews were beaten in the WWII as holy victims. There is shameful defeat and there is prideful defeat. Jews were beaten but by the bad guys. Jews have gained moral power and the justification for their power grab because the Holocaust logic or Hologic says, ‘since bad guys beat on Jews, Jews must be the good guys, and since Jews are the good guys, whatever they do is good and anyone who opposes them must be evil.’
Chinese, like the Jews, got beat up real bad during the 20th century. They were humiliated as a nation by foreign powers, especially Japan. And Chinese will never let the British forget about the Opium Wars. Of course, the greatest number of Chinese were killed by Chinese communists, especially during the Great Leap Forward, a kind of ‘accidental genocide’. Mao didn’t intend to kill 30 to 40 million; it just happened! But, the historical rule says ‘mass murder is not so bad if it happens within the people of same nation or race’. Since ‘racism’ is the greatest sin, Chinese killing Chinese was bad but not ‘racist’. So, Chinese killing millions of Chinese is less evil than Southern rednecks killing a single Negro. (To be sure, Jews, who control the media, don’t mind when blacks in South Africa rob, rape, and murder whites. If anything, most Jews seem to take pornographic pleasure in rape and murder of whites by blacks.) Though many Chinese perished during the Mao era, they were victims of ideology and economic policy than of ‘racist hate’, and so the world doesn’t make much of it. (Given the anti-religious nature of liberal Jews who control the media, little is made of the fact that atheist-communist Bolsheviks smashed 50,000 churches and targeted millions of Christian Slavs. Nor do liberal Jews care that Vietnamese and Cambodian communists killed many Buddhists. Religion only matters if synagogues were burnt by Nazis.) And of course, the Chinese government, still ruled by the Communist Party, would rather forget about the mountain of skulls produced during the Mao era.
And so, Chinese defeats since the 19th century are seen as morally prideful defeats of a good people than morally shameful defeats of evil people(such as militarist Japanese or Nazi Germans). Paradoxically, their respective histories of defeats have made the Jews and Chinese ever more hungry for power. Just as the German Right felt wrongly and wrongfully defeated in WWI and used that as moral justification for resurgent nationalism that led to Nazism and WWII—from whose defeat Germans learned a very different kind of lesson—, Jews and Chinese look back on history and feel that they’d been wrongly and wrongfully defeated too many times, and that ‘fact’ has especially ennobled them and justified, for all their time, their claim to great power. If the Japanese and Germans got from their defeats in WWII a sense of ‘we learned our lesson’, the Chinese and Jews got ‘we earned the right to teach the world a lesson.’ As far as the Jews are concerned, they were total innocents rounded up and killed by insane and irrational anti-Semites. Though the Holocaust cannot be justified on any ground, part of the reason why many Europeans hated Jews was because Jews were indeed vile and hateful—as many of them are today, even more so than in the past. (No Jew in the 1930s would have dared wipe the faces of white males in interracist porn. Today, Jews do that openly and much worse. If white people in the past overreacted to Jewish foulness, white people today don’t lift a finger to turn the tide of open sewage Jewish attack on the white race. If Nazis in the 30s exaggerated the Jewish befoulment of white women, it should be obvious today to any white person that your average Jew is like James Toback who takes pleasure in the Jewish-Negro alliance to pussify every white male and jungle-feverize every white female. Many of Hitler’s views were indeed extreme and irrational in the 20s and 30s, but many of them have been made valid today by the actions of Jews themselves. Jews want your daughters, wives, and girlfriends to put out to people like Kanye West and Mandingo. In the 1970s, Jews gave us ROOTS and the HOLOCAUST television series. Whatever one thinks of them artistically or historically, they were at the very least moral cases, and as such, with a certain redeeming quality. But Jews are now beyond moral presentation and argument. Through movies like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and the upcoming MANDINGO movie from Tarantino, Jews are not merely trying to right past wrongs but out to totally insult and humiliate white people. It’s about the sadistic and cruel joy of Jews and blacks to beat the shit out of whites and sexually conquer white women. The evil scum Jew has finally come out of the closet, but white people do nothing. Though white passivity in the face of Jewish aggression seems strange, it all makes sense. Why have all the homos been coming out of the closet since the 90s? Because the media and popular culture taken over by Jews reversed the moral values of America whereby homosexuality became wonderful while opposing the gay agenda became ‘sick’ and ‘homophobic’. Similarly, Jews had been afraid to come out of the closet of Jewish Supremacist foulness in the past because most white Americans had pride in their racial, cultural, and historical heritage. If Jews had acted in the past as they’re doing today, white Americans would have kicked them all out, and rightfully so. But since the rise of political correctness, most white Americans now feel shame in their race, history, and culture. They’ve been made to worship Holocaustianity and regard MLK as holier than Jesus and bigger than God. For proof of this, consider that it’s okay for comedians to make fun of God and Jesus but no one dares to say anything even mildly critical about Michael King, aka Martin Luther King, Jr. And young whites of both sexes have grown up addicted to rap music and interracist porn. The reason why the full force of Jewish foulness is now coming out of the closet is because Jews finally feel safe. They know they own and control the hearts and minds of white goyim. If Jews say white women should put out to Negroes, most white males applaud either because they’re castrated pussyboys like Ken Burns or because they are so deathly afraid of being called a ‘racist’. Jews psychologically own white people; since mind controls the body, white people are the mental slave-sheep of Jews. And so, Jewesses like Sarah Silverman act the way they do. If Anne Frank were alive today, she would be as foul a creature as Silverman or Natalie Portman. It’s no wonder Jews identify with gays. They both worked together to undermine a healthy and normal white majority America so they could come out of the closet and openly spew and spread their vile filth all over.)
The real lesson to take from the Holocaust is not only that radical antisemitism is crazy, but Jewish foulness can drive people to do crazy things. Look all around, and the stuff that Jews are doing—financial robbery, control of media, interracist genocide against the white race, use of white women as sex meat, subversion of mainstream majority culture, etc—validate some of the points of Hitler’s MEIN KAMPF. Though Hitler was a nut and his book is a nasty piece of work, his foulness was partly a counter-foulness against Jewish foulness. To really understand Hitler’s madness, one has to understand the madness of the Jews. A mad dog like Hitler needs to be put down, but we also need to ask why it became mad in the first place. Antisemitism was partly a rational reaction to the danger posed by hideous Jews on the goy community. If Chinese had a right to resist Japanese colonialist rule, Europeans had every right to resist alien Jewish infiltration-ist takeover of their institutions.
Jews act like the HIV virus. Jews infiltrate a goy civilization and undermine its immune system from within. Look what Jews have done to American immigration policy, cultural policy, and racial policy, etc. Jews, in their path to Jewish Supremacist power, use the ruse of moralism to hide their true agenda. So, they undermined white power in the name of combating ‘racism’ and helping the noble saintly Negro. So, they expanded non-white immigration in the name of helping America realize its ideal of being a ‘proposition nation’. So, they’ve pushed radical feminism in the name of sexual equality when the real agenda was to drive a wedge between white males and white females. It was thanks to the Jewish virus that the once proud and mighty white people lost their immune system and became helpless against attacks from all sides. The problem of Nazism was it was an overreaction of the immune system against the Jewish virus to the point that it even rejected healthy, decent, and brilliant aspects of Jewish culture and contribution. In its paranoid extremism, German culture under Nazism became sterile in its ultra-antisepticism. An immune system that works overtime to reject everything but itself is bound to break down.
If Chinese had any sense, they’d easily realize why China found itself helpless against foreign powers. While it’s true that modern Chinese have been critical of old ‘feudal’ ways, their historical narrative of poor helpless China set upon by vicious imperialist wolves is way too simple-minded. Worse, the Chinese Communist Party won’t allow the Chinese people to learn that the greatest crime perpetrated on the Chinese people in the 20th century was by none other than Mao and his fellow crazy Chinese. (Of course, Chinese parents and grandparents know what happened during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, but they support the ‘patriotic education’ taught in Chinese schools because their main dream is for China to become a great power. If national pride and unity are what it takes, then why dredge up the dark past of communist rule when all it might do is make young people lose faith in their country? Maybe there’s some truth to these fears. After all, the cult of self-loathing among American whites has led to their downfall. Moderation is best. Be critical of the past but don’t let past sins collectively and eternally define your people. Otherwise, you end up like white Americans who are being literally and figuratively raped by Jew and Negroes.) Also, how difficult is it for Chinese to understand that boiling cats alive is not civilized behavior? And that only vile barbarians skin dogs alive and eat dog meat. That a high civilization like China does stuff like this should be a matter of great shame. Anyway, the point is Chinese foulness is what made China so sick, weak, and helpless against foreign invaders. (It should also be pointed out that China had been under foreign rule of the Manchus—the Ch’ings—since the 17th century. So, even before white imperialists circled over the Chinese carcass, the Chinese had been conquered and humiliated for two centuries. It should also be pointed out that China was slow to resist Western imperialists precisely because it was under foreign rule of the Manchus. Manchus were loathe to appeal to Chinese nationalism to drive out the ‘foreign devils’ since Chinese nationalism might also lead to the overthrow of the Manchu-dominated Ch’ing dynasty itself. Manchus feared Chinese nationalism in the same way that American Jews fear white American national consciousness. Of course, modern Chinese education doesn’t treat Ch’ing rule as foreign occupation since doing so would suggest that Manchuria is not really a part of China. Indeed, if Chinese had their way, they would have claimed Mongolia as part of China too; the only reason Mongolia became an independent nation is because of Russian-Soviet interference. When Chinese say Manchus are Chinese too, it sounds big-hearted, but it’s just a way of laying claim to Manchuria—in the way that Japanese say the hairy Ainu are Japanese. But Manchurians and Chinese have interacted for long enough that most people in Manchuria do see themselves as Chinese, so there’s no problem with that.)
Anyway, given the nature of China’s historical defeats—as righteous victims—since the Opium Wars, Chinese have never felt guilty or apologetic about their power. Sure, Chinese have done horrible things, but those were mostly to fellow Chinese. Though much has been made of the sad history of the Tibetans under Chinese rule, Chinese are probably correct that it’s less a moral than a political issue in the West. If it weren’t for the Shangri-La mythology around the endearing Dalai Lama and the human-rights-as-political-weapon employed by the West, Chinese mistreatment of Tibetans would hardly be an issue. After all, Chinese haven’t treated the Uighurs any better, but who cares about those Muslims in Western China. Islam simply isn’t as cool as Buddhism—at least among global culturalists—in the West. If Uighurs were Buddhists and Tibetans were Muslims, Americans would probably be more sympathetic to Uighurs.
As for the issue of human rights, United States is no doubt a far freer and more just nation than China, and there is no doubt US has played a central role in the defeat of both Nazism/Japanese militarism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But because the human rights issue has been used politically—which is to say selectively—too often, US doesn’t have much credibility left. After all, why is it wrong for China to occupy and mistreat Tibetans but perfectly okay for Israeli Jews to do the same to Palestinians? Why did the West a cut a deal with the loathsome Gaddafi only to turn the tables on him? Why did US back the brutal Saddam Hussein the Iran-Iraq War—though Hussein had been the Hitler-like aggressor in the war—only to turn against him when he invaded Kuwait? If Iraq was wrong to attack Kuwait, why had it been right to attack Iran? Of course, there was the logic of shifting national interest behind the American foreign policy—and sometimes it was sound even on moral grounds. But to the extent that US makes so much noise about lofty ideals and human rights, moral consistency is not America’s strongest suit. Apartheid in South Africa was wrong, we were told, and the ANC weren’t terrorists but freedom fighters. But in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jews are good decent people—survivors of the Holocaust—while Palestinian freedom fighters are the terrorists. (Americans fumed about how Palestinians were celebrating publicly when 9/11 happened but given the context of what Palestinians had suffered under Zionist imperialism backed by America, why shouldn’t they have been cheering? Besides, Jews were cheering too, at least behind closed doors, as they knew 9/11 would lead America to fight Wars for Israel. How many Americans wept when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, killing not just a few thousands but over 100,000? Americans felt justified and cheered wildy when Japan surrendered following the nukings because of Pearl Harbor. So, why shouldn’t Palestinians have cheered wildly when NY and Washington were struck? What was a greater humiliation for a nation/people? The Japan’s military attack on Pearl Harbor or the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Zionist Jews backed by hypocritical Americans? Yet, Americans who call what they did in WWII ‘the good war’ demean and slander Palestinians as subhuman terrorists. It’s all the funnier when we consider that no group hates white Americans more than Jewish Americans do.)
Though there are crucial differences between the nature of the Chinese elite and the nature of the Jewish elite(in America)—namely the fact that Chinese elites rule over Chinese while Jewish elites rule over gentiles or goyim—, they do have one thing in common: a deep fear of the masses. For thousands of years, Chinese rulers have tended to be pompous but petty and paranoid, and this hasn’t really changed in the modern era. The rigid hierarchy-ism of Chinese civilization fostered the belief that (1) wise kings advised by educated scholars must rule; in practice this meant most of the power was hogged by a bunch of know-it-alls who actually didn’t know all that much except the pompous teachings of Confucius; in time, it dawned on the king and his ‘wise’ advisors that nothing really works like bold lies and naked power, and so they used them. (2) The masses are stupid and brutish and must be controlled, mercilessly if possible; it’s no wonder that there arose the concept of Oriental Despotism with Ming the Merciless types; though the Chinese exam system was ideally open to everyone, only a few could afford to study for the exams, and so most people remained ignorant and illiterate; as such, they were deemed unfit to have any kind of power; they had to be ruled, often like cattle. Even so, the idealized hope that anyone could take the exam and rise socially served as a kind of social opiate for the masses; psychologically at least, they thought their children might socially rise and better themselves even if this was, in actual social terms, highly unlikely. It was an egalitarian bone thrown to the masses by the elites. Similarly, the Western elites promote the cult of egalitarianism not to be equal with the people but to pacify the people with the hope of a better future. At any rate, the Chinese Dream was never to succeed as a member of the people but to rise ABOVE the people. The American Dream has been for all Americans to live the good life; Chinese concept of the good life has traditionally meant only a few will attain it, and so it fostered ruthless, cunning, and corrupt competition to secure a place in good society for one’s own children. In the West, parents want their children to do better, but everyone has a modicum of pride for what he is. So, if a plumber’s son becomes a doctor or lawyer, all the better, but the plumber-parent doesn’t feel shame for being a plumber. In East Asia, so much prestige, honor, and power was hogged by the scholar-bureaucrat-class that people outside that circle felt lowly and scuzzy. It was like the educated class hogged all the glory and pride. American parents want their kids to do better simply because better is better; Chinese parents wanted their kids to do better to redeem the family name made shameful by being of lower status. In China, the people who generally made the most money were the merchants, but Confucius said merchants are greedy and no good. So, successful merchants felt pretty shitty; they had the dough but no honor, no pride. And so they drove their kids to study to become scholar-bureaucrats. Chinese culture has been defined by ancestor-worship and descendant-hope. One honors the ancestors who ‘sacrificed’ for the family and one sacrifices oneself for the future of one’s children. Individualism is unlikely in a culture where one feels so closely linked to both the past and future. Children must sacrifice their own freedom and happiness and ‘work hard’ at success since the parents are ‘toiling so hard’ to make life better for one’s children. Take the movie GOOD EARTH where the whole story is about people working like crazy all night and day ‘for the family’. Or take the JOY LUCK CLUB—horrible movie—where the mothers dump all the guilt trip on the daughters. In the film EMPEROR AND THE ASSASSIN, a high-ranking bureaucrat says he’s willing to accept death as sacrifice because he can die happily in the knowledge that HIS son will be emperor of China. If Jewish mothers and Jewish sons have some sense of humor to alleviate some of the neurosis, Chinese seem to be utterly earnest in their sado-masochism-of-responsibility. (3) Order and continuity are of paramount importance—so much so that brutality is to be favored over morality to maintain the status quo; the cult of continuity owes something to Chinese ancestor worship, the idea that the worth of a man is determined by his fealty to his ancestors. It may also owe something to East Asian genetics that favor consensus over conflict, communalism over individualism; though communists waged war on traditional culture, Mao himself ruled as another emperor, and in many ways, his new order was more oppressive and merciless than ones of the past. (4) Never trust no one; Chinese people are obsessed with manners; good manners are of course a good thing, but the Chinese cult of manners favor form over character. If you’ve seen NOBLE HOUSE, you’ll have noticed how the Chinese say all the right things while secretly doing all the wrong things.I wouldn’t trust a Chinaman any more than I would trust a Jew. Chinese don’t even trust one another. Not that Jews trust one another, but since Jews have long been minorities in gentile majority lands, they’ve learned to work more closely together—because Jews had to pull their resources and energies against goyim; similarly, the close-knit Chinatowns are the features of Chinese communities abroad. Even so, Jews, possibly due to Western influence, seem to be at least capable of bigger thoughts and emotions—for the good of the whole(if at least only among Jews)—than the Chinese are. Chinese are a very petty people, and it is this pettiness that will probably prevent them from becoming a true world power. Confucius stressed manners as the outward manifestation of good character. If a man is good on the inside, he would want to cultivate himself, and eventually, through education and training, his inner goodness would radiate outward and express itself as good manners. That was the ideal but reality was something quite different. Since China was a brutal and corrupt place, the kind of people who rose to the top were cunning and devious sharks and weasels(of higher intelligence of course). It turned out people with rotten character often covered their greed with the surfeit of virtue. So, Chinese will often act ‘humble’, ‘modest’, ‘kind’, and ‘generous’ on the outside while plotting to poison your food on the inside. Take the character Four Finger Wu in NOBLE HOUSE. He’s always putting on airs as though he’s doing things out of friendship, respect, or loyalty, but he’s really doing for personal gain. Because of the huge discrepancy between the Chinese stress on virtuous manners and the Chinese reality of ruthless dog-eat-doggery, Chinese have learned to be excellent liars. In fact, Chinese society is so saturated in corruption and dirty dealings that Chinese may not even know the difference between right and wrong. Now, doing wrong while acting right is a feature of all societies, but we generally despise it as hypocrisy. Among Chinese, hypocrisy comes all too naturally; indeed, it is a kind of virtue in and of itself. China is a civilization characterized by false humility. As Quinlan Gort says in NOBLE HOUSE, ‘we do things differently here in Hong Kong.’ While some Westerners are turned off by the Chinese way, some are thrilled for the challenges and opportunities that would be checked or ‘stifled’ by ‘cumbersome’ rules and regulations in the West. Of course, one could argue the English have been famous hypocrites—fine-mannered pirates really. Within British society itself, the upper crust put on gentlemanly airs while maintaining a repressive system of class hierarchy, beating up on the Irish(though Irish never needed much help in beating up on themselves), and hunting/lynching poor little foxes. But there was an element of Christian sincerity in British history—indeed one that led to many necessary social reforms and self-criticism. Also, the English language, especially as spoken by the British, favors clarity over mystification. Though English gentlemen could use fine words to get around certain subjects and to put on pompous airs, English language favors forthrightness; you say what you mean, even if you’re careful to put in nicely. This owes something to the nature of the English language itself, what with its many sounds and clipped pronunciations. According to DREAMING IN CHINESE by Debra Fallows, Chinese has only 400 sounds as opposed to 4,000 for English. Therefore, many words in China sound alike, and so Chinese rely on tone far more than English speakers do. For example, one famous Chinese wrote a poem where every word is ‘shi’ though in each case, ‘shi’ means something else. It must some bullshi poem. I suppose it’s like how a cat can only say ‘meow’ but has many ways of saying it, each conveying a different meaning. “Meow” can mean “I’m hungry”, “I love you”, “I feel sad”, “I feel content”, “I wanna go out”, “I wanna come in”, “I hate that dog”, “Look, it’s raining outside”, “This food sucks, gimme something else”, etc. So, the feline psychology isn’t as easily understood as dog psychology. Though one could argue dogs can pretty much only say ‘woof’ or ‘bow wow’, dogs have far more distinct variations to their bark that aren’t merely tonal. Also, the numerics of barking tell us something about what’s on a dog’s mind. If a dog barks only once, it could mean, “I’m bored”. If it barks many times in rapid repetition, it could mean, “there’s a Negro outside, let me go bite his leg.” Because of the limitations of sound in Chinese language, tones matter much more for meaning. So, a word like ‘shi’, depending on its tone, could mean one of more than 40 different meanings—and it may explain why Mandarin sounds ridiculous in with its curvy distended use of vowels. Instead of just ‘shi’, there’s bound to be ‘Shi’, ‘sHi’, ‘shI’, ‘shii’, ‘shui’, ‘shiu’, and etc. Tonal richness may have added an element of artful subtlety to Chinese language, but it could also have made the Chinese less forthright and clear in their meanings. Since tonal control requires a highly developed style of speaking, the Chinese language may be bigger on manner than on meaning or where manner and meaning have become almost interchangeable. So, it’s not so much what you say but how you say that is really important. By this, I don’t necessarily mean verbal skills, which may actually be more important in the West. In the West, speaking well means to make more sense or convey more meaning than the other guy. In China, speaking well may mean understanding and playing by the rules of mannered meanings. Even if you don’t have much to say, you can convey, by your manner of speaking, that you are part of the team and willing to play the game. This is why the Chinese could be sipping tea with you and speaking kindly while plotting to wipe out your entire family. Chinese use words less to express than to conceal one’s true feelings and intentions. Some people use words to undress and render naked what they’re feeling and thinking. Chinese use language to dress their cruel intentions with silk gown. (5) A powerful inferiority complex made worse by a powerful superiority complex. For thousands of years, as rulers and inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom, Chinese have felt proud of their civilization. Also, the Chinese have occupied the core land mass of Asia; it’s been the sun surrounded by smaller satellite kingdoms, many of which paid tribute to China. China felt protected by the ocean from the east, by mountains from the southwest, by jungles from the South, desert and tundra from the northwest. The only real threat to China traditionally came from the Mongolian and Manchurian steppe lands, but as Chinese vastly outnumbered the northern barbarians—who, by the way, looked rather like the Chinese—and since the barbarian invaders often adopted and melted into Chinese culture, the Chinese were confident in their greatness. Even when invaded, China in time swallowed and digested the invaders with its superior numbers and culture. But things began to change in the 19th century with the incursions of the West by sea and rising Russia by land. As China was forcibly opened up and as educated Chinese learned about the superior West, it soon dawned on the Chinese that the Western ‘foreign devils’ in just about superior in every way to the Chinese: in science, math, navigation, medicine, metallurgy, weaponry, literature, music, industry and manufacture, methods of agriculture, philosophy, etc. That big China was helpless against tiny nations like Great Britain and Japan—traditionally seen as a midget kingdom by the Chinese—was all the more humiliating. Many Chinese also began to feel ugly in comparison to Europeans. If Chinese had looked down on Japanese as a race of midgets—so scrawny that they made Chinese feel big—, Europeans were taller and had facial features that were strangely appealing. Also, Western languages sounded better than Chinese. When Chinese only knew Chinese, it sounded natural. But next to English, French, German, and etc, it sounded downright ‘chinky’. Eventually, after several decades of denial, the Chinese swallowed their pride and decided to learn from the superior West. This was both thrilling/liberating and bitter/painful for the Chinese. A people who thought they’d been the center of the world—maybe even the universe—found themselves lagging behind a small island nation called Britain whose peoples had come to dominate much of the world. Thus, Chinese developed a love/hate relationship with the West, especially with Anglos and Anglo-Americans. With the Anglos because it was the English who, by victories in the Opium Wars, exposed China as a decayed civilization ripe for picking. The English would also rule Hong Kong until 1997. Chinese got to know Anglo-Americans through Christian missionaries who arrived with a certain good will. The American John Hay spearheaded the policy that prevented any single power from dominating all of China. It was part idealism and part looking-out-for-America’s-interest. Americans were also the main supporters of China in the war with Japan, and the Soong family that was close to Chiang Kai-Shek had close ties with America. Things got considerably complicated when China fell to the communists, but there had been serious tensions earlier as well. Prior to FDR’s embargo on Japan, America had played a two-faced policy in Asia, on the one hand giving aid to Chiang in a newly unified China while, on the other, accepting Japan’s stake in Manchuria and Taiwan. Through much of the early part of the 20th century, Americans had praised Japan’s civilizing role on rest of Asia while, at the same time, sending supportive signals to Chinese patriots. Chinese were bound to be confused or disillusioned by such mixed signals. The ambiguity of American policy remained during the FDR and Truman years when America was ostensibly on the side of Chiang’s KMT while many in the State Department were actually sympathizers of Mao’s communist movement. There could be no single American policy toward China because power was divided amongst various institutions. The media mogul Henry Luce used his considerable resources to lionize Chiang as the father of his nation. State Department officials insisted Mao was not a hardline communist but a just an agrarian reformer. FDR himself seemed supremely unconcerned with China; even his interest in Japan was as a backdoor to bring the US into the European war. While American missionaries did some good work in China, most Americans thought of Chinese as either the amusing Charlie Chan or the yellow-perilous Fu Man Chu. Through all of this, Chinese formed all sorts of impressions about Americans. From Chinese immigrants who returned from America, they would heard have stories of America as a rich, powerful, and free nation but also stories of America as a white supremacist nation that treated Chinese as a second-class people. Chinese viewed the generosity of American missionaries with both gratitude and shame. Gratitude for the compassion and shame over the fact that China had fallen so low that it depended on the goodwill of ‘foreign devil’ do-gooders. If European imperialists seemed full of fancy airs and snobbery, Americans seemed relatively forthright and direct, allowing for easier communication, moral and emotional, between Chinese and Americans. On the other hand, the Chinese, a rather pompous and snobby people themselves, could also be offended by straightforward American manners and behavior as crude and uncouth. The duality of Chinese-American relations was natural given the upside-down nature of the world in the early part of the 20th century. China, long the premier power of Asia, the great Middle Kingdom, was down in the gutter, carved up by ‘foreign devils’—and not just by tall European lions but by Japanese midget monkeys who emulated the Europeans. Chinese, long used to feeling powerful and great, felt weak and helpless. It was reduced to being a beggar-servant among nations, a victim civilization. America, in contrast, saw itself in the early 20th century as democratic, free, and anti-imperialist. Americans saw the expansion of its power and influence around the world as the spread of freedom and justice. When Americans took the Philippines and Cuba from the Spanish, it wasn’t as imperialists but as liberators—though the natives didn’t necessarily agree. Since the day of the Monroe Doctrine, Americans saw themselves in opposition to the Old World of European kingdoms and imperialist subjugation. After all, America was founded by declaring independence from the British Empire. Of course, the Monroe Doctrine could be seen as a blueprint for America’s own imperialist domination over all of the Americas, and Europeans to this day believe that American anti-imperialism was just a cover for American imperialism—just like the official ideology of egalitarianism advertized by the elites serves as a ruse for greater elitist control of society. Just as Americans insisted on greater American influence around the world for the sake of spreading liberty, elites insist on greater economic, social, and political power for themselves in the interests of spreading equality; it’s the paradox of more inequality in the name of greater equality; this is why the Alternative Right is stupid in its attack on the Left’s egalitarianism; the elites who control the modern left aren’t really pushing egalitarianism but exploiting it to maximize their own power. Anyone who thinks liberals like Bill Gates and George Soros really want to be equal with the rest of us is crazy. If that’s true, why did they work 24/7 to rake in billions? Anyway, the dual nature of American foreign policy was bound to confuse many nations. From the perspective of Japan’s rulers, America was the imperialist power that not only forced Japan open but encouraged it to follow in the footsteps of Americans and imperialist Europeans. So, Japan’s imperialist adventure throughout Asia was something it learned from Americans and Europeans. So, why were Americans suddenly condemning Japanese imperialism in the 1930s? America seemed to be sending mixed signals. Chinese also sensed this. Was America really anti-imperialist and fair to all nations or, when push comes to shove, would white Americans favor fellow whites—the European imperialists—over Chinese? The pluralistic nature of American society—in which central government didn’t have full authority—added to the confusion of the Japanese and Chinese who were used to the central government representing and enacting the interests of the entire nation. One bunch of Americans—even within the same government—seem to suggest ‘this’ while another indicated ‘that’. If China was a great civilization with an ancient pedigree that had fallen into a decrepit state—at least in comparison to the great powers—in the early 20th century, America at the beginning of the century was an upstart nation that had gained independence only 111 yrs earlier. A young nation, it had transformed itself into one of the great world powers within a mere century. This fact was both inspiring and humiliating to the Chinese. A civilization thousands of years old couldn’t hold a candle to one that was little more than a century old(though, to be sure, if we construe American civilization as a continuation of Western history, it is thousands of years old). That this young upstart nation took pity on China and that China depended on the pity to counterbalance the Europeans and then the Japanese—and then the Russians—was something that was both appreciated and resented. Imagine a proud aristocrat fallen on hard times shown pity and given aid by a nouveau riche farmer. Remember the movie MILDRED PIERCE, where the eponymous heroine succeeds in business and supports a man from a distinguished family fallen on hard times. He’s glad to take the money and also offended that a man of his background must take allowances from a restaurant owner. So, the Chinese were filled with much smoldering rage. This is why, in THE NOBLE HOUSE, the character Four Fingered Wu, even as he fondly cherishes the relationship between his family and the Struans, plots to take over Struans’s empire. He also plans to expand his drug trade; the way he sees it, foreign devils had forced opium on the Chinese long ago, so it’s his turn to rake in millions by selling exporting drugs to Western nations.
Another big contradiction in American anti-imperialism is America itself was a creation of imperialism. It’s not like the Red Man voluntarily said, “pale face, take my land.” Luckily for Anglo-Americans, American Indians were relatively few and far between. And when US set its eyes on the Southwest territories, Mexico simply didn’t have the power or numbers to stop the Yanqui conquest. Also, American history until relatively recently was one of both anti-racial idealism and pro-racial nationalism. Much of American history has been shaped and determined along racial lines: white enslavement of the Negro and racial discrimination; white exploitation of Chinese labor and anxieties about Yellow Peril; the epic legends of white cowboys battling red Indians; ‘Remember the Alamo’, or remember how those brown bastards killed white Americans; the Pacific conflict during WWII was also soaked in racial consciousness, with proud white Americans kicking lemon-colored Jap butt.
On the other hand, Americans also took pride in the abstract ideals of the Founding Fathers who declared a nation without prejudices along racial, religious, and credo lines. There are also stories and monuments to Abolitionism, Civil War, and Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves. The Indian has been romanticized as he was vilified. The immigration narrative tells of different peoples from all over the world becoming a new people called ‘Americans’, and this template has gained such power that Europeans and Canadians too want to increase diversity to become more like ‘Americans’. Europeans feel that they have a Negro-deficit vis-a-vis Americans. Europeans not only want more Negroes to win in sports, enjoy funkier popular music, mix blood with charismatic Africans to make themselves more soulful(most Europeans now hope their future descendants will look like Barack Obama), and boost the satisfaction of white women who, turned onto jungle fever, are no longer content with ‘faggoty ass’ white boys who can’t sexually perform like Negro males can, BUT seem to believe that they can do the racial experiment right, unlike ‘racist’ Americans who botched the noble ideal with black slavery, genocide of Indians, and racial discrimination. So, while Europeans acutely feel a Negro-deficit and are desperate to import and breed more Negroes among their midst, they also feel a sense of moral-credit in contrast to Americans. Swedes think of themselves as noble because their blacks didn’t come as slaves but as welcome refugees who are provided with free everything and the opportunity to hump blonde Swedish woman.
Anyway, Jews, like the Chinese, fear the masses. The fear of the masses is more natural among Jews for obvious reasons: historically, Jews have generally lived in places where they comprised a vulnerable minority. Given the Jew-as-Christ-killer myth, the nature of Jewish livelihood—tax collectors and money-lenders haven’t generally been the most popular kind of people—, and Jewish privilege/wealth, it wasn’t difficult to understand why the masses of gentiles were hostile toward Jews, who themselves felt hostile feelings toward ‘dumb filthy goyim’. Though there was often ruthless competition among Jews, there never developed a strong dichotomy of Jewish elites and Jewish masses, at least not since the Middle Ages. In most societies, the small elites ruled over vast numbers of dirt poor and illiterate peasants. This was as true in Europe as in China. It was different for Jews. Because most Jews weren’t allowed to own land and because most Jews had to live in Jewish quarters or ghettos, the Jewish community was bound to be more cohesive than divided along class lines. To be sure, there were rich Jews, middle income Jews, and poor Jews. In the late 19th century, there were sufficient numbers of poor working class Jews in places like Russia that gave rise to class antagonism within the Jewish community. But since most Jews were intelligent and since Jewish community was defined more by values, culture, identity, and heritage than by class, there wasn’t the kind of caste divisions that existed among Hindus or class distinction that existed among the British. Also, as intelligent and sophisticated as Jews could be, there was a certain grubbines to Jewishness. Just look at hairy rabbis with their silly outfits. Look how traditional Jewish women dressed. There was something aesthetically drab about Jewish culture, and so upper Jews never quite developed the highfalutin attitudes of the French or English aristocrats. Superiority within the Jewish community was defined more by wit, intelligence, and knowledge than by fancy manners. To be sure, bourgeois Jews who entered upper European society did put on fancy airs and etc; even so, many privileged European Jews in the late 19th century, a time of great social and political advancement for Jews, tended to be wilier and wittier than their gentile counterparts. There was something of the Groucho Marx even in the upper-crust Jew.
Given the wide social divergence between gentile elites(noblemen, thinkers, businessmen, etc)and gentile downtrodden(the stinking peasants, sweaty workers, and dregs of society), there were more different kinds of gentiles than there were different kinds of Jews. Most Jews in Europe were either into rabbinical scholarship, trading goods, or money-related fields. One thing that held the Jewish community together was the reliance on intellect and wit. If gentile society was defined by the full social spectrum ranging from high intelligence/ability to low intelligence/idiocy, majority of Jews were united by a culture of business acumen, cunning and ruthlessness, wit and deviousness, and intellectualism and depth. To be sure, Jewish wit and Jewish intellect didn’t always sit well together. Wit involves mental skills used tactically to come out ahead or mental tricks used to charm, persuade, or fool others. The man of wit doesn’t have to be truthful; his thing is to win, to come out on top. His goal is to outwit, not out-prove his opponents. Thus, a man of wit, even when all the evidence is against him, employs verbal, stylistic, and mental tricks to win the game.
A man of intellect, in contrast, is devoted to either the preservation or search for Truth. For the Jewish rabbis, discussions about God weren’t just some game. He had to be worshiped, and His messages and designs had to be studied, understood, and passed down. Jewish scientists and philosophers searched for truth to be demonstrated through reason or evidence. Jewish wit was essentially the tool of Jewish power-brokers and money-men while Jewish intellect was the instrument of Jewish thinkers, scientists, and theologians. But Jewish wit and Jewish intellect—Jewit and Jewin—came to merge over time to the point where it sometimes difficult to tell which was which, a confusion shared by Jews themselves. Consider figures like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Franz Boas, Frankfurt School thinkers, Stephen J. Gould, Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, and etc. To what extent were they intellectually serious and to what extent were they playing a game of ‘my big vain ego can outwit your ego’? They claimed to be devoted to the Truth yet played all kinds of mental games and pulled all sorts of sleights-of-hand to win the argument and destroy their opponents. They posed as thinkers devoted to Truth—and they were sincere to some degree regardless of the veracity of their theories and ‘discoveries’—but never missed a chance to employ the most specious kind of wit to ‘win the argument’. Not that this sort of thing is peculiar to Jews since everyone likes to win arguments and will resort to dirty tricks of wit; but the melding of razor-sharp wit and intellectual depth has been more pronounced among Jews. This particular form of brilliance dazzles with its seeming blend of profundity and persuasive sparkle. Jewish intellectual theories, true or untrue, have impressed many for their originality. The flipside of Jewish intellectualism’s use of wit is Jewish wit’s use of intellectualism. A good example of this would be the story of Bernie Madoff. Essentially a thief and weasel without scruples, Madoff lived by his wits. Yet, wits alone could only take him so far and fool only so many people. To build an empire, he had to formulate his venal scheme into a viable economic model of investment, and to do this he needed to master the latest financial theories of the globalist economy. He knew he had to talk the talk. He had to turn his wit into a witness of professionalism and sound business practices based on cutting edge intellectual theories of modern finance. And he fooled a lot of people, though it sure helped that he was a Jew working in a city full of Power Jews. Madoff got away with so much because he masked his wit with financial intellect. Though a two-bit thief, he posed as an economic guru whose superior method earned his clients more money than the rest of the field. But was Madoff an aberration? Couldn’t one argue that much of Wall Street pulled the same stunt and brought about the Great Recession of 2008? In a way, Madoff was just a scapegoat for Wall Street as a whole. Seeing him go to prison, people were led to believe that bad guys go to jail when, in fact, Wall Street may well be full of Madoffs who, better connected and more savvy—and less nakedly greedy—got away with much more.
Jewish fear of the masses is essentially tribal—we Jewish minority surrounded by the gentile majority—, but there is an element of class dynamic. Because of their superior intelligence, wit, work ethic, and cunning, Jews, when given a fair/equal chance, are bound to rise above other peoples. Thus, Jews come to constitute the upper classes of a society. In the past, Jews were not given a fair chance, which is why many Jews turned to various forms of socialism. Some Jews adopted socialism as a means to struggle for equal opportunity before the law. Other Jews favored socialism precisely because they were fearful of the consequences of Jewish economic dominance. As Karl Marx said, the Jewish Question can be solved if capitalism was replaced by communism. Since Jews are cunning, enterprising, and money-grubbing, capitalism enables Jews to succeed above and at the expense of non-Jews, and this leads to rage, resentment, and ‘antisemitism’ among the downtrodden goyim. But if there’s no economic system allowing cunning Jews to exploit dimwit goyim, there will no reason for goyim to envy and hate the Jews. But not all Jewish socialists were so radical in their thinking. Some favored socialism because Socialist Parties were for social reforms to give Jews a fair/equal chance in business, professions, and even government. But, there were also dirt poor Jews, especially in the Russia-dominated areas, who saw socialism as the only way for improving their conditions. There were also Jews who turned to socialism because it served as a new kind of Talmudism. Throughout Jewish history, Jews with the wit-personality favored business while Jews with the intellect-personality favored scholarship. While wit-personality Jews wanted to shmooze and succeed in the new emancipated order, intellect-personality Jews hated the very idea of ‘money grubbing’ and searched for a new Single Big Idea to replace God. For many Jews, that idea turned out to be Marxism. While wit-personality Jews were mainly out for personal gain, intellect-personality Jews saw themselves as guardians of the New Great Truth: the dialectic of class struggle. Armed with this Truth, they embarked on ‘scientifically’ transforming society in a way that would integrate social morality with scientific materialism. To an extent, the rise of Marxism as a movement led to a kind of internecine conflict within the Jewish community—though this was alleviated by the need for Jewish unity in the face of antisemitism. (If Jewish unity against hostile goyim served the Jewish community well, the idiot Nazis destroyed the potential unity of European gentiles against hostile Jews by promoting the insane ideology of ‘Aryanism’ that divided Europe along the lines of superior Germans vs inferior other-kinds-of-whites. Hitler convinced many Europeans that Germans are even worse than Jews.)
In the early 20th century, despite or especially because many Jews rose to economic prominence, many other Jews reacted against the social order. Jews are an especially resentful people, and while Jews generally were happy to see the Jewish community making gains, many fumed over the fact that some Jews were doing much better. For many centuries in Europe, most Jews had shared a similar lot, but with Emancipation many Jews became very rich while other Jews were left behind—or chose to be left behind in their devotion to Truth than money. Intellect-personality Jews simply had too much rabbinical pride to take part in something filthy as business. Though secularized, they were heir to a tradition and outlook where certain people dedicated to higher truths were supposed to be honored and celebrated for their wisdom, insight, and profundity. So, Karl Marx, though an ideologue for the ‘workers of the world’, never worked a day in his life and refused to even set his foot inside a factory. He thought others should support him since he was the seeker of truth, a modern prophet, a great philosopher, a guru, etc. Sufficient people must have agreed with him, not least Friedrich Engels, since Karl Marx did live off the money of rich people to the end of his life.
While some Jews seek fame and fortune, other Jews seek honor and respect. To be sure, both wit-personality Jews and intellect-personality Jews are after power except of a different nature. A Jewish financial weasel wants billions of dollars and endless stream of blonde shikses to suck his balls dry. A Jewish intellectual wants to transform the entire world with his ideas—and of course, it could be said that Einstein, Freud, Marx, Boas, Chomsky, and etc have been among the most influential, therefore the most powerful, people of the 19th and 20th centuries. In early 20th century, there was a real battle of ideas and power between wit-personality Jews(who basically wanted to succeed in the larger society) and intellect-personality Jews(who, as radical socialists, wanted to radically transform the entire world). Over time, however, with the rise of National Socialism, World War II, Soviet Union’s turn against Jews, the rise of Zionism, and the affluence of nearly ALL Jews in America and post-war Europe, the wit-personality Jews and intellect-personality Jews began to merge. Few Jews today follow orthodox Marxism. The Jewish Left wants more power through expanded roles of the government and increased funding of institutions they dominate, but they know full well that capitalism is the goose that lays the golden egg. Also, the history of socialism has shown that it is no guarantee against antisemitism. Following WWII, there were more Jew-haters in communist Eastern Europe than in capitalist Western Europe. And Jews found their greatest success in capitalist America. Wit-personality Jews understand that they need to work with intellect-personality Jews to morally legitimize their power. If rich Jews openly say, “we are rich, richer than you, richest people on earth, and we just love our riches and are having so much fun!!”—like idiot Rush Limbaugh does all the time—, people would come to see Jews as a bunch of greedy avaricious sharks and weasels. It would lead to goy resentment of the vastly more successful Jews. Therefore, rich Jews, though obsessed with raking in billions more, support leftist Jews and convey the impression that noble, compassionate, and socially conscious Jews are working ever-so-hard to bridge social gaps in the name of creating a more just and equal society. Jewish sharks in Hollywood who live like emperors pretend to be one with the lowly Negro in the ghetto or with illegal aliens—aka ‘undocumented immigrants’, a term as ludicrous as ‘same-sex marriage’—against the bigotry of evil white conservatives. This way, Jews rake in all the cash while also pretending to be do-goody social activists. Take a look at Bloomberg of New York. He’s a vain greedy financial Jew but he makes a lot of noise about bridging the racial gap in education to make non-Jews believe that Jews like himself are working for the good of ‘little people’. What’s really funny is that some conservatives REALLY think people like Bloomberg really mean what they say when, in truth, rich Jews know all about the reality of racial differences. Jews are obsessed about denying racial differences PRECISELY BECAUSE they are all too aware of the truth. If the truth were to come out, white gentiles would have sound reasons to challenge and counter Jewish power and black power. White gentiles could say that Jewish domination of America owes to higher IQ and black violence against whites owes to stronger muscles. It would give whites, as economic victims of Jews and social victims of blacks, the moral advantage against hideous Jews and brutal Negroes. This is why Jews keep stressing anti-racism as a kind of secular-religious taboo. It’s the same reason that communist regimes desperately attacked capitalism as the root of all evil; deep in their hearts, communist elites understood that capitalism works better than communism; but if the masses knew that, they would try to overthrow the communist order. The rabid and virulent policy of anti-racism perpetrated by Jews is based less on conviction than on fear. Jews fear the truth because the truth shall morally arm white gentiles against Jews and blacks. Jews need the anti-racist card, especially in relation to Negroes, because it is a potent weapon to morally shame, intimidate, and bully the white race into the cult of permanent guilt whereby whites must forever apologize to Jews. This way, no matter how much power Jews amass over white goyim—and no matter how many whites are robbed, raped, and murdered by Negroes—, whites will not be allowed to connect the dots and attribute the anti-white oppression by Jews and anti-white violence by blacks to racial differences. Even when billionaire Jews dominate America, white Americans will have to swallow the myth that Jews have no biological advantage over whites and pretend that most Jews are powerless survivors of the Holocaust than affluent and influential members of American society. The Holocaust, having been spiritualized and eternalized, is no longer limited to WWII. Just as the Crucifixion of Jesus hovered over Christians on a daily basis for over a thousand years—whereby every generation of Jews were seen as killers of Christ—, the Holocaust has been turned into an ever present mythology, as if holy Jews are killed over and over by vile anti-Semites again and again. So, if you criticize Wall Street Jews or Zionist power, you are committing a spiritual form of Holocaust. From this angle, we can appreciate the real purpose of movies like GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Oh my, there are Nazis everywhere, and it could be YOU if you have the slightest thought or emotion that is critical of or skeptical about the hideous Jews.
If Jewish fear of goy masses is tribal, Chinese elitist fear of masses cannot be tribal since China is a nation of one people. But this is somewhat misleading. China is a vast country with significant local differences—which, however, may be eroding over time with mass media—and tensions. Generally, the Southern areas are known for economic prowess and savvy while the northern China around Beijing has traditionally been the center of power and intellectual influence. Also, while Mandarin is the official language of China, the preferred dialect of Southern Chinese is Cantonese, a hideous sing-song form of Chinese that cannot be understood by Mandarin speakers. From what I’ve heard, there are many dialects somewhere between Mandarin and Cantonese, and so even Mandarin speakers from different regions may have trouble understanding one another and same goes for Cantonese speakers. (It’s like how Cockney English and Irish English don’t always sound clear to our ears. Recently, I had to turn on the subtitles while watching Ken Loach’s RAINING STONES. In Debra Fallow’s DREAMING IN CHINESE, it says certain Chinese ‘dialects’ are as different from one another as Spanish is from German, in which case, China isn’t so much a nation of different dialects but different languages. One wonders why then China didn’t break up into separate nations as much smaller Western Europe did over the centuries? One also wonders if Europe might have been united into one permanent empire like China if the Romans hadn’t fallen and had conquered and absorbed all of northern and southeastern Europe.) Though the danger of China breaking up in unlikely, northern political elites have tended to distrust southern economic elites. Even so, that is more of a problem between different kinds of elites—and something similar exists in Vietnam where the center of political power is in Hanoi while the center of economic power is in the South; political elite vs economic elite but united by same race, nationality, and historical consciousness. (The Western and Japanese threats against and invasions of China paradoxically had both a uniting and disuniting effect on China in the past century and half. On the one hand, many Chinese found more freedom, opportunities, justice, and progress in territories controlled by Westerners. At one time, Mao was saved from KMT agents by a Western missionary. And during the communist era, Chinese people fled to Hong Kong controlled by the British, not vice versa. So, the enticement of foreign influence had a divisive effect on China, pitting conservatives against modernizers and traditional imperial governance against political reformers. Also, some regions preferred to be governed by foreigners than by the corrupt and oppressive domestic regime; during the Warlord period, many regional rulers shifted their alliances and loyalties constantly; Taiwanese came to resent KMT rule more than Japanese rule when the Nationalists took over the island after the defeat of Japan in WWII. And competing foreign influences—capitalism, democracy, communism, fascism, etc—divided even the reformers and modernizers in China. On the other hand, the foreign threat had a galvanizing effect on all Chinese. Humiliated by foreign presence, arrogance, and violence, all Chinese began to think in terms of ‘Chinese must unite and fight the good fight.’) The issue of elites vs the masses remains a problem in China. To the extent that communism impoverished China for two generations, followed by three decades of rapid but unequal growth, the problem of inequality—elites vs the masses—remains possibly the single greatest problem in China. It is so loaded an issue that the elites have tried all manner of policies and propaganda to unite the masses under the banner of Chinese values, pride, unity, and destiny. But as inequality grows while expectations rise, this problem won’t be going away any time soon.
The problems of Chinese inequality are many. All rich people in new China are nouveau riche. They or their parents remember hard times; even communist elites remember the hellish years of the Cultural Revolution when even the most powerful and privileged members of the party could be vulnerable to Red Guard attack. If Stalin’s brutally rapid industrialization under communism left little room for human warmth, same could be said for Chinese rapid economic rise since the late 80s. Though Chinese economic growth improved lives and expanded freedoms—as opposed to Stalinist economic growth that eliminated freedoms and killed millions—, there has been little room in Chinese life but money, status, and privilege.
Generally, the sort of rich people who harbor feelings of noblesse oblige tend to feel secure in their power and privilege. Aristocrats and firmly-established businessmen could afford the heart and means to think and act in the public good. In China, the class of superrich people go back only a generation, and the only thing they remember is the difficulty and struggle of climbing to the top. And given the lack of rule of law or absence of any established economic principles on the mainland—as yet—, the Chinese rich tend to be hoarders than sharers. And even as—or especially because—they grew up under communist doctrine of equality and class struggle, they fear the masses. What if another social movement comes along to rile up the masses against the rich? The main advantage of communism for the current Chinese elite is its usefulness as a controlling doctrine. Though the Chinese Communist Party is run by a bunch of rich guys, their ownership and employment of communist pieties and Mao iconography shield them from ideological criticism. As the powerful elites in Europe had used Christianity to control the masses—and as Jews in America use the ideology of Equality to justify its own inequality—, Chinese Communist Party feels justified in its power and riches because it serves the role of the official repository of the Revolution. It is as useful to rich Communist Party members as the Holocaust is useful to rich Jews. It offers them moral/spiritual/ideological cover for all their power, abuses, and excesses.
But the problem isn’t merely nouveau riche-ness of the current economic elites in China. Traditionally, Chinese have been a petty people with small hearts. (It could be said the Chinese practiced heart-binding, an emotional counterpart to the vile practice of foot-binding practiced on females. The feet of Chinese girls were bound tight and made to break and deform under terrible duress and pain, but in a society that fetishized pain, something deformed by pain became synonymous with higher beauty. For a society to justify and institutionalize great amounts of pain, the heart had to be made to less sympathy and compassion. Since pain was supposed the essence that made everything better, nobler, more beautiful, more worthy, and more potent—as in dog meat procured from tortured dogs—, the heart had to become stone cold to the pain of others. The heart had to be bound. People were not supposed to complain of pain since pain supposedly made things better, built character, and taught them lessons about reality. To seek relief from pain was to favor escapism from reality. Of course, no one really likes to feel pain, and so this caused a problem for the Chinese elites. If pain was so good, how come they avoided it and lived in luxury? Since the elites hypocritically preferred to avoid pain while preaching the virtue of pain, pain was turned into an intellectualized ideology. Since only elite people knew how to read, write, and speak intellectually, they came to own something that they did everything to avoid. In a similar sense, white elites in America do the same thing with ‘white guilt’, a form of self-afflicted emotional pain. The ideology behind ‘white guilt’—it might be called ‘white redemptive pain’—says whites have been historically so sinful that they must feel the moral pain of shame/remorse and feel the physical/economic pain meted out to them by black criminals and affirmative action as a kind of soul-healing. So, white South Africans must undergo great pain since their hands are stained with white historical crime. But of course, white elites don’t wanna be robbed, raped, or murdered by non-white thugs themselves; they don’t want their kids denied admittance to elite colleges and powerful institutions. So, white elites have turned ‘white guilt’ or ‘white redemptive pain’ into an ideology that they can control. Since they control its ideas and iconography, they create the illusion that they are filled with repentance and making great sacrifices for the good of oppressed peoples such as Negroes, Jews, and illegal aliens. But, are people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush and their families getting poorer, less powerful, and less privileged? Or have they, along with the Kennedies and McCains, gotten richer and richer while the masses of middle class, working class, and poor whites have been made to foot the bill of ‘white redemptive pain’? In the case of the Chinese elites, it must be said they weren’t being entirely hypocritical since pain could be or could have been very much a part of their own lives. Chinese who rose to top positions through exams went through nerve-wracking hell since the exams were almost impossible to pass—and since so much power, privilege, and honor were at stake in passing or failing the exams. It was moon or bust, the only game in town. Also, due to the brutality of the Chinese, everyone lived in abject fear, and even higher-ups could be purged at any moment by court intrigue and killed in the most horrible manner. So, even elites lived in constant anxiety; especially since refined manners were so important to the Chinese, you never knew who was your friend or enemy. Even someone who wanted you to be cut into 1000 pieces would treat you with the kindest grace. Also, elite women had their feet bound too and were treated like shit by their mothers-in-law, so they knew something about pain. The real problem was not so much the Chinese appreciation of pain but the fetishization and ritualization of pain to the point where it came to seen less as a lesson of life than the very essence of life. The reason why so many Chinese turned to recreations like opium smoking and gambling could have been due to the extremities of pain in Chinese society. When reality sticks a hot poker up your ass, you want something to take your mind off reality. Of course, the West might decline and fall for the exact opposite reason. Christianity, at its best, teaches us both the virtue of sympathy AND the nobility of suffering. It is both a religion of compassion and a religion of stoicism. To the extent that there’s much suffering in the world, we should lend a helping hand when we are up and receive a helping hand when we are down; there is a beautiful mutualism at work. But Christianity also teaches us that, given the sins of the flesh and the nature of the heart, man is meant to suffer in THIS world, and we must accept the suffering with grace and overcome it with strength and resolve. We are not angels and shouldn’t expect life to be angelic. Our hearts must be both gentle and tough. But the stoic element of Christianity—and Classical teachings—has been cast out of modern Western social values. Instead, life should be about painlessness, pleasure, happiness, and etc. A radical form of therapeutism rules both the ideology and commerce of the modern West. Young people are raised and indoctrinated with the idea that they are owed all these ‘rights’ to everything. To deny those ‘human rights’—such as free cell phones—would be heartless and cruel. So, even before young people become workers and produce anything, they demand their ‘positive rights’ for things they didn’t work for. And the medical industry comes up with countless new drugs whose somatic value is supposed to help people deal with literally thousands of kinds of depressions, aches, pains, maladies, and whatnot. Not only are many of these drugs essentially useless—and even dangerous—, they are forbiddingly expensive, but as more and more immature and childish Americans demand more of them—and newer ones by the hour—for every silly illness they psychosomatically invent or pathologically exaggerate, the healthcare system is bound to go under. This is no longer a nation of stoic people with basic nobility of heart. Rather, everyone plays the victim of this or that—molehill turned into a mountain—and demands remedy from the most trivial kinds of pain, ailment, and discomfort. Worse, many people who are perfectly healthy to begin purposely or callously ruin their physical and mental health and demand compassion and remedies. Think of crazy gays who contracted HIV through extreme sexual behavior and then blamed ‘society’ for the ‘criminal neglect’ to come up with magic drugs for AIDS. Or take Magic Johnson who got HIV by humping too many whores but then went around acting like a saint-victim who is deserving of everyone’s love, respect, and compassion. Or consider all those teenage mothers who not only live on welfare but feel absolutely no shame about having flunked out of school, gotten pregnant out-of-wedlock, and living off handouts. Instead, they demand more freebies, and if they don’t get everything they want for free, they bitch and whine as poor victims of a society that just doesn’t care. The cult of painlessness may be just as dangerous as the cult of pain. In some ways, it may be even more dangerous to civilization. Why? Because the cult of painlessness is more expensive than the cult of pain. A cruel and heartless society pays a price, but it costs a hell of lot more to maintain an infantile civilization everyone demands his or her dosages of painlessness whose list keeps growing by the hour. Worse, it’s no longer just a matter of economics but of ethics. Once radical painlessness has become the dogma of society, it becomes the moral/spiritual duty of a nation to ensure expensive painlessness for everyone. If most people of a nation at least have work ethic and contribute to the system, it may work for a time—as it’s just barely working in places like Germany and Japan—, but what happens when demopgraphics favor increasing numbers of dumb and lazy whose Christian morality of “what would Jesus do?” boils down to “Jesus would gimme free everything cuz it be my right and sheeet”? Whether it’s Michelle Obama or some welfare queen, the mentality is the same. “Everybody be owing me everything and shit.” Liberal idiots think Obamacare is about generous and compassionate Obama sharing his stuff with others when, in fact, it is, along with affirmative action, about taking from productive white people and giving free stuff to the likes of Michelle Obama and welfare queens. Our society has too many people like Lindsey Lohans who make a mess of their lives but then expect society to clean up the mess and provide them with everything to feel better. And then, there are millions of illegal aliens and their children, who are also taught in liberal-dominated schools to demand all the free things in life as a ‘right’. And then came Bush, the Mr. Compassionate Conservative whose idea of eradicating social pain in America was to provide painless home loans to every idiot and moron: therapeutic capitalism. And when Wall Street elites were about to feel the pain because they’d bet wrongly in the housing markets, they got free medicine in the form of massive bailouts. There is no Christian dignity or any other kind in any of this. It is a debasement of moral sympathy into the cult of painlessness. It’s not Jesus preaching to us about love and suffering but handing out free candies to crooks and imbeciles. The novel BRAVE NEW WORLD presents an empire of painlessness, but at least that social order produces and bio-engineers only the number of people it needs. But what’s going to happen to the world as populations keep exploding in Africa, Middle East, and Latin America, and those people swarm to the West—thanks to open borders globalism—and demand, as a ‘right’ in the name of a debased form of compassion, all the goodies and candies of life? And what if most citizens have been raised to believe that the refusal to provide freebies-for-all is cruel, heartless, and immoral? Who is going to pay for all this? How is it going to be funded? Of course, such an order cannot be maintained for long and will fall.) Partly, this was due to lack of an ideology like Christianity that preached good works and goodwill toward men. But it could also have been due to biology: Asians in their sheepishness tend to be more insecure, and insecure people tend to be more paranoid and fearful, and fearful people tend to be more petty and spiteful. Take the scene in ENTER THE DRAGON where Chinese people won’t help Bruce Lee’s sister from would-be-rapist thugs. And it also owes something to politics and society. Politically, Chinese brand of Oriental Despotism was, well, despotic. As such, people became extremely focused on what was necessary to survive AND NOTHING ELSE. In some ways, this made Chinese more aware of the brutal truths of life, but in another way, it made them petty and heartless. Things were much the same in feudal Japan and in today’s North Korea. In SHOGUN a samurai named Omi makes some hapless guy headless simply because the latter didn’t bow. In societies where even the slightest deviance from the norm is met with utter ruthlessness, people tend to become rodent-like. Since mavericks and moral rebels with big hearts were ruthlessly killed off and weeded out, Asians became ever pettier. But Oriental Despotism was different from African Animalism in one important way. If blacks were wild, brutal, and crazy just to be wild, brutal, and crazy, the Orientals came up with elaborate concepts and justifications for their brutality as a form of virtue or grace. So, when a Japanese samurai chopped off heads, it could be deemed a work of art—calligraphy with iron and blood—or a moral act to maintain social order against ‘rudeness’ and ‘chaos’. Or when Chinese officials wiped out an entire family—and their extended relatives as well in some cases—, it was justified either in Legalist terms as outlined by Han Fei Tzu or as the necessary punishment for unspeakable treachery and rebellion. (To call a social inferior a ‘traitor’ was the worst possible insult and accusation in China. You can see it in a lot of Kung Fu movies.) So, killing off the entire family line wasn’t so much an act of cruelty as a way of restoring order to the universe and The Way. Chinese thus pompousized all the vile, cruel, nasty, and hideous things they did. Even when Chinese do horrible things to dogs, cats, bears, and other creatures, they explain it in pompous terms of making spiritual medicine and other ludicrous junk. Pomposity clouds the Chinese soul from seeing the naked reality of Chinese cruelty. But, if one side of Chinese soul is pompous and gompous, another side is downright sadistic. Marquis de Sade has nothing on the Chinese when it comes to the politics of pain. For the Chinese, who lived under millennia of Ming-the-Mercilessness, pain is a kind of measuring stick of virtue, character, quality, and worth. While no Chinese wants to feel excessive pain, the capacity to endure pain and the power to mete out pain is how Chinese understand the meaning of life. Now, we all know about ‘no pain, no gain’. But in the West, ‘pain’ is a necessity for ‘gain’, not a good in and of itself. Chinese, in contrast, have fetishized pain as the measure of a person. So, rulers meted out extreme punishment as the true measure of their rightful power. And mothers-in-law drove daughters-in-law crazy just as they themselves had been driven crazy by their own mothers-in-law. Pain and suffering were ritualized both horizontally and vertically in Chinese culture. Sons were expected to be whupped by their fathers, and daughters were expected to be whupped by fathers, mothers, husbands, and mothers-in-law. Since the strict hierarchy of Chinese culture discouraged and generally cruelly punished rebellion by inferiors, in most cases most people had no choice but to take the punishment and persuade themselves that the pain was essential to building of character. It led to the I-deserve-to-be-beaten syndrome. But since they were psychologically and emotionally abused by all the beatings, they were monsters by the time they were in the position to lord over inferiors—wives, daughters, servants, dogs, etc—who were to be insulted, humiliated, belittled, scapegoated, and beaten for the slightest infraction. Since Chinese were not supposed to see superiors as wrong or unjust—and could do little about abuse by superiors—, they fell into a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. In their selfless submission, they began to identify in a weird way with their tormentors. Chinese inferiors thought in terms, “I am nothing, superior is everything, and he has the right to beat my worthless butt.” So, when the inferior rose to a superior position and beat up inferiors—his sons, daughters, wife, etc—, he was, in a way, beating his old self. He saw in his ‘worthless son’ the ‘bad child’ he had once been who had to be beaten into virtuous submission. So, mentally speaking, a Chinese not only got whupped as a child but grew up to imagine his older wiser self beating his younger stupider self whose surrogate was his actual son. Also, since nothing could be worse than for a son to hate his father, the son who had gotten his butt beaten badly by the father had to convince himself that the father had been right all along. (Chinese cruelty toward dogs could, in a way, be a means to suppress their own shame. In the West, an individual is allowed to feel pride as a human, which leads to a generosity of heart. Since he his worth and dignity as a human, he looks upon a dog as a dog and treats it accordingly; he doesn’t see himself in the dog nor does he feel competitive with the dog. But in China, where people were kicked around like dogs, they felt no pride as humans but felt as dogs. So, in order for them to claim a bit of human pride, they had to mercilessly attack the dog and put in its place as a creature far lower than they. In the West, the ideal is ‘treat people like people and treat dogs like dogs’; in China, it was and maybe still is ‘treat people like dogs and treat dogs like objects.’ Generally, people with little pride feel this need to exaggerate their own worth and put down or denigrate other things and peoples to boost their own self-esteem. This is why there is a lot of exaggerated supremacist hatred among white trash. White trash, feeling low and dumb, fear that they are no better than ‘niggers’, and so they have to put down blacks and post 14/88 imbecilities all over Facebook to feel good about themselves. Of course, there are rational and decent reason for disliking wild Negroes, but supremacism is more therapeutic than a rational and empirical assessment of reality.)
If the ideal in the West was for one generation to pass familial love to the next, the Chinese way was to pass down pain. Thus, China became the Civilization of Pain. Worse, Asians elaborately dressed up their cruelty in terms of moral virtue. Wife-abuse and child-abuse all became features of a perverted form of Confucianism—which wasn’t all that much to begin with. It was not enough for a person to be cruelly treated or beaten; such treatment was moralized as necessary and virtuous. So, if a father beat his son, it was ‘for his own good’. If a husband beat his wife, it was ‘for her own good’. If a Japanese ruler ordered the mass killing of villagers, it was good and necessary, and the victims should willingly sacrifice themselves. The cruelty wasn’t merely physical but psychological. But this cultural mentality was so pervasive that it became persuasive. Since it was dangerous to express—or even think—any thoughts that might violate ‘social harmony’, everyone went along. Thus, though East Asians have decent average IQ, the mousy smallness of their hearts didn’t allow for much in the way of innovation and vision. Asian ‘social harmony’ was made possible by threat of merciless cruelty. Under communism, the same kind of madness prevailed. It wasn’t enough to physically punish the heretics of the state; they had to be psychologically bullied to the point where they became thoroughly convinced of the moral rightness of the cruel treatment meted out to them.
In this light, we can understand the sheer ferocity of something like the Cultural Revolution. Though unleashed by a cynical and senile Mao, the vengeful violence was the result of millennia of pain meted out to inferiors by superiors. (The famous Chinese film director Zhang Yimou said he has a special fondness for Korean cinema, and I wonder if this is because Korean cinema can express what Chinese cinema cannot: psycho-social revenge. Though a number of Chinese mainland films have dealt with problems of social injustice, it is the Korean Cinema of Revenge—with such movies as ATTACK THE GAS STATION—that brazenly expresses the suppressed rage of social inferiors striking out violently—also rather aimlessly, one might add—against the status quo. But I could be wrong. Maybe Yimou likes the gentler kinds of films from Korea.) Acts of rebellion could be especially brutal not simply because of the element of righteous revenge but repressed shame. For a people who’ve been inculcated to value obedience to superiors as perhaps the ultimate social virtue, feelings of self-loathing and shame may arise within their hearts if they dared violate this rule of the universe. It’s like a son who attack his own parents can’t feel very proud of his actions—even if the parents are no good. This is why rebellion in Asia can be especially dangerous. It isn’t merely a struggle against social injustice but a war on one’s own psychology that’s been conditioned since cradle to accept authoritarianism as a virtue. An angry rebel feels righteous but may also feel self-disgust. The self-disgust may lead to even greater violence since he feels a desperate psychological need to justify his irreverent actions. This may explain why certain murders of parents by their children can be especially cruel and gruesome. The murderer is not only attacking an abusive parent but trying to suppress his self-loathing of committing what society deems as a heinous deed. (Perhaps, the shocking horrors of communism and Nazism also owed something to the need to suppress a sense of shame that came all too naturally to Europeans. To reject God and to kill millions of people went against the entire grain of Christian values and teachings. To justify the radical deeds and to suppress the shame, communists and Nazis had to go whole hog to demonstrate to themselves and to others the total rightness of their respective causes. In DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, the old man Gromyko bemoans the killing of Tsar’s entire family and asks why? Zhivago says it was to show “that there’s no going back.” If you’re gonna do something drastic that causes doubt within your heart, you gotta do it extremely. If one were to kill one’s parents, there’s no moderate way to do it. Either don’t do it or do it with extreme prejudice. Destroying thousands of Orthodox churches and killing the Tsar’s family were like political patricide for Russians.)
Greater harmony and unity between the elites and masses would be possible in China if Chinese had bigger hearts. But the history of cruelty and lack of trust/goodwill among Chinese ensures the absence of meaningful law-and-morality based stability. (It should be noted that the history of cruelty is different from history of violence. Though violence is unpleasant, it is at times necessary or inevitable given the conflicts of ideology, territory, or interests. So, even as two armies or two peoples clash and bring forth great destruction, the goal could still be rational or even moral. In contrast, cruelty is an unnecessary and cruel form of violence; it is an evil. When we look at Chinese history, culture, and society, there is an element of cruelty that is generally alien to the West, at least since Christian times. Not that Christians were incapable of cruelty borne of moral sanctimony—witch burning, torturing Jews during the Inquisition, and the like—, but the ideology of Christianity still denounced cruelty as a sin and vice. The fetishistic element of pain in Christian culture tends to be masochistic than sadistic, and, if anything, this is more evident today among post-Christian Western secularists whose values are rooted in Christianity. If Christians of the past hypocritically used the pacifistic and universal message of Jesus to dominate other peoples, post-Christians believe it is their moral duty of the West to sacrifice itself for the good of mankind even or especially if it leads to the pussification of the white male, non-white invasion of the West, etc. But this development is less the work of Christians or post-Christians than clever Jews who reprogrammed Christo-Western values so that white people would turn their aggressive energies back at themselves. Traditionally, Jews saw Christianity as a danger and enemy to the Jewish religion and people, just like people regarded wolves with fear and loathing; wolves attacked livestock and even people. But with the domestication of wolves into dogs, people took the characteristics of wolf behavior to serve man. Thus, dogs came to hunt FOR humans than compete with humans as wolves do. In the case of the sheep-herding dog, the wolf’s natural propensity to attack prey was altered so that the dog chased and corralled than attacked the sheep. So, the very behavior patterns that humans had feared most in the wolf became most indispensable to humans once people figured out how to alter and harness canine behavior. So, man’s most feared natural enemy became his best friend, servant, and slave. Jews learned the same lesson. Though Jews sometimes attack and mock Christianity, their main purpose is to tame and guide Christian values and emotions to serve the Jew. It’s no coincidence that Holocaustianity—with Anne Frank as the new Virgin Mary and Jews as Jewsus who died for the sins of goyim—and the messianic cult of Obama bear such close resemblance to Christian mythology and iconography. Jews deigned and designed them to be that way to appeal to the Christian-conditioned hearts and minds of the West. Thus, white Christian conservatives now serve as sheep-herding dogs of Zionists and run around the Middle East to herd Muslims into sheep for the interests of their Jewish masters. Jews also use blacks the same way. Jews know that blacks can be aggressive and vicious, but since most Jews are rich, they don’t have to worry about black crime. Instead, Jews use their control of education and media to morally justify black rage and violence and use them as sheep-herding dogs to corral, guide, and force the sheepish white population to move to the dictates of political correctness. Thus, black violence is used by Jews as a controlling device. The narrative is as follow: because of white ‘racism’, blacks have suffered through the centuries and still live in poverty and rage. So, black wolves have a right to attack white sheep, BUT maybe if whites give into political demands like affirmative action, black rage can be tamed into sheep-herding than carry on in sheep-attacking mode. Maybe black pitbulls could become black collies. So, the choice for whites is black wolves attacking them or black sheep-herding dogs—funded by Jews—pushing them in the right direction. Of course, the smart thing for white people to do is stop serving as dogs for Zionists and stop running as sheep before Negro pitbulls AND INSTEAD unite and fight to crush the hideous Jew and vile Negro, but white people have been so castrated and lobotomized by the Jews that it’s safe to write off the white race as pretty much finished within the next century. White race, with its unique nobility and beauty, was created by tens of thousands of years of evolution, but it will have been reduced to slaves of Jews and blacks in less than a century. Blacks alone could never have achieved this as they are too stupid. Jews were the mastermind of the downfall of the white race. It will surely count as the biggest calamity in all of history, both evolutionary and cultural.)
Also keep in mind that China is still a one-party dictatorship where the Western concept of ‘human rights’ doesn’t exist. Furthermore, many educated and well-to-do Chinese fear ‘human rights’ will only give more power to the stupipd unwashed masses. And since even well-to-do Chinese have fresh memories of almost universal poverty that had prevailed in China only a few decades back—as well as of their own hardships and compromises to rise economically—, there isn’t much trust between well-to-do Chinese and down-n-out Chinese. The middle class in China feels squeezed by the poor masses and the Chinese Communist Party bosses. If the unwashed masses rise up, the middle class could be looted. If the Communist bosses so choose, the middle class—and even the rich—could lose everything they’ve worked for overnight(and worse, end up in labor camps). As for the Chinese Communist Party elites, they try to coopt the rich and successful through intermarriage, by forcing business partnerships whereby the families of party bosses get a huge chunk of the pie, and by controlling state-controlled finance that ensures most favorable loans to political allies and relatives. Chinese Communist bosses are playing a two-faced game. On the one hand, they claim to represent the Revolution that stands for the People and equality. But the elites no longer believe in Marxism, and they seek to accumulate power through economic as well as political means. (Similarly, Jews are two-faced in playing the victim card to maximize their victor status.) Since the official role/objective of the Chinese Communist Party is politics and not business, party bosses need alliances with people with business skills—many of whom happen to be in the South and not in the Beijing, the northern center of power in China. In a way, one could say the Chinese Communist Party uses the Chinese business class as European aristocrats had once used the Jews. Since Jews had the skills of finance and were good with numbers, aristocrats naturally turned to Jews for loans, management, and tax collecting. At the same time, the gentile aristocrats pretended to be the leaders/rulers of the gentile masses, and when things went badly and mobs rebelled, the aristocrats dumped the blame on greedy Christ-killer Jews.
The business class in China is similarly vulnerable. Though big business and big politics are intimately intertwined, the Communist Party still maintains the official myth of standing for the people against greed. So, if hard times arrive and people threaten to rise up violently, the Party might scapegoat the business class for the problems and act as defenders of the people. Thus, there is little trust in China. Some have compared the rise of China today with rise of America in the 19th century, but the crucial difference is there was plenty of land for Americans. If anything, the labor shortage necessitated increased immigration from the Old World. With so much land, Americans could have their plot of land and feel secure in their freedoms and property. In contrast, the problem of China has been too many people for too little arable land. If the Chinese had been more creative and innovative in their use of land and business, the disasters of the past might have been prevented. But the deeply conservative, anxious, fearful, paranoid, xenophobic, and petty nature of Chinese culture kept the Chinese doing the same thing over and over even while Malthusian dynamic began to take its toll. Given the amount of innate talent of the Chinese, it’s possible that the Chinese history has been one of the greatest waste of human potential. Napoleon once said China is asleep and should be left alone to sleep for if it awakes, it may shake the world. Now, the Chinese are awake but energies that can truly transform China into a great modern nation still remain dormant. Chinese know how to learn; they don’t know how to think.
The divisions within China cannot be called tribalism since most Chinese are of one tribe. The problems may be designated as classist, but even that misses the full picture. Though China is divided along class lines and though there is much nouveau riche snobbery(as well as the boiling resentment of the poor), there is a sense among many Chinese that they too might make it in life. And there has been a vast amount of social mobility in the new China since economic reforms. In terms of social consciousness, the problem is neither tribalism nor classism but a kind of familism. This isn’t to say the modern Chinese family still operates as in the old days; for one thing, due to the one-child policy, the modern Chinese family isn’t much of a family; and the children of the one-child generation, having been doted by everyone since infancy, tend of be full of themselves and concerned with looking out for #1 than anything else.
Rather, in a low-trust culture, social consciousness operates on the rule of trusting and favoring those you know personally; familism thus doesn’t have to be strictly about family members; it could include friends and intimate associates who are deemed family-like. Or, it could mean social institutions operating like families or clans than as institutions for the public good. The sentimentality attached to familism blinds its practitioners to the corruption inherent in its operations. Doing favors for close associates is seen as a form of virtue—loyalty of bond and returning favors. Since good things are hard to come by in China, it’s always advantageous to have special connections. If someone does you a favor, you return the favor. On a small scale, this isn’t much of a problem, but when the whole of institutional dynamics works this way, it undermines social trust, unity, and goodwill. Of course, the problem of China could be its immense size. After all, there seems to be goodwill and trust in tiny Singapore, a city-state dominated by majority Chinese. Relative to rest of Asia, Singapore is also famous for its low levels of corruption. But size alone cannot explain the way of the Chinese. After all, (southern)Italy and Greece aren’t giant nations, but they suffer the same kind of distrust and crookedness. And America is a huge country, but the white parts of America have been mostly trusting—though, to be sure, Irish were notorious for a kind of big city machine politics clannism and Italian-Americans were famous for organized crime familism. Though Wasps had their old-boys-network, they were historically the most principled people in America, and it was the good fortune of America to have been founded by Wasps than stupid Irish Catholics, oily Southern Italians, grubby Russians, psychotic Japanese, hideous Jews, etc. (To be sure, American Jews have been special in their uncanny ability to imitate aspects of Wasp-ism, not least to conceal and push forth the agenda of their Jewish Supremacist tribalism.)
The main reason seems to be cultural than geographic. My guess it’s a bigger problem in the South because Cantonese language is so ridiculous and petty-sounding. How anyone could speak such and have any goodness of heart is beyond me. Such linguistic ugliness cannot lead to much in the way of self-pride or dignity. Cantonese sounds like chipmunks with rubber incisors. If Americans ditched English and took up Cantonese, I think we would be pretty ‘chinky’ too, not only in language but in thoughts, feelings, and actions. It could be part of the reason for Singapore’s relative cleanliness, order, and trust is many people there speak English as the language of choice. It’s possible that if all Chinese ditched their own language and took up German or English, they would make much greater progress on all fronts. Napoleon said, “China is a sleeping giant; let her sleep.” Maybe he could have said, “Chinese is a silly language; let Chinese keep speaking it.” Cantonese seems to be a series of ning-ning-ding-ning and Mandarin sounds essentially like shaola-haola-shushi-shishu. From Debra Fallow’s book, I get the impression that Chinese grammar is childish and the meanings are murky. But visually it’s quite impressive in the form of calligraphy. It looks good but sounds bad, like some flowers look beautiful but stink.
Anyway, returning to the original point of this piece, what are some of the commonalities in the way the Jewish American elite and Chinese elite perceive and handle the respective masses that they control? One thing in common is the levels of anxiety. Jews are rich and powerful, but they are vastly outnumbered by goyim. One way to subvert the power of the goyim is to increase diversity, which allows Jews to play divide-and-rule. Another way is to use the politics of guilt. Since Jews fear white gentiles as their main rivals, whites are burdened with the double whammy collective-historical-eternal guilt of black slavery and the Holocaust—for some reason, the ‘genocide’ of the natives of the Americas seem to matter less. Whites are told that current and continuing black problems are solely the product of past white oppression of blacks. And whites are reminded that the Holocaust can happen again at any time, and so any criticism of Jewish power is potentially an antisemitic match to set off yet another conflagration killing millions of innocent saintly Jews. These Jewish tactics are very effective, and white Americans have essentially been cowered thanks to Jewish control of mass media and education.
Even so, Jews have reasons to worry. Due to globalism, the American middle class has been shrinking fast. As Jews get richer, goyim either get poorer or remain stagnant. Both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, though never naming Jews specifically, expressed sentiments that, when examined carefully, harbor hostility toward institutions of governance and finance controlled by the Jewish cabal. If everything goes well for Jews, whites will eventually turn into a confused mestizo and mulatto race with confused racial consciousness—therefore unlikely to racially unite to challenge Jewish power—, BUT there is the possibility of massive social collapse if the problems of globalism and budget-busting deficits continue to worsen. And then, there is a possibility of ‘radical populist’ challenges to Jewish power.
For this reason, Jews find it useful to divert and channel American goy rage—especially that of white Americans who still have considerable numbers and power—at foreign ‘enemies’. (It will be especially useful if a collapse happens because Jews can direct American gentile rage at the Middle East, China, or Russia. Without external enemies, collapse will mean most American gentiles will come after Jews—that is unless Jews engineer some kind of civil war that pits one bunch of American goyim against another. The whole notion of ‘red states vs blue states’ cooked up by the Jewish media could be just a tactic. Prior to the use of such terms, Americans had know that some states lean liberal while others are conservative. Even so, most Americans felt a part of one America. But the notion of ‘blue states’ vs ‘red states’ created a social, psychological, and cultural divide among Americans, especially among WHITE Americans. ‘Blue state’ white Americans see ‘red state’ white Americans as the enemy, and vice versa. By the way, notice that the cool and pleasant blue color has been given to liberal states while the alarmist and aggressive red color has been given to conservative states. It is well known in social psychology that most Americans react more favorably to blue than to red. I wonder how history might have played out if there had been no WWII; without FDR and American liberals directing American rage during the Depression at external enemies, there might have been more of a social revolution in America, though there’s no telling if this would have been better for the left or the right.) So, both liberal Zionists and neocon Zionists have drummed up hostility against the Muslim world. Even liberal Jewish Hollywood has given us countless movies where the bad guys are swarthy Muslim terrorists. The other great enemy according to American Jews is China.
Of course, Chinese are a vile people, but that isn’t really the point of Jewish use of the China card. Yellow Peril becomes a useful outlet for pent-up white rage that has been banned from expressing itself against Jews and blacks(and increasingly gays). Given the nature of problems in America—massive black crime and violence, black-on-white robbery/rape/murder, affirmative action against whites, rise of interracism between black male and white females that reduce white males into pussyboys, Jewish role in immigration to elect a ‘new people’, Jewish role in interracist porn, Jewish war on Christianity and Christmas, Jewish control of Wall Street and its massive heist against Main Street, Jewish control of law to limit free speech for white rightists, Jewish control of education to indoctrinate young people with gay propaganda, Jewish control of foul music industry that teaches young girls to dress and act like whores, Jewish protection of illegal aliens who’ve invaded this country and bankrupted entire states, Jewish control of foreign policy that provoked the 9/11 attacks and gentile American boys returning home in body bags, and etc—, the most natural thing for white Americans would be to vent their spleen against savage blacks and venal Jews. But due to Jewish control of media, education, and law, white Americans have either been brainwashed or browbeaten into believing that Jews and Negroes are the holiest and noblest peoples on Earth. Thus, to say anything critical, let alone harsh, about blacks or Jews is anathema to white American consciousness. If white conservatives must criticize certain aspects of black problems, it must be framed in a way that is anti-‘racist’. Thus, white conservatives argue against Afro-motive Action(aka Affirmative Action)on the basis that it actually ‘hurts blacks’. (If it’s hurting them, how come virtually all blacks are for it?) Or, white conservatives say they oppose Obama because he’s a ‘socialist’ when, in fact, the Jews purposely selected and promoted Obama to send a message to white women to have sex and babies with black men. Obama is a Jewish sexual attack on white maledom. The real issue isn’t whether Obama is a socialist or even a black nationalist. He is, above all, the messianic poster-child of interracism. The real reason for Jewish support of Obama is he’s the creation of a black African driving his black cock into a vagina of a white traitor leftist Ann Dunham who has been promoted by the Jewish media as mother mary to the new messiah; white woman’s pussy has been baptized of ‘racism’ by accepting the holy juice from a mandingo cock and having a mulatto child. Obama is the mytho-fascisto-spiritualization of miscegenation. It is this fact—along with his nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor—that has been truly damaging to the white race. That the great majority of white kids admire and adore Obama shows where the white race is headed: toward humiliation and extinction. And Jews are rubbing their hands in glee. White women will be mudsharkized and white boys will be pussified. Worse, white men don’t seem to be fighting for their pride, honor, manhood, or dignity. Instead, brought up on Holocaustianity, MLK worship, anti-‘racist’ dogma, and white self-loathing, they’ve happily resign themselves to decline—just like the Immortals in ZARDOZ eagerly welcome their deaths at the end of that movie. Things are all going according to the Jewish plan.
But for the time being, there’s still the possibility of social collapse, which might awaken the white race from its doldrums and push it to action against the venal Jews. So, Jews rely on the specter of EXTERNAL enemies against whom white gentile rage can be diverted. Since rightism is ideologically defined in terms of ‘us against them’ and since white Americans have been brainwashed/browbeaten into accepting Jews and blacks as ‘fellow Americans’—fellow Americans who are raping your daughters, stealing your girlfriends, and robbing your money—, the ‘them’ has to be other peoples and nations. Currently, the #1 target of American Jews is Iran, and #2 is China. #3 is probably Russia. Though Israel is a foreign nation and has tremendous(and detrimental) influence on white Americans, it is seen almost as the second capital of America(thanks, of course, to the Jewish media). The bargain stuck between Jews and white Americans goes something like this: “Antisemitism has been a European rather than an American problem. Europeans killed Jews, Americans saved Jews. Europe is stained with blood of Jews, Americans are blessed for having fought the evil Nazis. But America has its own racial sins—black slavery—and white American Christians have a cultural and racial connection to bad Europeans in the Old World. So, for Americans to prove beyond a doubt that they are good, they must prove over and over how much they love Jews and will forever appease Jews. And then, maybe just maybe, Jews will bless white American conservatives.” (Ironically, just as appeasing Hitler didn’t prevent WWII, appeasing Jews will not stop the Jewish destruction of the white race. Jewish elites are just as arrogant and vile as Hitler but also a lot more clever and devious.) So, white Americans go out of their way to hug the Jew, weep for the Jew, send their kids to fight wars for the Jew, to praise and sing hosanna for the Jew, etc, etc. If German children from an early age are made to feel guilt over the Holocaust, bawl like babies in shame, and pledge eternal loyalty to the Jew, many white American Christian kids are raised in ‘Jesus Camps’ to cry for Israel and pledge their whole lives to serving the Jew.
It’s all very sickening and embarrassing, but that’s the current state of American society and culture. But there are no future guarantees in history. Just because white Americans love Jews today doesn’t mean they’ll love Jews forever. At one time, all Europeans were sincere Christians and disliked Jews, and no one back then thought things would be any different. Today, most Europeans are post-Christian liberals who worship Jews. At one time, Russians were fanatical communists; today, most Russians have no respect for communism. So, nothing is permanent in history. The tide CAN turn against Jews when scales fall off the eyes of white Americans. So, it is in the interest of Jews to keep the goyim’s mind fixated on things other than Jewish power.
In the US, Jews pit various groups against one another—especially Mexican-Americans and black-Americans against white-Americans—, but Jews also unite and direct all of American fear and anger at Iran, China, and Russia. Jews tell blacks that white ‘racists’ are out to lynch them, but then Jews tell whites and blacks that they must unite against evil Iranian terrorists and vicious Chinese rats. But even as Jews, via control of media, think tanks, entertainment, and government, direct American anger at external enemies, Jews also fear that too much of this can backfire on them.
After all, the excessive wartime propaganda during WWII—the paranoia about ‘Japs’ invading Iowa or ‘Kraut’ submarines surrounding American beaches—paved the way for Cold War ‘hysteria’ and ‘paranoia’—though in fact, there were indeed many more (pro)communist spies and agents in the US government, media, and other institutions than there ever had been pro-Nazi or pro-Japanese agents or sympathizers. After all, German-Americans were mostly loyal during WWII, and there wasn’t a single Japanese-American working in any noteworthy capacity in the government and media while many dirty Jewish liberals and leftist—as well as Wasp ones—spied for the Soviet Union. A bunch of Jews even managed to slip atomic bomb secrets to mass murderer Stalin, the killer of millions of Slav Christians and the new tyrant of all of Eastern Europe. Anyway, American Jews pushed hysteria and paranoia about ‘foreign enemies and their agents working INSIDE America’ during WWII but then got burned when the new struggle was the Cold War between the democratic West and the communist East. Since many Jews were communists or communist-sympathizers, they suddenly became the targets of the very tactic they had employed during the so-called Good War.
So, from WWII and the Cold War, Jews learned both the utility and futility of playing the nationalist card. If Jews push the button too far on the us-versus-them card, it can backfire by riling up an American nationalism that might one day come to see Jews as an ‘alien’ enemy too; Jewish exploitation of the national card can boomerang on them.
An us-versus-them mentality constantly seeks new enemies once the primary enemy has been vanquished or dealt with. Following WWII, Americans found the new big bad wolf in international communism and, by extension, potential allies and agents of communism within the US. American Jews, who rode high during WWII in their support of the war against Nazis and Japanese, found themselves under suspicion as closet-communists and fifth-columnists. This us-versus-them mentality exists across the ideological and spiritual spectrum. Hitler kept looking for new enemies in his rise to and practice of power. Stalin and Mao followed one purge with another(and then another)in the name of rooting out ‘class enemies’, ‘saboteurs’, ‘traitors’, and ‘capitalist roaders’. The Trotskyite concept of the ‘permanent revolution’ calls for ceaseless cycles of revolutionary violence whereby new enemies are exposed and exterminated. The Trotskyite mentality can be seen in the first generation of neocons—many of whom were former Marxists—who, after the end of the Cold War, insisted on America looking for new enemies around the world(mainly to conceal and serve the interests of Israel). After the Gulf War, neocons plotted to remove Hussein altogether, and now neocons are fanning the flames for war with Iran. Neocon Jews have also been fanning hostility toward China and Russia(with which Jews are angry because of the purge of some Jewish oligarchs by Putin)as potential dangers in the future. If neocons want a real war with Iran to remove what they see as an enemy of Israel, I doubt if they really want US to engage in actual combat with Russia or China. Rather, Jews—partly through their manipulation of witless puppets like John McCain—want us to fixate our us-versus-them rage against Russians and Chinese than against, well, Zionist Jews who are the real rulers of America and enemies of the white race.
Also, Jews dislike Putin and the Chinese leadership because both represent majority rule. Putin’s Russia politically represents Russians owning and ruling Russia, and Hu’s China represents Chinese ruling China. Putin and the Chinese Communist Party may not have done such a sterling job, but both Russia and China stands for unity of ruler and the ruled. But 98% of America are non-Jewish, yet America is almost thoroughly controlled and ruled by Jews. So, by directing our anger at China and Russia, Jews want us to hate the very idea of rulers and ruled being of the same ethnic/racial stock. Instead, we are told that ‘diversity is our strength’, and most whites seem to have fallen for this canard.
Now, it is sometimes true that foreign or alien rulers may actually be preferable—at least for a time—to domestic tyrants. Hong Kong and Singapore owe something of their success to the history of British rule. Brits, even as imperialist overlords, were more enlightened and big-hearted/big-minded than petty and cruel Chinese rulers, and British cultural and legal influence on the Chinese character was mainly for the good. If you were a Chinese in the 50s and 60s, would you have preferred to live in Hong Kong under British rule or in China under Mao’s rule? Also, Germany in the 50s and 60s was essentially a political puppet of the US, but Germans did better under US occupation than under insane Nazi rule. And the British did some good things in India, and Zimbabwe was certainly better off under white rule. And the French did some good in Algeria as well. Cambodia under French rule was certainly preferable to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. So, there’s no guarantee that a people will be better off being ruled by their own kind. Even so, it is the dream of all people to control the destiny of their own nation, and this entails the rulers and ruled being of the same people and culture. The Moors contributed some positive things to Spain, but the Spanish eventually wanted to be freed of Muslim occupiers. So, there’s something wrong with a bunch of Jews—of an especially venal and hideous nature—who comprise only 2% of the population ruling an America that is overwhelmingly non-Jewish. It is a form of ethno-imperialism. (Also, whites in non-Jewish-controlled European nations have amply demonstrated that they don’t need to be ruled by ‘wise’ Jews to live well in orderly and functional societies. If Jews insist that Jewish influence is so crucial to the prosperity and power of a nation, I suggest Jews all pack their things and go serve as elites in African nations. Since Jews profess to love blacks and tell us that blacks are all kindly Magic Negroes, why shouldn’t American Jews go to Africa and help Africans by ruling over them and marrying with them? Are they afraid of blacks? But don’t Jews tell us that no people are as noble, soulful, and wonderful as Negroes are? If Jews are filled with so much hate, fear, and contempt for ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ white people, why do the bulk of them remain in white nations? Who’s stopping them from moving to Nepal, Laos, Latin America, India, Africa, etc? You see how filthy, lowdown, and dirty Jews are? And of course blacks and illegal aliens from Mexico act the same way as Jews—not least because Jews encourage them to blame everything on ‘white racists’ or ‘gringos’. Blacks bitch about ‘racism’ in America and Europe, but if they feel that way, why don’t they go back to Africa and live amongst their own bongo-wongo kind? Mexican Illegals whine about how America isn’t fair to them, but who the hell forced them to come here? They should go back to Mexico if they love it so much.) American Jews are US citizens but a privileged and overly powerful ethnic group that rules over the destinies of all other groups. If your son goes to war and returns in a body bag or as a cripple, the chances are that he went off to fight a War for Israel. Just as British imperialists recruited Indian Sikhs to fight Wars for Britannica in China and Malaysia—as well as in WWI and WWII—, American Jews recruit Christian soldiers to fight in the interests of Jews. Now, what was an Indian Sikh fighting a War for British Empire against people he knew nothing about? For the same reason that American soldiers fight, kill, and die for the sake of Jewish interests they know little about.
Of course, British Imperialist propaganda filled Sikh soldiers—and African soldiers among others—with the notion of what an honor it was to kill and die for Queen and Country. Since most of the soldiers recruited from the empire were ignorant and illiterate, what did they know about anything? They were impressed by British power and wanted to be a part of it. They didn’t ask, “why are we going around killing and dying for British Imperialists who look down on us and call us ‘wogs’?”
The Ottoman Turks forcibly recruited Christian Greek boys, converted them to Islam, and trained them to fight as Janissaries for the Sultan and the Crescent. Having come under Ottoman indoctrination and training, Greek boys who had been born and raised as Christians became fierce soldiers against Christian Europe.
Jews have similarly worked on American goyim to fight, kill, and die for Jews. But Jews are far more devious than the British or the Ottomans. At the very least, the British didn’t hide the fact that the imperial subjects serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces were indeed fighting and dying for British glory. The Ottomans didn’t hide the fact that the Janissaries had been recruited and trained to fight for Islam against Christianity. Jews, in contrast, have fooled the dimwit soldiers of the American military that they are fighting, killing, and dying for the good and glory of America as a whole. So, they were told that they had to invade Iraq to make America safe from terrorists—though there was no Alqaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Even as America is being led into a war with Iran for the sake of Israel, the Jewish-controlled media speak of Israel not as a foreign nation but as more dear to America than America itself. Is it any surprise that Newt Gingrich said in a recent debate that his first action, should he win the presidency, is to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Listen to Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, or Mitt Romney, and you get the impression that they’re running for waterboys of Israel than presidents of America. What’s even funnier is these clowns speak of Jews and Israel as helpless beleaguered parties facing another holocaust UNLESS we powerful Christians come together to save them from the new Hitler of Iran. Of course, the truth is something entirely different. American Jews are by far the most powerful and wealthiest people on Earth, and American politicians suck up to them because they are dependent on Jewish money and media favoritism if they are to have any chance of winning. But what’s really disgusting is Christian soldiers are being led to fight, kill, and die in the interests of the very people who are causing the greatest harm to white people. The US military now promotes interracism with posters promoting sex between black men and white women. Via anti-white affirmative action promoted by Jews, a whole bunch of blacks have been promoted over whites. Jews, via Clinton and Obama, have also made the military into a bastion of ‘gay rights’ and sexual degeneracy. But, what do white conservatives talk about? How we must love Jews, how we must fight for Jews, how we must kill for Jews, and how we must die for Jews. It’s disgusting.
Currently, the policy of the Jewish-American elite is to use the media, entertainment, and politics to channel and divert gentile American anger about the economy, society, and government and direct them at China and Muslims. To be sure, Jews aren’t the only ones who are doing this, and indeed the Jews didn’t invent Anti-Islam-ism(ridiculously called by some as ‘Islamophobia’) or Yellow Peril. (Yellow Peril was first evident as a real threat with Mongol hordes stampeding all across Russia, reaching even Poland, and raping and enslaving millions of Slavs. In America, it was exacerbated by Chinese immigration in the 19th century. Since the American West was underpopulated while China had lots of people—and since Chinese looked funny(especially with pigtails), spoke a ridiculous-sounding language, and seemed to be ‘inscrutable’ to Western sensibility—, white Americans began to fear and loathe the Fu Man Chu. Chinese might bow low and act humble, but who knew what them slanty-eyed ‘chinee’ were really thinking? The rise of modern Japan had a double-edged effect on American view of Asia. On the one hand, the fact that an Asian nation could modernize and adopt Western ways and values meant that Asians could indeed join the community of civilized peoples. On the other hand, rise of Japan along Western lines also meant rise of Yellow Power. Worse, though Japanese seemed to be outwardly Westernizing, white Americans wondered what them buck-toothed ‘nips’ were really thinking. Could the ‘Jap’ be holding a knife behind his back even as he smiled and bowed politely? The answer came in the form of Pearl Harbor—though some historians, still in the minority, argue that Japan was driven to extreme measures by FDR’s willfully devious provocations. Anyway, the Jews didn’t invent Yellow Peril—though Jews did play a significant role in the modern development of anti-Muslim-ism. (Though Christian vs Islam enmity goes way back to the time of Muhammad, the modern version of anti-Muslim-ism is essentially associated with the interests of Zionism. Since the Christian West had little to fear from the declining power of the Muslim world since the 18th century—if anything, West gained near total mastery of the Middle East following WWI—the ‘Muslim threat’ in the 20th century was simply off the radar, that is until Zionists began to exert undue influence on American and European foreign policy. The so-called Muslim world became a target of excessive hatred because the creation of Israel(closely allied with the US, a nation that Jews would come to own economically, culturally, spiritually, and politically) pushed the Arab world to the Soviets. There’s a great irony to this. The Arab nations that were most hostile to Israel and most closely allied with the Soviet Union—at least for a time—were ruled by secular regimes that distrusted and even feared the ideology of Islamism while some of the most conservatively Muslim nations—such as Saudi Arabia—were very close to the US that was close to Israel.
Anyway, Jews see both the advantage and danger of playing the us-versus-them card. It may be advantageous for Jews to fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Chinese hatred, but what if it burns out of control and makes American gentiles angry with all ‘alien and foreign elements’. Given that Jews have traditionally been regarded as an ‘alien element’ in Christian lands, a rise in majority nationalism and ‘xenophobia’ could come to hurt Jews. So, Jews are careful to pull the Jerry-Springer-trick. They play it both ways. On the one hand, Jews train American gentile dogs to bite Muslims in the Middle East and to bark at Chinese in Asia. At the same time, Jews admonish American gentiles to calm down about Muslims and Chinese in America and embrace the ideal of diversity-is-our-strength. Jews use American gentile hatred of Muslims but are also careful to control it. It’s like a dog trainer’s agenda is to train the dog’s aggression to herd sheep or attack ‘bad’ people but NEVER the trainer himself.
The Sam Fuller movie WHITE DOG shows how a dog that was trained to kill black people might go nuts and eventually turn on the white master. Though Fuller’s movie is about white racial bigotry, it can be said that Jews have been training American gentiles as their own White Dog. Jews are clever, but the average American who joins the military isn’t very bright. American military men like to grunt and growl about fighting, killing, and dying for God, Country, and Glory. They don’t think but merely react to symbolism. As long as Jews control the symbols, American fighting men will go kill Muslims in the name of protecting ‘gay marriage’ in America from Muslims who ‘hate women’. It works like this: “America, the Land of Freedom. The greatest proof of American freedom is ‘gay marriage’ and ‘interracism’. The proud and noble US military is pro-gay and pro-interracist, and so there is nothing more American and Apple Pie than fighting for ‘gay rights’ and blacks-porking-white-women. America is also noble for having saved Jews in WWII. Just watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Since Iranians are the new Nazis who hate Jews and gays, all proud American soldiers must want to go there and kill Muslims to save poor Jews in Israel.” It’s all ridiculous symbolism, but it’s the sort of nonsense that makes so many dimwit white boys sign up for the military and give their lives to the service of Jewish power.
(Though conservative Muslim treatment of women is loathsome, it’s not like there is a single Muslim world where all Muslim men act the same. Besides, though American women certainly have freedoms and rights that many Muslim women don’t have, it would be a joke to say American society—especially as dominated by Jews—has much respect for women, especially white ‘shikse’ women. Jews now control Disney and promote products and fashions that encourage young white girls to dress and talk like hookers. Jews control porn and use poor white women as cumbuckets for black males. Rap culture promoted by Jewish-controlled music industry refers to women as ‘skanks’ and ‘hos’. Rap music is now part of mainstream culture of America. There is an epidemic of black-on-white rape all across America, but Jews promote the anti-white lie that white women are brutalized by heinous redneck brutes while black men are wonderful and noble Magic Negroes who are the best friends of white women. Russian Jews and Israel Jews plot together to enslave Slavic women as sex slaves who are offered as meat-for-money to men from all over the world, even from Africa and Asia. Hollywood Jews have used and exploited countless white women as blow-jobbers while falsely promising them fame and fortune in the entertainment industry. Given what the Jews have done to white masculinity and white women, it is indeed hilarious that so many white men in the military want to kill Muslims—who never did them any wrong—in the name of saving Jews and fighting for the freedom/honor of American women. If not that, it’s white American military men taking great pride in the ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ of America as opposed to the supposedly evil ‘homogeneity’ and ‘xenophobia’ of China. So easily brainwashed by the Jewish manipulation of symbols, white American military men never bother to ask what this ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ entail for white Americans. It means illegal immigration and eventual amnesty, adding more non-whites from the Third World to the American electorate. It means stronger blacks beating up white guys and taking white women. It means the pussification of the white male. It means the rise of Asian-Americans in elite professions as running dogs of Jews. It means anti-white affirmative action, all the more offensive and insulting since poor whites are the main targets of this ‘reverse discrimination’. Just consider the irony: Jews push policies that do most damage to the kind of low-income white people who sign up for the military, but white American soldiers wanna fight Wars for Israel and kill/die for Jews. Just what is so great about America when freedom has been corrupted by Jews into a mindless ritual of worshiping MLK and of white women serving as whores of Jews and Negroes?)
From WWII and through the Cold War, Jews learned many lessons. Jews know it’s not enough to fan the flames of us-versus-them nationalism. Jews must CONTROL flames. Jews need to alternately increase and decrease the flames depending on the situation. After 9/11, Jews saw a golden opportunity to remake the Middle East into something more Jew-friendly. Especially since the Muslim terrorists attacked NY, the center of Jewish power, it was in the interest of Jews to rile up anti-Islamic fervor among Americans and push this country into war not only in Afghanistan but Iraq. Though Alqaeda sponsored by the Taliban in Afghanistan attacked the US, the main focus of Jewish interest was actually on Iraq. Afghanistan may be barbaric, but the people there are not Arab and pose no threat to Israel. But a powerful Iraq might pose a threat to Israel. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR used American hatred of Japanese to direct most of the fighting against Germans. Similarly, though radicals in Afghanistan attacked the US, the real prize for American Jews was Iraq. In the case of WWII, the Germans, in alliance with Japan, declared war on the US, which at least gave US a justifiable reason to fight Germany. Hussein, unlike Hitler, did nothing to lend support to what had happened on 9/11. If anything, Hussein insisted he never harbored Alqaeda in Iraq and he had no WMD. But American Jews in government and media used all sorts of tricks to fool 80% of Americans into thinking there was some kind of link between Hussein and 9/11—or if Hussein’s WMD were not destroyed, they would be used for many more 9/11s in the future. As Japan’s attack gave FDR the reason to fight Germany, Taliban’s attack gave American Jews the opportunity to target Iraq.
So, the Jewish-controlled media inundated the public with the need to go to war. Consider that a whopping 80% of Americans supported the war on Iraq. That means even a lot of liberals got onboard. Can you blame them when the news they got from the Jews said Hussein had all sorts of WMD for future terrorism? (We have Human Sacrifice in America in the form of countless white Christian conservative parents raising their children to die for Jews. Christian Zionists worship Jews and Israel, and so if their children join the military and return home in a body bag or as a cripple, they feel honored to have sacrificed their own children to the Holy Jew. They call themselves Christians, but they might as well worship Moloch, or Shyloch.)
But when the war situation deteriorated and some white ultra-conservatives tried to exploit the War on Terror as an excuse to ignite a kind of robust Christian Nationalism, Jews began to become worried, even alarmed. (Incidentally, Christian conservative admiration for Bush betrays their utter ignorance and stupidity. While Bush is a born-again Christian, as President he was little more than a puppet of Jewish neocons and Texas oilmen. Though Bush threw a few bones at the Christian Dummy community in the Sooooouth, his born-again-ness was, in political terms, little more than a symbol manipulated by Jews to garner the Evangelical dummy vote.) With the Iraq War turning into a fiasco, Jews in the media instantly rewrote history whereby the so-called all-powerful team of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had duped well-meaning Jews into supporting an ‘illegal war’. Though liberal Jews did criticize neocon Jews, it was as if the latter were misguided and naive than deceitful and power-mad, qualities reserved for Bush, Cheney, and Rumself and other Wasps. (Though Bush remained extremely loyal to Israel, this made many Jews hate him even more because his shameless slavishness to Israel made it an open secret that Jews control foreign policy and because Bush, despised by the world community as an idiot drunken cowboy, actually made Israel look bad by association. This is what a lot of people don’t get about Obama. Outwardly, Obama seems less slavish to and owned by Israel than Bush, and therefore, some conservatives think Obama doesn’t like Jews or Israel. In fact, Jews prefer the Obama style because it sends the impression that American politics is not totally owned by Jews. Jews want more power but to hide their power. Obama has been coached by Jews to act as though he’s ‘fair’ to all sides. But I ask you... what did Obama do when Israeli Zionist murderers were killing thousands of Palestinian women and children in Gaza? Zilch nada, just like NY TIMES doesn’t give a shit that scores of white people are being raped and murdered by black ape-men in South Africa on a daily basis.) After 9/11, NY Jews encouraged Bush to expand the wars in the Middle East and gave him full media support. But when things went badly—and when the Christian Right seemed to be have been revitalized by anti-Islamism—, it was time for Jews to clamp down on American nationalism. When American nationalism worked in the interests of Israel and Jewish power, Jews fanned the flames. When things began to go awry, Jews washed their hands of Bush’s foreign policy and said the civil rights of Muslims in America were being violated by the rise of ‘Christian Right Fascism’. So, even though Jewish globalism, foreign interventionism, Zionism, and open-border-ism are the real forces that led to 9/11 and though Jewish power in government/media drove America into the so-called War on Terror, the real villains according to the Jews were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzalez. (Condie Rice and Colin Powell were relatively spared because it’s Jewish policy to maintain the myth of the Noble Negro.)
If Jews play a dirty game in America, the Chinese elite plays a similar game in China. Petty, small-hearted, crooked, paranoid, greedy, corrupt, and vile, the Chinese elite essentially fears the Chinese people. But then, this fear is somewhat justified since your average Chinese on the street is petty, crooked, and vile himself. A cruel and disgusting people who find nothing wrong with boiling cats alive and skinning dogs alive cannot be counted for humanity or goodwill. A Chinese will inflict the most horrible pain on a helpless cat or dog IF he believes eating the meat of a tortured dog or cat will give him a bigger hard-on. Disgusting Chinese feel zero sympathy for a bear trapped in life of misery as long as bear bile can be extracted for some bullshit Chinese remedy. Vile Chinese don’t care if all the brown bears in Siberia and rhinos in Africa go extinct due to Chinese demand for bear paws and rhino horn. Chinese are blind to the beauty and majesty of such animals, and only think of their petty ‘chinky’ selves. If a scrawny and ugly Chinaman thinks drinking rhino horn tea will reduce his migraines, he doesn’t care if all the rhinos are dead. Just like Jews who, in their ugliness, have an agenda against human beauty—especially white beauty—, the Chinese, in their scrawny ugliness, possibly harbor an animosity toward everything that is noble, beautiful, and majestic in the world. Everything noble, majestic, and beautiful must be caged, tortured, killed, and made into some ‘medicine’ for the vanity of the hideous Chinaman or Chinawoman. Chinese, like the Jews, may suffer from a Nibelungen syndrome: since they are small, scrawny, and ugly, they want to formulate and control the power of the world. Though people talk about Eastern respect for nature, it’s mostly bullshit. Chinese don’t so much have eyes and ears for nature as they’re obsessed with discovering ways to bottle and trap the essence of nature for their self-aggrandizement. To a Chinaman, a bear is not a great beast of nature to admire for its strength and beauty; it is an animal to capture, torture, and squeeze bile from so that Chinese can own and control the power of the bear for their own sick vanity. Though the Kim family in North Korea are not Chinese, the same kind of dynamic seems to operate. Short, fat, ugly, and disgusting, Kim Jong-Il relied on a mystical form of cult of personality. Without such obfuscation, people would have seen him for what he was: a short stupid disgusting fatfuc*. In his appalling ugliness—a quality probably shared by many Koreans since few nations have as many plastic surgeries as Korea—, Kim could not have felt much self-pride. So he had to compensate by over-indulging himself. So, even as millions starved, he dine on gourmet food delivered to him from all over the world. This kind of pettiness seems to be common among the Chinese too.
Chinese have no sense of common good; they have no appreciation for something of higher value than petty personal interests. When a Chinese thinks of a tiger, he doesn’t see a beautiful animal. Soulfully blind, the hideous Chinese thinks ‘kill big cat and me eat tiger penis to have more good sex.’ A tiger is just a walking medicine cabinet for ridiculous medicine. A Chinese will kill a entire bear just to chop off paws for soup and suck out the bile. There is something really ugly, cruel, and vile about the Chinese. Just as ugly Jews filled with self-loathing are blind to beauty in the world and seek to uglify everything—Jews purchase, own, and defile beauty than truly appreciate it—, Chinese, seeing little more than ugliness in their own looks, stature, and silly language, go out of their way to defile everything that is beautiful in the world. To a Jew, a beautiful Nordic woman is not someone to respect and appreciate. No, she is to be reduced to a Marilyn-Monroe-like-whore—progenitor of the porn star—easily manipulated and cummed on by disgusting Jewish men. One reason why Jews embrace Modern Art was because it warped, distorted, deformed, and degraded everything that was beautiful in the world. (This isn’t to knock Modern Art per se. Art is not only about beauty but truth, and since truth can be ugly, an artist has every right to explore things that are weird, disturbing, and even repellent. That said, there seems to be a Jewish agenda in promoting ugliness as a kind of counter-ideology against beauty. Jews love Robert Crumb because his ugly view of the world was assuring to ugliness that defines so much of Jewish culture and people. When an ugly Jew like Elena Kagan is surrounded by ‘Aryan’ beauty, she feels hatred and resentment. But when everything around her has been uglified, she feels at home. Since Jews hate white beauty more than anything—even though Jewish men love to defile white beauty by treating white women as whores for themselves and Negroes—, the kind of beauty that Jews now promote is interracist miscegenationist beauty. So, white beauty is okay ONLY WHEN it’s been absorbed into black genes as in Obama. White beauty as white pride is bad. But when white genes improve the looks of blacks or Jews, then it’s good. So, whiteness is ONLY GOOD when socially, economically, or genetically subservient to Jews and Negroes. Just like there can be white nationalism for white interests, there can be white beauty as basis for white pride. This is the real agenda of the hideous Jews.
Why are Chinese so soulfully ugly, unfeeling, selfish, vile, and petty? Why didn’t any Chinese help Bruce Lee’s sister from rapists in ENTER THE DRAGON? Partly, I suppose they had to look out for themselves since both their worldview and spiritual vision were dark and unpleasant—and there was much in reality to verify this. Though we think of Taoism and Confucianism as the hallmarks of Chinese philosophy and spirituality, there is another side to Chinese culture. Chinese ‘popular religion’ was highly superstitious, with just about gods for everything—even for outhouses. These gods were generally not friendly but hostile, conniving, and corrupt. They demanded offerings, supplications, and bribes at every turn. So, Chinese burned real money—or fake money if they were poor—as offering to gods. If the gods were not thus appeased, they could bring upon all sorts of misfortunes on just about any aspect of life. Or gods would torment your ancestors in afterlife and then wait to torment you when you die. Or gods might give you a toothache, flare up your hemorrhoids, affect your hearing, etc, etc, unless you bribed them with offerings.
If the Christian Heaven and Hell are concepts of morality—with good going to Heaven and evil going to Hell—, the afterlife in Chinese popular religion is nihilistic and corrupt. The top gods are like big powerful corrupt bureaucratic officials, and they don’t give a crap about right and wrong. They only care about power and wealth. So, if you want your life and afterlife(and those of your ancestors and family members) to be bearable, you have to bribe the proper spiritual authorities. Thus, Chinese became extremely petty and paranoid about everything. Even the question of where to build an outhouse became an intricate matter of something called Feng Shui. Build it wrong and you might suffer from constipation or diarrhea. Worse, the spiritual nature of Chinese culture remained mysterious and opaque. Judaism and Islam has the do’s and don’ts on food, clothing, language, and etc, but the rules are pretty clear-cut. Don’t eat pork, don’t mix milk and meat, wear a veil, rest on the Sabbath, etc. Chinese superstitious-spirituality—or superstituality—was of a more ambiguous quality. So, if you wanted to build a house, you couldn’t just do so based on simple rules found in some sacred text. Instead, you had to hire some Feng Shui expert who somehow understood the mystery as Yoda did with the Force. Though there are certain general principles behind Chinese superstituality, one could never tell unless one hired an expert on such matters and rewarded him handsomely.
Now, both European history and Chinese history were pretty miserable over long stretches. But because of the clear-cut moralistic dimensions of Christianity, the European method of dealing with hardship was to try to be more moral. Since God is good and Jesus selflessly died for man’s sins and since Heaven is for the good—no matter how poor and wretched—while Hell is for the wicked—no matter how rich and powerful—, it was of great importance for Europeans to be more serious about basic morality. So, when bad things happened, Europeans thought they needed to improve themselves morally to be in good graces with the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now, to be sure, Confucianism has a strong moral content, and Taoism is full of wisdom and depth. But Confucianism said nothing about spirituality, and Taoism remained aloof of human affairs. As such, neither could serve as a whole spiritual/moral meal to the Chinese as Christianity did for Europeans. Christianity, with God as Man who walked the Earth to do good work and die for man’s sins, fused the spiritual with the worldly, the theological with the philosophical(and social). Confucianism said ‘be good’ but offered no satisfying answer to why the world was so horribly bad in ways that defied human explanations. Such horrors could only be explained by mysterious forces governing reality. Taoism spoke of a higher truth beyond the needs of daily life and, as such, shared with Buddhism an emphasis on passive transcendence. People in bad straits want some answers; they don’t believe they can meditate bad things away. So, what prevailed to fill the vacuum among most Chinese was the so-called ‘popular religion’. Since it was a hodgepodge of fears, complexes, anxieties, insecurities, and hopes that were never formulated into a moral system, it became a form of spirituality of corruption. Over time, its spiritual realm came to reflect the nature of the real world as perceived by much-suffering people. Since most bureaucrats and officials were cruel, petty, nasty, vile, pompous, highfalutin, arbitrary, greedy, and cruel, the gods took on the same qualities. It was as if devils and demons ruled the universe, and the ONLY hope for any protection from the horrors was bribery and pleading for mercy. The whole thing was a racket controlled by triad gangsters in heaven dressed in pompous official garb. Since there was no unifying morality that applied to all people—since each family and person was judged by how much bribe they offered to the gangster gods—, there was no sense of common good. A Christian feels that if he’s good, God will love him even if he doesn’t have a cent to offer to God. Thus, all good Christians are part of one spiritual and moral community. But to the Chinese, the idea of spiritual unity is a joke. Instead, you are favored if you bribe the gods. Also, even among those who can handsomely bribe the gods, there is no common paradise in afterlife. There is no Kingdom of Heaven where all souls reunite. According to Chinese spirituality, you or your family remain separate even if you somehow manage to bribe the gods sufficiently to have them treat you favorably. In some ways, one could say Chinese had a very hard-nosed view of reality without the naivete of Christianity. But too much of anything is bad, and Chinese spirituality is cruel, vile, and vicious. The Greek gods could be cruel and arbitrary too, but there was also an element of nobility, wisdom, and conscience in them. Also, Greek gods represented the beauty of power. Chinese gods, in contrast, were just a bunch of shrewd bastards whose only morality was pomposity. They put on big airs, but all they really wanted was your money and obedience. Also, there’s a poetic element in Greek mythology, and the stories make you appreciate the wonders of the world as well as fear its dark side. Also, Greek words are among the most beautiful. Take a word like ‘metamorphosis’. It sure sounds better than ‘feng shui’. Or take the name of Greek gods: Athena, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. For all I know, the names of Chinese gods could be Fing Fong Fu and Wang Ding Dong. Not very inspiring. Chinese spirituality was about sickening pomposity, not lyricism and poetry abundantly found in Greek myths.
Chinese selfishness and self-centeredness must never be confused with individualism. Paradoxically, the excessive self-obsession among Chinese derives from a lack of individualism. That a culture emphasizing the group over the individual would produce such pathological levels of self-interest may seem counterintuitive, but there’s a certain logic to the madness. A true individual in the Western sense has a healthy sense of self-dom, personal dignity, and pride if properly earned. (This is not to be confused with the black-American notions of pride based on brash thuggery and gorillian antics.) Having an organic and vibrant sense of self, a Westerner—if unaffected by the Jewish virus of political correctness or not threatened by gruesome Negroes(as many whites are in the Deep South)—is relatively big-hearted. Possessing self-confidence and individual freedom, he doesn’t see the world around him as a burden on his shoulders. He wants his rights and freedoms to be respected, and he respects the rights and freedoms of others. He doesn’t have to obsess about the self since he can take his freedom and personal dignity for granted. He may be obsessed about money and success but within a system of rule of law and mutual respect where everyone’s basic dignity and pride are protected. In traditional(and even modern)East Asia, there hasn’t been much of a sense of individuality. A son had to bow down before his father. A younger brother had to suck up to older brother. A woman belonged to her husband and his family; after he died, she belonged to her eldest son. Villagers lived under the whim of local bureaucrats. Chinese teachers emphasized rote memorization and mental conformity; anyone exhibiting signs of deviation were likely to be whacked in the head or cruelly punished and insulted—even worse than in English boarding schools or arch-Catholic schools. Thus, everyone was grinded through a process of humiliation, belittlement, intimidation, sadism, cruelty, and having to swallow ‘bitter rice’. Though the social practice of this system was petty and brutal, it was rationalized and moralized by the Chinese as ‘cultivating the virtue of obedience, loyalty, humility, and etc.’ So, outwardly, Chinese could put on all the nice seeming manners, but their society was defined by oppression, fear, anxiety, and humiliation. Since just about every person grew under the iron heels of social superiors, when he finally gained his own position to mete out punishment on others, he really cherished his power. Since power and privilege was so hard to come by in this system of rigid hierarchy(and so easily lost if one dropped one’s guard and became ‘soft’), any ounce of power gotten for oneself was of immeasurable importance. (Chinese came to favor manners over morals because the former was superficial as opposed to the obligational burden of the latter. Manners could be used as a mask and instrument of deceit to gain and protect one’s power. Manners are the outward appearance of virtue without having to be virtuous. In a society that was, at once, dog-eat-dog and pompous, mastering the art and politics of manners were crucial; it was the science of using the facade of virtue to gain advantage over others. It was like the game of Go where two Chinamen quietly and sip tea and gently place black and white pieces on the board to encircle and trap the other side. The problem of morality was its sense of obligations to others for the sake of higher good. For most Chinese, the good was determined in familial terms; acting in the higher good of society could very well undermine familial interests, and so the facade of goodness was favored over real goodness. Another problem of the ideal of ‘higher good’ is it could make one light-headed and naive, like idiot white liberals such as Ken Burns—and all those do-gooder whites in South Africa who welcomed the end of Apartheid in naive expectation of peaceful harmony with blacks. A truly sensible person learns to balance concepts of higher good and real world interests. Sadly, your average Chinese learned to pursue only familial interests while white liberals insipidly fool themselves into embracing some foolish utopianism. Nauseating white liberals like Ken Burns are desperate for the approval of people like Wynton Marsalis and Woody Allen. I suppose for a ‘bland white boy’, it’s ‘hip and cool’ to be accepted by fancy Jazz-playing Negroes and witty Jews.) So, Chinese became obsessive about accumulating as much power and wealth for themselves since the power-politics of the world around them seemed so treacherous and unforgiving, a minefield where one wrong step could lead to ruin. Gaining and hoarding as much as possible was good insurance for a rainy day. Take Four Fingered Wu of NOBLE HOUSE. He’s always acting like just another jolly good-natured poor old man living on a junk boat, but he’s obsessively conniving to grab as much loot for himself as possible.
Though most individuals in the West are not particularly rich or powerful, they grow up with a sense of individual sovereignty and just rewards for one’s efforts. In contrast, Chinese traditionally grew up with the feeling that all the cards were stacked heavily against them. Worse, obediently accepting unremitting cruelty and humiliation from superiors became the accepted mode of life. Take the movie FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE where the kids are mentally and physically tortured on a daily basis by the Peking Opera trainers. There is no room for sentimentality or mercy. But because cruelty and humiliation have moralized in Chinese culture, the kids readily accept the punishment as deserving and necessary. They don’t like it but figure it’s the ONLY way to build character, become tough and worthy, and learn one’s place in society. Later when the master dies, we see the two characters, now successful opera performers, kneel down and weep. The old man had beaten the shit out of them but his memory is sincerely honored since they know of no cultural or value system except their own. And it must be said, though the old man was indeed a cruel person, he may have sincerely believed he was doing what was right and necessary since he too surely underwent the same process when he was young—and had to humiliatingly bow down to social superiors all his life. Confucius said “lead by virtue”, but the actual Chinese practice was closer to “beat ‘virtue’ into the little buggers.” So, for the Chinese, any piece of freedom or success came to be something to obsess over. When they got a morsel, they guarded it with extreme possessiveness; and, it is so precious they’ll do anything to get more of it. (In this sense, Chinese greed is different from Western greed.
For the Chinese, greed is associated with survivalism. You have to accumulate as much power and wealth as possible as insurance against those who might to destroy you completely. It is greed borne of fear. The greed of American bigshots is greed as a kind of game: to out-Gordon-Gekko the competition. Losing in America didn’t mean you lost everything. You still had your rights and protection under rule of law; and with good fortune and ambition, you might climb to the top again. Politically and economically, losing has never been fatal or completely ruinous in America. Even Nixon sort of rehabilitated his career. Chinese politics traditionally meant one power group totally humiliated, oppressed, or even annihilated another group. Economically, it meant you could lose everything overnight, as so many Chinese did during the 19th and 20th centuries during social upheavals, wars, invasions, and revolutions. Perhaps, a similar dynamic is true of Jews. Jewish greed, unlike Wasp greed, has an element of fearful survivalism. For Jews, competition may be seen not so much as a game of win or lose but live or die. Across many centuries, Jews saw their fortunes rise and then vanish overnight; just when they thought they found safe haven, they would be set upon by mobs who burned their houses, looted their treasures, and exiled them to other lands. So, when Jews set out to win, they set out to win absolutely and totally destroy or tame/control/castrate the competition. Wasps, in contrast, long held control of UK and then over the British Empire. And Anglo-Americans felt as the secure masters of America. Since they felt safe in a world they controlled, the matter of winning and losing didn’t become as extreme and pathological in their psychology as it did with the Jews. Compare the ‘greedy’ Wasp father in LOVE STORY—who actually turns out to be a decent sort—compared to greedy Jew lawyer in CARLITO’S WAY. This isn’t to say Wasps didn’t pull dirty tricks in the past, but they still maintained the ideal of ‘fair play’ and in time came to apply it to themselves as well. But Jews think differently. They are used to seeing competition as a matter of survival; if they don’t win, they won’t merely lose but might end up dead—or so the Jew has been psycho-culturally made to feel over the many centuries. The extreme greed of the Jew may also owe to their history of monomania. So used to the notion of one and only God and themselves being His Chosen People, Jews may have been conditioned to feel that they should control everything. Paradoxically, the extreme survivalist mode of the Jewish and Chinese rich sometimes proved to be counterproductive. Though their greed may have had a defensive— somewhat morally justifiable—element given the harsh conditions they faced through the ages, their extreme greed in turn came to serve as justification for hatred against them—by poor masses in China or by angry gentile mobs in Europe.) And since everyone thinks this way, the ideal of the common good became more empty rhetoric than an actual social virtue or civic duty in China. The art of being Chinese is to affect the appearance of virtue while conspiring to pull every dirty trick in the book and fortune cookie to come out on top. Chinese wear the mask of Confucius but have the mind of Fu Man Chu or Four Fingered Wu. Or take Amy Chua. She talks about the virtues of Tiger Motherhood, but it’s really about her big vain ego. (Though Koreans are different from Chinese, the Kims of North Korea seem to archetypally East Asian. There were no-good commie leaders in Europe and Latin America but surely nothing this extreme. The self-absorption of the Kims has been legendary. In nation of 22 million, possibly up to 2 million starve while fatboy Kim Jong Il ate like a pig and played like a big baby with fancy toys. Stalin was a mass killer, but at least his policies had some higher national purpose—and Stalin’s own lifestyle wasn’t too lavish. Stalin believed he had to kill millions to create a powerful Soviet Union. But what was the logic of North Korean famines? And why is a communist ruler living like the most outrageous party king playboy celebrity in the West? Gaddafi was a vain idiot, but even he still had some feeling for his people; he at least fed them, which he may have regretted as well-fed young men came after him with guns and a knife to stick up his arse. Though totalitarian North Korea and democratic South Korea are very different, it could be that the real difference is North Korea can afford only one Kim-the-merciless whereas South Korea has over 40 million of them. In other words, though there is individual freedom in South Korea, the practice and the mentality behind it may not be much different than the self-absorption and clan-centrism of the Kims of North Korea. In the North, the Kim dynasty rules over all and has no feeling—or cannot spare any feeling—for anyone outside the circle. In South Korea, judging by the basis of their extreme ‘exam hell’ culture, it could be every family has no sense of good beyond ‘my son go to top college; he better than your son’. Recently, there was a BBC news story about high suicide rates among Korean students. The prevailing ‘ideal’ seems to be ‘top college or bust’. In the West, parents want their kids to do well in school. As long as the kid tries, he is supported and praised, even if he doesn’t make it to some elite college. Everyone has his limits, and so the thing is to give it your best. There is no shame in not making it to the top as long as one made the effort. That is the healthy and positive side of individualism. Succeed or fail, there is a modicum of individual worth. But in East Asia, honor goes to the winners, and losers are not only rejected by the family but reviled for having shamed the family honor or some such melodramatic childish crap. Though East Asian culture stresses maturity-over-childhood more than the West, East Asian kids don’t seem to mature emotionally, organically, and individually as individuals. Their Asian idea of maturity is just bowing low, doing as told, following the established track, and hoping for acceptance and approval by the powers-that-be. It is about learning to conform to a system than developing and exploring one’s own sense of self. Now, part of the maturing process is learning to accept limits and deny oneself certain childish pleasures for higher principles. But there is a difference between learning to take responsibility and making one’s own choices AND just following the orders of parents and teachers. Of course, when I speak of the West as opposed to the East, I’m thinking of an earlier time. With the cult of celebrity-ism, nanny-statism, Afro-fueled hedonism, Jewish venalism, and other foulness, what now passes for Western culture and values has been significantly degraded. The London Olympics preview act at the 2008 Beijing Olympics Closing Ceremony presented an England defined by trashiness, triviality, ugliness, and retardation. And given the foul state of American popular culture and the repressiveness of political correctness, it’s amusing when the West preaches to the world about human dignity and freedoms. It has come to a point where the West should look in the mirror before mouthing off platitudes that no longer make any sense given that what passes for American culture, spirituality, and ideals revolves around 50 cents, Oprah, Obama, Jew worship, and sacrifice-our-children-in-wars-for-Israel. Chinese may be vile and cruel, but they are NOT stupid enough to sacrifice Chinese money and lives for a foreign country, nor would Chinese allow a cabal of non-Chinese to dominate and control the finance, media, and government of China. If Western values now amount to pussified white males worshiping MLK, jungle-feverized white women putting out to Negroes, and Jews robbing everyone blind, they are more worthless than Chinese values.)
Other than the awfulness of Chinese popular religion and the cruel hypocrisy of Chinese social hierarchy, there is the Legalist tradition in China. (Legalism in the Chinese sense should not be confused with the Western sense. In the West, it means primacy of the law, even over the powerful and the privileged. In China, it mean the totalitarian use of laws by the elites to organize and order society. Western legalism is an ideal and principle whereas Chinese legalism is an instrument and weapon.) Though Chinese propped up Confucianism as their official philosophy, the actual workings of Chinese power were closer to legalist doctrines. The main rules of legalism were (1) utter ruthlessness (2) everyone doing his thing in his place and nothing else (3) strict hierarchy (4) ruler as godlike absolute overlord (5) cold machinelike programming and operation of state functions top to bottom. The extreme form of legalism as practiced by Emperor Chin, the first unifier of China, didn’t last long, but strains of legalism continued throughout Chinese history.
Chinese are so petty and small-minded that they were invaded by lesser peoples time and time again. Pettiness made it less likely for Chinese to unite and fight for the common good. Also, the petty-mindedness of Chinese rulers favored extreme conservatism, and that meant suppressing all criticism and innovation that might have done some good for China. If Chinese elites had to choose between their own power and goodness of all Chinese, it was always the former. Also, due to their petty self-absorption, Chinese rulers sincerely believed they were doing good by maintaining ‘harmony’ and order(by, of course, monopolizing all the power). After all, freedom seemed to give rise to anarchy, violence, and chaos both socially and politically. But what the Chinese failed to understand was that many Chinese were unfit to be free precisely because Chinese were not allowed to mature as responsible adults who could think and act on their own and take responsibility for their own actions. Instead, Chinese—and Japanese too—were raised to follow, obey, conform, and bow down. Chinese were made to feel collective than individual responsibility. Thus, if a father did something wrong, it wasn’t just his fault but the entire family’s. If a son did something, the whole family was responsible too. Sometimes it could lead to loss of face or honor; but other times, it could lead to wholesale execution of the entire family. In SHOGUN, local chieftain Yabu tells a village that if Anjin-san doesn’t become proficient in Japanese language in 6 months, everyone will be killed. East Asians thus had a powerful sense of responsibility, but it was never personal or individual responsibility. Since ‘everyone’ got punished for the ‘crime’ of one person, every community made sure that every individual from a young age learned to get along, go along, shut up, follow orders, and never ask questions to disturb or upset the social authority. Since East Asians were raised this way, they didn’t know how to handle freedom as individuals. So, when social order loosened and people were allowed to be freer, people didn’t act as responsible individuals but ran loose like a caged dog let free. (This is why many Western stewardesses—aka flight attendants—have complained of childish behavior of East Asian travelers. In Asia, these men know the rules of proper behavior in group settings, but once they’ve stepped outside their cultural zone, they think it’s a matter of ‘anything goes’.) So, Asian social repression became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It created people who didn’t know what to do with freedom, and so freedom often led to craziness, thereby requiring ruthless forces to regain and maintain iron control and banish freedom. (But then, the ideal of responsible individual freedom is dead in the West too. Negroes think freedom is all about rioting and looting over Nike Air Jordans, generation XYZ thinks freedom means depending on prescription drugs and bending over to the gay agenda, and nearly the majority of Americans think the concept of ‘rights’ means one should be entitled to free cellphones and the like paid for by other people.)
If the Chinese had been bigger-hearted and nobler in thought, they would achieved much more and held off attacks from Mongols and other northern barbarians. But, the petty Chinese rulers were far too obsessed with their own self-aggrandizement and far too fearful of the people to allow the kind of values, freedoms, and changes that could lead to improvements and greater strength for China. Though elites of all cultures sought to maintain control, there is still the ideal of change and reform for the greater good in the West. So, as the power of the bourgeoisie grew, the aristocrats gradually came to accept and absorb the changes—even though it meant the decline of their own power and prestige. This has been especially true of Americans. Though founded by Wasps—and though Wasps were eager to maintain power and elite position—, there was the sense that Catholics, Italians, Jews, and even Negroes should have a chance at success and power too. If Wasps had to choose between wasp-dominated tyranny and a dynamic democracy where Wasps were no longer dominant, they would have chosen the latter, which is what they did. Where Wasps made a huge mistake was assuming that Jews, as the new elites, would play by similar rules. Jews, confident of their superior IQ and morality, will never give up their power to any other group. Jews will use non-Jews as frontmen and puppets—Obama, Bush II, Gingrich, etc—, but Jews are in it for keeps. And Jews, in their vile power-lust and hateful contempt, feel no appreciation or respect for Wasps. Secretly, Jews are cracking up at dumb, trusting, sappy, good-willed Wasps who all-too-readily gave up power and are now sucking up to Jews as running dogs eager to play fetch. Because Jews are vile and hideous, they should never be allowed to control government, law, media, and education. When Jews accused Wasps of a whole litany of abuses of power and privilege, Wasps thought Jews were acting as the conscientious moral arbiters for a more just future. Since Jewish intellectuals and writers were by far the most interesting through the 20th century, Wasps also admired Jews as intellectual giants searching for the truth. While there was an element of morality in the Jewish critique of Wasp power—and genuine truths in the insights and ideas of many Jewish intellectuals—, the truth is the main purpose of Jewish criticism was POWER. As far as Jews were concerned, the main problem wasn’t that Wasps were particularly evil but that Wasps had the power. Now that Jews have the power, notice how they suppress any and all criticism of Jews. A guy like Mark Sanchez got fired for saying something as obvious as “Jews run much of media.” Jews can dish it out, but they will not take it. The likes of Elena Kagan will chastize and castigate white society, but if white Americans pointed out the abuses and vileness of Jews, Jews will unite to destroy their careers and blacklist them for good. Even institutions that aren’t owned or controlled directly by Jews toe the Jewish line since they rely on Jews for business, connections, and favoritism.
The difference between Jews and Chinese is the former are petty in feeling but grand in thought—Marxism, Freudianism, Chomskyism, Friedmanism, etc—whereas Chinese are petty in both. (To be sure, Chinese are more experienced internationally than the Japanese. One reason for Japan’s troubles with imperialism and international trade during, respectively, WWII and the 1980s was the inability of Japanese to function as global actors. Japanese are only familiar with Japan, and the Japanese diaspora community has been a limited phenomenon. In contrast, Chinese have had a long history of business outside China—especially in Southeast Asia—and have developed networks with a degree of global reach. To be sure, this was cut off for the mainland during the Mao years, but one of the reasons why mainlanders have been quick learners since the 80s was due to ready contacts with ‘overseas’ Chinese who, during the Mao yrs, built up business connections all over the world. And even though communism was an economic disaster for China, all the stuff about international brotherhood and Third World revolution did imbue the Chinese with some sense of global community. China, by its very size and physical contact with non-Chinese to its north, west, and south, has also been less isolated than the Japanese. If your people are going to rule over another people—whose culture is fundamentally different from yours—, you need a lot of patience. You need to play the game of carrot and the stick and keep looking to improve the skills of negotiation. You need to be ruthless when necessary but compromising at other times. Brits became experts at this. They knew they couldn’t rule over 1/4 of the world by brute force alone. They knew that non-Brits couldn’t understand British culture, and Brits couldn’t fully understand local culture. So, both parties should learn to understand one another and arrive at some mutually acceptable negotiation. Locals would acknowledge the Brits as the new lords, and the Brits would recognize local elites as rightful leaders, and both parties would benefit by trade. This required a degree of two-facedness, but it worked. Dirk Struan of NOBLE HOUSE is very much the archetype of this model: ruthless and calculating when necessary but principled and compromising when possible; use the whip if you must but purposefully and never arbitrarily; make the locals fear the white man but also make them know that white will play fair if both parties come to an agreement. Perhaps the mastery of navigation also made the European mind more flexible and creative in dealing with new peoples and challenges. To navigate across the oceans, one needs to coordinate the forces of water, wind, and wit. One cannot always get what one wants. To navigate and negotiate are similar things. East Asians favored land over sea, and this could have kept their minds more rooted and sure-footed in its habits.) Chinese were profoundly fortunate to have spread out over so much territory as one ethnic stock with one culture. There is nothing else like it with the possible exception of Russia. Though Europeans were all white, they were of many ethnic stocks and could never form one nation. So, there were a series of big and small empires in the West—Greek, Roman, Austro-Hungarian, Yugoslavian, etc—, but they all eventually fell apart. The current system of EU isn’t really working out too well either, and besides, its purpose is to create a union of nations, not a single nation out of Europe. For most peoples to control vast territories, they had to invade and rule over different peoples. In the ancient world, Persians and Romans were especially adept at this, but it was never a stable affair since the natural inclination of any people is sovereignty. Poles under Russian and Germanic rule always looked to Polish independence. China, in contrast, is both empire-like and of one ethnic stock—and non-Chinese ethnic stocks have been relatively small in number and at the peripheries. China thus became a kind of homogeneous empire-nation. Ethnically, it had the characteristics of a nation—one people, one culture, one language at least in written form, one historical consciousness, etc—, but in size it had the characteristics of an empire. This convergence of ethnic unity and vast size may have led to its self-sense as the Middle Kingdom. (US and Canada had a chance to be empire-nations in the New World, but the need for labor and the ideology of ‘proposition nation’/multi-culturalism undermined that possibility. Actually, given that all whites could become Anglo-Americanized, the problem was not the ethnic diversity of America. It was rather the heavy presence of big powerful gruesome Negroes, the cunning nature of Jews with a vindictive and vengeful Shylockian agenda, and out-of-control immigration filling up American with too many Mexicans and disgusting African/Caribbean Negroes—as if US didn’t have enough gross blacks to begin with. As the ideology of ‘diversity’ marches on, US will come to resemble something more like Brazil or Venezuela. It will look more like a dysfunctional empire than a empire-nation that China will remain. If Russians have lots of children and maintains a Russia-for-Russians, it too can become a great powerful empire-nation. But Russians are a silly people, and Muslim demographics are alarming. Russians are culturally and spiritually so dead that Russia will likely eventually turn into a majority Muslim nation, leading to violent ethnic violence.
Anyway, Chinese were fortunate to have so much land for one people. Chinese, in their pettiness and cruelty, would have made lousy rulers of other peoples. If China had been the size of Britain or Italy, it most certainly wouldn’t have been able to achieve what the Romans and the English did. Romans could be ruthless and heartless but also magnanimous and tolerant. They had minds big enough to envision a system of rule whereby every citizen of Rome, regardless of his ethnicity, would be assured of certain ‘rights’. Romans not only assured rights for their own people but for non-Romans. Chinese rulers, in their sheer pettiness, could not even trust their people who were treated like dogs.
Anyway, the one constant of Chinese history remains true to this day: the ultra-conservatism, lack of vision, pettiness, repressiveness and distrust borne of insecurity, and boundless greed dressed in displays of false virtue. The Chinese elites are a vile, corrupt, petty, and venal bunch. Instead of thinking civically or nationally—like the noble Germans at their best—Chinese elites think dynastically and selfishly. Their view of the world isn’t much different from the view found in Chinese popular religion. (Lloyd Eastman’s FAMILY, FIELDS, AND ANCESTORS is an excellent primer on the vileness of Chinese spirituality.) Chinese people, high and low, are simply not capable of thinking of the common good or higher good, which is why so many Chinese act like Four Fingered Wu. (Or take the little old lady in NOBLE HOUSE. Though a poor nobody, she too is up to all sorts of dirty tricks to steal from people. According to Debra Fallows in DREAMING IN CHINESE, Chinese can even be as crazy as Negroes in getting their hands on Walmart bargains. And consider the scene in NOBLE HOUSE when a stupid rumor starts a run on a bank. Chinese are so lacking in trust of laws and institutions that when they see a line outside a bank, they think in terms of ‘get my money out before I lose it all’. Maybe Chinese are right to feel this way since Chinese elites have been so corrupt and deceitful—speaking honeyed phrases and putting on airs while robbing everyone blind—, but the problem isn’t merely institutional but cultural. Chinese high and low are full of rotten old ladies and Four Fingered Wus. Chinese are both too trusting—in a stupid way—and too untrusting. They are too trusting of—or at least too obedient to—‘master’ and too fearful of getting tricked, abused, and fooled. The Confucian part of Chinese wants to believe in the all-wise master who leads by virtue and is full of sound advice. This part of the Chinese blindly followed Mao in the Great Leap Forward to ‘build socialism and catch up to Britain in 5 yrs and to US in 10 yrs.’ But, as happened many times before, the Chinese got burned again by trusting authority and grew yet more distrustful. Total faith leads to total disillusion. But instead of realizing this and settling on something between faith and cynicism—the culture of trust and rule of law—, Chinese keep vacillating between or even combining the two extremes. Given that Mao killed tens of millions, he should be remembered as the villain of Chinese history. And if the Communist Party had any sense of decency, it would come clean about its past as Gorbachev did with the abuses of Lenin and Stalin. But, the Chinese prefer power over truth. Since truth might disrupt the current management of power by the Communist Party, China prefers the myth of noble Mao as savior of the nation. And this feeling is shared by both the government and most Chinese. Even Chinese who know all about Mao’s madness prefer to see him as a useful and necessary symbol of unity for all Chinese. In the absence of rule of law and culture of individual responsibility, social order can only be maintained by myths and the iron boot. Though the economic policy of China since the 80s has been a great success in many ways—the very opposite of the Great Leap Forward—, there are certain similarities between Mao’s plan and the current plan. Chinese seem to have an almost childish faith in endless growth and improving lots of everyone. But much of the growth defies all economic logic; many are massive bubbles, entire cities built with almost no one living in them. Instead of Potemkin villages, China builds Potemkin cities. By what economic logic will all the current bubbles work out? The funny thing is this madness is the combination of both faith and cynicism. Faith in the future wealth and greatness of China under the wise rule of the Communist Party and the cynicism of ‘get rich fast while it lasts through bribery, connections, and backroom dealings.’ (But then, thanks to the near total lock on power in the media, academia, Wall Street, Washington, and law firms by the Jewish cabal, America too seems to be heading in a similar direction. Jews keep feeding us MLK worship—now almost as obnoxious as Mao worship—, nonsense about ‘race being a myth’, the idea of closing IQ gaps, the idea of turning blacks and illegal Mexicans into Einsteins and Steve Jobs, and etc. The GOP, fearful of the charge of ‘racism’—and in its embrace of Holocaustianity as the new great religion of the West—, tries to top the Democrats in schemes to create kingdom of heaven on earth. George W. Bush blamed lending policies for ‘racial injustice’ against blacks and Hispanics and gave green light to massive loans to every moron who wanted to buy a house without any chance of repaying the loan. Give the vast wealth of America, it’s been able to weather the storm since 2008, but how much more of this craziness can this country take before it collapses? At least during the Great Depression, there were some real debates as to why the depression happened and what had to be done. But now that Jews control the economy and were mainly responsible for the mess—and since Jews also control the media—, we cannot get to the truth of why this nation is so badly messed up: JEW POWER.)
Though Wasp-American capitalism and democratic competition could be cutthroat, there was a sense among Americans of the win-win. In other words, it was never a zero-sum game of total winners and total losers. Thus, if your political party lost, it didn’t mean that the winners had the right to take your property and freedom. You still had your rights and could run to win the next time. Also, your party, with members in Congress, could counter the power of the presidency. In American sports, winners win most but losers win something too. Only one team wins the Superbowl but everyone in the game gets paid well. In capitalism, there are many players, and you could hope to overtake the competition by offering better products and services. There can be both McDonalds and Burger King, both Pepsi and Coke. There are a whole bunch of computer companies. The competition is fierce, but you don’t have to totally win to win, nor is one’s victory assured indefinitely. This system nurtured a value system of fair play and allowed for bigger hearts(at least compared to East Asia).
In contrast, East Asian politics was always winner-takes-all. If your side lost, it wasn’t just a matter of less power but the prospect of having everyone on your side killed or enslaved. Asians have always preferred the unity under one official truth than many truths. They’ve preferred one order than plurality of power and influence. Of course, there were dissenting and rebellious elements all throughout Asian history, but they too sought power to control and dominate all. Mao wasn’t much different from traditional emperors. To be sure, much has changed in places like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong due to Western influence. No one there wants to return to the old ways. Even so, there has been a continuing debate about Asian Values vs Western Values, especially as promulgated by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. This winner-takes-all mentality prevents the Chinese leadership—and the people in general—to think of the common good. They are used to thinking in terms of, “if I lose power to others, they totally destroy me.” Even though China no longer really functions this way, mental habits are hard to break. (It’s like Jews still cling to the notion of “world of dimwit stupid goyim is out to get us, so we must pull every dirty trick to full the goyim.”) So, the Chinese leadership is anxious about the notion of sharing power, influence, and control of economy. They fear that if they were to lose grip on power, they’ll end up like Gaddafi in Libya. It may well be that many communist bosses no longer care for Marxism and tend to be more nationalist than anything else. But the thing is Chinese communism has become intertwined with Chinese nationalism in mainland historiography. Generations have been brought up to believe that China prior to communist victory was a puppet state of imperialists and that Chiang Kai-shek was nothing more than a puppet of foreign powers and landlords. (To be sure, there seems to be a gradual revision of Chiang’s legacy as a misguided and failed patriot than an evil man or treacherous stooge.) If the Chinese leadership were creative enough, they might make a relatively painless transition from communist party rule to something different, at least in name and brand. But Chinese haven’t been politically very creative in matters of change and reform. Remaking itself comes naturally to America—too easily these days and for the worse since Jews control the destiny of the nation—, but the political mentality of China is to maintain power than allow to power to grow into something better. The Chinese leadership cannot hold a candle to the Founding Fathers of the early American republic. To be sure, the Founders could afford to be more idealistic since there was lots of land for Americans, most of whom could just ignore politics and do their own thing. In contrast, the fate of the Chinese have been at the mercy of the powerful government over the millennia, and it’s still the case today. Given that so many Chinese are still poor and on the margins of desperation and given that their acceptance/support of the status quo is based on expectations of rising socially—or providing their children with a better life—, the Chinese leadership has much to worry about. During the early period of the American republic, plentiful-land-for-everyone was a fact, and besides, most of the economy was agricultural. It was the first version of American Dream, and it could be realized by the majority of Americans. In contrast, much of the social unity and political order in China is based on psychology. Though many Chinese have done well under the new economy, the fact remains that most Chinese are still either very poor or working under tough—sometimes inhuman—conditions for a pittance. They put up with the misery because it’s still better than life on the farm and because they think things will get better—and maybe China will become a superpower that all Chinese can be proud of. To maintain this mass psychology, the Chinese leadership takes few political risks. They want people to believe things-are-improving-under-wise-and-firm-rule-of-the-party. But man cannot live on hope alone, and so there’s been a great expansion of bread-n-circuses in entertainment in China. As is true in America and UK, people addicted to junk celebrity culture tend to care less about political issues. Also, unlike the early American economy that was largely self-reliant with farmers growing their own food, the rise of the Chinese economy depends on global networks and trends, and that means the whole thing can collapse like a house of cards if Jews in the US decided to push the button on Chinese destruction.
There is an unspoken—and possibly unconscious on the part of the sheeple—bargain struck between the elites and the masses in both US and China. American leadership is Jewish while the Chinese leadership is concentrated in the Communist Party. (Though the American government, unlike the Chinese one, doesn’t own and control all sectors of American society, American Jews not only control government but finance—biggest sector of US economy—, high tech, medical industry with its somatic drugs, law firms, media, entertainment, academia, etc; so, it’s fair to say US is really a faux-democracy ruled by Jewish oligarchs and their agents. Recently, the role of the American government has been expanding, and Jews desire this since it’s through federal power that Jews can extend its octopus tentacles to all regions and sectors of American society. Through federal policies and mandates, Jews decide which companies will be sued, prosecuted, and destroyed for violating rules of political correctness that favor Jews, gays, blacks, and illegals over the white middle class. Thus, Jews want bigger federal government to control every corner of America. If Jews have their way, schools in every small town will be reading HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES and MY DADDY IS BLACK AND MY MOMMY IS WHITE to little children.) The bargain between the elites and masses goes like this: you cannot criticize the domestic powers-that-be but you can vent your spleen against foreign enemies. So, if Americans are angry with conditions in America, they are never ever to blame Jews, BUT they can—indeed are encouraged to—blame it all on Muslims, Chinese, and Russians. (Though Jews support illegal immigration, they play it both ways. On the one hand, Jews back the illegals as victims of white prejudice and ‘racism’. On the other hand, Jews would rather have white Americans blame Mexican illegals than the Jewish elites who actually pull the strings on immigration policy. Jews would rather have minutemen go to the border and shout at Mexicans than have them come to NY and call out on Jewish anti-white foulness.) Americans have been raised to revere and worship Jews as a kind of Godpeople, and therefore, Americans psychologically have a problem with associating Jews with evil. So, even if a Jew spat on your face and hired a Negro to rape your wife, you wouldn’t be able to say, “a dirty Jew did it.” Why, that would be ‘Nazi’ and ‘antisemitic’. So, how do you deal with your anger? You have to make believe that Muslims spat on you and your wife was raped by a ‘chink’. As weird as this may sound, people are capable of all sorts of psychological distortions. It’s like Jews believed God as being perfect and therefore He could not be blamed for anything. So, when something went wrong, something else had to be blamed as scapegoat. There is a contradiction here of course. If God is all-powerful and controls everything, bad things must happen because God ordered them. But Jews also said God is good and perfect, so how could He be blamed for anything? What we have in the US is Jew-and-Negro worship. We are not only supposed to admire MLK; we are supposed to worship him. If you say anything critical of King—even if it’s factually true—, you are branded a heretic and sinner: a ‘racist’, the worst of all possible epithets in the Jew World Order. And we are supposed to worship the Jew. Just look at the effect of this psychological reality among white conservatives. Jews created, groomed, and funded Obama. Everything Obama did was at the behest of Jews. Jews are the main supporters of the gay agenda, illegal immigration, anti-white affirmative action(which has minimal effect on Jews as the current AA favors rich whites—most Jews are rich—over poor whites), radical feminism, war on Christmas, interracism that encourages white women to have sex with Negroes, etc. Yet, white conservatives want to sacrifice their children for Israel and Jews. So many white Christians are proud that their children returned home in body bags or as cripples from the War on Terror, which is little more than War for Israel. White conservatives say American Jews must be protected from antisemitism, poor helpless Israel must be protected from New Nazi state Iran, Wall Street must be defended against Obama—even though bulk of Jewish Wall Street money went to Obama, who filled his administration with Wall Street insiders that robbed white Main Street Americans blind—, and etc. This is Jew worship. Of course, there is an element of fear in any worship. Why worship God if He’s not perceived as powerful? And though Jesus did get whupped real bad, the fact is He took all that pain, rose above, and returned to life—or so the legend says. The strange thing about the Christian mentality is it fused a deep pity/sympathy/compassion for a helpless Jesus beaten by Romans and great fear/awe/worship of powerful Jesus as a manifestation of God. Jesus deserves pity because He supposedly suffered as no man had suffered before; yet, He is also to be feared since He decides who goes to Heaven and who burns in Hell. Jews understand the psychology of Christian sticks and carrots. So, Holocaustianity had turned Jews into Jewsus. Jews are both to be pitied and feared. They are to be pitied as helpless and saintly victims through the ages of satanic anti-Semites. Every Jew is to be seen as a Holocaust survivor. At the same time, the Jew is to be feared because he controls the money supply, information streams, the arms of the law, and the big ideas(via think tanks, punditry, and academia). Jew is both utterly helpless and frighteningly powerful. We live under Jewish power but we must believe in Jewish powerlessness.
Since Christianity is a form of moral narcissism rooted in the notion that Jesus, the Son of God, redeemed and saved mankind—whereby all Christians are blessed by the angels—, it is deeply troubling to many Christians that most of the anti-Semites through history were none other than Christians. So, how can American Christians square their view of themselves as loyal servants of the Holy God with the fact of Christianity’s long animosity toward Jews(and the Jews’ long history of contempt for Christians)? American Christians fervently try to go out of their way to appease the Jew to prove for all eternity that Jews and Christians are one happy people. White Christianity now wants to be the wife who spreads her legs for Judaism-as-her-husband. Unfortunately, white Christianity doesn’t understand that Secular Zionism doesn’t just want make love as a loyal husband but wanna turn her into a whore who must spread her legs to the foul Negro as well.
White Christians, in their desperation to minimize the history of Christian antisemitism, try to dump most of antisemitism on paganism—Roman or Nazi—or accuse Muslims of being the New Nazis while Christians are the best friends of Jews and Israel. And Jews play along with this to some degree just to toy with goy psychology. What is, after all, the real meaning behind SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? Though the Jew Spielberg focuses on a bunch of Americans—among them a Jew—going out of their way to save a goyboy named Ryan, the real message of the war is “it’s so noble of Christians to lay down their lives in a war to save Jews.” So, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is just a ruse for GOYIM MUST DIE FOR JEWS!!! Fools think Spielberg is friendly toward Christianity because the movie shows one soldier kissing the Crucifix before blowing away Germans, but the real point is ‘Christianity is good ONLY when you invoke it to save Jews and kill the enemies of Jews.’ And this mentality prevails among so many dumb white conservatives when it comes to Iran. Now, Spielberg is a great moviemaker, and the action scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are among the greatest if not the greatest. But, Spielberg is really a sly Jewish Supremacist who is manipulating Norman Rockwellian Christian iconography for his own tribal interests. He is a puppet-master of your dimwit goy emotions. He is a big supporter of Obama the soam—son of a mudshark—, and he’s all too happy about the pussification of the white male and jungle-feverization of white females. He supports the radical gay agenda and illegal immigration to ‘elect a new people’ whereby white Americans will be reduced to another minority group to be manipulated divide-n-rule style by hideous Jews like himself.
Since Jewish power must never be countered or even questioned, what is to be done about the political passions of white Americans? It must be directed outward at Iranians and Chinese—and sometimes Russians. (Though many Jewish leftists turned to neoconservatism because they came to loathe the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union, as neocons they began to understand and appreciate the utility of animosity toward an external enemy. As long as white American goyim were too busy venting their spleen at white Russian goyim, it was goyim vs goyim while Jews felt safe. Remember the Popeye cartoon where the sailor hero and Bluto throw diner equipments and food at one another while Hamburger stands between them and enjoys a free meal at their expense? That’s how Jews came to see the Cold War. (If any people won, it was the Jews.) As long as white Americans feared and directed their aggression at white Russians, Jews could toy with white American passions. This explains why even liberal Hollywood happily made all those anti-communist movies in the 80s like RED DAWN and RAMBO, which had Russians all over Vietnam. Neocons came to appreciate the Cold War as an opportunity to direct white American passion at external enemies, thereby ensuring less goy energy left to bark at the Jew. So, the end of the Cold War was somewhat troubling to neocons and even to liberal Jews. This is why, even as liberal Jews pretend to be for peace, they’ve been aiding neocons to fan white American rage at Iran and China. Better for white Americans to worry about being attacked or invaded by foreign ‘muzzies’ or ‘chinks’ than have them wake up to the fact that US is actually owned and controlled by Jewish Supremacist Imperialists. Of course, given their clever nature, Jews always play a two-faced game. On the issue of Putin’s Russia, some Jews publicly tended to be pro-Putin while others were anti-Putin. Pro-Putin Jews said Russia needed a strong and steady hand, and Putin was the man. Even so, they were angry with Putin’s moves against certain Jewish oligarchs and worked with anti-Putin Jews to slander Russia. During the 80s, there were pro-Japan Jews and anti-Japan Jews, and they played the Japan card like Jerry Springer. Pro-Japan Jews said Japan-bashing reeked of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ while anti-Japan Jews spread of the fear of the Japtopus spreading its tentacles all around the world and devouring America as a plate of sushi. But behind closed doors, anti-Japan Jews and pro-Japan Jews were acting in tandem. Agree or disagree on some issues, the #1 priority of most Jews is Jewish power and interest. Even when the Jew is your enemy, he will act as a friend to soften you up; even if the Jew is your friend, he will think of you as an enemy to destroy when the time is ripe. This has been the nature of Jewish mentality of contempt and distrust toward goyim for thousands of years. To trust a Jew is like sheep trusting the shepherd. In the end, you will be eaten.)
Similarly, the Chinese government has struck up a similar bargain with the people. In the name of order, unity, and harmony, the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t allow political criticism and dissent—though, to be sure, there is more anti-government criticism in China than there is anti-Jewish-elite criticism in America. But the fact remains that there’s a lot of frustration, rage, and resentment in China. Even today, it’s fair to say 80% of Chinese are poor by any first world standard. And even the Chinese middle class live far worse than people on welfare in America. So, all this populist rage needs some kind of outlet, and the Chinese elites have decided the targets should be Japan—over WWII atrocities—, Europeans—for the history of imperialism—, Southeast Asian—for mistreatment of Chinese minorities and tensions over territorial rights—, and especially the US—for pulling all sorts of dirty tricks to prevent the proper rise of China as a great power. So, even though most Chinese problems are Chinese in origin, many Chinese youths bitch and whine about how the world is against China, blah blah. Chinese are not wrong that there is a good deal of anti-Chinese sentiments around the world, but much of it is justified—just as much of anti-Americanism is justified, especially in the Muslim world that’s been beaten and battered by America’s Zionist foreign policy. But, Chinese masses prefer to bitch about the world since they’re not allowed to bitch about the elites in Beijing. The Communist Party also cleverly portrays itself as the defender of Chinese integrity, pride, and honor against those around the world that would love to see the Chinese reduced to a bunch of coolies again. So, the Chinese don’t see the problems in Tibet as a ‘human rights’ issue. They see it as the West trying to divide and undermine China as imperialists had done so in the past. The Communist Party invokes both the past and the future. The past is essentially defined as innocent Chinese set upon by sharks of the world. The future is envisioned as one in which a China that deserves its place in the sun is denied that role by the imperialist US. Though there is some validity to Chinese fears, the main problems of China is corruption—especially at upper levels—and lack of moral scruples both political and social. But, it is more convenient for the Communist Party to direct the people’s spleen at the ‘villains’ outside China.
There is, however, one major difference between Chinese elites and Jewish-American elites. Though Chinese elites are plenty greedy and unscrupulous, they are not averse to the idea of other Chinese rising high. They are not opposed to the idea of Chinese power and nationalism. So, the Chinese elites are not trying to create divisions within China.
In contrast, even as Jews unite and direct American gentile rage at external enemies, they are also committed to causing all sorts of divisions within America. Jews don’t feel as one people with white Americans, black Americans, brown Americans, and yellow Americans. So, the Jew is out to divide-and-rule over them. Multiculturalism and ‘diversity’ cult are their instruments. And even though white conservative Americans are only allowed to have external enemies—especially Muslims, Chinese, and Russians(vilified in many Hollywood movies)—, white liberals and non-whites are encouraged to see white conservative Americans as vile ‘racists’, ‘reactionaries’, ‘hate-mongers’, ‘homophobes’, ‘xenophobes’, ‘male chauvinists’, etc. If white conservatives attack domestic enemies, they are labeled as ‘McCarthyite’, ‘red-baiting’, ‘paranoid’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, and ‘bigoted’, but when white liberals, Jews, gays, blacks, radical feminists, and illegal aliens attack white conservatives, that is welcomed and praised as ‘progressive’, ‘committed’, ‘courageous’, ‘enlightening’, ‘heroic’, and etc.
The funniest, most pathetic, and most frustrating thing about American politics is Jews abuse white American conservatives most but white American conservatives worship Jews the most. It’s like someone beating a dog but the dog wanting to playing fetch with the person who kicks it. Most Jews have been heaping abuse on Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum but the idiot duo’s main concern is how many Muslims we should slaughter to defend Israelis who only happen to have a hundred nuclear missiles. American Jews routinely insult, mock, defile, and subvert white conservatives, but white conservatives say we should all worship Jews as the holiest people that ever lived. This is like a porno where a Jew hires a Negro to whup a white guy’s ass and hump the white guy’s woman, but the white guy crawls off to the Jew and pleads, “Oh, great Jew, can I suck your dick?”. White American conservatives are mental slaves of Jews. They ho-de-do and do the Zionist shuffle before their Jewish massuhs. In dignity and independence, they’ve fallen lower than Chinese during the Age of Imperialism. Though Chinese had to eat ‘bitter rice’ and accept the reality of Western and Japanese imperialism, they always knew that their motherland had been invaded by ‘foreign devils’ who sneered at Chinese as the Sick Man of Asia. At the very least, Chinese knew what it was all about and organized to resist and regain control of their own nation. But white Americans, both liberal and conservative, seem to have no clue that they are living under Jewish Imperialist Supremacism. Like morons, they’ve swallowed the myth about ‘proposition nation’ and ‘diversity is our strength’. To be sure, Jewish power is more invisible than traditional Western imperialist power. The Brits and the French made no bones about their imperialist ambitions. Though they told their non-European subjects that imperialism would bring the light of civilization and progress, there was no question who was the master and who was the servant. Though American global power was a form of anti-imperialist imperialism where Americans justified their power and reach in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘human rights’, even Americans didn’t hide the fact that America was the top dog. But Jews play it differently. Jews act like a virus and penetrate into the body of the cell. Jews don’t openly run America as Jewish Supremacist though that’s exactly what they are. Outwardly, America is still made to seem like a nation ruled and defined by gentiles, with presidents like Clinton, Bush, and Obama. But the inner-workings of America are controlled by the viral power of the Jews. Remember the film BEING JOHN MALKOVICH where someone enters the mind of famous actor and takes control over him? Outwardly, he remains Malkovich, but his inner being is no longer controlled by himself but by a foreign agent. The Jewish virus has taken control over the white America in the same way. National Review magazine, for example, is still officially a journal of American traditionalism, but it’s completely infected with Jewitis.
Or take THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. Though made the Jewish John Frankenheimer, it is a yellow peril movie about the Chinese Communists using mind-control methods to take over an American’s soul. It is actually a work of projection for it’s been the Jew who has perfected the mind-control strategy. (Real Chinese communist ‘brainwashing’ technique was hardly a science; it was crude in its application: the targeted victim would be surrounded day after day by crowds of screaming fanatics who accused him of ‘bourgeois’ this and ‘bourgeois’ that. It was more like brainlynching than brainwashing.) The people who turned mind-control into a subtle and effective science were the Jews. Today, it’s Jews like Cass the Ass Sunstein and Steven Pinker who look for new ways to turn us into ‘better angels’, which essentially means sheeple of Jewish power. Jews also know all about the power of projection, so whatever dirty deeds they are doing, they project it onto OTHER peoples; so, the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE would have the audience believe that it’s the Chinese communists and not Jewish Americans who are aiming to gain psycho-political power over white America. Even though most American politicians are the Tel Aviv candidates, we have idiot Republicans accusing one another of being the Manchurian candidate. Or stupid conservatives fear that Obama is ‘stealth Muslim’. Sometimes I wonder... how did a people this stupid found and create this great nation called America? How did a people who created such a great nation lose out so pitifully to disgusting Jews in so short a time? But that’s for another day.